[thesuperbigfrog]

The problem with arms races is that they are races: no one wants to be left behind.

What is likely to happen is any major nation-state that signs a treaty agreeing to a ban will STILL secretly be researching and building autonomous (or nearly autonomous) weapon systems because they do not want to be left behind.

[omginternets]

I would add that it's also very difficult to study and develop countermeasures without cultivating cutting-edge knowledge of how such weapons are designed, built and operated. Doing that means you eventually need field data. The slope is extremely slippery, but it's also dangerous not to traverse it.

[falcolas]

Agreed. We've already trod this ground with chemical weapons, so at least we have a template when we follow it once more with autonomous weapons.

[marvin]

It would be a disaster to enter a military conflict with an adversary that has autonomous weapons if you don’t have at least effective countermeasures yourself.

I suppose nuclear states could in principle rest on their laurels, but at least from a layman’s perspective it doesn’t give an impression of being strategically sound.

But obviously it’s a scary rabbit hole to enter. It’s not fun when game-theoretical considerations or human nature seems to make dubious technological developments inevitable.

[marcinzm]

They also need to research them to learn how to counter them if an enemy does use them. Given that most of the conflicts of the last few decades were not with states but with groups the chance of someone using them is high. Especially as technology becomes more accessible.

[xvilka]

Winner will be the one who will design biological equivalents - genetically modified eagles or something similar.

[treeman79]

We just had a gain of function escape ordeal that we are still coping with.