[samr71]

Putting AGI in a bomb may work. You'd have an incredibly clever and motivated targeting system. You tell it where to go and it would be off to races, eager to please!

The Japanese tried this with plain-ol' non-artificial intelligence, and it seemed to have been somewhat effective, if not the most sustainable.

[graypegg]

It’s hard to tell if you’re being sarcastic, but I don’t think the launch procedure is currently the main bottle-neck for launching bombs.

Why would I want the bomb to think? I want the bomb to follow some pretty specific instructions.

[webmaven]

> Why would I want the bomb to think? I want the bomb to follow some pretty specific instructions.

It probably hinges on how rapidly the field of battle is evolving.

Do you want your bomb to at least attempt to adapt in realtime to novel targets? To novel means of camouflage, defense, and even interdiction (rather than wait for reports in the field to eventually prompt a software patch to upgrade the weapons system)? Well, the bomb is going to have to be considerably smarter to do so.

Of course, there are just as many ways that sort of on-board capability can go awry. I imagine that painting noncombatant symbols (or the equivalent adversarial input) on combat vehicle roofs may serve to fool overly smart munitions for a short while, for example.

[graypegg]

That’s a fair point. I think I’m maybe a bit stuck on AGI specifically. As in, indistinguishable from a human being and truly general. You can ask it in natural language to do any computational task.

I don’t know why you’d prefer a “human being” to control the bomb, when most of our technological history in this space is trying to remove humans from the equation considering how many errors they make.

In a true AGI, one advanced enough to make the original poster concerned about the morals of enslaving it, MOST of it’s training is on things unrelated to being a successful bomb.