There are plenty of regulating weapons usage and development. E.g. chemical and biological weapons are banned by the Geneva convention. I've never heard anyone reasonably say that European armies are likely to lose a war because they don't use biological weapons.
The unfortunate truth of a lot of weapon bans is that they happen when civilian anger or fear outstrips military need, and are therefore less likely to be argued for. No army really argues for hollowpoints nowadays, because of their terrible penetration. When a "banned" weapon suddenly finds a use, countries will ignore regulations or were never privy to them in the first place. Such as Ukraine finding extensive use of cluster weapons to counter Russian assault infantry.
Chemical and biological weapons fit the first category, since they're almost useless in a military context since they're incredibly difficult to control or incubate, and end up being mostly terror weapons. It's why bans of them are far more complete, whereas nuclear disarmament is practically a nonstarter.
AI and especially AI weapons seem like the second category. Where many will call for a ban, but many will ignore it because they provide such an advantage to the workforce or on the battlefield.
The problem is the weaponification of technology. Governments tried to weaponify cryptography and they failed.
Here it is the EU who is limiting itself and it is not comparable to the Geneva convention since other countries will not adhere. While EU limits themselves others will take advantage of the technology.
Returning to the Geneva convention, we don't know if in less than 100 years you could build a weapon of mass destruction at home like you print a 3D model. The problem is technology is also a Pandora Box that at some point you cannot control with laws.
The Geneva convention has less than 100 years, let's see what happen to the humanity in another 100.
Comments
This is like preventing to develop weapons, at the end if you don't have them you will lose the war. It is suicide. Others will do.
There are plenty of regulating weapons usage and development. E.g. chemical and biological weapons are banned by the Geneva convention. I've never heard anyone reasonably say that European armies are likely to lose a war because they don't use biological weapons.
The unfortunate truth of a lot of weapon bans is that they happen when civilian anger or fear outstrips military need, and are therefore less likely to be argued for. No army really argues for hollowpoints nowadays, because of their terrible penetration. When a "banned" weapon suddenly finds a use, countries will ignore regulations or were never privy to them in the first place. Such as Ukraine finding extensive use of cluster weapons to counter Russian assault infantry.
Chemical and biological weapons fit the first category, since they're almost useless in a military context since they're incredibly difficult to control or incubate, and end up being mostly terror weapons. It's why bans of them are far more complete, whereas nuclear disarmament is practically a nonstarter.
AI and especially AI weapons seem like the second category. Where many will call for a ban, but many will ignore it because they provide such an advantage to the workforce or on the battlefield.
The problem is the weaponification of technology. Governments tried to weaponify cryptography and they failed.
Here it is the EU who is limiting itself and it is not comparable to the Geneva convention since other countries will not adhere. While EU limits themselves others will take advantage of the technology.
Returning to the Geneva convention, we don't know if in less than 100 years you could build a weapon of mass destruction at home like you print a 3D model. The problem is technology is also a Pandora Box that at some point you cannot control with laws.
The Geneva convention has less than 100 years, let's see what happen to the humanity in another 100.