What's wrong with wanting a “human in the loop”?
I can&#x27;t get past the first paragraph!<p>&gt; At the recent conference on the ethics of AI-enabled weapons systems at the U.S. Naval Academy, well over half the talks discussed meaningful human control of AI to some extent.<p>But, but AI is sentient right?!  What business is it of ours to try to exercise control over AI, with its many and various superior attributes?  lol.<p>&gt; If you work among the AI ethics community, and especially among those working on AI ethics and governance for the military, you are hard-pressed to find an article or enter a room without stumbling on someone literally or metaphorically slamming their fist on the table while exalting the importance of human control over AI and especially AI-enabled weapons.<p>AI ethics is only there to justify the unjustifiable.  They do not have my ethics that&#x27;s for sure, nor any normal person&#x27;s.  Its a bad joke that allows a corporation to say - &#x27;but it has been subject to an ethical review!&#x27; - and the political class can allow themselves to be bamboozled and provide their rubber stamp.<p>&gt; the ethics of AI-enabled weapons<p>... the ethical implications fall on those coding the dystopia.<p>War is immoral, pretending that wars are real is immoral, handing over decision of life and death to a machine is immoral - regardless of how efficient the machine may be.  So, any of those people involved in that circle are immoral.  Soldiers may think they are working to defend their &#x27;country&#x27; - but &#x27;country&#x27; is a fiction and &#x27;defence&#x27; is an inversion.  People act this way for money..  at least that reason makes sense - but there is nothing moral about it.  There are no ethics to be found there.