The proposal was better image recognition algos for surveillance drones. https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1254719/project...
Let's take a step down the slippery slope and assume that in the future it was repurposed for manually triggered weapons drones. Ever see a story about how the US drone-bombed a wedding or a goat farmer? Maybe better (or any) image recognition could have saved innocent lives.
It's not that clear cut.
There are several rubicons between here and AI killing machines. Why draw this particular line? Why not just halt all AI research?
If I said that banning bump stocks was "basically gun confiscation" or that implementing universal healthcare was "basically the great leap forward", would you be convinced?
I'm really trying to understand your argument here, please help me out.
They definitely have value, drones would have been great at D-Day, but realistically considering human behavior... I suspect these "discriminate" weapons will result in a net increase of collateral damage.