In my opinion, no. Killing people with dumb artillery shells vs. smart microdrone swarms seems equally horrific morally. The primary question is about whether one is more dangerous on global scales than the other. Although I think the smarter drones may in fact be more dangerous globally, I haven't seen anyone define a clean criteria for distinguishing them. Without such clean criteria, it looks infeasible to enforce through international law.

Yes, killing is morally reprehensible. But given that we'll not end the practice of war anytime soon, how can you regulate all the senseless killing people are determined to carry out so that it at least some pretence at morality is upheld. That is the sort of problem I had in mind.