1. We doesn't have to be another country/military. It could just be another research lab in US, China, or anywhere else in the world. Some people just like pushing tech to the limits, they seek the next hardest problem. The hardest problem post robust drone controls/motion planning era (e.g. drones like DJI) is to make them pure vision based.
2. Millions/Billions? Lol what are you even talking about. It takes about 100k to fund a graduate student for one year. I wouldn't be surprised if this entire research work was less than 1 million, maybe even 500k.
And do you know what would be gone right now if Russia managed to build killer drones first, or HIMARS? That's a rhetorical question.
Things like the internet, space flight, nuclear power etc?
Unfortunately, defense spending is so successful and brings high rewards exactly because there is a strong motivator behind it. I am very very very doubtful the same amount of money would have high return of investment if it was instead given to cookie-cutter science grants.
I do value nature and human rights, and sometimes that means preparing to fight those who don't value nature or human rights.
Everything in nature evolves to consume the energy of other systems. Our unnatural Kumbaya/Disney society just plasters over that fact. Despite the bubble we live in, at the most fundamental level, we're evolved to consume.
Nature is metal. Look at orcas playing with food to teach hunting. Hornets laying larva in live prey. Lions eating out distant relatives alive.
That's only one part of the equation. It could be that the perpetual arms race also leads to situations like Ukraine's now, or many others in the recent past.
It's a way of thinking everything is a nail, since you are holding a hammer.
> Nature is metal. Look at orcas playing with food to teach hunting. Hornets laying larva in live prey. Lions eating out distant relatives alive.
Nature may be metal, but we aim to be better. After all, when a male lion takes over a pride, he often kills the cubs sired by the previous male; do we want that in human society? The good old "is-ought" [1] problem of philosophy applies here.
Secondly, no country will back down on the calculations of some unproven AI. And those calculations could only be proven in blood.
I mean, yes this tech like most others is dual use. But let's for the sake of argument assume that we know this tech will mostly be used for military purposes.
Yes, others might still develop this. But in the meantime "we" (whoever this is, reminder: HN users aren't just from the US) get to miss out on other things we could have invested millions/billions into. That infrastructure project? Gone. That research into new/better energy storage? Gone. That quirky project about preserving natural habitats in the third world? Gone. By the way, that one might have actually contributed something to a lasting peace in the region. But hey it doesn't matter because we'll win any armed conflict with our drones.
That might sound bitter and/or idealistic, but ultimately if we accept that the funding of whole branches of research depends on how much benefit it provides to the military, then ultimately we can say all day long how we value nature and human rights and all these things, but we're really just dressing up a really fancy warrior armor with some Greenpeace badges.