Such things have been around for at least a decade. It didn't start with the same kind of AI that's being talked about recently, but there is a large automated scoring component: "Targets are often chosen based on metadata."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix

Depending on your definition of AI they’ve probably been around for a while.

This does seem to be a big step more “AI” than previous systems I’ve heard described though.

I don't know about kill lists, but AI weapons kinda make sense.

No weapons are nice, but if the good guys don't develop AI weapons, the bad guys will.

From what I gather, many US engineers are morally opposed to them. But if China develops them and gets into a war with the US, will Americans be happy to lose knowing that they have the moral high ground?

Right, just like if the good guys don't develop a novel coronavirus in a lab, the bad guys will and unleash it on the world!

Development of tools of death is not a good guy/bad guy thing. The "bad guys" think the "good guys" are bad.

I think "killing" is bad, no matter who develops the tools.

There are certainly times when killing is justified. Defeating the Axis in WW2 is a great example of this.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians died in strategic bombing campaigns to achieve that outcome. Do the ends justify the means?

Yes, without shred a doubt or hesitation.

Germany and Japan were killing millions of innocents in WW2. Not only that, but those killings were entirely unnecessary.

At least with Israel I can give some of the benefit of the doubt that their civilian casualties have some strategic outcome. You cannot say the same of Germany and Japan in WW2.

(please be charitable to the above; there is a lot of nuance here; I don't want to explicitly spell it all out. look at my other comments if you want to know my views)

It's just that I fear their strategic outcome will in the end become a net negative, for everyone.

I believe the Allies could have defeated the Axis with less collateral damage.

The ends were admirable. The means are debatable and in some cases regrettable.

This assumes that AI based weaponry provides value. The case in point here is showing that the only value it provides is a flimsy justification for civilian casualties. We... Don't need more of that in the US, nor would it provide a "good guy" any legitimate value.

"Good guys" and "bad guys". Where did you learn your ethics, the Cartoon Network?

They're great because the accountability for fuckups goes on the system, not on the people using the system. "Oops, the system had a bug" doesn't kill careers like "Oops, I made a bad call."

Bombing civilians doesn’t kill careers. People were promoted for what they did during strategic air campaigns.

AIs that generate kill lists that kill the innocent should themselves be put on a kill list.

Edit: And the humans who approved the list should be help accountable, of course.

How do you think people are chosen to visit a secret CIA prison, or chosen to get a 12 hour interrogation every time they enter the US?

Can't wait to be killed by drone strike when a GPT hallucinates my name.