Should the military use weapons guided by artificial intelligence?

Yes, as long as it does not include weapons of mass destruction, and is pre authorised by multiple layers of human agreement.

Yes, but so long as it is under ultimate human control, the AI is not autonomous in when to intervene, that it is solely to ensure efficiency and accuracy and that there is an absolute failsafe that can stop the AI going rogue.

Only if they have been thoroughly tested then it it up to the military themselves if they want to use AI

Yes, but with the caveat that further research into AI is conducted so that there are failsafes in place, and that it can be safely implemented.

Yes but only guided. I believe the actions should be able to be overrides by thr human if necessary.

The UK should invest in the development of such weapons but only use them in retaliation to use of similar weapons against the nation.

Yes, but limit its access

Artificial intelligence should only be used as a complementary assistance.

Yes, provided human oversight is integrated into command and control.

Yes, but only if there's human supervision at every step.

Augmented AI systems, yes. Fully autonomous AI systems, no.

No. it is inhumane given the unreliable nature of AI detection software at this time and the repeated issue of racial profiling.

In an ideal world no, but if other countries are then yes. Use it in defence

Yes, but only in a assistance function.

No. AI is not at a point it can make humanitarian decisions.

Yes, but only if it has a human operative who has override ability should it be clear the weapon may predominately injure civilians and other non-combatants.

Yes, where intelligence is viable and confirmed

If any military endeavours are to be harnessed, they should be used exclusively for defence. In which case, A I. and any other applicable technologies should be permitted.

Yes, coordinated with other NATO members a strictly supervised.

Yes, if they can avoid causing friendly fire at least as well as a human.

No, all weapons should be guided and fired by humans.

Don’t understand it enough

Yes, but only with in-depth human oversight on each AI-driven recommendation

They should be if it means a human life can be kept safe, but more complex weapons should be handled by humans

The use of AI in defence should be extremely carefully tested, and more importantly, must be experimented with outside of sanitised and clean conditions to be able to look for weaknesses. The AI should be carefully monitored every second, because a defence AI being influenced or infiltrated by an enemy agent would be absolutely disastrous for the security of not only our own country, but others as well.

Artificial intelligence should be more regulated and researched before being used in any military field

The very concept of Artificial Intelligence especially somewhat 'sentient' must be abolished full stop, there is a fair few movies (yes, ok they're fictional however still possible to become reality) that depict global downfalls root caused by AI, to name an obvious one 'Terminator'. It is also becoming a popular public opinion of the general use of AI to be abolished also.

AI does not have the ability to really think like a human does. An incorrect decision made by an AI model in a war could have catastrophic consequences.

Only when it can be shown that AI weaponry is reliable and proper AI regulations generally are in place

Yes, so long as the AI is either trained on a set target or it takes a back seat to a human operator.

If artificial intelligence becomes test worthy more reliable maybe but not presently and only as a backup.

If vigorous tests are conducted and concluded to be effective in a real life combat scenario then yes.

Yes the military should be modernised but not at the expense of its capability. It should also have analogue backups to ensure any cyber attacks against the country are obsolete

No, but artificial intelligence could be used to help make weaponry systems more efficient. The end result should always be used by people and not machines.

With extensive guards and human oversite and observation. Insure that it is kept very basic and rigid with no room for mis-interpretation of any commands or objective, no vague orders.

The military should be allowed to use AI in order to assist identifying enemy targets and develop methods of attack, but no AI should be empowered to identify and engage targets without a human being in a position to realistically supervise and approve or prevent the AI from executing those attacks.

No, we already have issues with prejudices and biases within human beings. we do not need it to be unchallenged.

Yes, as long as the government maintains control of artificial intelligence! You Wouldn't Want To See Robots Exterminating Humans!

Information should be gathered using ai, double checked by a committee and no weapon should be used unless it's by humans

Artifical intelligence cannot be trusted to make decisions without human oversight. These algorithms are not free of human bias and giving control over to said algorithms would be a terrible mistake.

Yes, but not the current state of AI. A transparent logic based version, providing justification for its action

They definitely shouldn't, as this is profoundly dangerous and damaging but we likely can't do anything to stop them.

AI can be liable to tactical errors and accidental attacks on civilians, and can also be hacked by an enemy force and rendered redundant.

AI should be utilised only to allow faster decision making, but the ultimate choice should always require human discretion

Only if it can be demonstrated that doing so will not lead to greater or excessive civilian casualties.

No, because resources, including money, technology, peoples intelligence and time should not be spent on making weapons altogether.

Ai needs to only be used with defence in clear guidelines with human intelligence corroborated details

I would like AI to be used for better purposes, but if other countries use it for military purposes we have to as well.

In the fence, the biggest part of ke doesn't want to see AI used at all bit particularly not for military purposes. But I'm also conscious that we can't stop other countries from developing AI for military use and I wouldnt want to place our own country at a disadvantage. Of course, the downside of this it could lead to an AI arms race.

No, AI technology is nowhere near advanced enough to justify its use in situations that intentionally put peoples' lives and livelihoods at risk.

As long as there is a human “in the loop”, AI tracking is fine, launch/shoot authority should be both human and auditable.

Not a proven technology in these terms but if it was proven to be viable beyond doubt I would support its use.

Yes, provided testing can provide a 99% accuracy rate, and that all utilisations are made with human operators to authorise or monitor engagement.

The use of AI but the military should be governed by global protocols, similar to those for nuclear weapons

It depends on what technical level in which it is implemented but it should not be used to directly control and fire weapons.

I believe AI can come in very useful in war but I'm also afraid. In the wrong hands with criminal minds, this worries me so much. How do humans control AI in future.

AI should only be considered when civilians are minimal to none. Never instead of; the greater good cannot be served in we are killing innocent people along the way.

Yes but the end decision should be made by a human with all relevant details and information available taking into account the AI suggestion

Yes in a smaller proportion of systems, but only if the reliance on the AI can be shown to be more accurate and less negatively biased than human guidance, and in the event that it can be proven to be just as secure from cyber attacks

It depends on how others are using weaponry - we should never be behind the times if it gives us an unfair disadvantage

Yes, however the United Kingdom should do so only on a thorough cost-benefit basis and should contribute to the development of international regulations to prevent an AI arms race.

For lower grade weapons like certain missiles they should be but humans need to guide the more higher grade weapons.

Yes, but the AI should be monitored when in use and be able to be overriden by those in control of said weapon, in case faults or mistakes occur.

Only when the technology is proven to be reliable and efficient at working alongside human personnel.

I doubt most people can even begin to understand the tactical, strategic and technological implications of such a question

No we should not put so much trust into computerisation. Everything can go wrong and it should be left to humans intuition and training.

With our current quality of Artificial Intelligence no, but when it has become more competent I don't see why not.

In moderation after proper testing. However all weapons should still have a human to ensure no mistakes are made.

Yes but there needs to be close monitoring with the ability for a human to override its actions where necessary (to prevent unnecessary casualty?

Individual ammunition guidance systems are ok, but AI should not have control over launch-decision making or choice of target.

Probably, yes, as we don't seem to have the class of government, or number of adequately trained military personnel required to actually fight a war effectively; perhaps, machines can do a better job.

Yes we need an updated army even if that results in the phasing out of soldiers or support personal for A.I

Yes, once the error (i.e. collateral casualty) rate has been proven to be as low as or lower than human guidance

That depends, is ai being used to select tarted, or being used to assist the flight path and keep the weapon on track. No to selecting targets but yes to assisting flight paths and manoeuvres.

Only if it definitely improves the accuracy of 'hit locations' to keep innocent civilians safe from war.

Implement only until it is considered better then human decision making and only guided by human intervention

I still feel that AI is too early to use and is quite unpredictable and not accurate. When the technology improves then it would be fine to use.

The AI is only as good as those who train it. If AI could guarantee no aid workers would ever be killed, as we have seen in Gaza, then sure - but I, as someone who works in AI and software development, am hesitant that it would instead be used for only malicious reasons and not for preventative

AI is not Intelligent, it is effectively a statistical model, if it is the best way to provide target/image recognition sure why not.

Yes, but they should be regularly checked by humans

Yes but should follow strict rules and regulations.

Only if there's been some level of human oversight to make sure it's not making decisions in it's own

Yes but only to improve the speed of human decision making, never letting the AI make the final decision

It depends on how the AI is being used. If it is determining targets no, but if it is just streamlining identifying the enemy that is okay.

Yes to assist but a human should always be monitoring and have to ability to abort or give the final kill command.

Until it can be effectively be controlled, AI should not control military weapons for the foreseeable future.

Absolutely not, AI do not have empathy, which is needed for the often ad hoc decisions that need to be made when using military weapons.

Yes, but The military I was still responsible for casualties caused by weapons as well as have a human deactivation control point

Yes, but under the authorisation of humans. Weapons can't get to a stage where they decide what to kill as we'll all be doomed then.

No, a machine cannot be held accountable and shouldn't make decisions that could lead to a loss of life.

No, it's unfathomable dangerous and morally wrong to allow an AI control of a weapons system that is designed to take life. Anti-missile systems should have AI due to the advent of faster payloads such as hypersonic that humans are incapable of reacting to fast enough but allowing an AI to take a life is wildly stupid.

No weapons, but weapons platforms, yes; with the ultimate decision to bring lethal force resting with an overseeing human.

The UK should actively pursue a global ban on fully autonomous weapons systems that can select and engage targets without meaningful human control, while investing in AI for defensive and humanitarian purposes under a framework of complete transparency and democratic oversight.