Wouldn't it be feasible to build an autonomous weapon that doesn't target people, to fight the autonomous weapons that do target people? I would assume at that point whichever AI has better hardware and better algorithms would win, right?
Possibly? Anything past a few years out in tech is hard to predict. I wouldn't outright dismiss the idea, but its a crapshoot what machine intelligence is/isn't going to be able to do.
I'm an educated, practical tech professional and machine intelligence worries me more than any other technology out there (except possibly a virus paired with CRISPR CAS 9 for targeted, precise genome modification driven through a species' population).
Don't overlook the covert soldier, blending in with the population, taking a rifle to those building/launching/directing those autonomous weapons and those they care for. One guy infiltrating the homeland with a US$100 rifle and a case of ammo (about the size of a shoebox) can do enormous homeland damage against an enemy obsessed with >$100,000 drones operated by >$10,000,000 staff & facilities.
(That is one of several sufficient reasons why many Americans are obsessed with guns & self-defense. We predict, and see, increasing "spontaneous/lone-wolf" mainland attacks.)
Drone command-and-control facilities would surely be protected from a lone gunman, more-so, how would guns & self-defense protect against a targeted agent taking down someone important? (who presumably already has defense which already needs to be circumvented).
I'm failing to see the common area between targeted spec-ops style missions (and protection against those) and home/civil defense.
Actually, It's ridiculously easy to simply ship dormant AI into the country in boxes, have them establish operational state once here and have them sow the havoc you are looking to create.
Homeland c&c facilitates are certainly defended from terrorist actions, but less so from 20-30 kamikaze drones launched from within the victim country.
When you fight someone, the idea is to use their strength against them - the strength of the west is economic trade. All the security measures in the world won't stop fed ex. And if they do, well, in a way you've already won.
Drone defense is indeed a hot thing right now but it's not fundamentally different from protecting yourself from any other new type of threat. There's measures and there's countermeasures (http://petapixel.com/2015/07/23/anti-drone-systems-are-start...). At the point of (strong, general) AI though all bets are off the table.
Warfare is becoming more and more asymmetric and nuanced, that for sure. I'd posit some form of media training enabling one to be less vulnerable to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare would do more good than rifles and bullets at home though.
Terror targets are basically useless though in a real conflict. A determined foe will simply ignore them.
My point is that for some shipping fees, you have a real, realistic and effective way of substantially reducing your enemy's ability to fight the war you are engaged in.
That's a real vulnerability that can be exploited.
