@ISIDEWITHQuestionsNational securityStarted 9mos agoActive 4 days ago

Should the government invest in artificial intelligence (AI) for defense applications?

AI in defense refers to the use of artificial intelligence technologies to enhance military capabilities, such as autonomous drones, cyber defense, and strategic decision-making. Proponents argue that AI can significantly enhance military effectiveness, provide strategic advantages, and improve national security. Opponents argue that AI poses ethical risks, potential loss of human control, and can lead to unintended consequences in critical situations.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 3.9k Alberta voters.

48%
Yes
52%
No
48%
Yes
52%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 3.9k Alberta voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 3.9k Alberta voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Alberta voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @B2VNWSKfrom Ontario  answered…1wk1W

Under supervision from a committee of experts for the ethics, implications, biases and for safety of the people in mind.

 @B2V74TCfrom Alberta  answered…1wk1W

Taking away the face-to-face component of fights leads to diminished value for human life. Using AI to bring supplies and go on suicide missions, or to do surveillance, would not be a bad idea, however.

 @B2TS86Rfrom Alberta  answered…2wks2W

yes and no the military shouldn't rely on ai and should be able to find solutions but using ai to help them if they are stuck on a problem then yes

 @B2SWQFZfrom Alberta  answered…2wks2W

If there are ways to make the AI extremely safe to use, and have a low to zero chance of being hacked by foreign parties.

 @B2ST4SYfrom Ontario  answered…2wks2W

I do not believe that that the government should invest in artificial intelligence as it is not the be all end all. with AL you do not have the human being behind it it is only a cold hard computer so when it comes to a life or death situation it could very well go for the most logical rought for example a terast is hiding in a group of 100 people the choice is to wait until that person can be safely removed from the group of inacence or end the 100 lives to end the tarest and save millions later on this would be considered casualties where a human may try and find other rought to deal with this and minamise the casualties the AI may choose to end all the lives for the sack of millions of others living in peace.

 @B2SL784from Alberta  answered…2wks2W

they should do it only for specific instances but always have a human around to make sure no mistakes are made

 @B2S3FP5from Alberta  answered…2wks2W

yes, but only for prediction on if things may be coming, AI should not have control over any weapons

 @B2RD6TTfrom Alberta  answered…2wks2W

yes, but the access it has should be restricted to suggestions. AI should not have the ability to send nuclear missiles in the case of a misidentification.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies