A person who knows a lot about technology and rules is worried that governments are not watching closely enough how AI is being used in wars. She says that some countries have groups to help make sure AI is safe, but these groups don't check on the military use of AI. This could be AIgerous because AI can sometimes make mistakes or do things that are against the rules of war. The person also thinks that people who make weapons using AI are getting a lot of money from investors and making new products very fast, without anyone watching them closely. Read from source...

1. Schaake's claim that AI Safety Institutes have been announced by the U.K., U.S., Japan, and Canada is misleading. These institutes are not focused on military AI use specifically, but rather on the broader ethical, legal, and social implications of AI in general.
2. Schaake's reliance on venture capitalists as a source of evidence for unregulated defense tech is questionable. Venture capitalists are motivated by profit, not by ensuring safety or governance of military AI use.
3. Schaoke's assertion that AI-enabled weapons may not comply with international humanitarian law is based on a faulty premise. International humanitarian law applies to all types of weapons, regardless of whether they are operated by humans or machines. The question is not whether AI-enabled weapons can comply with the law, but how they should be designed and used to ensure their compliance.
4. Schaake's use of examples like the Ukraine Air Force and the U.S.-Ukraine HAWK deal is irrelevant. These are not instances of military AI use, but rather of technology upgrades and maintenance contracts. They do not illustrate the potential risks or challenges posed by military AI systems.
5. Schaake's overall argument lacks nuance and balance. She does not acknowledge the potential benefits of military AI use, such as improved accuracy, efficiency, and situational awareness. She also does not address the existing efforts by governments and industry to develop standards, guidelines, and best practices for military AI systems.

Negative

Key points and analysis:

The article raises concerns about the lack of governance over military AI use by Western governments, which could lead to serious safety risks and violations of international humanitarian law. The author cites examples of defense tech startups receiving funding and support from governments and private companies, without any oversight or regulation. The article implies that this situation is problematic and irresponsible, and calls for more attention and action to address the issue.

The sentiment of the article is negative, as it criticizes the current state of affairs and warns of potential consequences. The author does not express any optimism or praise for the defense tech sector or its applications, but rather highlights the AIgers and challenges that arise from its unregulated growth. The tone is also somewhat alarmist, using words like "escape", "hype", and "excessively" to emphasize the urgency and severity of the issue.