It's going to happen anyway. I think we are better off doing such things in the open and having some visibility into it rather than be surprised when something happens.
The commenter I was responding to has strong ideas about it however, so I wanted to provide the opportunity for an explanation.
How do you propose that ban be enforced?
Having a spine has nothing to do with it.
The limits of our ability to think a global scale are an issue, we still have a tribe mentality, this discussion demonstrates that. "The Chinese, The British etc"
We still think in terms of tribes, but we have technology change the world. Until we evolve some more we're probably not fit to wield more and more powerful weapons.
It would be good if we could stop worrying about weaponry all together and focus on real issues like deforestation, poverty, pollution of the sea, climate change etc.
The only way I can see an agreement to limit the escalation of AI warfare is on the same context we saw the START treaty: once the weapons are developed by at least two key players as "deterrent" there's an incentive to reach an agreement to stop further development.
Call me cynical, but if this election has shown me anything is how tiny-minded people still command an inordinate amount of power in this country.