You're missing the point. The point is, we have very stupid systems making kill/no-kill decisions today if you step on top of them or drive by them. Slightly smarter systems making kill/no-kill decisions within a designated envelope should not be surprising.

I'm just saying the ethics of deploying AIs to kill is logically equivalent to deploying mines.

AI _is_ a buzzword with questionable signification.

The level of complexity is arbitrary. Maybe the AI won't blow something up unless it has a heat signature. Maybe it has to detect a pulse. Maybe it won't blow up something that emits a certain beacon. Maybe the kill has to be within a certain timeframe. Maybe the target had to have a certain mass. Which of these considerations qualifies as AI?