From a realist frame, I don’t think there will be a deal. Narrow national interests are too divergent w/r/t/ capabilities, intentions, and alternatives. Furthermore, verifibility and consequent trust is weak.
Automated Safety Enforcement Drones are selective and only issue quick justice to the baddies who stand in the way of freedom! If you can't shame leaders based on their prior agreements civil society doesn't have much else to do.
Really, think about what happens when these tools of warfare return home for civilian use, because if they can, they will.
I guess I’d want to see evidence for this before pursuing an international moratorium everyone will undoubtedly violate the second it’s signed. Remote fire doesn’t seem that much closer than remote kill authorisations.
These are war machines. “Dangerous” per se cannot be a disqualifier.
Pragmatically it's a lack of higher (multilateral) enforcement why these power plays persist.
Multilateral enforcement becomes yet another tool to take advantage of others that aren't invited.