Because they aren't "safer" for the folks getting killed.

Historically, the folks doing the murdering just don't care about the folks they kill, so "safer for the killers" isn't a win for most of us.

"More precision" isn't about killing less folks, it's about making it safer and easier for folks who kill folks to do that work.

So those of us who dislike killing don't like these tools because we consider them to be immoral.

> Responsibility will always have to lie with the user

Being fully autonomous makes it hard to identify exactly who that user is and is easy to dilute responsibility. Perhaps someone was added to a kill list by mistake. Maybe some internet hi-jinks tricked an AI into falsely identifying someone as a kill target. Perhaps it's the case that someone was in the 5% of a 95% confidence of identification. I'm not a fan of putting killing into the hands of something known to get things wrong 1 in 20 (95%), or 1 in 100 (99%), or 1 in 1000 (99.9%).

> but if the weapons are more advanced and safer then why is that bad?

It's yet to be proven that they are "safer" as they become more advanced. There's also a question of "safer to who". It's technically "safer" for a soldier to shoot first and ask questions later, it's obviously not safer for the villagers.

False identification, which is an absolute part of AI, doesn't make these weapons safer for anyone.

> I like that autonomous vehicles like Waymo are 10x safer then human drivers, even if a 'Machine' is making decisions.

Waymo has the reverse bias. If anyone dies as a result of waymo it's gone horribly wrong.

AI weapons are designed exactly to kill, if they don't kill when they should something has gone wrong.