It is essential to evaluate the ethics of using GPT-AI or any other artificial intelligence in weapons that make life and death decisions. Here, we'll consider three ethical frameworks to analyze the situation:

1. Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall happiness and minimizing suffering. From this perspective, using AI in weapons could be ethically justifiable if it leads to a net increase in happiness and reduction in suffering. For example, if the AI system can make smarter decisions than humans, avoiding unnecessary casualties and collateral damage, it may be viewed as ethically acceptable.

However, there are potential negative consequences as well. AI might be prone to errors, biases, or hacking, which could lead to unintended harm. The development of AI-controlled weapons could also escalate international conflict or an arms race, further increasing suffering.

2. Deontological Ethics

Deontological ethics, on the other hand, focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions, regardless of their consequences. From this perspective, using AI to make life and death decisions might be inherently wrong. This could be because it violates human autonomy, reduces the moral responsibility of those deploying the weapons, or goes against the basic moral principle of respecting the sanctity of human life.

3. Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics emphasize the development of moral character and the importance of cultivating virtues such as wisdom, courage, and compassion. From this perspective, using AI in weapons might be seen as unethical if it undermines the cultivation of these virtues. For example, relying on AI to make life and death decisions could erode human compassion, empathy, and moral judgment.

---

In conclusion, the ethics of using GPT-AI or any artificial intelligence in weapons to decide if people are killed is a complex and multifaceted issue. Different ethical frameworks can lead to different conclusions, and the potential consequences should be carefully considered. The development and use of such technologies should be approached with caution, with ongoing public debate and strong regulatory oversight to ensure that ethical concerns are adequately addressed.