The issue really isn't that it'll be dangerous if they're deployed before they have sufficient AI to make "moral" decisions.

Regardless of any factor, nations will be responsible for what their robots do on the battlefield, not unlike how they're responsible for fully autonomous weapons now, like some missiles.

Like missiles, I expect we'll see them deployed within the constraints of their AI. You might shoot an anti-radiation missile in an area with known SAM radar stations, but you probably wouldn't do it if it might hit a nearby civilian radar station by mistake. The missile just hates radar, it doesn't care if it's enemy or friendly. So, knowing that, maybe you use a different weapon.

For another example, autonomous naval mines can tell the difference in sound between a merchant ship and warship. That's great, but you still wouldn't want to put them where friendly warships might go, as telling the difference there might be too much for it.

Likewise, if we see AI on the battlefield, I expect it'll be deployed with knowledge of what it can and can't do. Maybe we see AI "cleared" to make combat decisions in a small area (everything outside a 100m circle it's not allowed to engage), or simply used as a "bomb truck" for pre-targeted GPS guided munitions.

If it's a robot tank, it'll probably be used to target enemy tanks, with known silhouettes and heat signatures, rather than try to tell if what someone's carrying is a makarov or a cellphone.

Ultimately, I expect to see this kind of stuff used cautiously, because nobody wants to put it in the field before it's ready and be held responsible for the consequences, not the government that orders it, the military that does it, or the industry that builds the things.