Slashdot Mirror
New Laws of Robotics Proposed for US Kill-Bots
jakosc writes "The Register has a short commentary about a proposed new set of laws of robotics for war robots by John S Canning of the Naval Surface Warfare Centre. Unlike Asimov's three laws of robotics Canning proposes (pdf) that we should 'Let machines target other machines and let men target men.' Although this sounds OK in principle, 'a robot could decide under Mr Canning's rules, to target a weapon system such as an AK47 for destruction on its own initiative, requiring no permission from a human. If the person holding it was thereby killed, that would be collateral damage and the killer droid would be in the clear.'"
The old "no using .50s on personnel, they're for equipment only" fallacy gets thrown around a lot. In fact, my best friend even had it told to him when he was in basic. According to a DOD legal briefing: nothing in the Geneva or Hague Conventions prohibited the use of .50 cal weapons on enemy personel, the Hague Conventions only apply to signatory nations' UNIFORMED military personel, and US military personel always have the right to defend themselves and other personel with deadly force, using whatever weapon(s) are available; including fists, rocks, pointy sticks, knives, shotguns, cannon, etc.
It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
It also works because the parameters that it uses to determine a threat are difficult for civilians to replicate. ie: Flying at a Navy ship at 1000+ mph. Handing out "don't shoot me" tags to civilians isn't gonna work so well in urban warfare. I hate to say it, but seeing as "terrorist" style tactics are the only realistic way to take on a more powerful military force, they are now a permenant part of war. As such, the idea of trying to treat the local civilians as "not the enemy" will not last another decade. The current US handling of Iraq will look as over civilized as Napoleanic "march in a straight line" warfare looks to us today. The robots will kill anyone outside after curfew.
We are all just people.
"I don't see the grounds for comparison."
In times of old a commoner's life was less secure. The lords of old had their own armys, armys are used to control territory regardless of who "owns" it (like many places in the world today). Although the lords eventually lost their private armies, mantraps were a legal symbol of disregard for commoner's that lasted well into the 1800's.
** caution rant ahead **
Edisons father tied him up and gave him a public arse flogging in the center of town when he was a child, that same act in the same town today would land his father in jail. When I was a kid black people couldn't vote, homo's deserved any beating they got, living together out of wedlock made you a social outcast, young and pregnant meant you had to give up your child for adoption so as not to shame your family, being a woman (or black or asian) meant I could pay you peanuts, harrass you at work, and sack you for not sucking my dick.
In a lot of ways we treat each other with more respect than we did even 50yrs ago, IMO the reason is because nation states are not that different to the fuedal lords of England and Europe who eventually worked out that beating the shit out of each other for the right to ransom each others nobility was counter-productive. I think GWB took us a step backwards but the historical trend toward a more and more "inclusive" society is hard to deny.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.