Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Examining the Ethical Implications of Robots in War

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the come-with-me-if-you-want-to-live dept.

Schneier points out an interesting (and long, 117-pages) paper on the ethical implications of robots in war [PDF]. "This report has provided the motivation, philosophy, formalisms, representational requirements, architectural design criteria, recommendations, and test scenarios to design and construct an autonomous robotic system architecture capable of the ethical use of lethal force. These first steps toward that goal are very preliminary and subject to major revision, but at the very least they can be viewed as the beginnings of an ethical robotic warfighter. The primary goal remains to enforce the International Laws of War in the battlefield in a manner that is believed achievable, by creating a class of robots that not only conform to International Law but outperform human soldiers in their ethical capacity."

3 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. What's the point? by ccguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Obviously a country that can send robots instead of soldiers to fight is way more likely to become 'war happy' - so I'm not sure this robot thing is a good idea at all.

    Besides, if your enemy expects your robots to defeat their army, what would be the point of fighting them in the first place? Attacking civilians seems a more logical step (I don't think it's reasonable to demand any country at war not to attack only military targets where there's none that can't be replaced easily).

    (and no, I didn't read the whole 117 pages, but after a quick glance I reached the conclusion that whoever wrote the title didn't either, so I'm sharing my thoughts on the title, not the PDF)

    1. Re:What's the point? by ccguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This assumes that once you have destroyed your opponent's robotic army you are done. However most likely is that after the robots will come humans, so in the end you are going to lose both.

      Besides, I still fail to see why a country which is likely to lose in the robotic war would accept these rules, when it makes a lot more sense to attack the other country's civil population - which in turn might reconsider the whole thing.

      Fighting from the sofa is one thing, having bombs exploding nearby is quite different.

  2. Political Ethics... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes. Superior robotic ethics. A regular Ghandi-bot, saving only those who are threatened, willing to die rather than kill in doubt.

    That's all well and good... but what of the men who send these robots into battle? What happens to their sense of ethics? Do they begin to believe that their sending troops into pacify a landscape over political differences is a morally superior action? Do they begin to believe that death-by-algorithm is a morally superior way of dealing with irrational people?

    There's an endless array of rationalizations man can make for war, and subjugation of those who disagree with them. Taking the cost of friendly human lives out of the equation of war, and replace it with an autoturret enforcing your wishes doesn't make for a 'morally superior' political game. For many, it would make for an endgame in terms of justifying a military police as the default form of political governance.

    Ryan Fenton