'Ban Killer Bots,' Urges Human Rights Watch

Taco Cowboy writes "A self-proclaimed 'Human Rights Group' — the 'International Human Rights Clinic' from Harvard Law School — has teamed up with 'Human Rights Watch' to urge the banning of 'Killer Robots.' A report issued by the Human Rights Watch, with the title of 'Losing Humanity,' claimed autonomous drones that could attack without human intervention would make war easier and endanger civilians. Where's the 'Robot Rights Watch' just when you need 'em?"

Comments

Sounds like a great idea

[OrangeTide]

We should go back to using cruise missiles and carpet bombing.

Re:Sounds like a great idea

[ThatsMyNick]

Nope, but we dont need fully autonomous killer robots either. Would you rather have a robot determine if a target is worth killing, rather than a human?

the danger of abstracted combat

[wierd_w]

While cliche, take a look at "wargames".

Abstracting away the reality that you are killing people, by making a machine do the actual deed after deployment removes the innate guilt of killing those people.

It makesit fantastically easier to justify and ignore wholesale slaughter.

A glitch on the program makes the drone think that anyone carrying a cylinder 2ft long and 1 inch diameter a combatant? (Looks like a gun barrel!) Well, all those poor fuckers carrying brooms and sweeping their patios had it coming! Nevermind those uppity pool boys with dipnets! Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?!

When you can simply push a button and walk away without having to witness the attrocities you cause, you abstract away a fair bit of your conscience.

The military probably thinks that's a GREAT thing! Kids with guns won't cause mental trainwrecks to drones when they get mowed down, and the operator doesn't have to see it!

The reality is that deploying terminators is the same as turning a blind eye to consequences, and the innately terrible thing that war is, and why it should always be avoided whenever and however possible.

Re:the danger of abstracted combat

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude have you seen what happens when people are forced to kill face-to-face? They don't rely on their "conscience" to limit human casualties, they mentally reassign their opponents as non-human and murder them like you or I would murder a termite colony infesting our houses. History is nothing but one long string of horrific atrocity after atrocity committed by warring factions against the opposing side, or civilians, or even their own comrades in arms if there isn't a convenient "other" nearby they can target. Moving to a more abstracted method of fighting isn't just about saving our own forces' physical and mental well-being, it's also about limiting the damage they cause to others when they snap from the pressure and take their aggression out on whoever's available.

Of course we need to monitor our use of robots - we need a system of checks and balances in place to keep the controllers from engaging in unnecessary combat. But drones don't mass-rape, they don't torture old men and little children for fun, they don't raid houses to steal anything of value within, they don't build towers out of the skulls of their enemies, and they won't burn entire villages to the ground massacring everyone within because they're upset that their buddy was killed in combat the other day. Human involvement isn't always a good thing.

Re:the danger of abstracted combat

[Eevee]

A glitch on the program makes the drone think that anyone carrying a cylinder 2ft long and 1 inch diameter a combatant? (Looks like a gun barrel!) Well, all those poor fuckers carrying brooms and sweeping their patios had it coming! Nevermind those uppity pool boys with dipnets! Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?!

So you're for robots and drones, right? Because right now the glitch in programming is when human soldiers in a combat area see someone with something that might be a weapon, they tend to shoot them. Why? Because the ones going "Is that a weapon or is it a broom" don't tend to last when it is actually is a weapon. A drone operator, on the other hand, can take the time to evaluate the situation since they aren't in harm's way.

Re:the danger of abstracted combat

[Scarletdown]

May as well take it all the way and make warfare totally clean and normal.

Have the computers on both sides simulate their attacks, then declare casualties. Anyone on the casualty list then simply reports to a termination booth to be quickly and humanely killed.

Hmmm... This sounds rather familiar come to think of it...

War and Pacifism

[gd2shoe]

Indeed. Humans NEVER accept that the answer is so simple.

Don't resort to war. If your cause requires forcing somebody else at gunpoint to comply, it isn't just, it isn't honorable, and it cannot be justified. So, just don't do it.

Let's say that China attacks Guam tomorrow, and starts moving for Hawaii and the US mainland. What should be done? What should France have done when Germany invaded them in the blitzkrieg?

Clearly somebody isn't justified in any war. Frequently it's both parties. However, it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to say that war is never justified for any of the participants.

Yes, war is never, ever a good thing. Sometimes, though, it really is better than the alternative.