Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UN Debates Rules Surrounding Killer Robots

Posted by timothy on from the nothing-c-c-c-can-go-wrong-n-n-nothing-can-go dept.

First time accepted submitter khb writes "It seems that the UN has started a debate on whether to place limits or bans on robots that can kill without manual supervision. It seems that bombs are viewed as 'kinder' than robots which might be programmed to achieve specific ends (e.g. destroy that bridge, kill anyone carrying a gun, etc.)."

6 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Re:robots can't kill people by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's also against the rules to assassinate enemy leaders outside war, but ok to initiate a war with a full frontal assault killing hubdreds of thousands on both sides.

    Ironically, that's less upsetting -- getting your nation's ass whooped -- than getting your Fearless Leader killed.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  2. One suggestion by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Robots should find an empty field somewhere and self-destruct after some period of time without receiving commands. We do not want to wind up with the same situation we have with land mines -- dangerous leftovers from wars that ended decades ago. Imagine an autonomous robot getting lost during a war, only to get uncovered 10 years after the war ends and going on a rampage (say, killing every armed police officer it finds)...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  3. Re:Jeeze, Now I have to support the UN? by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't really want humans making kill decisions either.

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

  4. Re:robots can't kill people by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's worth noting that the premise for almost every Robot story Asimov wrote was "something unacceptable despite the robot following the Three Laws". That's really what I liked about those stories: by extension to human moral codes, they're exploring how you can't prevent problems/evil with a simple set of rules.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. Re:Eh... by cusco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd prefer to see wars were always general against general, preferably armed with hand axes and stone tipped spears.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  6. Re:robots can't kill people by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However, for those that think the drones should be removed, just what do you propose to replace them with? or are you ok submitting to the Islamic political order under Sharia (which is the stated and published goal of the OIC, if you care to listen:

    So you believe that the ONLY alternative to drone attacks is to convert to Sharia law?

    Who, exactly, is going to impose Sharia law on the US? And I don't mean who would LIKE to. Who, exactly, has that capability?

    The OIC realised it can't get its agenda through sovereign national parliaments - so what it is doing is manipulating the UN and then the resulting treaties will then be applied.

    How about you look up who has veto power at the UN. Here's a hint, the US is one of them. If we don't like it, we can veto it.

    There is a shadow war for freedom that is going on right now. If you don't stand up and argue for your liberties then the OIC (through the UN) *will* progressively take them away - it may take decades, but they are determined to reach their goal (Sharia) because it is a matter of faith for them.

    Exactly HOW is ANYONE going to replace any part of the US legal system or Constitution with Sharia law?