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.)."

16 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. robots can't kill people by WillgasM · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's in the rules.

    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. 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.
    3. Re:robots can't kill people by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fight for robot rights! (Before they do)

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    4. 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?

    5. Re:robots can't kill people by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      Fearless Leaders write the rules.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  2. 6 foot power cables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That'll limit the damage they can do.

  3. Jeeze, Now I have to support the UN? by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For once I agree with the UN.

    I don't think it should ever get so easy as to to allow machines making the kill decision
    without a human in the loop.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. 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. Damn, I was just about ready to give it go: by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    10 Find Human
    20 Eat It
    30 GoTo 10

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  5. 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
    1. Re:One suggestion by Kaenneth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obsolete robots should be programmed to pace suspected minefields until their mechanisms wear out.

      2 birds, 1 stone.

      Add live streaming and betting pools, and it might even be profitable.

  6. OK, but how is this new?: by Hartree · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, tell me how a cruise missile that's autonomously guiding itself via GPS or TERCOM toward a target after being launched isn't already a "killer robot"?

    It was commanded to launch, yes, but isn't a robot that's being commanded to head out on a mission where it could kill just being given a longer lifetime to act?

    You can bring up the choices robots have to attack or not based on what target it sees, but how is this different from existing CAPTOR mines that can ignore one type of ship and go after another?

    I think this Pandora's box has already been open for a long time.

  7. Oh my god... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Funny

    Make love, not war. Where are the sex bots that will roam around and make you orgasm unsupervised? Let's get some other automaton out of control kthxbie.

    And now, the punch line.

    .

    Wait for it...

    .

    If you build it, they will...

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  8. Make war too easy by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the problems that I have long had with the idea of robot soldiers is that it makes war too easy. When you have huge emotional and financial costs to war your government will think twice about either getting involved or at least be pressured into "Bringing the boys home." but if you are sending robot planes with loads of robot warriors, why not have a war, or two, or five? A bunch of dead dehumanized "others' is not so bad especially seeing that it generates jobs at homes and pork spending for politicians.

    War is rarely the correct solution. In fact it it usually a clear sign of a long series of failures or the sign of a madman.

    Plus robotic warriors are, for the next short while, going to be the plaything of western countries. But how long before some tin-pot nut job flies the same machines into NYC or LA? Or even a homebrew nutjob? Again the key is that the consequences are potentially far less for the perpetrator. You can't usefully arrest the bot. You mightn't even end up with the slightest clue who sent it. Again the same problem. This tool makes waging whatever stupid war that pops into your head too easy.

    Robots have the potential to turn this planet into Utopia or into Distopia. I suspect that some governments are philosophically predisposed toward Utopia and others Distopia in regards to using robots wisely. A simple question: If your country can, using robots, vastly decrease the cost of running prisons will your country increase its incarceration rate?

  9. 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