Slashdot Mirror
US Killer Robot Policy: Full Speed Ahead
Lasrick writes "Princeton's Mark Gubrud has an excellent piece on the United States killer robot policy. In 2012, without much fanfare, the U.S. announced the world's first openly declared national policy for killer robots. That policy has been widely misperceived as one of caution, according to Gubrud: 'A careful reading of the directive finds that it lists some broad and imprecise criteria and requires senior officials to certify that these criteria have been met if systems are intended to target and kill people by machine decision alone. But it fully supports developing, testing, and using the technology, without delay. Far from applying the brakes, the policy in effect overrides longstanding resistance within the military, establishes a framework for managing legal, ethical, and technical concerns, and signals to developers and vendors that the Pentagon is serious about autonomous weapons.'"
or other movie equivalents.
"Damn the Asimovs, full speed ahead!
I'm not even sure what else to say here... so much for the Three Laws ;-)
> A careful reading of the directive finds that it lists some broad and imprecise criteria and requires senior officials to certify that these criteria have been met if systems are intended to target and kill people by machine decision alone. [emphasis mine]
(I think I've seen that movie...) What could possibly go wrong?
I wonder if they'd be running Windows for Killer Robots?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong...
Table-ized A.I.
It would be pretty darned hypocritical of us to indiscriminately bomb people and then say that you shouldn't use A.I. driven robots because it's too impersonal a way to kill people.
It's a chilling thought that the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism is also pioneering drone and robotics technology. I guess some bright spark somewhere decided he can get around international law by just having the machines do the killing, because "there's no law against machines doing it, right?"
Most Americans turn around and say "what law are we breaking?". How about this one, from the UN General Assembly: "No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist, or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State." Don't even get me started on "targeted killing" or "extrajudicial killing", which is just summary execution without trial. Even Goering got a trial. Even Eichmann got a trial. And then you have the nerve to call yourselves a "free country"? Wake up, people, put your shiny iPhones down.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Asimov argued against the Frankenstein complex as it applies to robots, and indeed many people have made the point, asking how something like Skynet could happen.
Would we really be stupid enough to build something that is smarter and stronger than us, and designed to kill us without safeguards?
Apparently, yes.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Soldiers have qualms of increasing degree when firing on civilians, countrymen, friends and families. AI do not have that problem. This is indeed terrifying.
If you have not read Kill Decision by Daniel Suarez, you should. This fictional thriller, written last year, unfortunately seems more like reality than fiction. It portrays a vivid, all-too-real picture of what could be the outcome of these policies. Wikipedia link to book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Decision
BANG!
You now have 5 seconds to comply. 4 3 2 1
Gotta love those mismanaged mutexes :)
It seems like some human police have already shifted to that algorithm.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
It's ultimately the same guy on the trigger finger, regardless of whether or not the weapon is a youth fresh out of boot camp, a remotely-operated weapon, or a drone.
People should be looking harder at the people agitating for higher military spending and starting the foreign wars.
...after I read some Neal Asher books. Truly and utterly horrifying, and very believable.
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12
You shall not do any harm to a human being unless they are attacking or trying to arrest a CEO/Billionaire.
Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12 a. If CEO is being arrested by armed humans of any sort (including police), you are free to cause said human's harm and even death.
Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12 subsection b. Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and every other Wall street banker shall be protected even if it means killing every other human in the vicinity.
Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12 subsection c. : folks who can pay 100 million dollars per year shall have unlimited protection by said robots.
Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12 subsection d. : Members of Congress are immune forever from actions of said robots.
You detect something that moves? shoot. That, and the ability to be remotely controlled. Normal soldiers will not want to be miles around those bots. And the "remotely controlled" part will be probably exploited, either by the enemy, or by any of the lot of people that will be around in design/control/manufacture them, or by whoever that hacks them.
Will they be manufactured by Cyberdyne Systems, or OCP (OmniCorp)?
This will not end well.
At first, the military will be all like "YAY, autonomous killer robots!"
Then someone will hack some of them... and they'l be all like "boo, they're using it against us and we never saw taht coming"
And then Politicians will be all "we gotta pass laws against being smart n stuff, because Turrhurrerristz"
And then a few years later, we're all just banging rocks together.
ok so my real answer is basically just /facelamp (for when facepalm is not sufficient)
The Digital Sorceress
Killer robots have been used in combat for a long time. Their logic consists of "if pressure applied to unit, explode." Presumably these new models will be at least somewhat less likely to kill the wrong target.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
This is why the ruling class love killbots so much. A workable enforcement android will bring about the Oppression Singularity. No longer will they have to contend with "idealistic" cops and soldiers who don't blindly follow orders, whatever they may be, or worse yet leak their dirty laundry. No longer will they have to worry about who will "go soft" when the order comes in to fight their own people or take out a target of questionable status. No "untrustworthy" humans between the sociopaths and the rifles of their soldiers and no chance of them turning on their masters.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Why start small?
So, I'm working in the field, for the DoD. We're actually putting more work into getting them to autonomously prevent a shot that humans commanded than we are into getting them to take a shot uncommanded. The only weapons that are anywhere close to usable are anti-aircraft systems (starting in the 1970's) that have a self defense mode. Given that we're currently so cowardly in the ROE that more civillians have died in Afghanistan from our unwillingness to shoot than have died from our decisions to shoot, I'd say we're nowhere close to letting a robot make a decision, and won't be in the next decade.
Anyone else remember the picures of the Russian women standing in front of the tanks during the Soviet collapse? The soldiers were generally willing to kill, and die, to protect the Soviet Union from US, but NOT from their mothers and grandmothers.
These robots will have no qualms about massacring children and women (even the non-revolutionaries) if so ordered to protect the 1%. Plus, a fat lot of good your .308 hunting rifle will do against an armor-plated killing machine.
Probably spot on unfortunately. Considering how militarized the police have become it's only a matter of time before they are deployed "for everyone's safety." Guessing the results will be something like the ED-209.