US Killer Robot Policy: Full Speed Ahead

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Killer Robot Policy: Full Speed Ahead

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 20, 2013 @06:33AM from the set-course-for-skynet dept.

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.'"

16 of 202 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Completely insane... by GuardianBob420 · 2013-09-20 06:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not even sure what else to say here... so much for the Three Laws ;-)
1. Re:Completely insane... by spire3661 · 2013-09-20 06:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The Three Laws were EXPRESSLY invented to show why such a simple system will not work. Asimov spent extensive amounts of time pointing this out to us. It is frustrating people think '3 laws safe'.
  
  --
  Good-bye
2. Re:Completely insane... by vux984 · 2013-09-20 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The Three Laws were EXPRESSLY invented to show why such a simple system will not work.
  The three laws were expressly invented to make a system that works.
  He then spent extensive amounts of time exploring them for unintended consequences and corner cases where they did not work.
  It is frustrating people think '3 laws safe'.
  Its FAR more frustrating that rather than trying to -fix- the edge cases Asimov uncovered with the 3 laws (later 4 laws), we've decided to just go full steam ahead without any laws at all with robots designed for the sole purpose of killing us.
3. Re: Completely insane... by JWW · 2013-09-20 07:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Ah, but one law is just waaaay simpler than three.
  It's just unfortunate that law is -- Kill humans.
4. Re:Completely insane... by JeanCroix · 2013-09-20 07:37 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
5. Re:Completely insane... by squiggleslash · 2013-09-20 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That, perhaps, might be Will Smith's interpretation of Asimov's novels, but it's not any sane reader's interpretation.
  Asimov's novels are pretty clear, the three laws do, in fact, restrict the robots from being OUT OF CONTROL KILLING MACHINES!!1!. There are only two appearances of such robots (and then, they're hardly described by such a term) - one short story, whose name I forget, has a deliberately weakened set of laws in it. The other is, of course, Giskard and Daneel's formulation of the zeroth law, where, again, the robots are no longer obeying, exactly, the three laws.
  What Asimov does do is describe the consequences of the three laws, showing them to be imperfect in terms of creating universal machines, but effective at preventing the robots from going out and killing everyone.
  Asimov's motivation for creating the three laws was to deal with the plethora of inane "Scientist builds perfect universal machine, doesn't realize that a perfect machine will kill maker until it's too late" stories that started entirely legitimately with Frankenstein but then descended into cliche hell, as story teller after story teller thought it was wildly original to pretend that scientists are dumb and would build destroyers of the universe to prove how clever they were. Annoyed, he wrote a set of rules and then wrote story after story explaining them. The stories didn't debunk the rules, or show they wouldn't work. The stories usually showed that they did, and worked in unexpected ways.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
6. Re:Completely insane... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-20 08:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  > Its FAR more frustrating that rather than trying to -fix- the edge cases Asimov uncovered with the 3 laws (later 4 laws), we've decided to just go full steam ahead without any laws at all with robots designed for the sole purpose of killing us.
  It's simple. Robots will follow orders. They will have no qualms about executing illegal orders. No issues with killing civilians. No hesitation about killing the very population that they were supposedly built to protect.
  Amy and police might actually not gun down a mob of 1000s just to protect a couple of corrupt and powerful fucks. They didn't in Egypt. The elite know this... so they need robots who will protect them unconditionally.
Did you expect something different? by Lucas123 · 2013-09-20 06:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Frightening thought by Dunbal · 2013-09-20 06:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
So this is how Skynet starts by metrix007 · 2013-09-20 06:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
I don't mind by freeze128 · 2013-09-20 06:45 · Score: 4, Funny
Go ahead, make killer robots. I'm pretty sure I can outwit the current state of the art killbots by:
- - Hiding behind a blanket.
- - Running around behind the robot to it's blind spot.
- - Pushing it over on its side.
- - Ascending some stairs.
Read Kill Decision by timdearborn · 2013-09-20 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Addtional ammendments by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-20 07:11 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
Re:Cylons by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-20 07:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Now I can get behind the program.
War! With hookers and blackjack! Forget the war - and the blackjack.
they already exist by bitt3n · 2013-09-20 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?
Did you even RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-20 09:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.