The Struggle To Ban Killer Robots

Lasrick (2629253) writes "The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is a year old; the same month is was founded, the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions called for a moratorium on the development and deployment of autonomous lethal weapons while a special commission considered the issue. The campaign is succeeding at bringing attention to the issue, but it's possible that it's too late, and if governments don't come to a common understanding of what the problems and solutions are, the movement is doomed. As this article points out, one of the most contentious issues is the question of what constitutes an autonomous weapons system: 'Setting the threshold of autonomy is going to involve significant debate, because machine decision-making exists on a continuum.' Another, equally important issue of course is whether a ban is realistic."

Comments

Just make them 3/4 size...

[bi$hop]

...easier to stop them if they turn on us. Also, give them a 3-foot cord.
 
-Dwight Schrute

seen 'em

[lophophore]

I saw the Killer Robots. They opened for the B-52s at the House of Blues in Orlando.

They were... interesting. Why does the UN want to ban them? I've seen many worse bands.

Too late.

[mmell]

Nuclear weapons, nuclear arms proliferation, and the UN is worried about Asimov's Laws of Robotics? If a government anywhere determines that automated weapon systems (including but not limited to armed robots) are more effective than humans - especially more cost effective - count on that government to develop and use that technology, regardless of the UN's position on the subject.

Even if such technology is never deployed, its existence represents a bargaining chip for that nation at the negotiating table. See nuclear weapons for precedent. This is essentially trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle; not gonna happen, no matter who says what.

Re:Too late.

[Opportunist]

The very LAST thing you want is a cheap war, at least if you value peace at least a little. If war is cheap, what's keeping you from using it with impunity when you have the strongest army on the planet?

Quite seriously, the only thing that keeps the US from simply browbeating everyone into submission that doesn't want to play by their rules is that it's a bit too expensive to wage war against the rest of the world.

Re:Too late.

[FatdogHaiku]

Automated armies are best used against ones own citizens. A normal army will not be ruthless in crushing a homeland rebellion because the people in the army are from the same group as the people in the revolution. This can cause a conflict of feelings in a group of soldiers putting down a revolt. Robots have no problem with a "police action" against the citizens of their own country. The Romans did basically the same thing by absorbing conquered armies and then sending them to other regions where they would be fighting/policing people from a land other that their own. As long as the constituents' sons and daughters are towing the line and not associated with the wrong subset of the population database they should have nothing to fear... other than the whole robotic overlord thing...

Machine logic

[Firethorn]

because machine decision-making exists on a continuum.'

No kidding. Depending on how you define it, a cruise missile could be considered a one-use killer robot. It executes it's program as set on launch.

Now consider making it more sophisticated. We now provide it with some criteria to apply against it's sensors when it reaches the target location. If criteria A is met, dive and explode on target, if B, pull up and detonate more or less harmlessly in the air. If neither criteria is met, it depends on whether it's set fail safe/deadly.

This is mixed - on the one hand properly programmed it can reduce innocent casualties, but on the other it encourages firing missiles on shakier intelligence. But then again Predators armed with hellfires are a heck of a lot more selective than WWII gravity bombs. As long as you presume that at least some violence/warfare can be justified, you have to consider these things.

On the whole, I like weapons being more selective, tends to cut down on civilian casualties, but I think that it's a topic more deserving of careful scrutiny than a reflexive ban.

Unfortunately, no.

[timeOday]

There at least 3 different levels of problems here:

1) Does this even make sense: No. Autonomy is not well-defined. Does a thermostat make "decisions"? etc.

2) Assuming it makes sense, is it a good idea: No. Firing a cruise missile at a target is better than firing a huge barrage of mortars towards a target, for everybody involved. Any smarter version of a landmine would be better than the current ones that "decide" to blow up whatever touches them 20 years after the war is over.

3) Assuming it's a good idea, can it be implemented: No. Arms races are often bad for everybody involved. Everybody involved knows this. And yet that universal realization does not provide a way out. Everybody knows if they don't, the other side might well anyways.

Re:Alarmist much?

[mmell]

You're talking about design specifics here. The question is philosophical, not technical. It's not "Can we create battlefield driods, automated stationary sentries, or robotic weapons such as guided missiles or autonomous drones?", it's "Should we?".

It's going to be driven by reaction time

[jlowery]

A robot is going to (or will eventually) react much faster to a threat or other adverse conditions than a human can. If you've got a hypersonic missile heading toward a carrier, are you put a human in the loop? Nope.

There are simply going to be many many situations where a robot will neutralize a threat faster than a human can, and those situations will increase if fighting against another autonomous army.

Is this a good thing? No, it's like atomic weapons. We're heading toward another arms race that will lead us to the brink or over. We barely survived the MAD era.

When Killer Robots are illegal...

[BenSchuarmer]

only super criminals will have killer robots.

Likewise

[DaveAtFraud]

Could some of the people arguing for this ban please explain the difference between being on a ship during WWII that was hit by a kamikze and being on a ship during the Falklands war and being hit by an Exocet? Somehow being killed is being killed regardless of whether there was a human pilot or an autonomous robot flying the lethal projectile.

Re:Likewise

[Richard_at_work]

What they are trying to address is the decision to release the weapon - whether that decision is made by a human or non-human. After that point, automated guidance is a non-issue, its been around for 60 years and thus does not pose an ethical question (a 2000lb laser guided bomb taking out a bridge is better than 100 B-17s dropping 50 tonnes of bombs to drop the same bridge - the automated guidance aspect of the LGB means much less collateral damage than with area bombing).

At the moment the point to which we have progressed is having the non-human decide when to release the weapon, but not whether to release the weapon - that decision is always made by a human (yes, there is a huge difference between the two).