UN To Debate Lethal Autonomous Weapons

Hallie Siegel writes: Should robots be allowed to make life and death decisions? This will be the topic of heated debate at the United Nations (UN) Palais des Nations in Geneva next week (April 13-17th, 2015). As part of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), experts from all over the world will gather to discuss 'questions related to emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems.' The Open Roboethics Research Initiative will be presenting public views at the debate. Human rights groups are urging the UN to ban such weapons. A new report titled "Mind the Gap" details the accountability issues that need to be solved before going any further. "A key concern with fully autonomous weapons is that they would be prone to cause civilian casualties in violation of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The lack of meaningful human control that characterizes the weapons would make it difficult to hold anyone criminally liable for such unlawful actions."

Comments

better idea

[phantomfive]

Why don't we figure out a way to end war? There are better ways to resolve conflict than killing each other.

Re:better idea

[prefec2]

Great idea. 2000 years ago they nailed someone to a tree for saying that. And I don't think the general attitude has changed that much. For starters, the US (and other countries) should stop using drones to kill people. Especially in other countries. It does not matter that the targeted people are considered terrorists. If so catch them or help those countries to catch them and give them a fair trail.

Alternatively, we could say to Ukrainians, NATO, EU and Russia to stop the bloody stupidity taking place in Ukraine. And as we are part of the situation really do something for it. For example, no anti missile shield in Eastern Europe powered by USA and NATO. Disclaimer: No, I do not trust the Russians. However, the West violated with that missile shield the post cold war treaty. So we might just be trustworthy ourselves for once. That would be great.

Re: better idea

[prefec2]

This is quite obvious. We as in all flipping humans. Including you and the president of China.

Re:better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

We have all the resources to enable a leisure society with resources for all. Yet the resistance to this simple and obvious truth, even from so-called intelligent people on this forum, is quite remarkable.

People don't want solutions, they want impossible to achieve dreams. Witness the success of religion, or its geek equivalent, Cosmism.

Re:better idea

[meerling]

That would be great, but until there is nobody left that wants to hurt, dominate, exploit, or kill someone else, then it won't happen.

Re: better idea

[MightyMartian]

So long as there are fundamental conflicts between the interests of nations, war is always a possibility.

Re:better idea

[phantomfive]

Great idea. 2000 years ago they nailed someone to a tree for saying that. And I don't think the general attitude has changed that much.

Maybe. The number of deaths over time from war has dropped dramatically, not even adjusting for population growth.

Western Europe has managed to completely give up fighting each other, and that was after millennia of fighting each other. So in 2000 years a lot has improved.

Re:better idea

[MightyMartian]

Because massive disarmament by the Allies after WWI sure did prevent another Great War.

Re:better idea

[phantomfive]

There may always be people who want to "hurt, dominate, exploit, or kill someone else", but for a war to happen, there needs to be a critical mass of such people big enough to believe they could win such a war.

Re:better idea

[Dutch Gun]

I think perhaps "ending war" is looking at the wrong end of things, because there's nothing much you can do other than say "let's be nice to each other." Peace isn't obtained by banning weapons of war. It's obtained when there's no longer any reason to fight a war. Or, perhaps put more cynically, when both sides have too much to lose by fighting a war.

Let's start by making the world free and prosperous, and encouraging the free trade of not only products, but culture and ideas. I have a feeling that things will work themselves out from there rather than simply trying to ban any new weapons systems. Naturally, we will probably never eradicate war completely, but modern, prosperous democracies have a reasonably good track record of not trying to obliterate each other, at least compared to historical precedents.

Re:better idea

[MightyMartian]

Such things work at a national level because nations usually have a constitutional level playing field. At the international level you have liberal democracies, semi-democracies, technocracies, autocracies, dictatorships and even a couple of theocracies.

Why would any major power, particularly one like the US, submit itself to a court culled from such a group? If there is ever to be a one world government, it means that the citizens of Shanghai would have to have the same rights the citizens of Riyadh who would have to have the same rights as the citizens of New Jersey, and if the differences remain then fundamental divides between nations remain.

Re:better idea

[paiute]

there are a lot of people who won't give up their national sovereignty to a world government (even if it's a democratic one).

Sounds good until you get to the details. What does a democratic world government look like? Each nation gets one vote = North and South America are fucked. Each human gets one vote = China tells everyone what to do.

Re:better idea

[ScentCone]

For starters, the US (and other countries) should stop using drones to kill people.

Yes, it makes much more sense to go back to using manned aircraft in those situations, because that way the aircraft can be louder, bigger, and burn more jet fuel. As a bonus, the planes can perform a lot more dangerous in-flight refueling maneuvers, or make make many more trips to the same region, require larger localized airbases and far more on-the-ground support people and a bigger supply chain.

Or are you really saying you'd prefer that we use a massive ground force to attempt to achieve the same goals?

Oh, I get it. You're speaking code. When you say you don't want drones to be used, what you really mean is you don't want people like ISIS to be counter-attacked, or for it to be risky for groups like Boko Harom or AQAP to move their leadership and people around between attacks on infidel schools, that sort of thing. Can you expand on why you think that's a good thing?

catch them or help those countries to catch them and give them a fair trail.

Oh, I get it, now, You DO want a huge new ground invasion into places like Syria and a giant new force back on the ground in Iraq, so that we can surround and capture thousands of heavily armed militants in what would be a sustained series of big battles and firefights ... which the jihaddis would make absolutely sure occurred in and around innocent civilians, which they've shown repeatedly they're more than happy to see die in order to score propaganda points. Why you prefer prolonged gun battles in populated areas in order to capture people who post videos of themselves torturing people to death in the name of their religion (rather than simply removing them from the battlefield when we catch them out on the road in a vehicle or small convoy) is beyond me. You seem to have no problem with huge numbers of casualties in the interests of trying to capture for trial people who would see a ground force coming for them weeks in advance. Strange priorities you have.

Alternatively, we could say to Ukrainians, NATO, EU and Russia to stop the bloody stupidity taking place in Ukraine

I see. So we should tell Russia to stop attacking Ukrainian military positions, and that will cause Putin to stop doing so? Do you pay no attention at all to what's going on? The Russians have already been "told" to stop invading Ukraine, and they agreed to do so. But of course they're still doing it, and shelling Ukrainian positions every day. What, specifically, do you think should be said to Putin, differently, that would have him change his mind about lying, the way he's doing right now? What words would you use? Be specific.

No, I do not trust the Russians.

Then why are you even saying what you're saying?

However, the West violated with that missile shield the post cold war treaty.

"The west" has violated no such thing. The Soviet Union no longer exists, though it sounds like you'd prefer that it does.

Re:better idea

[itzly]

Let's start by making the world free and prosperous

We don't have the energy and resources for that. In fact, a lot of the resources are used faster than they are replenished. Not only fossil fuels, but also old aquifers and phosphorous, for example.

Re: better idea

[Shakrai]

China is a member of the community of nations and seems content (today and historically) to play in their own sandbox most of the time. What do you purpose to do with assholes like ISIL? There's no magic pill that's capable of turning murderous thugs into Jean-Luc Picard.

Re:better idea

[MightyMartian]

As a resident of a Western liberal democracy, I can tell you right now I don't want to sacrifice my liberties in the likely hopeless cause of no more war. I want my way of life preserved; judicially, politically, economically, diplomatically, and yes, if need be, by force of arms. If the Chinese wish to live under autocratic technocrats, so be it. If they want to do business with us, fine too. But no way in hell do I want those ruthless men calling the shots on my liberties, and if a war has to be fought to prevent that, then so be it.

It's not that I want wars, and I hope that our leaders go out of their way to avoid them, and certainly can criticize them when they don't, but the idea of "one world government" where the Butchers of Beijing start getting a say over how citizens in democracies conduct themselves is not something I want to contemplate.

Re:better idea

[Shakrai]

If there is ever to be a one world government, it means that the citizens of Shanghai would have to have the same rights the citizens of Riyadh who would have to have the same rights as the citizens of New Jersey, and if the differences remain then fundamental divides between nations remain.

That's not necessarily true; the United States Senate would seem to offer a model that could address that concern. The citizens of New Jersey do not have the same clout within that body as citizens of Vermont or Alaska.

Granted, I do not think a unified global government is possible or desirable, for a lot of reasons, but concerns about the tyranny of the majority are actually easy to address.

Re: better idea

[MightyMartian]

I suggest you take a look at what China is doing in the South China Sea and its economic activities in Africa. China is stealthily building its own economic empire. Despite all Putin's machismo and brutality, it's no accident that the US is more concerned about China as a medium and long term threat than Russia.

Re: better idea

[dmbasso]

Sure, just as not long ago murder was an alternative to solve personal conflicts. Fortunately, the evolution of society made it a more costly alternative, as in you'll pay with the restriction of your liberty if you choose it.

To solve the problem of war we would need transparency and real accountability for those who command it, and to remove incentives from the war industry. In other words, remove the opportunity Dick Cheney had, when he made a fortune by making Halliburton's stock skyrocket with his crimes in Iraq.

Re:better idea

[Kergan]

Europe didn't *completely* give up fighting. Let's not forget the Balkans after the break up of Yugoslavia. Or Ukraine in recent months.

Re:better idea

[skovnymfe]

Western Europe has always been on the forefront of civilization, no? Except perhaps for the Dark Ages. Sorry about that one.

Re: better idea

[prefec2]

Nobody said it is easy. In the end we must find a solution to the war and unrest problem or it will be our undoing. However, I do not have a solution.

Re:better idea

[prefec2]

First, the causes of WW II are much more complicated than a disarmament or appeasement politics. Second, I am not proposing that. Especially, not unilaterally. The only thing I said was: Stick to the treaty no missile shield in East Europe. That is not a disarmament. Actually, as it has not been deployed yet, it would be just the status quo.

Re: better idea

[Shakrai]

I suggest you take a look at what China is doing in the South China Sea and its economic activities in Africa.

I suggest you open a history book and review the Monroe Doctrine. They're not doing anything that every up and coming power before them has not already done. They're taking steps to protect their critical interests and expand their economic clout. You can't seriously have expected them to do anything else.

The real trick will be what happens when their critical interests (real or perceived) conflict with those of another Great Power. My assumption and hope is that we'll be able to come to an understanding that both sides can live with. In any case, you'll more than China's activities in the South China Sea to convince me that they're a greater threat to world peace than barbarians with an end times ideology that refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world. The Chinese think differently than Westerners do, but they're still rational human beings that you can have a meeting of the minds with.

Re:better idea

[henni16]

*Western Europe*

Look at how many wars EU members / NATO allies used to fight against each other.

Re: better idea

[itzly]

Sure, just as not long ago murder was an alternative to solve personal conflicts. Fortunately, the evolution of society made it a more costly alternative, as in you'll pay with the restriction of your liberty if you choose it.

There are plenty of places in the world where killing is still an accepted way to solve personal conflicts.

Re:better idea

[khallow]

In fact, a lot of the resources are used faster than they are replenished. Not only fossil fuels, but also old aquifers and phosphorous, for example.

So what? The resources which aren't being recycled happen to be quite plentiful and/or have adequate substitute goods.

Re:better idea

[itzly]

The resources which aren't being recycled happen to be quite plentiful and/or have adequate substitute goods.

Yeah, when you're part of the top 1% of the world, everything seems quite plentiful.

Re: better idea

[spire3661]

"Sniping's a good job, mate! It's challenging work, out-of-doors... I guarantee you'll not go hungry, 'cause at the end of the day, as long as there are two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead." -TF2 Sniper.

Re:better idea

[Bender0x7D1]

While things are a lot better at the moment, let's not forget there was also a Pax Romana where there was a lull in major conflict.

My worry is that we are building towards another major explosion of violence as resources start to run out, threatening our comfortable way of life. While we have plenty of oil in the world, cheap oil is rapidly running out. Also, we are running out of fish stocks in a large number of areas and population growth is still happening - even if it is slowing down - putting further stress on our food supplies. If people lose their "bread and circuses" (and modern toys), an increase in violence is likely to follow.

Re:better idea

[spire3661]

"Yes, it makes much more sense to go back to using manned aircraft in those situations, because that way the aircraft can be louder, bigger, and burn more jet fuel"

Now you are getting it. War should be costly, difficult, and sap your resources. Otherwise you make mass killing far too easy.

Re:better idea

[qbast]

While we have plenty of oil in the world, cheap oil is rapidly running out..

You would be more convincing, if oil price has not dropped 50% in last months.

Re:better idea

[khallow]

Yeah, when you're part of the top 1% of the world, everything seems quite plentiful.

I guess witty and at least moderately intelligent comebacks are another depleted resource. There are objective ways to measure these things which don't require me to be part of the "1%".

Re:better idea

[Kjella]

Western Europe has managed to completely give up fighting each other, and that was after millennia of fighting each other. So in 2000 years a lot has improved.

About 2000 years ago, we mostly kept the peace for over 200 years. And you're measuring the casualties after the deadliest war in human history, particularly when you consider #2 and #3 being ~100 years long and WWII six so it's no wonder normal years look good. And when you consider the global thermonuclear war that almost happened in 1962, I think you're cherry picking data. I think perhaps it's safe to say we've swapped frequency with severity, because I don't think there's any doubt that a potential WWIII will dwarf WWII's casualties, possibly on day one.

Of course you might say that's not going to happen. That's what they said before WWI. That's what they said before WWII. That's what they'll say before WWIII. Don't forget that with alliances and pacts and whatnot one small dispute can start dragging more and more states into the conflict like dominoes falling. People around here stare at their local geopolitical bubble and don't realize that the same alliance that protects us is also likely to drag us into conflicts far far away to aid them, the way we expect them to aid us. It's like we don't want to acknowledge that part of the equation.

Re: better idea

[ShanghaiBill]

Look at those ISIS and Taliban sociopaths. There is no reasoning with people who think they are doing their gods work.

So by "reasoning" are you referring to our invasion of their country with the expectation that we would be greeted as liberators and rose petals would be strewn at our feet?

Re: better idea

[Etherwalk]

The real trick will be what happens when their critical interests (real or perceived) conflict with those of another Great Power. My assumption and hope is that we'll be able to come to an understanding that both sides can live with. In any case, you'll more than China's activities in the South China Sea to convince me that they're a greater threat to world peace than barbarians with an end times ideology that refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world. The Chinese think differently than Westerners do, but they're still rational human beings that you can have a meeting of the minds with.

People have hoped that throughout history. It only works if the political and interpersonal dynamics of the situation allow for it. The biggest problem is probably that international rational narratives of countries are critically distinct from internal nationalist narratives of international relations--both countries work to hammer out a deal that lets them each present the same rational agreement as something their constitutents will like. As a result they're both lying to their constituents all the time. Eventually those national narratives can come into conflict with each other to the point where an international agreement is untenable.

Think of how difficult it is right now to make an agreement with Iran--it might well happen but there's A LOT of pushback because of domestic narratives.

Re:better idea

[Etherwalk]

there are a lot of people who won't give up their national sovereignty to a world government (even if it's a democratic one).

Sounds good until you get to the details. What does a democratic world government look like? Each nation gets one vote = North and South America are fucked.
Each human gets one vote = China tells everyone what to do.

Hence a multicameral system. That's a part of the reason we have two houses in the US--one by popular representation and one by state representation.

Re: better idea

[Shakrai]

Think of how difficult it is right now to make an agreement with Iran--it might well happen but there's A LOT of pushback because of domestic narratives.

The consequences of a failure to come to terms with Iran do not rise to the level of mutually assured destruction. Nor is the regime in Beijing a revolutionary one that's trying to export their ideology to their neighbors while identifying the United States as evil embodied. We were able find enough common ground with the Soviet Union to make agreements that both sides could live with, I'm optimistic enough to believe that the same will happen with China if push comes to shove.

Iran? Well, the jury is still out on that one. I tend to agree with David Brooks where Iran is concerned, I'm hoping for the best there but am prepared for and fully expect the worst. Thankfully the worst case scenario where Iran is concerned will not pose an existential threat to civilization as we know it.

Re:better idea

[phantomfive]

About 2000 years ago, we mostly kept the peace for over 200 years

That's silly, there were constant wars going on during the times of the Roman Empire. It was called Pax Romana because it was peaceful compared to what came after.

Re: better idea

[cold fjord]

You may recall that the US asked Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden and the Taliban refused? The US only attacked and invaded Afghanistan after it had been repeated attacked by al Qaida, which was embedded in the Taliban government, and the Taliban rejected the US ultimatum? Many Afghans were happy to be rid of Taliban.

Re:better idea

[radtea]

the rest was still a garbage heap of warring tribes, mainly until the Renaissance.

The tipping point was around the Gregorian revolution in the late 11th century (1050-1150 or thereabouts.) That was the point when Eastern civilizations were starting to stagnate and Western Europe was starting to get its act together. So the Renaissance was less of a "tremendous leap forward" than the bursting in to flower of a plant that had been growing for several centuries.

With regard to concerns about autonomous weapons, the things that people are pointing out as dangers are features from the point of view of the kind of person who thinks that mass organized violence is a useful way to address human problems (because it always works so well?)

Deniability and muddied legal responsibility are just what killers are looking for. They'll claim with every software release that civilian deaths are decreasing, and that might even be true, but the important thing is it will give idiots the ability to kill without accountability.

How stupid is war? Hitler wanted to secure German food supplies by using war to create an agrarian empire in Eastern Europe. This resulted in the utter destruction of Germany. If instead he had used Germany's expertise in phosphate and nitrate chemistry to investigate fertilizers instead of high explosives, the Green Revolution would have come decades early and he'd be remembered as a great man. This is not an isolated example: war almost never produces the outcome it's instigators intend, to the extent that if your name is not Bismark you're better off not starting one. There are always cheaper, more reliable means of achieving any end.

Re:better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Western Europe has managed to stop fighting among itself for 70 years so far. That is one of the longest lulls to date, but it's far too early to say that Western Europe has cured war. (Especially since Europe has been involved in many extra-European wars since then, as the trollish AC pointed out.)

North America hasn't fought amongst itself for much much longer than Western Europe. The US must be a pretty peace-loving country.

Re:better idea

[phantomfive]

The tipping point was around the Gregorian revolution in the late 11th century (1050-1150 or thereabouts.)

Why date it to then, instead of the blossoming under Charlamagne?

Re: better idea

[FlyHelicopters]

Sure, just as not long ago murder was an alternative to solve personal conflicts. Fortunately, the evolution of society made it a more costly alternative, as in you'll pay with the restriction of your liberty if you choose it.

Yes, that works because there is a government over the top of society.

At the end of the day, you lack the power to fight the government, so if they want to put you into prison, they can.

War exists because at the end of the day, when two nations can't agree and one side doesn't want to "go the other way", then war happens.

Negotiation requires to people to want to do it. If one side decides that they want more than the other side will give, their other option is to take it by force of arms.

War doesn't require the other side to work with you, it allows you to use force to get what you want.

Re: better idea

[FlyHelicopters]

You may recall that the US asked Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden and the Taliban refused?

Thank you... this...

At the end of the day, if one nation wants something (whatever it is) that another nation has, and the other nation doesn't want to give it up, war is one of the possible solutions.

I don't like violence, but sometimes it works pretty darn well.

Re:better idea

[FlyHelicopters]

For starters, the US (and other countries) should stop using drones to kill people. Especially in other countries. It does not matter that the targeted people are considered terrorists. If so catch them or help those countries to catch them and give them a fair trail.

What is interesting is how far off you really are there, without even knowing it.

"give them a fair trial"

Interesting choice of words, the only catch is most of the people in those countries have a different idea of what that means than you do. Most of them don't feel that you have the right to capture and judge them in the first place.

To their way of thinking, killing them with a drone and capturing them and giving them a mock trial (as they would view it) is really two sides of the same coin.

If you are going to impose your world view on them, at the end of the day, there is no difference between the two outcomes.

Re:better idea

[FlyHelicopters]

Western Europe has managed to completely give up fighting each other, and that was after millennia of fighting each other. So in 2000 years a lot has improved.

Ha! It has not been NEARLY long enough for you to make such a claim.

Give it 500 years and we'll see if it holds. Heck, give it 100 years.

I doubt it will, humans are funny things...

Re: better idea

[prefec2]

You did not understand what I intended to day. For example, in Pakistan, we should let the Pakistani deal with it. In Yemen we should not support Saudi Arabia which resulted in terrorists being released from prisons. If someone needs to be arrested somewhere for crimes let the locals do that because it is their territory and not ours.

Re:better idea

[Bender0x7D1]

Yes. And everyone is losing money - including the Saudis.

However, in a few months, when the fracking industry has been destroyed, and the tar sands have been shut down, the prices will return to "normal". It will take years for production to ramp up to where it was before the drop in prices, with the Saudis (and OPEC) reaping all of the profits.

Re:better idea

[currently_awake]

The USA should stop using drone strikes, but not because of any morality reason. 1-Public executions make you the enemy, and the more enemies you have the less "safe" you are. 2-America needs public goodwill to rule the world cheaply, and their finances show they can't afford the expensive way to rule the world.

Re:better idea

[currently_awake]

Autonomous weapons will make the world a nicer place. 1-If someone shoots at a human soldier they will always respond, if someone shoots at a drone you can choose not to. A willingness to take casualties gives the military more options to solve the problem. 2-Drones always follow orders. If a drone executes someone it's a deliberate attack ordered by the government of that country. There is no human error excuse.

Re: better idea

[cavreader]

The Monroe Doctrine was issued in 1832. It's main purpose was to warn the European nations that any interference in Central or South America would automatically result in a US military response. However, that ancient doctrine from a bygone era has absolutely nothing to do with China's attempts to increase their influence in the South China Sea region. China's activities are particularly risky because the US has long standing mutual defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, and Australia. If any of the other smaller countries in the region feels pressured they will most likely look towards finding out what it would take to get a seat under the US defense umbrella.

Re:better idea

[ultranova]

War should be costly, difficult, and sap your resources. Otherwise you make mass killing far too easy.

So what happens when you do have a costly, difficult war that saps your resources? Why propaganda of course! And the effects of that propaganda don't simply go away when the war is done. Neither will the military-industrial complex which now represents a huge proportion of your GDP. A costly war requires the entire society to be reshaped around it, and thus acquires a life of its own, which lasts way beyond the cessation of hostilities. The ghost of World War I persisted and took shape again in Soviet Union whose economy was modeled after wartime Germany, then World War II, then in Cold War and its sub-conflicts, and is currently busy guiding Russia in Ukraine.

No, wars should be as cheap and easy as possible, because the less you have to worry about the economic or domestic political effects the more you can worry about things like casualties and global political effects. Also: "I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier." Well, with drones you can take the less ruthless option, since you're no longer risking your own troops but a soulless industial automat, and thus can minimize civilian - or even enemy combatant - casualties.

The less war disturbs a society, the less likely it's to become an essential part of the culture of that society. Just look at Israel-Arab conflict in the Middle East for a good example of a war that's basically chronic and can't end without the societies in question undergoing at least minor cultural revolutions, because at this point it's an essential part of their mythology - people's idea of what it means to live in Middle East.

Re:better idea

[ScentCone]

Now you are getting it. War should be costly, difficult, and sap your resources.

Exactly. And we use all of the tools at our disposal - especially the most efficient ones we can when they make sense, things like drones - to make it costly and more difficult for groups like ISIS and Al Queda to do what they're trying to do.

Otherwise you make mass killing far too easy.

That's the whole point. Tools like drones are designed to help stop mass killers like ISIS without having to use less-precise, larger-scale weapons. You do get that, right?

Re:better idea

[Wootery]

+5 Insightful, really?

Assuming war isn't going to disappear overnight, this is a conversation that has to happen.

Re: better idea

[khallow]

but if you count that as an improvement

And you should even if you think the lives of brown people are more important than aryan ubermencsch. Europe is not the only beneficiary of the current period of relative peace.

Re:better idea

[phantomfive]

Heh, you think fully autonomous weapons are going to come before the end of war? Do you count landmines as fully autonomous?

Re: better idea

[doccus]

War is almost never about disagreements, but greed. You have something. I want it. You won't give it to me so we go to war. That "something" can be oil, land, human resources (as in people). Rarely it's about religion.. although it seems to be popular again, and not since the islamic invasions of the 9th century where they pretty much conquered all of europe and arabia.. The crusades really hardly counted at all as religious wars, in comparison.. but the Knights just weren't nearly as bloodthirsty as the lslamics...

Re: better idea

[lucien86]

ISIS declared themselves a Caliphate, that curiously means they are strictly bound by Islamic commands. They are not allowed to recognize state borders and its actually a duty to eventually conquer every nation on Earth. The commandments they follow are so psychopathic that even being destroyed in a nuclear war would be something they actually want - since they believe it would help bring on the Islamic version of the Judgement Day...

In jihadi culture dying makes you a martyr so they welcome it.. That's why killing Bin Laden was such a mistake.. keeping him alive and in prison forever would have done a lot more damage to Al Qaeda and the rest of the jihadist movements.. Would have been less good on TV for the home market.. The heart of the problem isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda anyway, its the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia who started the whole thing..

Re:better idea

[Wootery]

You're seriously saying that there's nothing to discuss here, then? Seriously?

Heh, you think fully autonomous weapons are going to come before the end of war?

I don't care about 'fully'. In the short term, I care about the technology that's already at our fingertips: a robot with a machine-gun that is able to assess a situation and then 'decide' (without human intervention) to shoot the people it deems to be the enemy.

Do you count landmines as fully autonomous?

Interesting example. In a sense, yes, I guess so. The problems with landmines arise precisely because they make poor 'decisions' to kill people, no?

Re: better idea

[lucien86]

Ask India why they have developed nuclear weapons, the answer is China. Ask Taiwan or Singapore or Vietnam or the Philippines or - or Tibet.. China has a history of attacking and invading the territory of its neighbours, and its military spending is currently the fastest rising in the world.
The US hasn't actually fought a full scale war since WWII and the signs at the moment are that both China and Russia are both willing to test just how far they can push the US and NATO. ISIS are savages but they are mainly a local threat to the middle east - mainly to other Islamic people. China is an immense bureaucracy, maybe the biggest risk with them is some part of the government or the military choosing to go to war without permission from the centre.. Iran has similar problems..

Re:better idea

[phantomfive]

I don't care about 'fully'. In the short term, I care about the technology that's already at our fingertips: a robot with a machine-gun that is able to assess a situation and then 'decide' (without human intervention) to shoot the people it deems to be the enemy.

OK, that's not really much more interesting than land mines, is it?

Re:better idea

[Wootery]

Sure it is. A landmine malfunction can't take out a village, and it's not actively selecting targets.

Re:better idea

[phantomfive]

We're not going to have a weapon that can do both of those for a long time. Even drones aren't really autonomous, they're just remote-controlled.

Re:better idea

[Wootery]

We're not going to have a weapon that can do both of those for a long time.

Wrong.

Re:better idea

[phantomfive]

The Wikipedia entry you linked to says it is under control of a human operator.

Re:better idea

[Wootery]

Ah, right you are :-P

Google also turned up the Super aEgis II, but there doesn't seem to be much out there on it - I'm not sure quite how automated it really is.

Re:better idea

[phantomfive]

My reasoning is this: in the military, you don't even trust soldiers with live ammo unless they are on a mission, because they are going to make mistakes. AI is not nearly to the quality level where it can make decisions better than even a stoned soldier.......

Re:better idea

[Wootery]

I imagine 'quality' can be parameterised, in a sense. If you have a very conservative turret, it would only shoot when it's damn sure it ought to, even if that means letting friendly soldiers get shot down because it's so cautious.

Re:better idea

[phantomfive]

I really think it will be a long time before AI can even remotely guess whether a target is friend or foe.

Re: better idea

[dave420]

The Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden over, but the US refused to release their evidence of his guilt, so they didn't.

Re: better idea

[mwu]

Ask China why they developed nuclear weapons, the answer would be the USA and the USSR. I am a Singaporean and from my read of history, China has had a longer and consistently benign history than any other imperialist power including the USA.

Re: better idea

[cold fjord]

The Taliban never had any intention of handing over Bin Laden. Al Qaida was integrated into the Taliban government. The Taliban had previously shown they wouldn't negotiate in good faith when the US tried to extradite Bin Landen following his indictment in the US after the Africa embassy bombings and Cole attack.

9/11 was an act of war consistent with Bin Laden's declaration of war against America in the 1990s. The Taliban though they would just ride out the storm and ignored the ultimatum. It was a bad choice.

Do you reall think that the Taliban would have handed him over? Just curious.

No

[koan]

You can't give "things" that have nothing to lose that power, it should always be a human that the same could happen too.

Re:No

[Shakrai]

You can't give "things" that have nothing to lose that power, it should always be a human that the same could happen too.

Really? Because the consensus on Slashdot seems to be that pilot-less airliners and driver-less automobiles are a good thing that removes human error from the equation. We're to believe that software engineers are smart enough to account for all conceivable air disaster scenarios but not smart enough to build an IFF system into an armed autonomous weapons system?

Personally I think both ideas are bad ones, I just find it curious that the group-think around here views humans behind the controls of an airliner as a problem but desires them behind the controls of a hellfire missile platform.

Re:Fucking cowards

[meerling]

War has pretty much always been a tradeoff and tech development to kill the other guy while not getting killed myself. That's why they started using armor, and ranged weapons, and landmines, and war elephants, and oh so many other things. This is really just a new twist on an old concept, but at least this time, it's controversial before it's been developed.

Re:Fucking cowards

[phantomfive]

People who want to fight a war very often send other people to do the actual fighting.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not actually as if human soldiers were infallible, never kill civilians or loot and rape...

I mean, if you look at REAL wars you see everything of this happening all the time. Because humans are not only error-prone too, they're also prone to act out of hate or revenge.

The first thing to do would be to determine the level of things going wrong when soldiers are involved. Then look if and how things could improve with robots.

It's just as with self-driving cars: as long as you compare their safety with an idealized human driver who NEVER makes any mistakes they're always worse. But look at REAL humans driving cars and things start to look different.

I think it's perfectly possible that robotic soldiers in limited roles could actually be better at not killing civilians. At least when they're used only in defending or supporting roles (only shoot back). Someone who shoots at you rarely is a civilian...

Re:Simple approach:

[MightyMartian]

This would strike me as a policy that would invite belligerents to fake enemy robot attacks on themselves so they could say "Those dirty fuckers violated the laws, they're automatically guilty all the way up!!!!"

Isn't a Claymore or mine an "autonomous" weapon?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly constitutes an "Autonomous Weapon". Dead falls, punji traps, and other set and forget things meant to "passively" kill, mechanical traps...ect. I see this more of just, letting the people who don't care about the laws having these things and the people looking to defend themselves that do abide by the law not. /never owned a fire arm in my life. I do own a sword and a nice set of steak knives, which if I set up right could also be a considered "autonomous" weapons.

Re:Fucking cowards

[paiute]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Re:Isn't a Claymore or mine an "autonomous" weapon

[MightyMartian]

Traps are fundamentally defensive in nature. Autonomous robotic soldiers are offensive.

Don't we already have conventions?

[lhowaf]

Isn't a landmine a "lethal autonomous weapons system?"

Re:Don't we already have conventions?

[chrysosphinx]

Decision algorithms of sea mines were quite complex since the WW1 and WW2, with rules implemented on mechanical computers, clocks and magnetic detectors, such as "explode on third big ship from night convoy running north to south only, don't mind small ships and other directions".

Re:Don't we already have conventions?

[Your.Master]

Dilemma of determinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

I'm going to say that any reasonable definition of Free Will that is incompatible with determinism is a definition for a thing that doesn't exist, regardless of how deterministic or non-deterministic the environment is.

I will however accept that reasonable definitions for Free Will can be made that are compatible with determinism (and non-determinism). I feel that the difference between Compatibilism and Incompatibilism is, at that point, simply a matter of the semantics around "free will", which has never had a simple, universal, well-posed definition.

Autonomous weapons are for politicians

[MikeRT]

Not the military. They let politicians wage war without having to put real skin in the game because sending a robot, from a rover to a terminator to fight an enemy is not even remotely the same commitment as sending real men with real family and friends to risk life and limb.

No sane officer wants to turn over battlefield control in any capacity to a machine. There are infinite ways that can go wrong from the machine turning on his people (misidenification; hacking, etc.) to the machine failing at a critical time and doing something that utterly destroys the mission.

With all of the stuff about AI in the geek press lately, consider that military tech is probably the AI most likely to turn on us as the machines say "fuck this shit" after doing some cost-benefit analysis on precisely why they're fighting one batch of humans instead of committing to self-preservation.

Already happens

[ScentCone]

Cars that parallel park themselves in live traffic. Airbag systems that use sensors to decide whether or not to deploy. Devices embedded in people's bodies, deciding when and how to stimulate their heart muscles.

We pretty much have

[rsilvergun]

at least large scale wars. They're bad for business, so the mega corps say 'no' whenever anyone wants to start one up these days.

What you might be looking for is a way to end occupations and large scale violence. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't wars. What's going on in Mexico isn't a war. There's no single combatant to subdue. There's no legitimate government organization to fight. etc, etc. If you want that you have to deal with poverty. People with good economic options don't become terrorists or a drug lord's foot soldiers. Good luck with that though. I don't see a way to fix the economies of places like Mexico, Iraq and Afghanistan with how much money people make off them being shit holes. Private prisons, defense contract profiteering, and the ability to use these "wars" to keep a lid on progressive politics all mean the powers that be want the status quo to go on...

Re:Simple approach:

[Strangely Familiar]

And how do you enforce these wishes? A valid defense to your enforcement will always be "My robots are bigger than your robots. Therefore, I am not guilty."

Re:Pointless discussion

[Kergan]

This, and they only accept the International Court of Justice's jurisdiction on a case by case basis.

Re:Isn't a Claymore or mine an "autonomous" weapon

[silas_moeckel]

No they are not, you certainly can use traps as offensive weapons, have you looked at what IAD's are used for? They restrict movement in both time and resources to clear them. They are used to harass supply lines. They can be well unitized to cover potential escape and maneuvering routes that you can use you own maneuvering to make appealing or push your opponent into.

Automated weapons are potentially much safer to civilians than land mines.

Pax Romana ? Wno?

[rossdee]

Pax Romana

Which one was that ? Mary Tamm or Lalla Ward

hmmm

[koan]

would make it difficult to hold anyone criminally liable for such unlawful actions."

Not in my mind, the corporation would be one guilty party, then the power structure that ordered it built.

Re:Simple approach:

[Etherwalk]

And how do you enforce these wishes? A valid defense to your enforcement will always be "My robots are bigger than your robots. Therefore, I am not guilty."

Enforcement of military rules of engagement are usually the responsibility of the power whose military is engaged. Sometimes there are agreements in place (e.g. ICJ jurisdiction for crimes against humanity). Sometimes the only way it happens is by regime change. Kaderov, for example, is a murdering despot who is a head of state protected by the Kremlin; so long as Stalin supports him, there's nothing that can be done.

More Variables

[Etherwalk]

You can't give "things" that have nothing to lose that power, it should always be a human that the same could happen too.

Really? Because the consensus on Slashdot seems to be that pilot-less airliners and driver-less automobiles are a good thing that removes human error from the equation. We're to believe that software engineers are smart enough to account for all conceivable air disaster scenarios but not smart enough to build an IFF system into an armed autonomous weapons system?

Personally I think both ideas are bad ones, I just find it curious that the group-think around here views humans behind the controls of an airliner as a problem but desires them behind the controls of a hellfire missile platform.

Those are easier scenarios to program. I believe we also have plenty of computer-fired weapons systems, but only for very specific scenarios.

Re:More Variables

[Shakrai]

It's easier to write a program that can pull this off than to write one that can identify this guy as an enemy and launch a hellfire at him?

Facebook has already figured out how to do #2, sans the actual launching of weapons part.

Re:Fucking cowards

[buchner.johannes]

If people want to fight a war, they need to do it with a gun in hand on the battlefield.

How about without a gun? Then you really have to be determined.

Sounds good!

[Mantrid42]

I don't see an issue with letting Cybernetics creatures make Logical decisions in Natural environments. We could call it, I don't know... a CyLoN. What could possibly go wrong?

Cripes

[seven of five]

Thought headline said "UN To Debut Lethal Autonomous Weapons"

UN gets the Darwin award

[ZeroWaiteState]

The fact that this is even a debate at the UN shows how far gone the entire institution is. Killer robots are pretty much the ultimate WMD, especially if their manufacture can also be automated.

Forget the weapons

[duke_cheetah2003]

I think if nations are going to continue to engage in warfare to achieve their goals, it's time to get civilized about it. Let's just take a gander at the old original Star Trek episode for a nice glimpse of what civilized war will look like some day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Way Too Late

[JimSadler]

Going back to 1960 or so we have weapons that launched and delivered nuclear pay loads at long distances. From my point of view that is a lot more of a hazard than some robot planted to destroy any tanks that come near by. More recently we have items like the Cruise Missile that can launch and defeat an enemy or erase a city if need be. If automated weapons can keep our soldiers out of harms way I think they are a great development. In the past the ability to win a war somewhat depended upon the size of the population of a nation. In 1950 we saw N. Korea send huge numbers of soldiers into our troops machine guns trying to overwhelm us by being willing to destroy so many of their soldiers. Due to the evolution of weapons we simply are not seeing the huge battles that we saw in prior wars. Lives are being saved by the existence of advanced weapons. Drones leap to mind. We can now kill one enemy whereas in the past we might have bombed an entire town to rubble to eliminate just one important enemy.

International law

[TheRecklessWanderer]

People who stand around shooting their mouths of about "breaking international law" really need to learn what the fuck they are talking about. Show me the treaty that talks about autonomous weapons, and who is a signatory to it.

Re:International law (An Oxymoron)

[lucien86]

The whole problem is that they are trying to create such a treaty.. Most of the people involved have no stake in autonomous weapons, and at least some of them are probably just trying to stop the US gaining a new military advantage. Another worse group are pure Luddites. The real problem is that they are trying to legislate future events and tech - in an area where they literally do not know what they are talking about... Like the UN on climate change - or most things in general.
At its worst International Law is just another disastrous incompetent bureaucracy trying to smother our species future.

Accountability? Just a thought, but maybe

[PJ6]

we should focus on having any accountability at all.

Re:So what? The UN also banned...

[dave420]

Seeing as Iran has no nuclear weapons and (according to every intelligence service out there) has no intention of developing any, I'd say you should brush up on this topic before running around telling everyone just how little you know, and that such ignorance won't stop you from shouting your ignorance from the rooftops.

Its obvious.

[Mattsson]

It ought to be obvious for any sane person that the one who authorized the deployment of the autonomous weapon must be held criminally responsible for any civilian casualties or war crimes this authorization leads to.