Slashdot Mirror
Killer Robots In Plato's Cave
Lasrick writes Mark Gubrud writes about the fuzzy definitions used to differentiate autonomous lethal weapons from those classified as semi-autonomous: "After all, if the only criterion is that a human nominates the target, then even The Terminator...might qualify as semi-autonomous." Gubrud wants a ban against autonomous hunter-killer weapons like the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile and the canceled Low-Cost Autonomous Attack System, and vague definitions surrounding autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons that will allow weapons that should be classified as autonomous but aren't. Existing definitions draw a "distinction without a difference" and "will not hold against the advance of technology." Gubrud prefers a definition that reduces autonomy to a simple operational fact, an approach he calls "autonomy without mystery." In the end, Gubrud writes, "Where one draws the line is less important than that it is drawn somewhere. If the international community can agree on this, then the remaining details become a matter of common interest and old-fashioned horse trading."
I once worked on the camera portion of a semi-autonomous weapon which, once a target was designated, would continually analyze the live image to maintain, track and intercept that target. A key part of the system was a human in the loop abort, which would cause the system to veer off target before impact should the operator see something he or she didn't like: not the intended target, high probability of collateral damage, etc.
The point is, all judgements about selecting the target and aborting the mission or changing targets were in the hands of a human. The automated parts were vehicle operations, corrections for terrain and weather, tracking an operator-designated object, etc. — all things that required no risk assessment, moral judgment, ethical considerations, etc.
That's the difference between autonomous and semi-autonomous: A human identifies the target, and monitors the system to issue a stand down order as new information becomes available.
(It's also the only weapon system I ever worked on, and it caused me great conflict. Though the intended use had merit, the possible unintended uses made me very uncomfortable. No, I can't be more specific.)
I can see the fnords!
I am not the AC, but the analogy is quite powerful and I agree TFA does not touch it. Extremely paraphrased so missing a lot, here goes.
Imagine a Government that oppresses you, it tricks you daily to keep you oppressed. You, are in the dark on literally everything.
What happens when an oppressed person escapes? They are so shocked they become physically ill, but eventually will be amazed and explore. After a while, they will attemp to free others. Probably to their demise, because people are more content to be oppressed than to fight for freedom. So much so, they will kill the people that try and free them and argue that their oppression really isn't that bad.
Philosophy as defined by Socrates included the statement "seeks the truth at all costs". He also stated that it was a Philosophers duty to free people from their mental prisons, and that it would probably cost them their lives to do so.
Athens killed Socrates because he pissed off an rich asshole. The first of many stories in history showing the trend. People are so content in their oppression that they allow this to occur. Today is no different. You are in a cave too!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.