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."

Comments

Every time there is a better weapon...

[mi]

Every time there is a better weapon, someone will seek to ban it. It started at least as long ago as 12th century, when Pope Innocent II banned the use of crossbows (1139).

It is futile... And, with the particular example of precision weapons, it is also foolishly immoral — because precision helps reduce fatalities. If you no longer need to flatten the village to destroy an artillery battery, or a demolish a high-rise to get that sniper, you kill fewer by-standers and cause less mayhem...