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

Shall we play a game?

[TiggertheMad]

It seems to me that these weapons are morally equivalent to a land mine. A land mine is an autonomous weapon, that has the following logic: 'Is trigger depressed? If so, detonate'.

Putting more complicated logic on a robot armed with machine guns is pretty much the same thing. If you have morale problems with land mines, you probably should have the same problems with kilbots. (Also, expect the exact same classes of problems to occur).

Most civilized countries are realizing that landmines are rather deplorable weapons, it seems interesting that they would be ok with robotic weaponry...