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

anythings better than the current system

[nimbius]

AGM-129 cruise missile Hey guise! i found your target and ill be there in about 7 minutes :)
USS Rosevelt OK cool.....er...hang on a second that target might not be legitimate...it might be friendly?
AGM-129 o...k...guise im going 500 miles per hour here so i kind of need an answer...
USS Rosevelt: so heres the thing, we supported the guy in 1991, but then we invaded in 2002 and we thought he had chemical weapons, see...but...its complicated
AGM-129 How complicated, complicated like Jeopardy or like my INERTIAL GUIDANCE GPS TRACKING thats about to intercept the target you told me to find. because its coming up REAL QUICK. I just passed that starbucks the other AGM mentioned...
USS Rosevelt:OK OK new story. this is about freedom...patriotism...
AGM-129: for the last time IM NOT A PATRIOT hes still on the ship im an AGM-129 dear lord please make a decision
USS Rosevelt: You know what? screw it. we'll just tell people we're bringing democracy, or quarter pounders, or something. whatever.
AGM-129 so is that a yes or what because I har3@$T(^&*[CARRIER LOST]
USS Rosevelt: Yep. Democracy.

Re:anythings better than the current system

[garyisabusyguy]

As explored in Dark Star (1974), ship on a mission to destroy unstable planets, intelligent bomb has decided to blow up in the ship

[Doolittle convinces the bomb not to explode]
Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm... well... I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun.

Human In The Loop Abort

[bughunter]

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.)

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...