Slashdot Mirror
Debating a Ban On Autonomous Weapons (thebulletin.org)
Lasrick writes: A pretty informative debate on banning autonomous weapons has just closed at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The debate looks at an open letter, published In July, 2015, in which researchers in artificial intelligence and robotics (and endorsed by high-profile individuals such as Stephen Hawking) called for 'a ban on offensive autonomous weapons beyond meaningful human control.' The letter echoes arguments made since 2013 by the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, which views autonomous weapons as 'a fundamental challenge to the protection of civilians and to international human rights and humanitarian law.'
But support for a ban is not unanimous. Some researchers argue that autonomous weapons would commit fewer battlefield atrocities than human beings—and that their development might even be considered morally imperative. The authors in this debate focus on these questions: Would deployed autonomous weapons promote or detract from civilian safety; and is an outright ban the proper response to development of autonomous weapons?
But support for a ban is not unanimous. Some researchers argue that autonomous weapons would commit fewer battlefield atrocities than human beings—and that their development might even be considered morally imperative. The authors in this debate focus on these questions: Would deployed autonomous weapons promote or detract from civilian safety; and is an outright ban the proper response to development of autonomous weapons?
When it becomes human, it can't be trusted anymore.
And the answer is when it becomes human.
Humans killed 400+ civilians at My Lai, and 200+ civilians at No Gun Ri. Both massacres were the result of rage and fear. Robots don't feel those emotions, and have committed no massacres on that scale. I trust robots more than I trust humans.
Restrictions on nuclear warheads, ships, etc. make sense because they can be verified. Restrictions on software have no means of verification, so any ban on autonomous robots is wishful thinking.
Landmines kill little kids without asking. Do we want more things killing automatically?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Robots also do not feel mercy, and they never question orders - no matter how deranged.
Arguably while war is all about winning, it's not at "all cost".
It isn't, because we've been winning for a long time... that changes when you're losing... Look at the Japanese 1944-45, with the Divine Wind and tell me they weren't willing to pay any price?
It took nuclear weapons to get them to see reason.
Even though war is a terrible and bloody affair, we as societies have constantly been moving towards more humane and less deadly conflict.
From your safe place behind a safe computer, you can say that.
Go ask the people in Syria if they feel like they are taking part in a "more humane and less deadly conflict".
You're kidding yourself if you think that is war. War is hell, and you don't win by "only kinda sorta almost fighting..." You win by so completely crushing your enemy that he puts up the white flag and says "you win, sorry for all that, let us know what the new rules are"
Anything less and it never really ends.
Pretty shit logical reasoning given that robots have never been in a position where they are capable of committing a massacre on that scale. Kim Jong Un has never ordered the use of nuclear weapons so maybe we should give him control of US nukes.
The biggest issue with robot soldiers isn't that they'll make "evil decisions" it's that when a country can engage in warfare without risking its civilians lives it's likely to get involved in more conflicts. That isn't to say that there are no valid concerns about how robots will be programmed, and ordered, to behave in the field as well.
The original Robocop movie correctly predicted how these things might turn out. Infallible is not the adjective to apply.
Still, at least it shot a company exec during a demo, so not a total failure.
It's worse than that, antonymous weapons seem to encourage bad behaviour. Look at the record of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It seems that when you can kill people from thousands of miles away by pressing a button and having a robot do the dirty work, a lot of innocent people get killed. Operators actually call the victims "bug splat", like something you get on your windshield.
The more remote you get from the act of killing, the easier to becomes to commit atrocities.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Look at the record of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You mean the ones that performed more strategically and killed fewer collateral targets than any wars before them ... EVER?
Operators actually call the victims "bug splat"
Yea, its called disconnecting, and they are trained to do so. Its the only way a morale and just person can spend their days killing people. You don't want the guys who can do it all day long and call it what it is doing it, those people are dangerous and enjoy murder so they will do things that shouldn't be done.
On the other hand, most of the people doing these things are geeks just like you and me, well ... not like you, these guys have spines
Anyway, they are taught to behave that way so they can actually sleep at night, but hey, don't let your total lack of understanding of all things military stand in your way of judging people because you saw some highly edited video generated by a man with an agenda the size of greater Asia.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The majority of humans will follow orders no matter how deranged, even when they know its wrong.
Seeing as we have pretty good experimental proof that emotion will not override orders most of the time, then the benefit of positive emotions like empathy is functionally nil. However, negative emotional states WILL significantly alter a persons actions.
"I won't do that sir, its wrong" has saved very few people. "The enemy isn't human and should be exterminated" has gotten entire races exterminated. Given the options, not having emotion is a net gain.
You lack imagination.
Think of an autonomous weapon that lays dormant until it detects something in range, then wakes up, kills it and goes back to sleep.
A landmine on steroids.
You think that won't happen?