Slashdot Mirror
The UN Will Consider Banning Killer Robots (hrw.org)
Friday the United Nations agreed to discuss a ban on "killer robots" in 2017. The 123 signatories to a long-standing conventional weapons pact "agreed to formalize their efforts next year to deal with the challenges raised by weapons systems that would select and attack targets without meaningful human control," according to Human Rights Watch.
"The governments meeting in Geneva took an important step toward stemming the development of killer robots, but there is no time to lose," said Steve Goose, arms director of Human Rights Watch, a co-founder of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. "Once these weapons exist, there will be no stopping them. The time to act on a pre-emptive ban is now."
schwit1 reminded us that IEEE Spectrum ran a guest post Thursday by AI professor Toby Walsh, who addressed the U.N. again this week. "If we don't get a ban in place, there will be an arms race. And the end point of this race will look much like the dystopian future painted by Hollywood movies like The Terminator."
schwit1 reminded us that IEEE Spectrum ran a guest post Thursday by AI professor Toby Walsh, who addressed the U.N. again this week. "If we don't get a ban in place, there will be an arms race. And the end point of this race will look much like the dystopian future painted by Hollywood movies like The Terminator."
Like many of the proclamations from the UN, such a ban will have little influence over the development and use of "killer robots".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
That will stop those killer robots from killing us.
If there's one thing Skynet recognizes, it's the authority of the written word.
From the summary: "weapons systems that would select and attack targets without meaningful human control"
The Reaper does not fall under this category.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Not just that - this is a macrocosm of 2nd amendment arguments in the US. Just like people who advocate banning assault rifles would only affect law abiding citizens, similarly, such a ban would affect law abiding nations, but do nothing about rogue nations who sooner or later would have that capability
Besides, I disagree w/ this proposal for a simple reason. We should avoid intervening in other countries, such as Syria. But if we have to go in, I'd rather send in killer robots after ISIS rather than American (or any other) humans who'll get killed or maimed for life. We should have killer robots substitute soldiers: it would also solve the issue of a depleted military as well as the idea for a draft. If we transform our soldiers into simulation controllers where each soldier controls up to say, 10-16 robots, we then have an army that can theoretically take on every one of our adversaries should we need to fight them - China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the list goes on...
The other thing about killer robots: it's automation in the military. In the civilian world, we've seen a whole lot of harmless but grunt jobs get automated - from store clerks to robocalls. In the military world, this is a function ideal for automation: it not only saves the lives and limbs of our soldiers, but also extends their efficiency. They get to learn more deeply about robotics and computing principles, and come out of it body intact, no PTSD and merge seamlessly into the civilian work force. In fact, the military is where we should have as much automation as possible, not less.
Killer Robots Will Consider Banning UN
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's my understanding that the way cruise missiles work is the operator inputs the GPS coordinates of the target and off it goes to the target. The only human input is the target. What's difference between this and and autonomous robot that has various built in systems that do human soldier recognition as the target? Once released each weapon has no human intervention or control.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
As the summary says, the proposed ban is on devices which "select and attack targets without meaningful human control". So basically none of what you wrote applies.
In fact, it's the exact opposite of "macrocosm of 2nd amendment arguments in the US" - supporters of the second amendment point out that "guns don't kill people, people kill people"; their argument is that the device is controlled by a person, who can do good or bad with a steel pipe too.
Anti-ship missiles often pick their target on their own, for example. It wasn't always possible to "select" one.
Ezekiel 23:20
Whoever develops them anyway wins world war 3.
No one wins world war 3.
Why not just ban war?
Have gnu, will travel.
As for banning landmines.
There is a landmine treaty which isn't signed by a handful of nations that don't take human rights too seriously. Not surprisingly, the US is on that list, rubbing shoulders with the likes of North Korea, Uzbekistan and Syria.
After all, maiming civilians is what it's all about for these brave warrior nations.
After all, maiming civilians is what it's all about for these brave warrior nations.
The US uses landmines only along the Korean DMZ, where there are no civilians.
Nations aren't American people, though.
Americans tend to care about "freedom". Not any particular freedom, mind you, but they cling to the fantasy story that they are somehow "free" in an abstract sense, and any limit on that freedom is a grave assault on their very essence. However, the more recent evolution of this philosophy has extended the concern to others' freedoms as well. The privacy advocates don't have anything to hide themselves, but they're sure that someone out there has horrible secrets they're trying to keep from the Big Bad Government. The civil rights advocates aren't being persecuted, but they're supporting those who are being persecuted. The gun lovers don't own bazookas or urban-assault weaponry, but they want to be absolutely sure someone else can get them.
International politics, on the other hand, looks a lot more like the stereotypical spaghetti westerns. Every nation is concerned primarily with their own interests, and everybody's just one sufficient excuse away from attacking someone else. Their cattle came too close to your territory? That must mean they're your cattle now. They cut down a tree you liked to look at? That must mean they owe you reparations. Their drunk belligerent son insulted your father? This calls for a duel to the death.
There are also the outlaws. There are certain countries who have caused more trouble than their existence is worth, and it'd probably be best if they were relieved of their sovereignty, but, they still have a few powerful friends. You can't just kill that guy who annexed your land, because you'd be dead yourself in short order.
Now, the UN is suggesting new rules. Continuing the metaphor, this is effectively the equivalent of the townsfolk coming together and agreeing to not breed coyotes. No, there's no real way to stop someone from breeding coyotes if they want to, but everyone else has said they don't want more coyotes around.
What this means is that there is a new excuse in town. If someone accuses you of coyote-breeding, they might use that as justification to steal your horse. If they can prove you're breeding coyotes, they might be able to get a posse to kick you off of your land and take it for their own. Your friends won't have much ability to protect you, because they don't want to be associated with a low-down dirty rotten coyote-breeder. With your allies gone and a bounty on your head, everyone with an opportunity will try to prove their commitment to the law by coming after you.
Of course, it's very difficult to claim that breeding coyotes is bad when one is already doing it themselves. This is exactly what happened with nuclear weapons. The United States had them, so we couldn't effectively ask everyone else to ban them. Right now, though, there's very little interest in fully-automatic lethal robots. Even drone strikes are commanded by a human, and there is significant political pressure to keep them that way. The closest we have to automated killing machines is the common land mine, whose use is finally banned or regulated by most countries. There are also IEDs, whose use is being publicized as an indiscriminate assault on civilians... and in response, the good guys of the world continue to hunt those dastardly villains to protect the innocent!
In the public perception, there is a huge difference between the freedom of people and the freedom of nations. Yes, a country bound by the UN rules could still create AI killers, but there are effective human-led counterattacks to them. There is no benefit to pursuing the prohibited weaponry.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
"Death, destruction, disease, horror. That's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided."
Star Trek The Original Series: "A Taste of Armageddon"
Exactly. One of the consistent and reasonable critiques of modern American warfare is that because there is no draft, the influential wealthy and policy-making classes have no personal incentive to avoid war. Many people know few or even no service members. The further you push human beings away from the horrors of war, the more those people will be willing to engage in war.
I've met people who've been personally tortured by foreign heads of state. I've seen people fighting politically to pull their countries together in the face of what seems like neverending war and oppression by warlords. And I've read the stories of people who have seen their countries fall apart in the face of characteristic propaganda and strong men taking power. The less real all of this is and the less human it is, the more people will be willing to stay unengaged in matters of life and death.
Real lawyers write in C++
We should worry about the concentration of power rather than robots becoming sentient. Sentience is a long ways off, whereas even with the technology today, a single human can command a large number of autonomous drones and missiles. The more autonomy the weapon has, the less the human is required in the loop, which means eventually, a single general or hacker can command the equivalent of the entire armed forces. At that point, who can stop them from starting unnecessary wars or becoming dictators?
The USA also uses limited lifetime landmines so they don't stick around after a conflict to keep killing people. I may not like landmines but I understand why they are used and having ones that self destruct is much better than ones that stay around.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!