Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Robots Are Not Taking Over,' Says Head of UN Body of Autonomous Weapons (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the sleep-easy dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Robots are not taking over the world," the diplomat leading the first official talks on autonomous weapons assured on Friday, seeking to head off criticism over slow progress towards restricting the use of so-called "killer robots." The United Nations was wrapping up an initial five days of discussions on weapons systems that can identify and destroy targets without human control, which experts say will soon be battle ready. "Ladies and gentlemen, I have news for you: the robots are not taking over the world. Humans are still in charge," said India's disarmament ambassador, Amandeep Gill, who chaired the CCW meeting. "I think we have to be careful in not emotionalizing or dramatizing this issue," he told reporters in response to criticism about the speed of the conference's work. Twenty-two countries, mostly those with smaller military budgets and lesser technical knowhow, have called for an outright ban, arguing that automated weapons are by definition illegal as every individual decision to launch a strike must be made by a human. Gill underscored that banning killer robots, or even agreement on rules, remained a distant prospect.

77 comments

  1. Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Robots are taking over.

    1. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe robots should take over. Consider the stupidity of the argument here... "Don't worry folks. Only humans will kill humans,".

    2. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually about costs. An army grunt or jarhead is more expendable than the robot tech. There's a reason they're called cannon fodder. AI won't be needed, these machines will eventually be remotely controlled by people that do not need to pass the rigorous training of a soldier. I.e. a bunch of well trained dweebs of either gender.

      The really interesting thing will be once these remote controlled killing machines can be made cheap enough and used in combat is how exploitable they'll be by other agencies.

    3. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think would be the first person they would take over?

    4. Re:Translation: by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      An army grunt or jarhead is more expendable than the robot tech.

      Huh? Sure, right now. Wait for the exploding paper airplanes powered by sunlight - or starlight.

    5. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom and Amandeep Gill.

  2. That's what a killer robot would say by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Robots are not taking over the world," the diplomat leading the first official talks on autonomous weapons assured on Friday, seeking to head off criticism over slow progress towards restricting the use of so-called "killer robots."

    That is precisely what a killer robot would say. By the time people figure out there is a problem, it is too late and SkyNet has taken over.

    1. Re:That's what a killer robot would say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The intelligence of the system at the other end is not relevant to you when you die. Whether it is human or not? Is legal system putting people in prison for smoking a joint alive? There are cheaper ways of destruction - close all your bank accounts - that would teach you.

    2. Re:That's what a killer robot would say by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You trusting that...

      This isn't how a native speaker of [standard] English would even begin a sentence. Conclusion...

    3. Re:That's what a killer robot would say by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Also, "indo" is far too esoteric of an adjective to even exist in the vocabulary of an actual racist (they represent the very bottom of the barrel of Anglo culture - just like you represent the very bottom of the barrel of yours).

  3. Technically true, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what he really means is that the people who control the back doors in the autonomous weapons are taking over.

    Funny how context and what isn't said, can impart so much information.

    1. Re:Technically true, but ... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      So what he really means is that the people who control the back doors in the autonomous weapons are taking over.

      Assuming you should worry less about the people controlling the front door like Putin, Xi Jinping, Trump, Erdogan and so on. I'm not so worried about Skynet and the "usual suspects" for backdoors are the same people who control massive military resources of their own. That script kiddies or IS could hack into key military systems and launch ICBMs doesn't seem very plausible. What I'm worried about is essentially what technology has done everywhere else, that relatively few people armed with advanced technology can do what used to take many.

      Consider this, STASI in East Germany employed ~91k people out of a population of 16 million. They had at least 174k identified informants, but many records were destroyed and estimates including occasional informers go as high as 2 million. That's >1.5% of the population and they mainly did surveillance of themselves. The NSA employs 35k-55k (estimates, number is classified) so like 0.01-0.02% of the US population and has done mass surveillance of the world. How can they do that? Computers, electronic communication, vast databases and algorithms to crawl through the data.

      In terms of military tactics and technology it's a very long time ago since the battle of Verdun where you massed huge armies and sent hundreds of thousands of people and sent them running into machine guns and wars were won and lost by headcount. Like in the invasion of Iraq, a modern army wiped out the Iraqi army that was much larger by headcount almost without losses. More autonomy means that takes fewer and fewer people to run a war machine and the easier it gets to find the fanatics and loyal lapdogs to run it.

      Also, despite the potential for hacking I think the greater danger is that robots are loyal to a fault. They don't have any concept of war crimes, they don't have an "ethics subroutine" and they don't follow Asimov's laws, they don't refuse to follow orders, they don't retreat, they don't surrender. Saying there's always a human behind the trigger is not very comforting if that person is Hitler or someone who thinks just like him. It might help against rogue soldiers who abuse their power but it does no good under a regime that condones the actions, officially or unofficially.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook isn't spying on me either. The American Dream is real. Santa Claus leaves presents under the tree for my kids.

  5. Robots don't kill people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who program robots kill people.

    So what we worried about?

  6. "Robots Are Taking Over".. Is.. Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Negative, Carbon Baseform.

    1. Re:"Robots Are Taking Over".. Is.. Incorrect by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Aspie humor... you can spot it 'cause something's always missing.

  7. They're already here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already have autonomous killer robots. We call them the police. *Burn*

  8. "Sorry Dave... by Templer421 · · Score: 2

    I Am afraid I Can't do that."

  9. 5 days conference for this eh? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    So they took five days to figure this out, eh? I bet the restaurants during the conference were fantastic. Let's take a look at what the conference really decided: the need for an even better and longer conference next year.

    He said countries are likely to meet on the issue again for two weeks next year for further discussions focused on how autonomous weapons work and how their use should be controlled.

    "I am very happy with the start we made," he said.

    It is at this point I am reminded of Blazing Saddles, one of the finest political documentaries ever made.

    Governor Le Petomane: Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We've got to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen. We must do something about this, immediately, immediately, immediately!

    Reporters, Taggart and the Governor: Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:5 days conference for this eh? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

      I didn't get a harrumph out of that guy.

      I sometimes wonder if Mel Brooks, Zemeckis and Bob Gale had crystal balls and were able to see into 2017

  10. Humans are still in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From history humans have been the most unreliable, insane and dangerous things to be "in charge of anything!".
    Maybe better if AI is in charge of the weapons.

    1. Re:Humans are still in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, let's put Trek nerds in charge, right? Wannabe Vulcans can be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.

    2. Re:Humans are still in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wannabe Vulcans can be trusted with weapons of mass destruction."

      That was never a problem when Obama was President.

    3. Re:Humans are still in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about this?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

      Yeah, I'm sticking with Team Human on this issue.

    4. Re:Humans are still in charge by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Not this year. Give it 5 years or a decade. They still won't be competent, but better than the current controllers is a pretty low bar.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  11. Not gonna work by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

    Twenty-two countries, mostly those with smaller military budgets and lesser technical knowhow, have called for an outright ban, arguing that automated weapons are by definition illegal as every individual decision to launch a strike must be made by a human.

    A bunch of nobodies are not going to convince the superpowers to agree. The EU, US, UK, China, Russia will not accept being told that they cannot develop the military technologies that they decide they need. Nuclear, chemical, biological... still got em.

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    1. Re:Not gonna work by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      SuperpowerS, plural? There have only been two superpowers, the USA and USSR, and one of them is in the grave. It is on this occasion that I am reminded of one of the finest actors of all of film, Andre the Giant, who said: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Not gonna work by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      There are existing and enforced arms treaties dealing with unsupervised munitions. Land mines and cluster bombs are still the greater danger due to sheer quantity in active use today, deployed in past decades, and stockpiled for decades of future use. All of the countries implied in your list support those except for the US on cluster bombs because the have so many from older stockpiles. It should stop all use as there are better alternatives that don't kill indiscriminately after hostilities end.

    3. Re: Not gonna work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the US uses remote activated land mines that can be disabled via encrypted signals. Chemical weapons gave way to incendiary munitions such as Fuel Air bombs because they're more effective and reliable.
      We only get rid of weapons because they got replaced with something better/made obsolete.

    4. Re:Not gonna work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have only been two superpowers, the USA and USSR

      I think the British Empire is generally accepted to have been a superpower. Past tense at this point, obviously.

    5. Re:Not gonna work by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      If China is not a superpower, it is surely on the verge of becoming one. And "you keep using that word" was Mandy Patinkin (Inigo Montoya), not Andre the Giant (Fezzik).

    6. Re:Not gonna work by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      it is surely on the verge of becoming one

      So they desperately want everyone to believe.

    7. Re:Not gonna work by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Indeed they do. Which doesn't mean that it isn't true.

    8. Re:Not gonna work by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If you say there's only one superpower, I'd say that one is China. The US has been declining rapidly. China may not use it's power in the same way, but it's been using it globally for quite awhile, and without (yet) building up the same kinds of enmity that the US has been.

      That said, China is primarily an economic power rather than a military power. It's military power probably currently is below that of the US. It would probably need to purchase assistance from Russia to match us. But Russia would probably think that acceptable, for the right price. And in 5 years China is likely to be the military superior to the US in most kinds of conflict. (Who do you think *makes* the parts for the drones?) That the current Chinese standard of living is below that of the US is not a strike against them as a power. It means that it's easier for them to get workers for this and that, and it's cheaper to pacify unhappy provinces. And they could destroy the US (at considerable cost to themselves) by selling the US debt they hold on an open market.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Not gonna work by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      China has one, singular, military base overseas. That's not a superpower. It's not even close. Maybe after they pass up France we can revisit the conversation. China has no global power and is hence not a superpower.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Not gonna work by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's a foolish argument. China has as many foreign bases as it wants to have. If they want more, they can easily get them. But they're more interested in economic dominance, and they're pretty much there. In fact, in a lot of areas they *are* there. Military is only one aspect, and it's not the most important beyond the ability to defend your turf...which China has.

      It's been clear that the US was on a downhill slide for decades, but it's been unclear who would be the successor power. China is better than many, because it historically has not been territorially aggressive, and because it's a very introverted culture. (As in, the rest of the world doesn't matter. *WE* are the important ones.) I'd prefer a country with more respect for human rights, but there doesn't seem to be one on offer. Japan seems pretty maxed out, and it's still got a lot of regional hate from the militaristic recent past. I had at one point hoped that India might step forwards, but they seem to have nearly stalled. The EU has potential, but it seems to be fading also. There's also a Historic Trend that points to *some* Asian country to be the successor. I had hoped that the US would last long enough for us to really get into space, but realistically no space colony in the next 50 years will be able to be a democracy. It will need to be a technological autocracy, and China may be better at that...though they are so historically introverted that I'm not at all sure.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re:Not gonna work by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      That's a foolish argument. China has as many foreign bases as it wants to have. If they want more, they can easily get them.

      Whaaa? Huh? In order to be a superpower, you need global reach. China doesn't have it. It's a regional power. Hell, they're hemmed in by three solid lines of defense. Look at a map sometime and draw a line from Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, to Vietnam. Pretty solid, and that's just the first line keeping China boxed in.

      The US has the Strait of Malacca, anchored by stalwart ally Singapore, and this is China's jugular vein because it's where all their oil comes from. The US Navy cuts this off, poof China is done.

      I feel you do not really appreciate just how bad China's position is, nor do you understand what a superpower does or is. Where's China going to put these bases? Are people going to call China when there's an earthquake or something?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Not gonna work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at this stage they're definitely more of one than the USA is

    13. Re:Not gonna work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know Vietnam is a Chinese ally right?

      and that they have a land border with Russia who would be very happy to supply them with oil?

      and China has a huge amount of influence in Africa, South America and the Pacific

  12. So all the new cyber funding is missing? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The contractors just took the funding and spent it on parties, gifts, holidays and home renovations?
    So builders of UAV, USV, UGS, UMS grants just did nothing for the past years?
    No more thinking about the Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap?
    "Pentagon Issues 25-Year Unmanned Systems Roadmap" (January 3, 2014)
    https://www.ainonline.com/avia...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:So all the new cyber funding is missing? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Unmanned doesn't mean robotic. The Reapers and Global Hawks mentioned in your linked article are all controlled by pilots (yes, real pilots) on the ground.

      As for your contractor comment...WTF are you talking about? And I'm saying that as a contractor of 35+ yrs.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  13. Wise Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think we have to be careful in not emotionalizing or dramatizing this issue..."

    Fitting words to the press on just about any issue it covers these days.

  14. Say Their Name: Slaughterbots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We gotta stop using these pussy-ass euphemisms. "Autonomous weapons" is so clinical and removed from all the blood and gore. Call them what they are -- slaughterbots.

    1. Re: Say Their Name: Slaughterbots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer Murderbots...

  15. and the head of the body is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A robot. robots have taken over

  16. Yeah, right by Picodon · · Score: 3, Funny

    “Ladies and gentlemen, I have news for you: the robots are not taking over the world. Humans are still in charge,” said India's disarmament ambassador.

    Soon after, flummoxed by the attitude of skeptics, the ambassador angrily threw a bus error exception and proceeded to reboot on the convention floor.

    1. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beats angrily throwing a bus full of screaming passengers.

  17. Appropriate timely short film... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Well produced, and worth watching if you have a taste for almost-not-fiction science fiction.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Appropriate timely short film... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Ryan Fenton

      You should not sign your messages, somebody might figure out who you are. A Slashdot username is all you should provide.

    2. Re:Appropriate timely short film... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks. now im as depressed as a teenager on social media

  18. But of course, by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    They would say that.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  19. Huh? by siamesevodka · · Score: 1

    Nothing to see here folks! Move along. Pay no attention to that Robot behind the curtain...........

  20. Latest self-defeat victim of the week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Pikoro (came in giving me guff offtopic as usual) & had to EAT HIS WORDS 3x in a row https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11346751&cid=55546043/ , https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11346751&cid=55574119/ & https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11346751&cid=55574167/

    * I don't understand some of these FAKE NAKE for their FAKE LIVES trolls on /. - it's almost like they LIKE self-abuse, since going after me taking 'potshots' @ me? Pure suicide for them, every single time.

    APK

    P.S.=> Now, I appreciate your 'support' (NOT, you're just another troll TRYING to 'give me guff') but the bump stock stuff? I've never EVER 'championed' that so you can stop on that note (you're wrong)... apk

  21. Am I the only one that envisioned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A killer robot with a gun to his head while he made the statement.

  22. Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are most Trump Supporters uneducated?

  23. Finance will do what UN forbids ... by MxMatrix · · Score: 1

    Because of their greed for money and power expect killerbots to emerge from 'wallstreet'. Already finance is more powerfull than the UN. Future: pay the racket or be killed by bots.

    --
    Bach says it all.
  24. Gentlemen, I assure you, robots are not in control by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    ... he said confidently, while flipping the switch labeled "hand over control to robots."

  25. Indeed by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    "Ladies and gentlemen, I have news for you: the robots are not taking over the world. Humans are still in charge," ...until we go into SETTINGS and flip the button for AUTOMATIC KILLINGS to 'ON'.

  26. Drone Anyone? by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    Send the fool a drone with a small explosive charge and maybe he will change his mind.

  27. Humans in charge by umghhh · · Score: 2

    what does that at all mean? If I select a target by seeing it and tell robot to do the job now by pressing fire button which consequently release the high energy projectile to penetrate the meatball I am clearly in charge or? What about the photo and other data that led to target selection being produced by data mining AI? Is a human still in charge? What if we automate that one human out of picture and put another one in front of data mining machine authorizing the selection of meatbags to be eliminated. What about a process in which selection and fire button action are divided in time by hours from the actual penetration of a meatbag trough projectile because the robot had to be given order before entering the zone without coms? At the end it does not matter, does it.

    1. Re:Humans in charge by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But what you're describing isn't a robot, it's an armed telefactor.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  28. Headline appreciation moment by Gibgezr · · Score: 2

    Can we all just pause and appreciate that headline for a moment? I mean, I was both so pleased and so disturbed all at the same time. We truly live in a wonderous era.

    1. Re:Headline appreciation moment by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Odd, my first reaction was "What would you expect someone in his position to say? Follow the money."
      I guess I'm a bit more cynical.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  29. Intention? by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

    For robots to "take over," don't AIs first need intention? ie. goals and a motive?
    As far as I know, software's still just a tool with no more self-motivation than a screwdriver.
    Given that, it's all about who owns the tools.

    1. Re: Intention? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Ah ... but if there is one point that has been driven home hard this year it is that a tiny amount of intelligence with a simple and obvious motive is all that is needed to take over in some cases.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Intention? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't have goals and a motive then it's not a robot, it's a telefactor. It's fair to call a self-driving car a robot, but not to call a remote control machine gun, because in the case of the remote control machine gun the control is from a separate entity (which could, to be fair, be a robot).

      Now I'm not sure that we don't have murderous autonomous robots currently. Reports of an armed automatic sentry built in Japan have been a bit vague, but it could be a real robot. But currently the military hasn't been willing to give up the right to claim the kill itself.

      Question: To what extent should one consider an artillery shell with a proximity fuse a robot? It can only make one decision, but it makes that decision, to explode or not, independent of human choice (at the time...I believe the distance can be set prior to firing). It's true it doesn't have much more intelligence than a thermostat, which I have long considered the thing corresponding to a bit in the frame of AI, but it makes a life or death decision.

      Answer: Well, seriously that would need to be considered a misuse of the word, because it's too far from the central meaning, but it's a good example that concepts don't really have sharp edges. It's at the edge of the penumbra of the concept of robot.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Intention? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Well, the Chinese just had a robot pass a medical exam. If there's not enough tech in that to make automated weaponry, I don't know what qualifies.
      https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    4. Re:Intention? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      This gets into the misuse of other words like hacker and drone and Kleenex. Answer: Nobody gives a shit, an the public is still gonna call em robots.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  30. I'm not worried about robots taking over by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm worried about a small group of asshole humans using them to oppress me and everyone else for eternity. Right not the aristocracy has to treat a small population well or they get disposed. Robots eliminate even that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  31. Yeah I get it... by MikeDataLink · · Score: 2

    Ladies and gentlemen, I have news for you: the robots are not taking over the world. Humans are still in charge

    That sounds exactly like what someone would say right before the robots actually take over. :-)

    --
    Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
  32. If so, what kinds of robots should take over? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    Contrast Samsung's Automated Machine Gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    With Volvo's City Safety system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    They are essentially the same vision system technology, just embodied in different ways for different purposes by engineering teams with different geo-eco-political concerns and world views.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  33. Robots aren't taking over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is the people running the robots that are taking over.

    If a few gangs of guys run the robots killing everyone, it is a robot apocalypse yet?

  34. Since the industrial revolution began by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    Robots have been taking over ever since the industrial revolution began.

    Initially, it was mechanical robots in the form of factory machines, which allowed one person to do the work that used to require dozens or hundreds. The Gutenberg moveable type press allowed a single worker to replace dozens of printing plate carvers, for example.

    Each generation of new robots has gotten more and more sophisticated. Farm equipment like combines each replaced many workers. Factories themselves became automated.

    The only difference now is that these "robots" are smarter and can do things like take inventory at Walmart stores--a job that humans really don't do all that well, as evidenced by constant issues with empty shelves and racks.

    Somehow, through the centuries, as robots took over more and more of our jobs, we managed to find new jobs to keep us busy. I'm pretty sure we will continue to adapt and find new jobs to do.

  35. Robots are not taking over? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course not. *People* with robots are taking over!