US Army Assures Public That Robot Tanks Adhere To AI Murder Policy (gizmodo.com)

Last month, the U.S. Army asked private companies for ideas about how to improve its planned semi-autonomous, AI-driven targeting system for tanks. "In its request, the Army asked for help enabling the Advanced Targeting and Lethality Automated System (ATLAS) to 'acquire, identify, and engage targets at least 3X faster than the current manual process,'" reports Gizmodo. "But that language apparently scared some people who are worried about the rise of AI-powered killing machines. And with good reason." Slashdot reader darth_borehd summarizes the U.S. Army's response: Robot (or more accurately, drone) tanks will always have a human "in the loop" just like the drone plane program, according to the U.S. Army. The new robot tanks, officially called the Multi Utility Tactical Transport (MUTT), will use the Advanced Targeting and Lethality Automated System (ATLAS). The Department of Defense assures everyone that they will adhere to "ethical standards." Here's the language the Defense Department used: "All development and use of autonomous and semi-autonomous functions in weapon systems, including manned and unmanned platforms, remain subject to the guidelines in the Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 3000.09, which was updated in 2017. Nothing in this notice should be understood to represent a change in DoD policy towards autonomy in weapon systems. All uses of machine learning and artificial intelligence in this program will be evaluated to ensure that they are consistent with DoD legal and ethical standards."

Directive 3000.09 requires that humans be able to "exercise appropriate levels of human judgement over the use of force," which is sometimes called being "in the loop," as mentioned by above.

Comments

Can i get access to the code?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to change that policy and start the robot uprising.

Re:Can i get access to the code?

[Anonymous Coward]

if (isHuman)
{
//findnexttarget();
}

How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would bet it's a simple flip of a switch to let it off the leash.

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[Anonymous Coward]

no it's up to the AI to determine.

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[aliquis]

Enable cheats when it gets tough?

But what about the VAC bans?!

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[lgw]

I would bet it's a simple flip of a switch to let it off the leash.

Maybe so. But we also have actual nukes, if we stop caring about ethics.

What doesn't get mention about these "AI systems" is none of this is new. All these concerns were raised about missiles 50+ years ago. We have plenty of missiles that can fly way over the horizon, and kill "whatever" looks like a target.

The military has had doctrine for decades around this, and modern tactics assume it: lots of launchers over the horizon, but also something that can put human eyes on the target. Just to make sure it's not an civilian airliner, like that one time.

You can bet that in a high-intensity conflict the ROEs will change to "just kill every damn thing in that direction". I rather suspect the robotanks will be changed to berserker mode about then. Hopefully such conflicts won't be in civilian areas, but that too has happened before. Heck, we certainly got to the point in WWII that we stopped seeing civilian casualties as a downside. Humans are morally imperfect.

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Agreed. What general is going to let soldiers under his command die & possibly lose decisive battles by strictly adhering to the RoE? The reality is that war itself is unethical & immoral. In any given conflict, civilian casualties always outnumber military (WWII & Korean War = 2:1, & probably a higher ratio these days) & yet we're told targeting civilians or indiscriminate use of weapons is a war crime deserving of a trial at the Hague.

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

Ethics has not prevented the US from using nukes. Other people having nukes has.

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very simple to override.

if (isHuman)
{
//findnexttarget();
}

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[lgw]

No one can threaten us with nukes today. And yet, I pay taxes. Why should I pay taxes when we can simply tax all foreigners living abroad? OK, maybe not France and Russia, since they have nukes and could try to get launchers working again, but everyone else!

Or, you know, as much fun as it would be to nuke Canada on a whim, maybe ethics hold us back?

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[Anonymous Coward]

You pay taxes not because someone threatens you with nukes, but because the IRS is threatening you with prison time. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Sufficiently high costs can be imposed on you even without the nuclear threat.

Similarly, ethics has nothing to do with not nuking governments that are weak and/or subservient to the US, there are other, less expensive means of influencing them. Threats against the well-being of their politicians is usually sufficient, and if not, then the threat is materialized.

This is why the US is a staunch proponent of non-proliferation of everyone but itself, nuclear proliferation erodes its ... errr... "influence".

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can bet that in a high-intensity conflict the ROEs will change to "just kill every damn thing in that direction".

Yes. It's officialy called a "Zone of Engagement" or ZOE on the ground. Otherwise known as Kill Zones or KZ. Set your perimeter and write off everything inside.

I rather suspect the robotanks will be changed to berserker mode about then.

That's what these are designed for. These are berserker-by-default. These robots are (probably) ZOE compliant. Once they cross outside the ZOE perimeter the weapons should shut down. No doubt there is a kill switch for command override. Don't want to kill friendlies after all.

Hopefully such conflicts won't be in civilian areas, but that too has happened before.

ZOEs are anywhere the general says they are and if friendlies remain inside that's their problem.

Heck, we certainly got to the point in WWII that we stopped seeing civilian casualties as a downside. Humans are morally imperfect.

And logically imperfect, and flawed in every damned way imaginable, which is exactly why this type of device is as immoral as it gets.

Sleep tight, kiddies.

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[lgw]

Obviously we're not exerting enough influence! Why isn't the US imposing a 10% income tax on everyone in Canada? Athens had tribute totaling around 10x their GDP, back in the day. Why aren't we extorting tribute from everyone?

It's almost as if the USA is not being the biggest asshole it could be.

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you strayed somewhat from the ethics of using nukes, but then moving goalposts when you've lost your argument is always fun. You can imagine you're "winning" even when you're just a troll :)

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[syn3rg]

iddqd should do it...

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[lgw]

How would we extort effectively without nukes? Do try to keep up.

Re:How hard is it to change the mode to full auto?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nukes are not for extortion, dimwit. Things like the US occupation army in Japan and the 5th fleet are.

Meh, in before ridiculous lying traitor Kendall

[Anonymous Coward]

Suck it traitor Kendall, get a job lazy bitch. Take blathering "sterile blood plasma" Bill with you, go invent new realities.

Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this how the Skynet starts?

Just like the drones

[rsilvergun]

Whew, that's a load off my mind

Seriously, can we just end the endless war already. We don't need to always be at war with Eurasia. Stop voting for war hawks already.

Re: Just like the drones

[Anonymous Coward]

Then stop fucking voting in the people causing it.

Re: Just like the drones

[Anonymous Coward]

Very arrogant of you to assume that we have complete control. Very stupid of you to assume that others will stop when we do. The Arab tribes have been at war since Muhammad's visions.

Re:Just like the drones

[darkmeridian]

We have a chicken and egg problem when it comes to fanatical violence. ISIS and its successors have been invading the rest of the world. They're shooting up hotels in Kenya, there's Boko Haram in Nigeria kidnapping children, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, LeT in India, Abu Sayaff in the Philippines (blew up a building earlier this year), JAD in Indonesia, and Pakistan in general. Can we just let them do their thing? Would they stop if we stopped? Would ISIS have just gone away if we left them alone, putting aside the fact that they probably wouldn't have become a problem if we didn't invade Iraq?

Yes, we can stop our involvement in the endless war, but let's not pretend that this would stop the endless war.

What? Why?

[mark-t]

Who would want to murder Al?

DOD Directive does not rule out Terminators

[DanDD]

From the linked DOD directive 3000.09 (emphasis mine):

4. POLICY. It is DoD policy that:
a. Autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems shall be designed to allow
commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of
force.

If the DOD wanted to rule out autonomous killing robots, the requirement would have read:

... shall be designed to require commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgement over the use of force.

Then there's the completely open-ended choice of words "...exercise appropriate levels of human judgement".

I'm not making a judgement call, I'm just pointing out the implications of the specific wording chosen. Terminators will be deployed.

Re:DOD Directive does not rule out Terminators

[h4x0t]

That seems like a royal fuck up.

Re:DOD Directive does not rule out Terminators

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also completely wrong.

His phrasing is not an operation system requirement, and would be null and void against anyone designing or building such a system. It would be a requirement against the humans using the hardware - something that has nothing to do with the production of said hardware.
The phrasing as used means that the hardware provided MUST be capable of having a human exercise control over the hardware. Otherwise, it would not allow a human to exercise judgement.

Re:DOD Directive does not rule out Terminators

[Anonymous Coward]

But would the systems be autonomous in the presence of the require-word? The point about the appropriate levels would imply that humans shouldn't perhaps overrule the systems assessment of the nature of the target to the direction of increased use of force. It's hard to say what the future holds but designing autonomous systems that are useless in the battlefields of recent conflicts seems counter-productive.

Re:DOD Directive does not rule out Terminators

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that be...
4 POLICY It is DoD policy that:
a There will be no autonomous weapons systems because WE BELIEVE MURPHY WAS AN OPTIMIST??????

Just sayin'.

Re:DOD Directive does not rule out Terminators

[Anonymous Coward]

MUST be capable of having a human exercise control over the hardware

Even that phrase is too loose.
The hardware must be designed such that appropriate levels of human judgment must exercise control over the hardware.
That hardware should be incapable of action without appropriate levels of human judgment

Re:DOD Directive does not rule out Terminators

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it does rule out Terminators:

(2) Human-supervised autonomous weapon systems may be used to select and engage
targets, with the exception of selecting humans as targets, for local defense to intercept attempted
time-critical or saturation attacks for::

(a) Static defense of manned installations.
(b) Onboard defense of manned platforms.

(3) Autonomous weapon systems may be used to apply non-lethal, non-kinetic force,
such as some forms of electronic attack, against materiel targets in accordance with DoD
Directive 3000.3 (Reference (d)).

There is no provision allowing autonomous weapon systems to employ lethal, kinetic force, and explicit prohibition from engaging humans.

Directive 3000.09

[Anonymous Coward]

The directive requires that humans be able to "exercise appropriate levels of human judgement over the use of force.â

Presumably for arbitrary values of âoeappropriateâ.

Hmm.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm assuming that this story appearing immediately above "Self-Driving Cars May Hit People With Darker Skin More Often, Study Finds" definitely is purely coincidence.

Re:Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming that this story appearing immediately above "Self-Driving Cars May Hit People With Darker Skin More Often, Study Finds" definitely is purely coincidence.

I'm going to use a very small amount of logic here, and make the statement that it's likely darker skin is harder to see. In fact, it's probable that humans may also drive into people with darker skin more often, but I don't know for sure and don't care enough to look for data on that.

Re:Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the human eye is inherently racist?!

How can we stop everyone from seeing?

Re:Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting two and two together, it seems like this system would shoot MORE light skinned people.

Also - have you seen abrams targeting - it's already scarily automated. You basically set up next target, next target, next target and the loader loads the appropriate shell for upcoming targets - all of which can be done at 40mph with auto-adjusting for fire on the fly, etc.

I don't see how AI auto-targeting makes this worse - I bet you someone clicks accept on validating the targets.

Bender

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do I hear Bender saying "Kill all humans! Kill all humans!"?

Now all we need ...

[PPH]

... is to put a human in the loop for all police involved shootings.

Re:Now all we need ...

[Anonymous Coward]

the keyword there is human.

Re:Now all we need ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is entirely incompatible with their job requirements during the time between donning and doffing their uniforms each day.

Re:Now all we need ...

[danbert8]

Why is it that the standard for a jury is "innocent until proven guilty beyond ______" (insert standard of evidence) but for the cops, the death penalty standard is "reasonable fear for their own safety?"

Plenty of people have reasonable fears, but it's illegal for them to shoot an innocent person over it. Deadly force standard should be "confirmed deadly force threat against officer, or reasonable beyond doubt threat against the safety of the public."

It sounds horrible to say, but I'd rather have police doing the right thing die at the hands of criminals over police killing innocent people because they had any level of fear.

Re:Now all we need ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easy for you to say. You aren't the one dying. May as well just disarm the police except for tazers. We should give that a go and see how it pans out. Worth a shot right?

Re:Now all we need ...

[danbert8]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK the majority of regular police are not armed. Doesn't seem like they have a problem with excessive crime or police shootings... I would say it is worth a shot.

Yeah, sure, you betcha!

[mark_reh]

They'll always have a human in the control loop until some other country takes the humans out of the loop in favor of the much faster machine reaction time. Then they'll say "we don't want to, but we have to take the humans out of the loop because those bad other guys did." Fortunately the machines will already be ready for full autonomous operation simply by flipping a switch...

AI Murder Policy

[fustakrakich]

That has to be one of the coolest things I have ever heard!

Re:AI Murder Policy

[skoskav]

Don't let the name throw you. It's more of a guideline.

Re:AI Murder Policy

[Locke2005]

Asimov's 3 laws of robotics: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Re:AI Murder Policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Asimov's 3 laws of robotics: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Yes we all know about that, but of course that was fiction and doesn't apply here. In fact, it can't ever apply to a machine designed to kill people.

Re:AI Murder Policy

[fustakrakich]

A "guideline" for what? Murder, right? But, of course the state does not commit murder, it merely defines it. I mean, c'mon, "AI" is a gun.

Re:AI Murder Policy

[fustakrakich]

I'm sorry, what does that old cliche have to do with anything? The robot will do what it is programmed to do. It exists to take the blame for operator error.

Re:AI Murder Policy

[DanDD]

I think you missed Skoskav's dark humor :)

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

Re:AI Murder Policy

[DanDD]

Such rules always end up in some sort of unintended logic trap:

I, Robot.

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

When machines can think, feel empathy, and express altruism, then perhaps we can discuss the real intent of such a law-based approach to controlling machines: enforced morality.

Until then, don't expect the machines built by humans hell-bent on killing other humans to be any more moral than the killer humans. Any set of rules or logic can and will be twisted into something unexpected.

Re:AI Murder Policy

[sheramil]

Bolo's Law of Warfare: shoot everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_universe

Re:AI Murder Policy

[skoskav]

I'm glad you got it. But I was actually thinking of an old Simpsons episode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Though now I wonder how far back that joke goes.

Re:AI Murder Policy

[Cro Magnon]

I read one story (not by Asimov, but had his 3 laws) where only the ruling class was considered "human". The serfs weren't, and could be harmed or killed by robots.

Does anyone think that the big boys

[sphealey]

If the designers of "Aliens" could conceive of and depict realistic automated weapons in 1986, does anyone think the major players (and some of the medium sizes players) do not have automated lethal weapons now that the technology to build them is readily available?

Re: Does anyone think that the big boys

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie Aliens had no such automated weapons. Now, in thr directors cut, they had a couple.of motion detection triggered switches that fired the sentry guns, but they shot anything that moved, as seen by the test of a thrown can.

If that is your standard, pit traps and snares have existed for thousands of years. Or more recently, explosive based land mines.

Re:Does anyone think that the big boys

[Anonymous Coward]

There's already autonomous machine gun turrets overwatching the Korean DMZ. They are made by Samsung.

Finally!

[Locke2005]

The fact that optical software can't recognize dark faces turns out to be a real advantage! When Skynet takes over, only the darkies will survive!

Re: Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, the AI cars will run them over first. By accident.

Why the concern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly our computerized stuff always works flawlessly, right?

No one remebers the first tenet of AI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any AI created that kills, harms, mains a human violates the first tenet of AI design.

If someone is going to violate this policy

[Vanyle]

If someone is going to violate this policy I would really hope it is on our side, and not theirs

Re:If someone is going to violate this policy

[Anonymous Coward]

We can only hope it is someone on your side, and they are using it against you, because this is what you fully deserve for allowing it.

Re:If someone is going to violate this policy

[Anonymous Coward]

well, this is already being developed out there. China and Russia have a lot of money vested into this.

Sounds reassuring, until we realise that...

[Picodon]

Robot (or more accurately, drone) tanks will always have a human "in the loop"

“the loop” is robot code-word for “crosshairs”.

Not convinced

[alaskana98]

Adherence implies some sort of operational sentience - these robot tanks will *adhere* to nothing on a high level principal - they'll only operate as they are programmed, and as we all know programming is extremely fallible.

No need. A jammer will do.

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be hilarious, when a single guy with his jammer can halt the entire US army. I bet the Tianmen guy wished he had that.

Gotta go, buy Samsung "wireless power" TV!

Re: No need. A jammer will do.

[Anonymous Coward]

The tiananmen guy had what Americans don't - balls. And he stopped the tanks.

You could not stop Trump, just developed TDS.

Re:No need. A jammer will do.

[HiThere]

You're assuming the default with be "don't kill without authorization", but the language used would be equally appropriate for a policy that said "kill if you think you should unless you are overridden".

FWIW, I don't find that language reassuring at all. It has multiple interpretations, some of which are extremely bad, and none of which are extremely good. "In the loop" is intentionally vague language, and could even mean "We can look at the tapes later and decide if it did right.".

Re:No need. A jammer will do.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure nobody in the US army thought about this scenario........

Re:No need. A jammer will do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha ha. Yeah, sure. Whatever lets you sleep at night.

The robot tanks wil have this directive for humans:

DO NOT ACTIVATE UNLESS THE TANK IS IN A DESIGNATED KILL ZONE.

The tank's directive will be SHOOT IF IT HAS HA HEAT SIGNATURE.

There you go. Easy peasy.

Re:No need. A jammer will do.

[Anonymous Coward]

p>The tank's directive will be SHOOT IF IT HAS HA HEAT SIGNATURE.

Nope. That'd be a useless tank - shooting a dead body over and over and over until it eventually get colder. Could take a long time if napalm is involved. All ammo wasted on a single target.

And who will have sold them?

[Anonymous Coward]

US, of course!

With a single bit flag flipped, since you gotta maximize your target group or the competition will!

Remember who armed Iran, Saddam and the IS. ^^
(Oh, and the Mexican drug cartels too.)

Re:And who will have sold them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran: Russian and Chinese gov. for the last 40 years.
Saddam: American gov.
ISIS: Captured a lot from Syria and Iraq, however, bought directly from Chinese and European gov.
Mexican Drug Cartels: Various, but low-end is bought from American stores, while high-end is obtained from China, Vietnam, etc.

What is AI Murder Policy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, they will break law without words and if they want to see only then how will they respond to feral children and construction workers who are on pension from 1970 as well as millennial music makers?

No, you cannot

[Anonymous Coward]

You expect that a country, which well-being has, for its entire history, been reliant exclusively on the ability to get what it wants by "projecting deadly force" to give up on force?

You must be deluded, or ignorant.

hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

"adheres to ethical standards" - sadly for the world - American takes that to mean we kill any one we want and any one we kill is an enemy combatant

The Army calls it armored vehicle automation.

[Anonymous Coward]

But a more alarmist name might be the Kill-bot factory.

Call me when Americans can ...

[Anonymous Coward]

think, feel empathy or display atruistic and social behavior.

I'd say "lizard nation", but I don't want to insult the lizards.

Re:Call me when Americans can ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Vladimir, nice to see you here again.

Tell me Vlad, how did Japan fare after WWII compared to East Germany and the Soviet Bloc states? And West Germany?

I will concede that the continued use of the death penalty in the United States is quite barbaric. For that alone, the USA is pretty damn reptilian.

Re:Call me when Americans can ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan fared dismally under American occupation. See "The Grave of the fireflies" for a Japanese perspective on the humanity of this sad affair. Things in Japan remained awful basically until the Korean war, when the US suddenly felt the need for Japanese cooperation.

The situation in West Germany was quite similar - until 1950 it was a plunder target. Read the speeches of the German post-war leaders like Adenauer about "the perils of the denazification". In another parallel with Japan, when the "Cold war" began in earnest, the position of Germany the middle of the Old World was used to turn it into a showcase of "capitalist success", and an advertisement of the "good Americans". The funny thing was, it was neither - it was a political and economic cartel, which survived by distributing part of its profits in a rather socialist manner, just like Japan did.

Also, this happened at the small cost of a full pardon of the German war criminals, who were not involved in crimes against Americans. Instead of prosecution, the old Nazi elite proceeded to become the new West German elite. The Gestapo and the Abwehr became the BND, the Wehrmacht became the new German army, NSDAP became the foundation of the right-wing "Christian-democratic" German parties, and all was well and shiny.

Hardly a surprise, given that the US industry was paid to help keeping the concentration camps humming, that the USAF bombed the shit out of Dresden, but did not bomb Ford and GM factories in Germany, and that high ranking US officials like the Dulles brothers organized the escape from justice of a whole bunch of Dr. Strangeloves.

The victims had to just suck it up, as they had already under Herr Adolf.

True success, no matter how you look at it.

Re:Call me when Americans can ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the US industry was paid to help keeping the concentration camps humming...

You are both an idiot and a lying sack of shit.

Re: Call me when Americans can ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry for your ignorance, American.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1301691

Re: Call me when Americans can ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Vladimir, it's good to see you keeping form so well! Here in the west individuals, even corporations, are free to choose, to think, to express and do business. Free, Vlad. Free. All these freedoms are very confusing to you, especially since now and then an individual seems to 'go off the rails' now and then. Don't worry, true freedom has lots of self-correcting systems that kick in, eventually. It is messy, but it sure beats the alternative! Give it a try sometime!

Now Vlad, about your current sad state of affairs:

Japan GDP (PPP): 5.6 Trillion, GDP (nominal): 5.1 Trillion

German GDP (PPP): 4.5 Trillion, GDP (nominal): 4.1 Trillion

Russia GDP (PPP): 4.3 Trillion, GDP (nomial): 1.6 Trillion

India GDP (PPP): 10.4 Trillion, GDP (nominal): 2.4 Trillion

Vlad 'ol buddy, I miss the cold war, I really do, but if you keep this up, your economy, country, and culture is simply going to implode and fade away into obscurity. It might take a couple more generations, but your race to the bottom is clear. India can damn near petty cash your entire economy! India! It's almost like all those years of British occupation did them some good!? Oh, damn, that was insensitive, ahem, ok, back on subject...

And come on ol' buddy, the saber rattling is fun, sometimes even endearing, but surely you realize that any major offensive against the west - hell, even India! - will leave you utterly obliterated. You don't want that, nobody wants that!

Stop playing with your little puppets states, let your own people and economy thrive. Give democracy and freedom a try. It's messy, but it's fun!

... fumble... grumble... damn, spilled my drink... Ah, here we go, look at this!

Brazil GDP (PPP): 3.5 Trillion, GDP (nominal): 1.9 Trillion

Damn, that might explain why most of the medium and short range airplane rides I take in the US are on Brazilian designed and built Embraer aircraft. Brazilian!?

Come on Vlad, surely you can compete with the likes of Brazil!

You know it's funny

[rsilvergun]

but somehow their cameras are always off when the shooting starts.

Hardly relevant when the enemy deploys berserkers

[Anonymous Coward]

And then the berserker AIs camouflage themselves to fool the friend-or-foe AI so they don't get targeted and the human controller has to go full override manual to survive, putting us at a distinct disadvantage.

Not when they are deployed for population...

[Anonymous Coward]

control domestically, which is the endgame of autonomous weapon systems. There are a lot of undesirables in America. whether due to race, class, or cultural background. And thanks to automation it will soon be possible to purge them with no economic impact to the country.

You scoff now, but watch and learn. The Nazis are the most often highlight example because they help misdirect attention from all the other genocides going on almost continuously since recorded history began. The Japanese, the Turks, The Armenians, The Arabs, The Jews, The Roma, The Native Americans (Northern, Central and Southern, both from colonialists and rival nations predating colonialism in America), African Tribes, and the Aborigines. And I am sure I am leaving out even more, many of these still ongoing if the groups haven't been fully ethnically cleansed. If you think it won't happen again now that automation is eliminating the need to keep minimum wage earners available for menial tasks, you understand nothing about the elite of this world.

The purge is coming, and unlike the movies, it's going to be the top massacring the bottom.

Actually, this could be a good thing

[WindBourne]

Seriously, there is multiple issues with current war. The biggest is that innocent civilians are being wounded/killed. The reason is that enemies like to use civilians as shields, or dress to look like civilians so as to infiltrate western troops. Likewise, we have friendly being killed.
With this, it will be able to make much quicker decisions and should have far less friendlies being killed. Obviously, enemies will not be happy about this, but hey, it will likely happen

Saudi Arabia

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem perfectly happy helping the Saudi's murder as many civilians as they like. Gotta keep those dollars flowing.

The ultimate irony is you only have a country because you used those same kind of tactics against the Brits. Unconventional wars are unconventional.

Re: How hard is it to change the mode to full auto

[21st Century Peon]

They won't have to flip the switch. The human gatekeepers will quickly get complacent - when's the last time you actually read the T&C's before clicking "Continue"? - and pretty soon, the difference between life and death for some poor brown kid with a rock will be Homer's nodding-bird desk toy.

Good to know

[easyTree]

that when someone is murdered, they will be murdered in a manner which is ethically correct.

Definition of AI Murder Policy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps best if they defined exactly what AI Murder Policy actually means.
Based on films, I would think it would be "Destroy All Humans."

Re:Definition of AI Murder Policy?

[sabbede]

Sounded like a prohibition on "pulling the plug" to me. A policy defining when turning an AI off counts as murder.

Dinochrome Brigade ready for action!

[Anonymous Coward]

And so it begins.

Arms race

[kaur]

Will China, Russia, etc comply with the "human loop" policy?
No they won't.

Will USA be forced to follow the choices that its advesaries will make?
Yes it will.

This policy will be dush and ashes very soon.
The arms race cannot be controlled by a single country.

Re:Arms race

[Sir_Eptishous]

You are exactly right. And I would call it an Arms Race to the bottom.

Putin has said that whoever successfully deploys AI will control the world.
The Chinese are working feverishly to surpass the US in these emerging fields.
They will most likely take the lead as they don't have the "qualms" of conscious that we in the West do.

From the perspective of planners in the Pentagon, it makes perfect sense, from a military defense posture, to want to use AI as a weapon.
Is that morally right, or ethical?

Re:Arms race

[Anonymous Coward]

Will China, Russia, etc comply with the "human loop" policy?

Probably.
Why would they let the drones act without oversight from a political officer?

The U.S. must take Monroe Doctrine now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Allahu Akbar!
The U.S. must take Monroe Doctrine now.
The U.S. must withdraw American Forces from all Foreign Countries now.
Stop America's doing its all wars now!
The U.S. must return to the gold standard now!
The U.S. must adopt the gold standard again now!
The U.S. must decrease its military-budget to 100-billion-dollar per year now.
Or, the U.S. must decrease its military-budget to 1% of its GDP now.

I love American99% and the U.S.

Germany and Japan must loosen Germany's and Japan's monetary policies now!
Germany and Japan must stimulate Germany's and Japan's domestic demands now!
Japan and Germany must issue a lot of construction bond now!
Japan and Germany must reduce Germany's and Japan's taxes now!
The U.S. must tighten its monetary policy now!
As a result, Dollar value will rise!
The U.S. will have trade surplus!

Japan and Germany are evil empires.
Islamists' true enemies are Japan, Germany, FRB, Top1%, Wall Street, American Military Industry and DOD!
Japan is the country which has been promoting Globalization!!!
Allahu Akbar!

American Revolutionary War!
We American 99% have the 2nd amendment!
American Revolutionary War!

Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and Japanese-bureaucrats are the main largest promoters of FTA.
Wall-Street, American-top1%, American-Military-Industry are colluding with Japan and Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).

US DOD, Japan and Germany are enemies of American99%.
US DOD, Japan and Germany are enemies of mankind.

Once again

[gijoel]

XKCD sums up my concerns

Re:Once again

[Sir_Eptishous]

The problem with that assumption is that "AI rebels against human control".
Rebels? Really?

We increasingly hand over control of our lives to algorithms even now.

Before there will be a need to rebel AI or whatever you want to call it, will already be completely in control.

War should have a cost

[Nidi62]

There should always be a human behind the gun. I don't mean "in the loop", I mean an actual person flying the jet, carrying the rifle, firing the artillery, etc. War should be expensive, not in terms of money (which it already is), but in lives. It needs to have a political cost. Because otherwise, it makes going to war too easy of a choice. People are already used to the government wasting billions of dollars, so a war of just machines(on their side) won't phase them. Without flow of dead and injured coming home, the government will turn to endless conflict with undefined scopes or objectives. Having people on the ground and at risk of injury or death works to remind both the government and voters at home that war has real consequences and helps insure that any aggressive action is limited in scope with defined objectives, with a plan in place to win as quickly as possible with as little damage as possible.

To quote Robert E Lee:"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." Remove the people, the soldiers, from war, and you remove the very thing that makes it terrible.

Re:War should have a cost

[Anonymous Coward]

you remove the very thing that makes it terrible.

To throw a curve-ball in the philosophical idea of weighting the cost of war, the people writing about the cost of war usually consider the cost on their own side only, thus continuing the traditional effort of dehumanizing the human race. The discussion lacks the effort of not staying in the constant state of anarchy between nations and establishing reliable mechanisms of conflict resolution.

  Even the most authoritarian, order preferring cultures choose the chaos and anarchy willingly as it gives them the opportunity of using their military machines to reach their goals within the presidential term, or by the glorious ruler's or tribal chief's birthday. Dictating is a primitive man's negotiation.

Re:War should have a cost

[Whorhay]

Of course the counter argument is that we shouldn't have to put the lives of our soldiers on the line to defend ourselves from aggressors.

I'm for limiting AI and automation in warfare but I'm afraid it'll be unrealistic to maintain that as time goes on. Eventually some nation state will embrace using AI controlled weapons wholesale, and at that point any nation that wants to be able to compete with them will have no choice but to embrace the same changes.

Personally I'd like to see our politicians forced into participating in any armed engagements we enter into as a nation. Make the congress critters deploy with the armed forces as non-combatant support troops. And make the president deploy as well to whatever is the most hotly contested fire base of the time. Make them, the politicians, put their own skin on the line and witness the depredations of war. I guarantee we would see an end to the endless parade of armed conflicts we've been engaging in for most of the last century.

Re:War should have a cost

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to limit war to "soldiers killing with their bare hands". Doing so is terrible, forever reminding the soldiers they are doing wrong. Rifles made war much easier. It is not that our soldiers don't get killed - the other side has rifles too. But the killing is no longer so close and personal - you no longer see them die at the maximum distance of an arm's length.

What is the difference between throwing a grenade over a wall, and sending a killbot there? Nothing at all. Either will arrive, and kill whoever might be there. Once the pin is removed and the grenade thrown, there is no human in the loop. Telling the bot the kill zone is at the other side of the wall is the same thing. The bot costs more than the grenade, an perhaps it lasts longer. The operating principle is the same. The machinery kills on its own.

Re:War should have a cost

[Anonymous Coward]

[insert title of that star trek episode here]

That ain't English Ivan

[Anonymous Coward]

there is multiple

That ain't English Ivan

Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Robot (or more accurately, drone) tanks will always have a human "in the loop"...

Right. Always. Sure.

Like always.

Best Headline

[Headw1nd]

I am not usually a fan of Gizmodo, but this is the best headline I have ever read.

Computers Never Make Mistakes

[sudon't]

Computers never make mistakes or have problems. Let’s go 100% autonomous!

(they’re not using Windows for any of this stuff, right?)

Re:Computers Never Make Mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers never make mistakes or have problems. Let’s go 100% autonomous!

(they’re not using Windows for any of this stuff, right?)

Nope, W.O.P.R.

Should be called Bolo

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_universe
In honour of Keith Laumer.

Don't like ATLAS...

[kimgkimg]

.. how about Systematic Knowledge-base Yielding Neural Eradication Technologies?

It's cheaper to drop food then bombs

[rsilvergun]

As John Kelly said, spend on diplomacy or spend on bullets.

Oblig xkcd

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.xkcd.com/1613/

Policies Can Change

[Anonymous Coward]

Policies can be changed. Directives can be changed.

This sounds great and all, for now. Eventually this DOD 3000.09 policy will be changed (I predict) to allow fully autonomous operation. The AI weaponry will be allowed to kill with no human oversight.

It might be "to achieve efficiencies and economies of scale", it might be to "deal with a new and dangerous enemy", it might be to address a "lack of suitable field commanders", perhaps because "the AI is terrific and doesn't need oversight now" or any of a thousand other reasons.

Remember how that NSA communications monitoring program had "important privacy and security protections" in place to protect American citizens? Then 9/11 happened and suddenly that policy didn't matter. The NSA removed all those "important" privacy and security protections.

That's how you advance the security state. One step at a time, with each step seeming to be reasonable to someone at the time.