Anti-Landmine Group Campaigns Against Autonomous War Robots, Wired Thinks That’s Stupid
London-based charity Landmine Action wants autonomous robots capable of killing people banned under the same kind of treaty that has outlawed landmines in over 150 countries. According to the New Scientist it is the first time a high profile non-governmental organisation has campaigned against such a technology. This campaign follows the reasoning of Noel Sharkey, who condemned these automation plans earlier this year.
As I’ve written before, the robots in use by the military nowadays (and the next years) are almost fully automatic, but so far the trigger has still to be pulled by a human soldier. However, it is only a question of time until the software is strong enough so that this decision will be made entirely by the machine. And once the software is in place, there will be no ethical opposition - at least in the US Department of Defence, who wants them in future to work without supervision.
A reaction to this news article comes from Wired, where the idea of danger through war robots is dismissed:
But to argue as if this is in the here or now, or even in the next decade, is just plain silly. The Pentagon has not only never advocated taking the man-out-the-loop of targeting decisions for drones or robots, its current policies and procedures would prohibit such a move (some might argue that international law already prohibits autonomous armed drones). [...] Unless and until those policies are drastically altered, it’s safe to say we are safe from renegade Terminators.
To completely ignore the threat by robots with weapons and justifying this ignorance by saying that these robots are still science fiction and it will take decades until these robots appear seems a bit strange to me, especially as Wired itself has reported about existing armed robots before. It is exactly this ignorance and belief that everything is so far away that allows organisations like the military to push these developments without any opposition.
Furthermore, I think it is a little blue-eyed to think that the control of weapons mounted on otherwise fully automated robots will remain in human hands just because the Pentagon does not admit of having plans that say otherwise. By arguing that international law might already prohibit autonomous armed drones and at the same time clearly seeing that these very drones are being used by the U.S. Army in Iraq right now, Wired maneuvers itself on very thin ice. I don’t think it can support the arguments that promises, laws and policies are sufficient enough to protect us from a - what Wired deems nonexistant - danger. And heck, what is so bad about protesting against future dangers as opposed to only trying to fight seeing the effects of existing weapons like landmines in hindsight?
I think it is about time that more voices are raised against automating war machinery, and the Landmine Action has taken a step in the right direction. If it will be heard by the military - and the U.S. Army is without doubt on the forefront of research towards this automation - is a completely different matter. So far, I think the chances are still slim, to specify I say it lowers the AI Panic Level by -0.1%.
Stumble it!Popularity: 59%
Comments (5 comments)
Oh WIRED, you’re so hip in the way you unquestioningly embrace all technologies.
Michael Anissimov / March 29th, 2008, 3:01 / #
I don’t know about that wired article. The pentagon does seem to want to create an artificial intelligence badly. Darpa has a program called “Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics” (SyNAPSE for short) that is basically an attempt replicating the functioning of the brain’s cortex in a chip. See the post on my blog about it:
http://brainstimulant.blogspot.com/2008/03/synapse.html
I assume the chip could be used to pilot military hardware and function as a replacement for human operators, however that aspect of the project is only implied by Darpa. Obviously, it’s probably not something they want to say outright.
Mike / March 30th, 2008, 21:26 / #
Previous post should read:
basically an attempt “at” replicating the functioning of the brain’s cortex in a chip.
Mike / March 30th, 2008, 21:28 / #
There was a muslim arrested who was working on an autonomous GPS bomber. Sort of an RC-plane, minus RC, add C4. Does that count ?
Tom / October 27th, 2008, 12:14 / #
While I agree that reckless development and deployment of autonomous armed devices might pose a threat, I still think that, if properly implemented (yup, I know that is one hell of a caveat) these “fully automated armed military systems” will lead to more precise application of military force and less civilian bloodshed and suffering.
A war waged through properly implemented autonomous “war-bots” will be more humane towards noncombatants.
Why?
Because:
1) A fully automated armed military system is not bound to have self-preservation as strong as a human combatant.
While human soldiers are likely to use lethal force in response to a slight hint of unfriendly behavior (even if ordered not to do so) due to inherent human self-preservation instincts and combat stress, a “war-bot” which lacks such human instincts will strictly follow the “innocent until proven guilty” maxim if ordered to do so, thus preferring to err on the side of misdetecting a combatant over accidentally killing the proverbial “girl who tries to offer war-bot an ice-cream”.
A properly implemented fully automated armed military system will not suffer “morale loss” over the fact that following such orders increases the threat to its existence.
Also, a war-bot following such “civ-friendly” orders will not incur the horrible costs in regards to morale at home, as there are no friends or relatives to mourn a war-bot.
2) War-bots are EXTREMELY unlikely to develop truly sadistic inclinations (unless programmed to do so)
3) Properly implemented war-bots will not develop “war-time nationalism”, thus will not be hostile to all people belonging to the ethnicity common among enemy combatants
4) A properly implemented fully automated armed military system will not demonstrate “personality traits” (not a term that suits a robot well, but I hope you forgive me using it to describe certain behavioral patterns common to humans) that are likely to instill hatred and hostility in civilian populations in the warzone and at home (robots will not throw puppies)
5) A properly implemented fully automated armed military system will not demonstrate negative “personality traits” usually arising due to war-time stress and overall criminologenic environment of war (robots will not rape women “because they can)… Unless programmed to do so
6) A properly implemented fully automated armed military system will demonstrate “personality traits” that will instill trust, friendliness and generic desire to support the “war-bots” in allies and non-combatants.
7) Once a “skill” (like “detect suspect suicide bombers from gait, heartbeat and other behavioral and remotely-detected physiological properties”) is implemented in AI, replicating it to other machines is cheap and easy. Replicating skills in humans is expensive, hard, and not very reliable.
Off course, “civ-friendly” war-bots will suffer additional losses due to guerrillas taking advantage of their “civ-friendliness”, but the pace of technological progress will likely make the costs of each individual autonomous war machine comparable to that of training and equipping a human. Also, the sheer superiority an advanced war-bot will have in terms of armor, firepower and sensor capabilities will make it harder for human enemy to take advantage of.
It is also possible that AI will have additional analytical capability allowing them to deduce hostile intent from evidence that would not be sufficient for a human mind to reach same conclusions (it does not mean the AI will be “smarter than human”, it will be merely “better at spotting IEDs”)
All-in-all, I think it is possible that, thanks to AI research and advanced robotics., we will wage safer, more human-friendly wars in the future.
Unit 01 / April 11th, 2009, 11:25 / #
Post a comment