Call for ethical debate surrounding use of "killer robots"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8182003.stm

by theblackbox • 17 years ago

18 30 17 years ago

news.bbc.co.uk

"While 14 al-Qaeda were killed, some 687 civilian deaths also occurred…"

That is profoundly disturbing. How can governments justify the continued use of drones with statistics like that? There needs to be an ethical debate, yes, and urgently.

radu_floricica• 17 years ago

It's not the drones, it's what they consider a fair exchange. Guerrilla wars are like that.

jacquesm6• 17 years ago

Ask the families of the 687 civilians if they thought it was a fair exchange...

It's the de-humanizing use of terms like 'fair exchange' and 'collateral damage' that make this kind of atrocities possible in the first place. If we just called it by its name (cold blooded murder by remote control) then it would be looked at quite a bit differently by the general public.

gaius• 17 years ago

That's the wrong question to ask. A drone is just a regular combat aircraft whose pilot operates it by remote. If you get bombed by an F16 or bombed by a Predator drone, it's a human that flew it there, it's a human who gave the order to attack, it's a human whose finger pressed the trigger. There is NO autonomy in any of the hardware in either case.

anigbrowl7• 17 years ago

This seems like a highly questionable conclusion. 'No autonomy' means (to me) no kind of technological assist whatsoever, not just not just no executive power.

Consider the humble digital camera. You likely have one close by. My old point-and shoot has 'intelligent' control of focus and aperture, and is 'smart' enough to look for shapes resembling human faces and prefer them as focus targets. Newer models on various cameras include recognizing babies (as distinct from adults), tracking moving objects and so forth. Now, if you have any experience with a manual (film) camera you can't help but be aware of how useful these new tools are, although you might not depend on them. I chose cameras as an example because they're cheap - almost commoditized, in fact - and the degree of 'assist' offered by the technology is really quite startling, and furthermore seems to be accelerating with every new generation of camera.

Back in the military context, consider the hierarchical nature of military command. Say you are a submarine commander in wartime. Your job is to sink enemy ships, but you don't want to accidentally sink any ships belonging to allies or neutrals, and (to a lesser degree) you want to avoid sinking even the enemy's passenger ships, where the military gain would be marginal but the propaganda cost to your side would be significant.

You, the commander are the executive who makes the decision to fire a torpedo. but to do so, you rely on a mix of incoming intelligence about shipping movements, the judgment of sonar operators about the signature and identity of passing ships, a larger staff who orient your craft and ready your weapons, and finally a small officer staff whose functions are to implement your orders and also to draw your attention to possible error. You, as an executive, are replaceable, mainly by necessity but sometimes by choice; the existence of a tiered officer class in combination with a military code serves as a useful check on excess, though not a foolproof one.

Now as far as drones go, the operator is equivalent to the executive. However, the operator's decision is only as good as the quality of information relayed to him or her by subordinates. In this case, the subordinates are increasingly heading towards being technological systems. I would really be surprised if these UAVs did not include some degree of auto-targeting based on high-amplitude infrared signatures or so. We know (from our experience with cameras, and many other contexts you can think up) that real-time signal processing is both affordable and ubiquitous, and we also know that good systems design involves leveraging technology to increase efficiency wherever possible.

So the point (finally...sorry) is that the human autonomy you cite is probably somewhat less than total, insofar as it relies on technological assists which aid in the selection and tracking of targets. This is a very marginal loss of autonomy, to be sure - one that may seem so slight as to be negligible, and indeed one which is often positive insofar as it may reduce human error. But:

a) as we all know, technology frequently displaces skills to the extent that such skills can systemized, and the military is all about doing things systematically

b) it's relatively easy to program a machine to listen/look for the signature of (say) automatic gunfire, but we are a long way from being able to explain to one that in some cultures, this is considered a good way to celebrate a wedding.

asciilifeform• 17 years ago

No one should consider themselves informed on the subject of "killer robots" without having read this:

http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/global/the-second-amendm...

jacquesm6• 17 years ago

second that, it takes a while to read it though, it's a long piece but well worth it.

anigbrowl7• 17 years ago

Seconded. Although it focuses mainly on the US, consider too the implications in a society like the UK where surveillance cameras are extremely thick on the ground.

pavel_lishin• 17 years ago

"What this effort will do, if it is successful, is defang ... all populations, overthrowing the protective effect individual firearms ownership, destroying the intent and effectiveness of the Second Amendment, and unbalancing the Constitution permanently through evolving technology which end-runs around the original intent of the Framers."

Hasn't this already happened? Iraq very clearly demonstrates that a massive force will overrun you no matter how many arms your citizens possess. Citizens usually don't possess missiles, anti-tank weaponry, large-caliber arms, etc.

You don't need significantly advanced technology; you just need slightly better weapons, and slightly more of them.

The flipside, though, is that we could reinterpret software and hardware as arms; if robots are standing on the street corners, the ability to fight back electronically becomes the only option.

dtf• 17 years ago

Professor Sharkey shows a great deal of social and political insight for someone whose academic specialization is in neither of those domains. Let's hope he continues to make these points heard.

rfreytag• 17 years ago

The US better get out in front on this and engage in the debate and get something they can sign. Elsewise the result will be something impractical and both 'good' and 'bad' guys will get a pass.

Don't pretend everyone won't be able to afford this because robots will be cheap enough eventually for both sides to go this automated.

Engagement is the better option.

jacquesm6• 17 years ago

The lower the price of something the higher the volume.

Risking yourself while killing somebody else increases the price on your side. If that risk disappears the 'cost' gets so low that the volume might increase dramatically.

yummyfajitas3• 17 years ago

On the flip side, the cost of caution also decreases.

Scenario: a person is approaching a checkpoint and does not obey verbal commands. No civilians are present near the checkpoint.

Human soldier: "Oh shit, shoot him, I don't want to get blown up!"

Robot soldier: "Direct extra scrutiny towards target. Do not allow him to approach civilians. Allow him to approach the checkpoint. I only cost $100,000, no reason to kill a human to save my metallic skin."

riffic• 17 years ago

I'd support a Geneva Convention-style ban on robotic warfare.

on second thought, not an outright ban, but there should be some serious limitations set in place before we completely dehumanize the process.

anigbrowl7• 17 years ago

Honestly, I don't think this will make any difference. The Geneva convention seems to left on the shelf in cases of asymmetric war, not least because the weaker side is highly unlikely to be in a position to prosecute violations afterwards.

krschultz• 17 years ago

"The problem, he said, was that robots could not fulfil two of the basic tenets of warfare: discriminating friend from foe, and "proportionality", determining a reasonable amount of force to gain a given military advantage."

That is true for autonomous robots, but we are currently not there yet. And if the choice is between the UAV overhead with cameras and sensors on the target firing guided missiles, or the UAV overhead with a camera and someone firing artillery at the target from a few miles away, the UAV is more accurate and less likely to cause collateral damage.

He also talks about how they are further distancing the soldiers from battle. Not really, if you are a normal pilot you drop the weapons on the target and get the hell out of there, and don't see really any of it except on film later because you are moving so fast. The UAV operators keep the UAV overhead and are watching before, during, and after the attack much more closely than pilots. It turns out it can be more emotionally damaging than manned flight. Especially because of the lack of danger for you, it triggers different emotions.

Call for ethical debate surrounding use of "killer robots"

Related Stories