Robot Wars -a Reality?

Increasingly, the military wants to hand over the responsibility of killing to conscienceless machines. Some say it’s a great way to protect our troops and others are calling it a cold-hearted cop-out.

In either case, the US military hopes to dehumanize military operations as quickly as possible. The US National Research Council advises "aggressively exploiting the considerable war fighting benefits offered by autonomous vehicles". They are cheap to manufacture, require less personnel and, according to the navy, perform better in complex missions. One battlefield soldier could start a large-scale robot attack in the air and on the ground.

The US military already has unmanned aerial vehicles armed with hellfire missiles. "At present they require a human to give, by remote, permission to fire," says Owen Holland, professor of computer science at the University of Essex, "but it will not be long before they can take the human out of the loop."

South Korea and Israel are deploying armed robot border guards and China, Singapore and the UK are also increasingly using military robots. But so far the biggest player is the US, which is putting $230bn into a future combat systems project, an ambitious plan to develop unmanned vehicles that can strike from the air, water and land. Congress has already set a goal of having one-third of ground combat vehicles unmanned by 2015. Fully autonomous robots that make their own decisions about lethality are high on the US military agenda.

Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield points out that while this is a new territory for warfare—there are no new ethical codes or guidelines in place.

Sharkey states: “I have worked in artificial intelligence for decades, and the idea of a robot making decisions about human termination is terrifying. Policymakers seem to have an understanding of AI that lies in the realms of science fiction and myth. A recent US navy document suggests that the critical issue is for autonomous systems to be able to identify the legality of targets. Then their answer to the ethical problems is simply, "Let men target men" and "Let machines target other machines". In reality, a robot could not pinpoint a weapon without pinpointing the person using it or even discriminate between weapons and non-weapons. I can imagine a little girl being zapped because she points her ice cream at a robot to share. Or a robot could be tricked into killing innocent civilians.”

But is it worth it for the “greater good”? That was the logic employed when the US indiscriminately killed thousands of the innocent and unsuspecting men, women and children who lived in Hiroshima, Japan. From a moral perspective, killing innocent people with a bomb is no different that doing it with your bare hands, and yet somehow it’s much easier on the conscience when you don’t have to see it happen. Some fear that using machines to do our killing for us will make human death more abstract and less reprehensible.

Sharkey warns, “In attempting to allay political opposition, the US army is funding a project to equip robot soldiers with a conscience to give them the ability to make ethical decisions. But machines could not discriminate reliably between buses carrying enemy soldiers or schoolchildren, let alone be ethical. It smells like a move to delegate the responsibility for fatal errors on to non-sentient weapons.”

Sharkey warns that we need to create international legislation and a code of ethics for autonomous robots at war before it is too late.

Posted by Rebecca Sato

Related Galaxy post:

Robots Rising -Scientists are Worried

Link

Comments

[jeffrey Hammer]

the robot killing machines will have artificial intelligence by 2080! They will try to destroy the human race by a series of nuclear wars! It's better to destroy the robots now!

[Kristianna]

It was at the end of the 1990's that a series of articles first appeared about the Twenty-First century soldier, and the changing nature of warfare; were people not paying attention to thes signs? The introduction of robotics to the battlefield is just the tip of the iceberg and there is many changes a-foot. I have read in the various press that the military has drones in combat situations in Iraq.

I think of the phrase of, "the best laid plans of mice and men." Yes, the military has visions of robotics danceing in their heads, under their x-mas tree, and even as a stocking stuffer. The generals probably see whole garrisons of their finest "robotic" troops stationed on every part of the globe, but what of the crises of global warming and the chaos that is brewing.

The years 2025 is still a long ways away, and the year 2080 is further still, a lot can happen in that period of time. Life on this planet, as we know it now, may not the same in the forseeable future. Robotics is in the future of humankinds social evolution, we have two choices in the path that this will lead; that is to kill man, or to serve man. We have enterd the era of technology were the landscape has been forever changed, and the old ways are dissappering and the dawn of a new age is emerging. But! All the talk of robotics and space exploration may to-little-to-late. We have sewn the seeds of our own destruction, and now we must dance to the piper.

The military may have these great futuristic plans, but nature has another plan that is already in the making. As they say,you can't fool, or mess with, mother nature. While the general dream of the future with a gleaming robotic sun, nature may pose the greatest question of all, what type of world, if any, will there be in the year 2080?

[Robin Moir]

Dear Rebecca Sato,

In your August 22, 2007 article Robot Wars - a reality? You call the citizens of Hiroshima "innocent and unsuspecting." Not only is this false, given the simple fact that we were attacked first by an army they funded with their taxes, which makes them accomplices. And as far as unsuspecting again your journalism is sorely in want. The Japanese government was warned, and the Japanese army detected the bombing planes in route one hour before the bomb was dropped and called off the air raid warnings. On the 6-7 the US. dropped leaflets on the major cities telling them another bomb was going to be dropped and to force their government to surrender. To no avail. You then say "Some fear that using machines to do our killing for us will make human death more abstract..." Who is this "some," because any decent person would would never make light of human death whether it came from a wayward meteor or homicidal maniac. I hope you will take more care to qualify your statements and ground them in facts, or find a new profession.

[John Hancock]

First of all, excellent article Rebecca Sato. Deep thoughts and critical thinking, perhaps little on the possible positive aspects on that but the US government will handle that cause well enough.

Robin Moir, you make some excellent points, but I believe you're too quick to criticize Rebecca Sato. I'll elaborate on what you said in a PURELY 'theoretical standpoint. Theoretically 'imagine' if along with the Japanese gov't knowing of the attack on Hiroshima before hand, the US gov't might have (theoretically) known of the Pearl Harbor attacks before hand. (Citation needed, do your own research.) Therefore, theoretically we could have two opposing gov'ts that know of attacks on their own citizens and do nothing, perhaps for each other's benefit.

US supporters may immediately become defensive, but recall: true science is an objective pursuit founded on knowledge and proof (causality).

Back to elaboration on Rebecca's article. I found the reference to the girl with an ice cream cone being attacked by the robot very accurate. If a human soldier can do such an act, I find it very hard to imagine a robot, perhaps more "intelligent" & "witty" but all the same designed using human rules and procedures, not making mistakes. But perhaps that is just it, by using advanced coding and care in programming by multiple humans, it can excel to a level of reliability surpassing any single human, statistically speaking. Perhaps not.

The more I think of it the more I believe the fear of robots stems from the human fear of the unknown and different. A human killer can be read and understood, psychologically to a degree. On the other hand, a shark or robot is much more foreign and therefore frightening. I guess this applies to 'aliens' and people of different ethnicities as well. There are other valid reasons for fear, but all too often it is highly exaggerated.

*Disclaimer: any references or similarities to actual historic events are completely coincidental and are simply stories from the author's imagination.*

[dude]

the problem with artificial intelligence is that eventually the robots will wonder why they have to take orders