3 ms·

The velociraptor on wheels is a good name. I shudder to think what war variant machines will resort to when they are running low on ammo. Do robots need to fo

The velociraptor on wheels is a good name. I shudder to think what war variant machines will resort to when they are running low on ammo. Do robots need to follow the Geneva convention?

LeifCarrotson 6y ago
The important question is who's to blame when they don't. Right now there's civil liability for the end customer, integrator, and manufacturer (depending on who failed to follow ANSI/ISO robotic safety guidelines) in industrial automation accidents, and criminal liability if the failure rises to the level of negligence. It honestly works pretty well, every site I've ever worked at has been happy to put safety first and throughput second, to a degree that my ordinarily cynical outlook is pleasantly surprised. But I don't trust the justice system to correctly follow logical reasoning when these things are used for violence. Who's at fault when a desperate soldier straps something to one of these things and sends it off to commit war crimes - the soldier? The brass who put the soldier in that position with those tools and got that entirely expected result? Boston Dynamics engineers and others who built the tools and shipped them with fine print that says "by clicking OK you agree not to violate the Geneva convention with this"? The robot itself, sentenced to run with worn out bearings and low hydraulic fluid in a long prison sentence? It brings to mind the Nathaniel Borenstein quote [1]: > It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter. [1] http://www.guppylake.com/~nsb/CSCW-ATOMICMAIL.txt http://www.guppylake.com/~nsb/CSCW-ATOMICMAIL.txt
anigbrowl 6y ago
Just look at the history of landmines. 164 countries have voted to ban them, 33 have not. surprisingly (or not), at least one of these countries professes to be horrified when low-tech versions of the same technology are deployed against it and considers that to be appalling moral cowardice.
- rstupek 6y ago
  The reason 1 of the countries did not sign on is they use a bunch of them to prevent North Korea from invading South Korea
- PeterisP 6y ago
  The "number of countries" is a misleading metric for landmine treaty - as it includes all the many countries who expect no wars at all and so they're not actually giving up anything. The 33 include almost all countries who actually expect to fight any wars and/or have serious militaries. Okay, UK, France and Turkey have banned landmines, but USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and Iran haven't banned them, and those 7 matter far more than the 164 signatories of the Ottawa convention for actual banning of landmines in practical use. And of course, the roadside IEDs that USA saw in Iraq and Afghanistan would still be legal under the Ottawa convention (it does not ban anti-vehicle mines and remotely detonated devices) so you can't really assert that USA is complaining about something they won't ratify themselves. If we look at the history of landmines, then it's fairly certain that countries are not going to give up a capability that they expect to use, all the universally accepted treaties only ban things that we consider impractical, which do not give a serious advantage (e.g. chemical weapons, which aren't competitive with conventional weapons if you're fighting against a proper military and not just gassing civilians and/or guerillas). So combat robots will be banned only if (and while) they turn out to be useless and impractical compared to alternatives, or perhaps selectively banned by the countries who weren't going to use them anyway because they can't afford them. If they are actually good for their role, then they will be legal for all the major militaries.

The velociraptor on wheels is a good name. I shudder to think what war variant machines will resort to when they are running low on ammo. Do robots need to follow the Geneva convention?

LeifCarrotson 6y ago

The important question is who's to blame when they don't. Right now there's civil liability for the end customer, integrator, and manufacturer (depending on who failed to follow ANSI/ISO robotic safety guidelines) in industrial automation accidents, and criminal liability if the failure rises to the level of negligence. It honestly works pretty well, every site I've ever worked at has been happy to put safety first and throughput second, to a degree that my ordinarily cynical outlook is pleasantly surprised. But I don't trust the justice system to correctly follow logical reasoning when these things are used for violence. Who's at fault when a desperate soldier straps something to one of these things and sends it off to commit war crimes - the soldier? The brass who put the soldier in that position with those tools and got that entirely expected result? Boston Dynamics engineers and others who built the tools and shipped them with fine print that says "by clicking OK you agree not to violate the Geneva convention with this"? The robot itself, sentenced to run with worn out bearings and low hydraulic fluid in a long prison sentence? It brings to mind the Nathaniel Borenstein quote [1]: > It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter. [1] http://www.guppylake.com/~nsb/CSCW-ATOMICMAIL.txt http://www.guppylake.com/~nsb/CSCW-ATOMICMAIL.txt

anigbrowl 6y ago

Just look at the history of landmines. 164 countries have voted to ban them, 33 have not. surprisingly (or not), at least one of these countries professes to be horrified when low-tech versions of the same technology are deployed against it and considers that to be appalling moral cowardice.

rstupek 6y ago
The reason 1 of the countries did not sign on is they use a bunch of them to prevent North Korea from invading South Korea
PeterisP 6y ago
The "number of countries" is a misleading metric for landmine treaty - as it includes all the many countries who expect no wars at all and so they're not actually giving up anything. The 33 include almost all countries who actually expect to fight any wars and/or have serious militaries. Okay, UK, France and Turkey have banned landmines, but USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and Iran haven't banned them, and those 7 matter far more than the 164 signatories of the Ottawa convention for actual banning of landmines in practical use. And of course, the roadside IEDs that USA saw in Iraq and Afghanistan would still be legal under the Ottawa convention (it does not ban anti-vehicle mines and remotely detonated devices) so you can't really assert that USA is complaining about something they won't ratify themselves. If we look at the history of landmines, then it's fairly certain that countries are not going to give up a capability that they expect to use, all the universally accepted treaties only ban things that we consider impractical, which do not give a serious advantage (e.g. chemical weapons, which aren't competitive with conventional weapons if you're fighting against a proper military and not just gassing civilians and/or guerillas). So combat robots will be banned only if (and while) they turn out to be useless and impractical compared to alternatives, or perhaps selectively banned by the countries who weren't going to use them anyway because they can't afford them. If they are actually good for their role, then they will be legal for all the major militaries.