7 ms·

Autonomous computers likely have already killed humans in Libya two years ago.[1] Four problems with this new reality: 1) Misidentification. When selecting a t

Autonomous computers likely have already killed humans in Libya two years ago.[1] Four problems with this new reality: 1) Misidentification. When selecting a target, will autonomous weapons be able to distinguish between hostile soldiers and 12-year-olds playing with toy guns? 2) Low-end proliferation. Market pressures could result in the creation and widespread sale of what can be thought of as the autonomous weapon equivalent of the Kalashnikov assault rifle: killer robots that are cheap, effective and almost impossible to contain as they circulate around the globe. 3) High-end proliferation. High-end autonomous weapons are likely to lead to more frequent wars because they will decrease two of the primary forces that have historically prevented and shortened wars: concern for civilians abroad and concern for one's own soldiers. 4) Undermining the laws of war. How can autonomous weapons be held accountable? Who is to blame for a robot that commits war crimes? Who would be put on trial? The weapon? The soldier? The soldier's commanders? The corporation that made the weapon? (from https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/12/30/humanitys-final-arms-race-un-fails-agree-killer-robot-ban https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/12/30/humanitys-fina...) [1]https://www.npr.org/2021/06/01/1002196245/a-u-n-report-suggests-libya-saw-the-first-battlefield-killing-by-an-autonomous-d https://www.npr.org/2021/06/01/1002196245/a-u-n-report-sugge...

karpierz 5y ago
Autonomous weapons have existed for decades, we just call them landmines.
- Digit-Al 5y ago
  A landmine is not an autonomous weapon. Autonomy suggests being able to select a target and harm only that target. A landmine just blows up when someone steps on it; there is no selection, thus no autonomy.
  - karpierz 5y ago
    A landmine is programmed to attack a target of a specific weight when it enters a specific area. The targeting model was programmed by engineers to try and target soldiers (or armoured vehicles), and the locations they were placed were also for that purpose. However, it's possible for the heuristics to fail, and for a mine to blow up a child, because the weights weren't tuned correctly, or to fail to explode when a soldier steps on it. By your same logic, any AI has no autonomy, because it does X when its code selects X. A guard dog robot attacks will act consistently given identical inputs.
    - Digit-Al 5y ago
      > A landmine is programmed to attack a target of a specific weight when it enters a specific area. You've literally just said it is programmed. If it is programmed, how can it be autonomous?
      - karpierz 5y ago
        Because it kills without consulting the people who put it there. AI is also programmed; it attacks when the score returned by the threat function exceeds a threshold. Unless we're talking about AGI, in which case I misunderstood and assumed we were talking about AI that we can currently make.
paxys 5y ago
Are these even serious discussions? Of course the people running these autonomous systems are responsible. It's like dropping a bomb on someone and saying "hey I didn't do it, blame the bomb!"
- hammock 5y ago
  No one is "running" an autonomous killer. It makes its own decisions. That's the rub.
  - paxys 5y ago
    No it is not making its own decisions. There's always a clear path from programming to execution. The slight variability added by a neural net or whatever else doesn't change that fact. If a serial killer chooses their victims by using a random number generator, the algorithm isn't going to be tried for murder.
    - nefitty 5y ago
      I see No Country for Old Men as partly a study on the conflict between those who believe in free will and those who don't. The villain, Sugar, has shed the illusion of free will, and has thrown himself into the thing he knows motivates him: prejudicial termination of other people who stand in the way of his current clients' goals. This is in contrast to the backdrop of a community reeling with outrage at and fear of his brutality. They see him as an agent of evil, some sort of amoral if not immoral demon, a spawn of the escalating narco wars. Normal people imbue themselves and others with causative powers. This is exemplified by the exchange with Norma Jean. "You don't need to kill me. I ain't got any money." "I'll flip a coin. It's the best I can do. Call it." "No, I ain't doin' that. It ain't the coin that decides. It's you, it's always been you." "I got here the same way the coin did. Call it."
      - paxys 5y ago
        It's only first year philosophy students who will consider this a real ethical conundrum.
ummonk 5y ago
How is an autonomous weapon any different than a guided missile?
olliej 5y ago
1) Mines have had this problem for more than a hundred years, and mines from previous wars are still misidentifying targets to this day 2) Mines have also had this problem 3) Not sure this is even grounded in reality - WW2, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars showed no significant "concern for civilians abroad". WW1&2 showed the concern about life of a countries own soldiers was only important in as much as running out of them meant losing. 4) Seriously? If I make a machine that targets tanks, but I do it badly and it confuses them with school buses, the laws of wars would make me responsible. But that's also not a good argument in general, because the "laws of war" have only ever applied to the defeated.
smnrchrds 5y ago
> Who would be put on trial? If it is done by a powerful country, no one. If it is done by a less powerful country, someone. The same as is the case now.

karpierz 5y ago

Autonomous weapons have existed for decades, we just call them landmines.

Digit-Al 5y ago
A landmine is not an autonomous weapon. Autonomy suggests being able to select a target and harm only that target. A landmine just blows up when someone steps on it; there is no selection, thus no autonomy.
- karpierz 5y ago
  A landmine is programmed to attack a target of a specific weight when it enters a specific area. The targeting model was programmed by engineers to try and target soldiers (or armoured vehicles), and the locations they were placed were also for that purpose. However, it's possible for the heuristics to fail, and for a mine to blow up a child, because the weights weren't tuned correctly, or to fail to explode when a soldier steps on it. By your same logic, any AI has no autonomy, because it does X when its code selects X. A guard dog robot attacks will act consistently given identical inputs.
  - Digit-Al 5y ago
    > A landmine is programmed to attack a target of a specific weight when it enters a specific area. You've literally just said it is programmed. If it is programmed, how can it be autonomous?
    - karpierz 5y ago
      Because it kills without consulting the people who put it there. AI is also programmed; it attacks when the score returned by the threat function exceeds a threshold. Unless we're talking about AGI, in which case I misunderstood and assumed we were talking about AI that we can currently make.

paxys 5y ago

Are these even serious discussions? Of course the people running these autonomous systems are responsible. It's like dropping a bomb on someone and saying "hey I didn't do it, blame the bomb!"

hammock 5y ago
No one is "running" an autonomous killer. It makes its own decisions. That's the rub.
- paxys 5y ago
  No it is not making its own decisions. There's always a clear path from programming to execution. The slight variability added by a neural net or whatever else doesn't change that fact. If a serial killer chooses their victims by using a random number generator, the algorithm isn't going to be tried for murder.
  - nefitty 5y ago
    I see No Country for Old Men as partly a study on the conflict between those who believe in free will and those who don't. The villain, Sugar, has shed the illusion of free will, and has thrown himself into the thing he knows motivates him: prejudicial termination of other people who stand in the way of his current clients' goals. This is in contrast to the backdrop of a community reeling with outrage at and fear of his brutality. They see him as an agent of evil, some sort of amoral if not immoral demon, a spawn of the escalating narco wars. Normal people imbue themselves and others with causative powers. This is exemplified by the exchange with Norma Jean. "You don't need to kill me. I ain't got any money." "I'll flip a coin. It's the best I can do. Call it." "No, I ain't doin' that. It ain't the coin that decides. It's you, it's always been you." "I got here the same way the coin did. Call it."
    - paxys 5y ago
      It's only first year philosophy students who will consider this a real ethical conundrum.

ummonk 5y ago

How is an autonomous weapon any different than a guided missile?

olliej 5y ago

1) Mines have had this problem for more than a hundred years, and mines from previous wars are still misidentifying targets to this day 2) Mines have also had this problem 3) Not sure this is even grounded in reality - WW2, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars showed no significant "concern for civilians abroad". WW1&2 showed the concern about life of a countries own soldiers was only important in as much as running out of them meant losing. 4) Seriously? If I make a machine that targets tanks, but I do it badly and it confuses them with school buses, the laws of wars would make me responsible. But that's also not a good argument in general, because the "laws of war" have only ever applied to the defeated.

smnrchrds 5y ago

> Who would be put on trial? If it is done by a powerful country, no one. If it is done by a less powerful country, someone. The same as is the case now.