5 ms·

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.
    - nefitty 5y ago
      Or people who still believe in free will.
- hammock 5y ago
  >the algorithm isn't going to be tried for murder. Who, then?
imgabe 5y ago
Someone built it and deployed it. These aren’t naturally occurring phenomena. If someone sets up an automated turret in a field that just fires at anything that moves, the person who put it there is responsible, not the turret. Drones did not decide to fly to Libya and shoot “hostiles” all by themselves.
- nefitty 5y ago
  So if one corporation, let's say Skynet, built an autonomous killer robot and sold it to any interested government, who would be responsible? Is Skynet suddenly responsible for the outcome of every situation the robots are placed in? What about the secondhand robot market? Are the governments who own the bots responsible? Are the governments responsible for errors? If your car's brakes get stuck and you hurt someone, isn't the manufacturer responsible? If a gun you own misfires due to a defect, wouldn't the manufacturer be responsible? To me it seems that autonomous warbots are going to put the world in a tighter MAD bind. If X has killer robots, Y better have killer robots or strongly align themselves with X. To break this down further in a sort of visual way: - Agents involved in a bot-involved death -- Operator -- Owner -- Manufacturer -- Programmer/Engineer -- Government representatives -- Victim -- Represented populace What would make sense to me is that the represented pressure their representatives to regulate manufacturers in terms of sales and safety controls. If a sale is found to be by regulation then the manufacturer should be less liable, presuming their programmers and engineers followed safety regulations. If the sale is valid, then the operator should be responsible, otherwise the manufacturer is responsible as well. In the case of malfunction, the manufacturer should be held responsible along with individual engineers and programmers. If the malfunction was due to a gap in regulatory strictures, then the government responsible for the regulation, along with the manufacturer, should be held responsible. See? Easy.
- hammock 5y ago
  To hold a soldier/operator criminally responsible for deploying an autonomous weapon that commits war crimes, prosecutors would need to prove both actus reus and mens rea, that is, a guilty act and a guilty mind. This would be difficult as a matter of law, and possibly unjust as a matter of morality, given that autonomous weapons are inherently unpredictable. The distance separating the soldier from the independent decisions made by autonomous weapons in rapidly evolving environments may be simply too great.
smoldesu 5y ago
Someone is responsible for giving it executive function. The person culpable should be held accountable for the actions they let it make under that circumstance. In the case of AI models, training data should be subpoenaed and cross-referenced with the curators of the data or whoever oversaw the training of the model.
Zigurd 5y ago
Landmines are autonomous weapons, just much slower than a computerized missile. If you think landmines should be banned, think the same regarding "intelligent" autonomous weapons.
olliej 5y ago
To be clear this is the argument you appear to be making: If I get a gun, and I shoot it without aiming, and then it hits someone, it doesn't matter that I wasn't aiming, it's my fault. If I try to making it not my fault by putting the gun in a vice, with a mechanism that randomly pulls the trigger, and then it hits someone, it's my fault. If I put that vice on a drone, and have the drone fly around randomly, still shooting randomly, and it hits someone, it's my fault. If I make that drone start following a specific person, firing randomly, and it hits someone, it's my fault. If I make that drone start following a specific person, shooting specifically at that person, it's my fault. If that drone accidentally hits someone other than the target it is now ... not my fault? If that drone gets confused and is following the wrong person, and hits that person it is now ... also not my fault?
pessimizer 5y ago
I could say the same thing if I sprayed anthrax on someone.

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.
  - nefitty 5y ago
    Or people who still believe in free will.
hammock 5y ago
>the algorithm isn't going to be tried for murder. Who, then?

imgabe 5y ago

Someone built it and deployed it. These aren’t naturally occurring phenomena. If someone sets up an automated turret in a field that just fires at anything that moves, the person who put it there is responsible, not the turret. Drones did not decide to fly to Libya and shoot “hostiles” all by themselves.

nefitty 5y ago
So if one corporation, let's say Skynet, built an autonomous killer robot and sold it to any interested government, who would be responsible? Is Skynet suddenly responsible for the outcome of every situation the robots are placed in? What about the secondhand robot market? Are the governments who own the bots responsible? Are the governments responsible for errors? If your car's brakes get stuck and you hurt someone, isn't the manufacturer responsible? If a gun you own misfires due to a defect, wouldn't the manufacturer be responsible? To me it seems that autonomous warbots are going to put the world in a tighter MAD bind. If X has killer robots, Y better have killer robots or strongly align themselves with X. To break this down further in a sort of visual way: - Agents involved in a bot-involved death -- Operator -- Owner -- Manufacturer -- Programmer/Engineer -- Government representatives -- Victim -- Represented populace What would make sense to me is that the represented pressure their representatives to regulate manufacturers in terms of sales and safety controls. If a sale is found to be by regulation then the manufacturer should be less liable, presuming their programmers and engineers followed safety regulations. If the sale is valid, then the operator should be responsible, otherwise the manufacturer is responsible as well. In the case of malfunction, the manufacturer should be held responsible along with individual engineers and programmers. If the malfunction was due to a gap in regulatory strictures, then the government responsible for the regulation, along with the manufacturer, should be held responsible. See? Easy.
hammock 5y ago
To hold a soldier/operator criminally responsible for deploying an autonomous weapon that commits war crimes, prosecutors would need to prove both actus reus and mens rea, that is, a guilty act and a guilty mind. This would be difficult as a matter of law, and possibly unjust as a matter of morality, given that autonomous weapons are inherently unpredictable. The distance separating the soldier from the independent decisions made by autonomous weapons in rapidly evolving environments may be simply too great.

smoldesu 5y ago

Someone is responsible for giving it executive function. The person culpable should be held accountable for the actions they let it make under that circumstance. In the case of AI models, training data should be subpoenaed and cross-referenced with the curators of the data or whoever oversaw the training of the model.

Zigurd 5y ago

Landmines are autonomous weapons, just much slower than a computerized missile. If you think landmines should be banned, think the same regarding "intelligent" autonomous weapons.

olliej 5y ago

To be clear this is the argument you appear to be making: If I get a gun, and I shoot it without aiming, and then it hits someone, it doesn't matter that I wasn't aiming, it's my fault. If I try to making it not my fault by putting the gun in a vice, with a mechanism that randomly pulls the trigger, and then it hits someone, it's my fault. If I put that vice on a drone, and have the drone fly around randomly, still shooting randomly, and it hits someone, it's my fault. If I make that drone start following a specific person, firing randomly, and it hits someone, it's my fault. If I make that drone start following a specific person, shooting specifically at that person, it's my fault. If that drone accidentally hits someone other than the target it is now ... not my fault? If that drone gets confused and is following the wrong person, and hits that person it is now ... also not my fault?

pessimizer 5y ago

I could say the same thing if I sprayed anthrax on someone.