4 ms·

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

by 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.
- hydrogtehd 5y ago
  There’s always criminal negligence. But I wish governments could just ban AI
- salawat 5y ago
  Re ipsa loquitur, may suffice. I mean, look at landmines, the original autonomous killing weapon. There is no ambiguity who is responsible.
  - hammock 5y ago
    If a team of 10 coders worked on a robot that went on a murdering spree, does every coder go to jail?
    - salawat 5y ago
      Personally? Yes. They brought the thing about. If they did not do their due diligence to endure that outcome eouldn't happen, responsibility, when traced out lay with them. If you were hoping to trip me up on "how many layers of seperstion until it's not your fault", you got the wrong guy. Unfortunately, I endure maintaining some of the most banal systems imaginable specifically because if I can reasonably forsee an outcome I'm not comfortable being culpable for, I don't work on it. ...You'll slso be surprised how muchoral quandry there is in many systems we take for granted. It's s curse.
wruza 5y ago
Ah, yes, like the good old “we sent these soldiers there and we will go to prison for their crimes” which never happened. Soldiers: - aren’t naturally occurring phenomena - just fires at anything that moves (though it wasn’t gp’s idea, so you may add “with a rifle” suffix to it) - did not decide to fly to Libya and shoot “hostiles” all by themselves

by imgabe 5y ago

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.

hydrogtehd 5y ago
There’s always criminal negligence. But I wish governments could just ban AI
salawat 5y ago
Re ipsa loquitur, may suffice. I mean, look at landmines, the original autonomous killing weapon. There is no ambiguity who is responsible.
- hammock 5y ago
  If a team of 10 coders worked on a robot that went on a murdering spree, does every coder go to jail?
  - salawat 5y ago
    Personally? Yes. They brought the thing about. If they did not do their due diligence to endure that outcome eouldn't happen, responsibility, when traced out lay with them. If you were hoping to trip me up on "how many layers of seperstion until it's not your fault", you got the wrong guy. Unfortunately, I endure maintaining some of the most banal systems imaginable specifically because if I can reasonably forsee an outcome I'm not comfortable being culpable for, I don't work on it. ...You'll slso be surprised how muchoral quandry there is in many systems we take for granted. It's s curse.

wruza 5y ago

Ah, yes, like the good old “we sent these soldiers there and we will go to prison for their crimes” which never happened. Soldiers: - aren’t naturally occurring phenomena - just fires at anything that moves (though it wasn’t gp’s idea, so you may add “with a rifle” suffix to it) - did not decide to fly to Libya and shoot “hostiles” all by themselves