2 ms·
To hold a soldier/operator criminally responsible for deploying an autonomous weapon that commits war crimes, prosecutors would need to prove both actus reus an
by 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 agoThere’s always criminal negligence. But I wish governments could just ban AI
- salawat 5y agoRe ipsa loquitur, may suffice. I mean, look at landmines, the original autonomous killing weapon. There is no ambiguity who is responsible.
- hammock 5y agoIf a team of 10 coders worked on a robot that went on a murdering spree, does every coder go to jail?
- salawat 5y agoPersonally? 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.