Examining the Ethical Implications of Robots in War 369
Schneier points out an interesting (and long, 117-pages) paper on the ethical implications of robots in war [PDF]. "This report has provided the motivation, philosophy, formalisms, representational requirements, architectural design criteria, recommendations, and test scenarios to design and construct an autonomous robotic system architecture capable of the ethical use of lethal force. These first steps toward that goal are very preliminary and subject to major revision, but at the very least they can be viewed as the beginnings of an ethical robotic warfighter. The primary goal remains to enforce the International Laws of War in the battlefield in a manner that is believed achievable, by creating a class of robots that not only conform to International Law but outperform human soldiers in their ethical capacity."
Why bother going to war in the first place anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
It'd probably take a mountain of treaties and the like, and of course any organization used to judge the battlebot contest would be rife for corruption and whatnot, but it couldn't be that much worse than what happens around the World Cup and the Olympics...
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why bother going to war in the first place anym (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, for those countries willing to abide by a mountain of treaties, the problem's already solved. It's the other countries that are the problem, and they're unlikely to resolve their differences like this anyway.
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
For one thing, what's the point of taking over a territory if there's nobody there to rebuild and to use as a resource?
For another, it looks a -lot- better on the international PR scene if your robots decidedly ignore the civilians and only go after inanimate strategic targets--at least, up until the point that they get attacked. With that sort of programming, you could make the case that you're "seeking to avoid all unnecessary casualties" etc. etc.
Mowing down a civilian populace does sow terror, of course, but keeping the civilians intact (if in the dark and without water) can be argued to be more effective.
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of sending human soldiers into Iraq who are able to go crazy and kill civilians, you could send in a robot that wouldn't have emotional responses. Instead of having VA hospitals filled with injured people, you could have dangerous assignments filled out with robots that are replaceable.
However, there's too much potential for abuse for me to feel comfortable about this. As the gap between the weapons available to citizens and the weapons available to the government widens, the ability for the government to abuse its own citizens grows.
Re:Why bother going to war in the first place anym (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have bad news for the war ethicists (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why bother going to war in the first place anym (Score:2, Insightful)
If you decide to resolve wars using only bots (or even by playing out a virtual video-game like war), my bets are that one of the side will realize it can actually physically attack its opponent, while the opposing side is arguing that the random number generator used is unfair.
Add to that that what you want are generally the natural ressources of the country you're invading and that people are expendable, I'd guess that robots would be programmed to leave vital assets intact and wipe out the humans, instead of doing it the other way around. After all, you can run an oil refinery with a few hundred people, and it costs much more to rebuild it after the war instead of just flying in a few workers to operate it.
There is nothing civilized about war and hoping for fair behaviour on either side is hopelessly optimistic.
I have some good news and some bad news. (Score:4, Insightful)
The real trick, I suspect, will not be in the design of the robots; but in the design of the information gathering, storage, analysis, and release process that will enforce compliance with ethical rules by the robot's operators. As the robots will need a strong authentication system, in order to prevent their being hijacked or otherwise misused, the technical basis for a strong system of logging and accountability will come practically for free. Fair amounts of direct sensor data from robots in the field will probably be available as well. From the perspective of quantity and quality of information, a robot army will be the most accountable one in history. No verbal orders that nobody seems to remember, the ability to look through the sensors of the combatants in the field without reliance on human memory, and so on. Unfortunately, this vast collection of data will be much, much easier to control than has historically been the case. The robots aren't going to leak to the press, confess to their shrink, send photos home, or anything else.
It will all come down to governance. We will need a way for the data to be audited rigorously by people who will actually have the power and the motivation to act on what they find without revealing so much so soon that we destroy the robots' strategic effectiveness. We can't just dump the whole lot on youtube; but we all know what sorts of things happen behind the blank wall of "national security" even when there are humans who might talk. Robots will not, ever, talk; but they will provide the best data in history if we can handle it correctly.
Re:What's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess what. We've already reached the point you fear (at least from the point of view of most of the western world and the larger military powers). Robots augment armed forces that already have overwhelming force. They're not going to be creating a military where there was none.
To use a contemporary example, Iran isn't going to pump out a bunch of robots and all of the sudden have an armed forces capable of withstanding the US's in a conventional war. As per the logical process in the quotes though, you don't necessarily have to destroy the other side's army (or robots).
I, for one, welcome our ethical robot overlords (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why bother going to war in the first place anym (Score:2, Insightful)
And talk it through? Since when did Americans start to respect any treaty that didn't put them in a favorable view? Building a robot army is just the next logical step in alienating the rest of the world.
Re:Political Ethics... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. War is about taking orders, fighting for what someone else believes in, and then getting blown up. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori and all that shite. That poetic nonsense you spout there is just part of the cultural lie that sells war as romantic and idealistic to every generation of young fools who sign up and go out there to put their lives on the line for the sake of the millionaires. You got it from anime, too... how sad is that? You're buying the same line of bullshit that inspired the damn kamikaze! Clue: Bushido is a lie. Chivalry is a lie. War is about nothing but power.
Also, if we have mass armies of robots, won't the victor simply be the one with the most natural resources (metal, power, etc) to waste? (Better weapons technology aside)
Yes. How does that differ from the present situation?
Re:What's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Robert E. Lee
Re:What's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
One worker might talk about it and wind up turned in (because he's a terrorist, obviously) and those that betray will be rewarded with coupons to McDonalds.
Re:What's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond that it's just a question of economics. It costs a certain amount to train a soldier. Since the first world war, sending untrained recruits out to fight hasn't been economically viable since they get killed too quickly (often while carrying expensive equipment). A mass-produced robot might be cheaper, assuming the support costs aren't too great. If it isn't then the only reason for using one would be political.
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
What would be interesting though would be robots as a shell to the humans they represent. Think "Quake" with a real robot proxy in the real world. Soldiers with hats on showing wide angle camera views of their area and a quake-like interface that would allow them to attack or assist as needed. Limited automation, but case-hardened soldiers being run by trained humans would present a powerful adversary. Heck, every army recruit would already know 80% of how to operate one on signing day if the UI was good.
I know I'd be a lot upset with "Four robots were blown up by a roadside bomb today. They should be operational again by tomorrow." than to see more soldiers die.
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fighting from the sofa is one thing, having bombs exploding nearby is quite different.
Um, cause they may be terrified that the robots would switch from ethical mode to genocide on populations found to be training terrorists or recently conquered populations found to be terrorists need to have extreme measures taken on them. If you are dealing with an enemy that has vast hordes of seemingly ethical robots, make sure you play by their rules otherwise they can define your entire population as unethical terrorists that need to be removed/eliminated.
You seal off the borders, kill off the entire population including all reporters, send in the cleaning robots to tidy up the place, and then you send in the real estate robots to sell all these new homes to your citizens at low prices. If the housing is subpar, you may have to knock it all down, have robot builders come in and build new homes and then start the re population process. It may seem evil and unethical to your enemies, but your citizens would like/love the government that was providing all these cheap new resources.
Re:Why bother going to war in the first place anym (Score:3, Insightful)
There I fixed it for you.
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not robot-specific — it is true about any superiority in weapons...
Again, nothing robot-specific here either. Unable to take on our military directly, Al Qaeda has already taken to attacking our civilians. Likewise, unable (since 1970ies) to take on Israeli military directly, various assholes have been attacking Israeli civilians for decades.
One side having better weapons makes the other side look for an alternative edge. Whether that superiority is achieved via robotics or any other technological advance is irrelevant.
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
I pay taxes, I vote. (Score:2, Insightful)
I pay taxes, I vote. That should be enough. Buying American is just icing on the cake. In a capitalist system, I'm going to buy what I deem to be the better value, because...that's part of capitalism. I'm not going to restrain myself to products because they were built in a certain country - that sounds like some kind of twisted form of economic welfare if you ask me.
And who said abandoning unions is bad? Depends who you ask, I guess. Me? I think the unions are holding GM back.