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."
What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, if your enemy expects your robots to defeat their army, what would be the point of fighting them in the first place? Attacking civilians seems a more logical step (I don't think it's reasonable to demand any country at war not to attack only military targets where there's none that can't be replaced easily).
(and no, I didn't read the whole 117 pages, but after a quick glance I reached the conclusion that whoever wrote the title didn't either, so I'm sharing my thoughts on the title, not the PDF)
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Blame the other guy. (Score:3, Informative)
It's not the world
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, you're probably not driving an American car. Why should they be loyal to you when you aren't loyal to them? Where was all the outrage in the 1980s when Americans abandoned GM (and as a consequence, the Union), in droves? That was when the problem started, not now.
Please, tell me how the decline of the American auto industry began the decline of civil liberties in this country. As far as I can tell, it's tied closely to the ideas of jingoism and mercantilism. Don't buy American, buy the best.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Depends on the robots. What about the people who build and maintain the robots? They can mutiny. Also I'd bet you need some sort of networking to coordinate the robots. Probably wireless. Sure you can set the right failure modes for jamming, but what about signal intrusion? You could make the robots mutiny for you.
But I don't think you really want that, because if the maintenance people can make the robots mutiny, how would you prevent your opponent from making them mutiny? Even if it requires very specialised knowledge, all it takes to get the secret is one converted/planted maintenance person.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on the robots. What about the people who build and maintain the robots? They can mutiny. Also I'd bet you need some sort of networking to coordinate the robots. Probably wireless. Sure you can set the right failure modes for jamming, but what about signal intrusion? You could make the robots mutiny for you.
They can mutiny with what, sticks and stones? Whoever makes the robots will surely put in digital signatures and kill switches so that they can reclaim control from the operators as well as prevent them from being used against themselves. Hell, it's difficult enough to run your own code on a game console and try breaking WPA 128-bit encryption if you can. After the first attempts are quickly rounded up by a special ops division operated by devout fanatics, it won't happen again.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know I'd be a lot less 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.
Hmm, I worry that this could indirectly make attacks on civilians seem legitimate, and turn every war into an insurgency or terrorist scenario. Think about the case with rockets: the soldier is not the rocket, it is the person that launched the rocket. In the same manner, the enemy will not see the robots as "soldiers" but as "smart bullets" -- they will see the technicians who make, build, and commission the robots as being the soldiers they should target. And the caterers and managers and universities
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Think like an evil overlord, man!
Re: (Score:2)
But on the flip side, what's the point of taking over a territory if its entire infrastructure is ruined? How can you provide the civilians (whose lives you spared) the resources needed to repair the infrastructure that you destroyed?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It depends on the goals of the war. If it is a war of conquest, you are right that you want to keep the infrastructure as intact as possible, and enough civilians alive to make it useful.
On the other hand, if the war is over land or resources, an indigenous population may be counterproductive to the goal. Ultimately, you may not want the local people to interfere with the collection
Re: (Score:2)
You can construct a bioengineered organism that eats away at specific wires and circuitry and set back an entire country about 300 years.
Robots aren't going to be made because they're practical, they'll be made because they're scary.
The day a robot army is announced, someone will be selling robot insurance.
Re: (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,
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, I still fail to see why a country which is likely to lose in the robotic war would accept these rules, when it makes a lot more sense to attack the other country's civil population - which in turn might reconsider the whole thing.
Fighting from the sofa is one thing, having bombs exploding nearby is quite different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, I still fail to see why a country which is likely to lose in the robotic war would accept these rules, when it makes a lot more sense to attack the other country's civil population - which in turn might reconsider the whole thing.
Of course, there is an Original Star Trek episode that takes this to the extreme. Two planets have been fighting a war for centuries. However, instead of sending real bombs, their computers collaborate to determine damage done in a "war game"... then a list of casualties
Re: (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 ter
Re: (Score:2)
It'll take forever. One side yelling "IDENTIFY YOURSELVES!" and the other Yelling "You will identify first!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuFuTah4UXw [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we just saw the thought process that bred guerrilla warfare (or terrorism, depending on your point of view). I'll make the logical leap.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely! One's military power is actually the least important of the 3 necessities for war fighting. Much more important are the will to fight a war and the economic resources to wage war.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that you have the tech to make solider death bots, let's also add in the tech to make police bots. You may not be able to properly man customs and police stations with moral upright
Economic Warfare & Gundams (Score:5, Informative)
Robots won't be used simply because a robot doesn't have the discrimination as to who to attack and not to. Despite Orwellian fantasies, the practical upshot is that you would suffer to much friendly fire from such weapons and intense PR backlash. Sorry I don't see it happening.
Telepresence weapons are far more likely, as we have already seen in use.
Japan's Ministry of Agriculture [animenewsnetwork.com] has been denying their work on this. America is full of fully trained pilots for these crafts (Wii, Xbox, Playstation etc).
Suggested reading of Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers and Robert Aspirin's Cold Cash War
Re: (Score:2)
It was not just the United States; it was the Allies. Don't forget that the Japanese did not decide to attack the Soviet Union. This enabled the Soviets to build shit-loads of tanks and hold troops near their Eastern Coast just in case Nippon decided to attack them (the Russians and the Japanese have a long history of mutual animosity).
When Stalin finally decided he had less to fear from the East then what he was facing from Deutschland he had shit-loads of
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For instance:
"Oh yeah the flame thrower robot went crazy and torched the entire village because some guy at Lockheed put a semicolon on the end of a for loop. Oops, we'll have to fix that in the next rev".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Robert E. Lee
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: (Score:2)
>Not necessarily. One of the big reasons the USA lost in Vietnam was that it became politically unacceptable to have body bags coming home.
Almost right.
The US public turned against the Vietnam war when MIDDLE CLASS kids came home in body bags.
This for no better reason is why the US military went "volunteer".
Whenever a war hawk gets
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry there is still the nuclear option.
Seriously, I think the same ethics behind nuclear warfare applies to robotic warfare. Both kill people from a distance, just one of them is slower at it than the other.
As for becoming 'war happy', this is where the theory of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) apply. A country would not want to at
Re: (Score:2)
Unless that country is made up of a significant number of religious folk who believe suicide attacks are condoned as part of their religious beliefs.
You mean what's the point of war? (Score:2)
Obviously a country that can send robots instead of soldiers to fight is way more likely to become 'war happy' - so I'm not sure this robot thing is a good idea at all.
Hold on a minute, we're a tremendously long way away from replacing all, most, or any significant portion of soldiers on the field with robots. Even if it were the case, when the hell did robotic killing machines start coming cheap, and in infinite supply? The ability to fight at war will always depend on the amount of resources, efficiency, and a strong will (not only on the front lines).
Loss of life alone on the battlefield doesn't slow war. Loss of a
Re: (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 Q
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe a script wrote it by detecting some words in the description.
Oh, damn, I didn't think anyone would figure it out. Well since you asked, here's how it really works :
They gotta call one "Bender" (Score:2)
"I am KillBot. Please insert human."
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: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: (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 ressource
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The Arabs in Israel? I thought it was the Arabs outside Israel who were the problem. Hamas causing bother in the Occupied Territories and all that. The Arabs in Israel itself, I haven't heard that they're such a big problem.
Unless of course you have an unusually broad definition of what constitutes Israel?
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
There I fixed it for you.
What if they programmed a war,and nobody logged in (Score:2)
Hell, you can use software from the 1960's. [wikipedia.org]
Re:What if they programmed a war,and nobody logged (Score:3, Interesting)
Or use an alternative 1960's solution. [startrek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why bother going to war in the first place anym (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The robots would often have to subdue humans, of course, but this can be done through non-lethal means. What battlebots gives is the ability to selectively use non-lethal fo
Re:Why bother going to war in the first place anym (Score:2)
Re:Why bother going to war in the first place anym (Score:2)
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...
Um, we'd use the existing way. That would mean that we'd go to war and find out, which side has the better/best
Re:Why bother going to war in the first place anym (Score:2)
Instead of robots... why don't we just have the leaders play a game of checkers.
Can't be that hard (Score:2, Flamebait)
Sounds easy to me.
Rule 1 - Don't abuse prisoners.
There, we already have a machine that outperforms humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think that's the hardest part. Programming a robot to go out and blow shit up isn't such a difficult problem. Programming a robot to recognise when a human adversary is surrendering and to take him prisoner - I don't really know where you'd begin. It's the ED-209 problem: the shooting works fine, the trouble is deciding whether or not you actually ought to do so.
I'd guess what they're
Same problem... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always wondered how HAL or Joshua would interpret:
Rule 1: Kill enemy combatants.
Rule 2: Do not kill or abuse prisoners.
"Take no prisoners, kill everything that moves" would be the most efficient means of satisfying both, especially after friendly-fire ensues.
Political Ethics... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's all well and good... but what of the men who send these robots into battle? What happens to their sense of ethics? Do they begin to believe that their sending troops into pacify a landscape over political differences is a morally superior action? Do they begin to believe that death-by-algorithm is a morally superior way of dealing with irrational people?
There's an endless array of rationalizations man can make for war, and subjugation of those who disagree with them. Taking the cost of friendly human lives out of the equation of war, and replace it with an autoturret enforcing your wishes doesn't make for a 'morally superior' political game. For many, it would make for an endgame in terms of justifying a military police as the default form of political governance.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
War is about sacrifice, cost, and essentially fighting for what you believe in, hold dear, and WILL DIE to preserve. If you remove the *human* cost from war, then where is the cost? What will it mean if no-one dies? Will anyone remember what was fought for? Will they even recognize why it was so important in the first place?
Also, if we have mass armies of r
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds exactly as insightful as I thought it would once you said "Gundam".
War is already based on production and logistics, and has been since the Industrial Revolution.
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: (Score:2)
Too easy to counter (Score:3, Funny)
The biggest question... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The biggest question... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ethical Warbots? (Score:2)
I mean if you program the robots with Asimov's Laws of Robotics [wikipedia.org], then what's the problem.
Robot on Robot violence?
Conscientiously objecting robots?
Or - the horror - formulation of a "Zeroth Law [wikipedia.org]"?
Natalie Portman Robot (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're really saying is... (Score:5, Funny)
I have bad news for the war ethicists (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just a small step (Score:2)
Robots will never be ethical (Score:2)
First rule of roboethics (Score:2)
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.
I, for one, welcome our ethical robot overlords (Score:2, Insightful)
In other news ... (Score:2)
The Matrix [wikipedia.org] is reported as coming on-line shortly to service your needs.
SkyNet [wikipedia.org] remains unavailable for comment.
Great, BotNets of "commandeered" Warbots! (Score:2)
Few Movie Plots come to mind on commandeered war robots, but far too many movie plots focus on robotic AI's wising-up and going after their human overlords. Bladerunner, T1-T3, Runaway, Red Planet, A.I. (to a lesser degree), Lost In Space, etc... Help me out here if you want as I am sure I missed many others.
WMD (Score:2)
War Games, Literally (Score:2)
Ethical Outperformance (Score:2)
These people need to read. A basic background in Asimov would tell you exactly what's going to happen here.
Not having RTFM (Score:2)
If the enemy shoots down a robotic plane, nobody gets killed.
What of unintended deaths? Well, there is "friendly fire" and dead civilians with nonrobotic weapons, too.
How about the ethical implications of war itself? What about the moral imp[lications? After all, "ethics"
Ethical Bravery (Score:2)
Robots will make war more likely. Which is unethical.
"The Bravery of Be [lyricsdepot.com]
Unfair spawn points are super unethical (Score:2, Funny)
International Law (Score:2)
... 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...
Yes, and when you send in the robots to fight insurgents who do not honor the law, the insurgents will win every time. If it comes to all-out-war the first thing that will be tossed is the international rule book.
When two parties engage in battle, the party that does not abide by all laws will inevitably win.
The only winning move is not to play. (Score:2)
The dream of a deathless war... (Score:2)
And God help us if human beings are no longer stopped by death.
That's the part that really worries me about robots in war: by eliminating the need for human beings, you make it almost cer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, the problem that this treatise tries to address is not one confined to the battlefield. It's much broader. The battlefield consequences of AI agents are just that, consequences. They come about as a result as the much larger question of creating an artificial intelligence that has an acceptable level of ethics for use in the real world. I'm assuming here that
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The purpose of this web site is to discuss the social cost of rankism and to develop a grassroots capacity to defend and protect dignity in everyday life. We hope you will join us in planning and building a world without rankism!"
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html [whywork.org]
"Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us wor
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.t0.or.at/bobblack/futuwork.htm [t0.or.at]
"To speak of the "end" of work is to speak in the passive voice as if work is ending itself, and needs only a nudge from progressive policies to wind down without a fuss. But work is not a natural process like combustion or entropy which runs its course of itself. Work is a social practice reproduced by repeated, multitudinous personal choices. Not free choices usually -- "your money or your life" is, after all, a choice -- but nonetheless acts of h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless we get some serious leaps forward in AI, I think our best scenario for combat robots is, coincidentally, the best scenario for combat troops: every person you see is known to be hostile and collateral damage is not an issue.
IIRC, there are already sentry guns [wikipedia.org] with this form of AI guarding the Korean DMZ. And, if somebody wanted to deploy such technology further, I can think of a very effective way to demonstrate their effectiveness [slashdot.org] when showing them off to military leaders.