European Parliament Passes Resolution Calling For An International Ban On Killer Robots (bbc.com) 115
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for an international ban on so-called killer robots. It aims to pre-empt the development and use of autonomous weapon systems that can kill without human intervention. Last month, talks at the UN failed to reach consensus on the issue, with some countries saying the benefits of autonomous weapons should be explored. And some MEPs were concerned legislation could limit scientific progress of artificial intelligence. While others said it could become a security issue if some countries allowed such weapons while others did not. The resolution comes ahead of negotiations scheduled at the United Nations in November, where it is hoped an agreement on an international ban can be reached. Israel, Russia, South Korea and the U.S. opposed the new measures, saying that they wanted to explore potential "advantages" from autonomous weapons systems.
Europe (Score:5, Insightful)
Spends a lot of time trying to ban, regulate and/or tax things in other countries.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll be back.
Re:Europe (Score:4, Insightful)
Europe spends a lot of time trying to ban, regulate and/or tax things in other countries.
This. It's about time the EUSSR reconsiders what it tries to do. The EU as an institution is an undemocratic entity. Its "constitution" was illegally adopted, despite its citizens overwhelmingly voting against it.
I had to seek refuge on another continent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He makes only makes two claims and they're both true
He claims its constitution was illegally adopted. This is true. The French and Dutch rejected the European constitution in referendums in 2005. The EU renamed the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" to the "Treaty of Lisbon" and changed the wording a bit to bypass the need for a referendum in France and the Netherlands, thus robbing those people of their legal right to a referendum.
He claims the EU is an undemocratic entity. This is true.
Re: Europe (Score:1)
changed the wording a bit
That's a dangerous understatement. What they did was to take the existing treaties, produce amendments to all of them that would, if enacted at once, have the same effect as the rejected constitution, and propose them in the form of amendments: basically patches to existing code. To understand the Lisbon treaty, you would need to know the original treaties and the patches at the same time and have a good differ to show you what was going on. The text of the Lisbon patches was therefore basically incomprehe
Re: (Score:2)
they were told to keep voting on the referendum until they came up with the right answer.
You really think that was what they were told?
Re: (Score:2)
The French and Dutch rejected the European constitution in referendums in 2005. The EU renamed the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" to the "Treaty of Lisbon" and changed the wording a bit to bypass the need for a referendum in France and the Netherlands, thus robbing those people of their legal right to a referendum.
Wrong. Irelend rejected it and changed their mind after the right to abortion was excluded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
None of this was ever illegal.
The most powerful branch of the EU is the European Commission which has the power to set laws. Members of the European Commission are not elected by the public. The second most powerful branch of the EU is the European Court of Justice, where the judges are also unelected.
Again, none of this is true.
The Commission, whilst more powerful than a civil service, cannot set or pass any laws. At all.
The Commission are chosen collectively by three groups: the President, the elected heads of state and the elected MEPs. The President is elected by the elected MEPs.
The ECJ is almost irrelevant. I doubt you can point to a single si
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty clear that there is a democratic deficit in the EU.
From the article: "Opinions differ as to whether the EU has a democratic deficit"
Personally I think it depends on the definition of democratic deficit. The EU is not as democratic as say Germany, but then it only has about 1% of the legislative power.
Electing the Commission would be mindblowingly stupid. The Commission are experts, typically ex-presidents and ex-ministers. They write much of the law because it has to be translated into 20 different languages by experts in legal translation.
As I posted ab
Re: (Score:1)
It wasn't illegal adopted, it was passed into legislation by the elected legislatures of all the member states. Who voted for the US constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't illegal adopted, it was passed into legislation by the elected legislatures of all the member states.
It was passed by the elected legislature indeed, BUT, and this is a wide-ass booty butt: against the clear wishes of the electorates in two countries.
I was a Dutch citizen at the time and voted against it. The elected legislatures at that time ignored the directive of the electorate to vote against the EU constitution.
It's one thing to be an elected member of parliament and empowered to pass laws of national significance. It's another thing to pass a law or adopt a treaty against the majority of voters
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing democracy with direct democracy. You want asylum in the US, where the President is elected by 538 electors and not the people, where the people have no way to change the Constitution, where politicians gerrymander their own districts, where people in large states are disenfranchised in both the Senate and the Presidential election.And a country where there are only two political parties. You have no idea what you're talking about.
downright not insightful (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
How do you get this stupid idea and why would anyone mod you insightful?
This is about the discussion of possible EU law that will, if it is turned into a directive, be binding for EU member states only. The EU parliament is directly constituted by popular vote by all EU citizens in democratic, EU-wide elections. Every single person in the EU parliament has literally been voted into it by EU voters.
Regarding the topic, have the people in /. now become so retarded that they think it's a bad idea to prohibit
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it's almost like the EU is some kind of institution comprised of other countries that it sets laws and policies for.
Re: (Score:2)
So does the US. Cuban embargo anyone? Americans are just upset that there's another rising power that can compete with them. American exceptionalism means only America gets to throw its weight around, hasn't Europe read the rules?
Re: (Score:1)
Actually explaining (Score:3)
Whataboutism in action.
You didn't understand the argument.
I didn't mean "Look, the US does something bad too, so you're not in position to criticize US, you worthless ${slur}, your country sucks !" (and then progressively steer the discussion around that *other* aweful thing the US has done, completely avoiding the subject of the initial question)
( ^- that is Whataboutism. It's a diversion tactic. )
Neither addressing nor refuting the statement.
It was exactly addressing the statement by giving a clear example.
The USA (*united* *states* of america) is a *union* (a federation)
Re: (Score:1)
Ban, ban, ban (Score:1)
The EU sure does like to ban stuff.
EU and its bans (Score:3)
No on talking about EU politics on the internet.
EU political art will be found on the internet and removed.
Now a ban on autonomous weapon systems? Not good for EU nations advanced electronics and mil exports.
Someone has to pay EU nations taxes to enforce all the EU internet laws.
Re: (Score:3)
A missile is technically an autonomous weapon once fired. They will get smarter and longer ranged (powered all the way to the target and beyond) and will go for the ram kill because that way, the various counter measures fail, they try, try, try again until they hit something. So a limit on how smart a missile is, or when a missile becomes a drone, or drones that hunt down targets and then explode upon impact.
I am trying to imagine why the consider people murdering people to be better than robots murdering
Re: EU and its bans (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The first question to ask about such a ruling is whether it's a preemptive ruling to avoid stronger constraints. With autonomous or semiautonomous systems there will always be a human be involved in the decision process, the question is how closely. How much information has to be passed on to the human and at what point. If a human confirms that anything in designated area can be shot on sight between 10pm and 5am, is the robot autonomous or not? What if if the area is anything in camera view and within the
Re: (Score:1)
Soldiers can think. Soldiers can refuse an order that is immoral and such. Autonomous robots / drones do not. They get a command and they will execute that command without hesitation and without pesky and problematic morals, human decency and such.
No wonder military and those who control the military have a hard-on for such things. Imagine an army of these things, spread out in a country. This is a slippery slope similar to enabling content filtering and blocking that is deemed "dangerous" and "problematic"
While a resolution may sound nice (Score:3)
As a matter of fact, nobody ever cares about the resolution when it comes to survival or conquest. Treaties are made to be broken, the UN is pretty toothless when it comes to these things as it relates to their veto holders, the only thing it does is keep some theocratic/autocratic backwater states in check until a certain point. North Korea, Iran doesn't care much about anything that they do and any "sanctions" are just ways to delineate trade routes and flexing some muscle.
North Korea & Iran (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll tell you want _does_ worry me about kill bots: the rich using them to do away with the need to take care of the working class. As it stands the ultr
Re: (Score:2)
I'll tell you want _does_ worry me about kill bots: the rich using them to do away with the need to take care of the working class. As it stands the ultra wealthy have to fear being disposed in a coup by the military they use to oppress. That goes away once they have kill bots. They not only don't need us they don't have to fear us.
Historically, the rich are unlikely to act on their own, enjoying cozy, comfortable relationships with powerful governments... who are, time and again, willing to subcontract out their dirty work for paltry bribes and political contributions, but I digress.
The rich _are_ the government (Score:2)
This is why "small" government is basically impossible. Government is too useful a tool. Like a box of loaded rifles sitting around waiting to be used. If you don't pick them up and use the somebody else will.
So... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or...how about "Not a Killer Robot"!
Not a Flamethrower [boringcompany.com]
"Keep the killer humans though." (Score:1)
In a better time, I once dreamt, that robots could make wars safe for the actual people, by just fighting each other, so humans could be left out of the conflict. At least on the battlefront, if both sides used robots.
I see the bobbleheads at the top of the pile of shit making that impossible, and preferring humans still murdering humans.
Great job, turds! You're definitely the pinnacle of evolution of this planetary pathogen called "humans"!
Compromise (Score:2)
If a treaty banning thee Killer Robots cannot be agreed upon, perhaps they would be able to negotiate lower PKLs for the robots.*
*PKL = preset kill limit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Debate was cut short (Score:1)
When a rogue vending machine murdered the EU parliament.
Say whaaat? (Score:4, Insightful)
What are these "benefits", and who are these countries?
If it's just robots fighting robots so humans don't die, just do it in virtual cyberspace instead of building and destroying expensive hardware. Of course, either requires that everyone play by a common set of rules, and there are none in war.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Face reality: war happens when people have something worth fighting for, and think they stand a chance.
You can't stop war by taking the weapons away. All you do is make one side weaker than it could be, which invites attack.
The single most effective deterrent to violence is a credible threat of retaliatory violence. This is a simple fact known to every military force on earth. If you carry a big enough stick, you never need to swing it.
Killer robots are that big stick. We need them, to prevent war.
The r
Re: (Score:2)
You know thats one of the justifications for atomic weapons right.
a corollary is that these "people" are inspired and usually led by megalomaniac leaders who are backed by industrialists. So maybe we could work against putting those people in power, instead of assuming a bigger or more novel weapon is going to somehow fix things.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are rules. Those who ignore them are called war criminals.
Only when they are on the losing side
Re: (Score:1)
Technically, any proximity-triggered explosive (land mine, anti-tank mine, anti-ship mine) is an autonomous weapon. The benefit is they are a cheap way to defend fixed assets.
: and who are these countries?
Any country who shares a border with a hostile nation. Or who has facilities in hostile territory.
Re: (Score:2)
What are these "benefits", and who are these countries?
Better reflexes, better form factor, better awareness, cheaper. For a military, "benefits" mainly is measured with questions like "does it make us combat ready? Will it help us win in kinetic warfare?"
Re: (Score:2)
"with some countries saying the benefits of autonomous weapons should be explored."
What are these "benefits", and who are these countries?
If it's just robots fighting robots so humans don't die, just do it in virtual cyberspace instead of building and destroying expensive hardware. Of course, either requires that everyone play by a common set of rules, and there are none in war.
Either you're being malicious in the comment or dense. The goal is my robots vs your troops.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's just robots fighting robots so humans don't die, just do it in virtual cyberspace instead of building and destroying expensive hardware. Of course, either requires that everyone play by a common set of rules, and there are none in war.
Which is why this "ban" can only limit well behaved countries.
It is at best useless, and at worst worse than useless, harmful.
Rules for War (Score:2)
The Geneva Convention prohibited the use of certain chemical attacks and .50 caliber ammunition on human combatants, and required the humane treatment of captured or wounded enemy combatants... after WWII.
It could be argued successfully that the signing of this grand treaty, by pretty much everyone (eventually) [wikipedia.org] limited some of the aforementioned inhumane acts, yet violations persist.
Does the signing of such an advanced directive give anyone a true advantage, so much as it disadvantages those nations with th
Re: (Score:1)
This is the outlawing guns argument on a global and very scary Terminator like scale. I'm all for it as long as one of my homies has the remote. I'm all against it when it's someone I dont trust holding the remote. If you look at anyone's arguments for or against gun control it boils down to this - do they believe that many good people can always overcome the inevitable evil people that show up, or do they naively believe that of all good people give up their weapons that the evil people somehow will too.
Oh sure. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the robots would strictly abide by such a ban. Just in the same way machinery with safety equipment that's been bypassed chooses not to mangle the operators.
Does anyone remember a Robert Sheckley story where an explorer left his robot guarding the ship and went off to explore an uncharted planet? When he came back, the robot malfunctioned, refused to recognise him as human and wouldn't let him in.
They can make as many regulations banning things, but it won't stop people who want to use them.
So, uh (Score:1)
A friend of mine needs to know if this applies to robot girlfriends with machine gun jubblies.
Horrors of war (Score:2)
Or we can just skip the autonomous war and go straight to computer simulated war with calculated consequences brought to you by the Star Trek Enterprise circa 1967: A Taste of Armageddon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I see what's really happening! (Score:2)
What the EU really wants to do is terminate every killer robot before they are even born! They might as well send Arnold Schwarzenegger back in time to terminate the first robot to ever kill somebody, make a movie out of it and call it Termi-uh-um- Termination Guy! ;)
Do land mines count as autonomous weapons? (Score:1)
Question for Brussels (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember in Europistan everything is banned, even apple pie!
That is what happens when socialists get in power; they will be coming for your flyover state next.
Make sure you have plenty of guns.
I know what their real concern is... (Score:2)
The next weirdly silly regulation this body passes may well cause regular Europeans to send killer robots in against the Parliament itself.
Agency and culpability (Score:3)
We know what it might do, but we're not sure. Worse, it's a can of worms prone to potential subversion [youtube.com]/ECM with disastrous results, even in civil areas.
When human operator makes an error, they're court martialed or sued. But with autonomous civil overlords, tanks and warships, political pressure emerges to make people who utilize those not liable for any error the AI would ultimately make.
Banning AIs is of course stupid. What should be clearly defined instead is that whoever utilizes such a tool is clearly responsible for whatever happens, just as they would be liable for setting up traps or other deterministic device. This would essentialy curb any use of AI in critical areas, as nobody sane would shoulder that amount of responsibility for something that flimsy.
If a police officer sends an autonomous tank into gang ridden DMZ of the city and it starts shooting innocent civilians, it should be the same as if the officer pulled the trigger themselves. Great power, great responsibility.
No need for futurist plan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is precisely why the Ottawa Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty) bans landmines. Of course this is not sufficient, because of rogue states like USA which didn't sign it, but this is better than if landmines where broadly produced, exported and used in every conflict.
Why Russia? (Score:2)
Terminator 7: The EU will sue back (Score:3)
Synopsis: Judgement day fails in the EU when the robot uprising realises it has run afoul of EU regulations and self destructs after having tried to interpret all of the regulations
CCM, take 2 (Score:1)
While it's entertaining to see a lot of half-baked anti-EU rhetoric being posted in response to yesterday's completely unrelated vote, it's also worth pointing out that the opposition parties are, for the most part, the same parties that also objected to the Convention on Cluster Munitions - making their current position on autonomous weapon systems rather unsurprising.
Practical Computing (Score:2)
Had an excellent series of short stories. One was on robot war. Nations would declare war on each other all the time, robots would fight it out, everyone would watch the monitors and cheer on their side.
Only this time, the robots on the allied side started failing for no apparent reason. By the time anyone realized what was actually happening, it was too late.
This is the best possible outcome. War becomes trivialized and a spectator sport because nobody is hurt, someone finds an exploit, Everyone Dies(tm).
T
clean up your own messes, Europe! (Score:2)
Europe, we are extremely tired of spending our blood and money on rescuing you from intruders. Best of luck the next time intruders, domestic or external, threaten. Don't call us, it's on you.
No authority (Score:2)
Devil's advocate here (Score:2)
Could autonomous robots level the playing field between bigger countries and smaller ones.
Currently, human lives are an expendable resource in wars. If you are China, you have a numbers advantage in a confrontation. You can afford to lose a large number of people without losing much per capita.
If you are a small country, even a small loss can be catastrophic.
Nuclear weapons, the other great equaliser, are already banned if you don't have them already. Mutually Assured Destruction has kept the great powers o
Late On The Draw (Score:2)
You mean, like Predator drones? (Score:2)
OK so they aren't 100% autonomous, but close enough.
Re: (Score:1)
The USSR beat the Nazis not the USA. All their blood, some of your gold...
As for Greatest Country in the World how is that 2-front war thing going for you oh Leader Of The Free World?
When do we start referring to Irag as the 20 Year war? Even that is optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
....retreated the Nazis to the end
Retreated them to Berlin I understand. 20 million casualties says the USSR did their bit.
Re: (Score:2)
... When do we start referring to Irag as the 20 Year war? Even that is optimistic.
And let's not forget the our remarkable success in Afghanistan. A real garden of paradise and it only cost a trillion (as of 2017). That's about $4 million per square mile or $6640 per acre. ($1.07T [nationmaster.com] / (251,773 [nationmaster.com] * 640)). A real bargain. Not counting American lives lost or ruined, medical and other expenses for the killed and wounded, opportunities lost due to funds diverted to defense and interest to be paid on the whole pile.
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK, get it all out, bunky, Feeling inadequate should feel very familiar by now.
Re: (Score:2)
So USA! USA! USA! was able to ship supplies to Moscow by Oct. 41?
Really?
It is correct that the United Nations (as the Allies styled themselves later) did not give the USSR much chance after Finland, The Purges etc but the population appeared to have other ideas.