Killer Robots

[Blind groper]

http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/

Humanity has now reached the point where various militaries might build and engage robots designed to kill humans. The worst thing is if they are released with some kind of inadequate programming and an instruction to kill without any further commands. Such devices will be very attractive to a certain kind of warped and twisted military mind. What should be done?

[JimC]

Many humans, including soldiers, have inadequate programming and a twisted desire to kill. The argument has been made that correctly programmed robots will not go on sadistic killing sprees, rape women or make mistakes down to exhaustion, fear or stress. Not really arguing for the robots, just saying that it is possible to see arguments in favour.

[Blind groper]

I admit they are unlikely to rape women.

However, if your soldiers are robots, there is no need for the programmer to apply restraint. They are likely to be the most vicious soldiers ever unleashed.

[Sean Hayden]

It's hard to worry about robots given the current technology available. A squad of killer robots is hardly scarier than a modern tank. -right?

[cronus]

Who knows what robots will do in the future? Capabilities evolve. A world leader pretend might clone his sperm by the bucketload and send out some seriously perverse robots? In the mean time they are likely to remain cumbersome automata with humans in the loop, and some self-destruct feature intended or unintended when the human leaves the loop. Nothing to see here, these are not the droids you want.

[Blind groper]

Maybe

But some of the top minds in the world are concerned, and asking for an international agreement to ban them. When human soldiers are put into the field, there is restraint, if only to protect their own hides. A programmed killer robot, though, would have no restraint, and would march forward killing everything and everyone in sight. And that does not even take into account any error in its programming.

[JimC]

Maybe

But some of the top minds in the world are concerned, and asking for an international agreement to ban them. When human soldiers are put into the field, there is restraint, if only to protect their own hides. A programmed killer robot, though, would have no restraint, and would march forward killing everything and everyone in sight. And that does not even take into account any error in its programming.

I disagree. It would have restraint programmed in, and could well, as long as errors don'r arise, cause less mayhem than emotional human soldiers. Errors are the biggest worry.

[Sean Hayden]

I don't buy it. I just don't see the argument that this particular technology needs restricting because it's potentially more destructive than human soldiers. It's apples to oranges. Instead compare it to a modern tank. You're right to be concerned about both. It's the idea that you're right to be more concerned now because of AI that I think may be more emotional than reasonable. Soldiers more and more support technology, and technology has long been separating soldiers in ever increasing distances from the actual killing.

[klr]

I admit they are unlikely to rape women.

However, if your soldiers are robots, there is no need for the programmer to apply restraint. They are likely to be the most vicious soldiers ever unleashed.

Why bother with technology when religion already does a very good job?

[Sean Hayden]

Maybe

But some of the top minds in the world are concerned, and asking for an international agreement to ban them. When human soldiers are put into the field, there is restraint, if only to protect their own hides. A programmed killer robot, though, would have no restraint, and would march forward killing everything and everyone in sight. And that does not even take into account any error in its programming.

My understanding from the site is that they are concerned about any weapon becoming autonomous, able to select its own targets based on its programming without consulting humans. I wonder whether or not that would represent a huge change from how things are currently done. I bet a good argument could be made that the difference is more illusory than real given the widespread use of technology from the top all the way down to the guy that "pulls the trigger".

[JimC]

Each robot needs a remotely controlled "kill switch", or even a small explosive charge...

"I can't let you do that, Dave"

BLAM!

[mistermack]

I think it's a good thing.
It will appeal to regimes who actually care about the well-being of their soldiers. It will appeal less to people who don't give a toss about theirs. So it's likely to tilt the balance a bit against ruthless dictators.

One problem though, is when they get into the hands of terrorists.
It might make anonymity for terrorists easier to achieve.

There might be some way to make all electronics traceable via smart component labelling, allowing forensics to trace the route of the parts.

[rainbow]

There are more efficient ways of killing than using robots.

Silly concept.