[LINK] (Real) Robot Warfare

[Roger Clarke]

At 17:22 +1100 5/12/11, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>To my mind, the ethical implications of robots (or more intelligent 
>weapons systems) are pretty much the same as the ethical 
>implications of using any remote weapons delivery system.  ...

The usual distinction made is that robots not only act on their 
environment but may also be designed to use their computations to 
make the equivalent of 'judgement-calls'.

If    <controlled space>
And   <movement>
Then  <acquire target>
       If   <not recognised>
       Shoot target

There will be true positives (in the sense that a human would have 
been expected to make the same decision).

There will be true positives that might not have worked out to well 
for 'the good guys' without the robot's involvement (e.g. the human 
soldier would have moved too slowly, been taken in by a ruse, or been 
killed by the explosion when the booby-trapped target was hit by the 
robot's shot).

There will be false positives (dead not-enemies, variously dead 
friends and 'collateral casualties').

Some would have been dead anyway, because any human soldier would 
have done the same thing.

Others wouldn't have been, in many cases because the human would have 
seen reason to hestitate, i.e. would have over-ridden the dumb rules 
that robots obey, but that soldiers know to obey imperfectly.

As a techno-sceptical technologist, non-conscientious-objector, 
ex-platoon-commander, I really, really hope that people think about 
these things;  and I fear that they don't.

In a recent paper on 'Cyborg Rights', I bemoaned the lack of progress 
in relation to both cyborg matters and robot behaviour:
http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/CyRts-1102.html#PFC

See:
http://www.fidis.net/fileadmin/fidis/deliverables/fidis-wp17-del17.3-rights_for_new_entities_def.pdf
http://www.roboethics.org/ieee_ras_tc/

_______________________________________

>Same as for ...
>
>- Bombing from a great height (been done for the last 100 years or 
>so - with untold millions of deaths and injuries)
>- Launching an air to ground missile or otherwise powered ordinance 
>from a plane (for the last 60 years or so - with millions in 
>casualties)
>- Launching an intercontinental ballistic missile (not yet done ... 
>but the systems are there)
>
>Bottom line: Once you release any highly destructive weapons systems 
>toward a target, you should have already worked out the moral and 
>ethical implications of it. You should have acted to limit 
>'collateral damage'. You should have safeguarded the interests of 
>non-combatants.
>
>Sadly (and they are probably right) those who conduct war maintain 
>that morality often takes a back seat to expediency. Translation: 
>You don't win wars whilst trying to fight them morally, especially 
>if your opponent has no such qualms.
>
>If human history has taught us anything, it's that fundamentally we 
>are vicious unprincipled anthropoids juggling constantly and 
>cunningly for advantage. Ethics is a comparatively recent invention 
>that has yet to catch on. Especially in war. And I find the idea of 
>a Moral War a contradiction in terms anyway.
>
>						Regards,
>---
>On 05/12/2011, at 4:56 PM, jim birch wrote:
>
>>  There's an interesting podcast on robot/drone warfare on the ABC
>>  Philosophers Zone website:
>>
>> 
>>http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/the-morality-of-robo-wars---pw-singer/3701744
>>
>>  "This was one of the themes of a talk delivered at the Festival of
>>  Dangerous Ideas by Peter Warren Singer, Senior Fellow and Director of the
>>  21st Century Defence Initiative at the Brookings Institution, the
>>  Washington think tank. He's one of the world's leading experts on changes
>>  in 21st century warfare. And he's not just a policy wonk. He has a firm
>>  grasp on popular culture and he has advised on a video game series. So
>>  here's PW Singer on robo-wars."
>>
>>  This is a look at the ethical and social implications rather than a techno
>>  oo-ah.  Also available as a transcript, but he's an engaging speaker.  (PW
>>  Singer is not the Australian utilitarian philosopher/friend of pigs.)
>>
>>  Cheers all,
>>
>>  Jim Birch
>>  e: planetjim at gmail.com
>>  m: 04 1243 1243
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Link mailing list
>>  Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>>  http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University