User Tools

Site Tools


un_convention_on_ccw_and_all_states_shall_prohibit_developing_or_deploying_lethal_autonomous_weapons

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
un_convention_on_ccw_and_all_states_shall_prohibit_developing_or_deploying_lethal_autonomous_weapons [2018/11/30 01:22]
192.252.166.237
un_convention_on_ccw_and_all_states_shall_prohibit_developing_or_deploying_lethal_autonomous_weapons [2019/06/20 05:40]
99.238.240.127
Line 11: Line 11:
 == LAWs technology could offer better military performance and thus enhance mission effectiveness == == LAWs technology could offer better military performance and thus enhance mission effectiveness ==
   * LAWs, being a product of robotics, could be faster, stronger, and have better endurance than human soldiers in every perspective,​ not being subject to fatigue. ​   * LAWs, being a product of robotics, could be faster, stronger, and have better endurance than human soldiers in every perspective,​ not being subject to fatigue. ​
-  * Better environmental awareness ​- Robotic ​sensors could provide better battlefield observation. +  * Better environmental awareness; robotic ​sensors could provide better battlefield observation. 
-  * Higher and longer range precision ​Also given by advanced sensor technology, LAWs could have better target precision and from a longer range. +  * Higher and longer range precisionAlsogiven advanced sensor technology, LAWs could have better target precision and a longer range. 
-  * Better responsiveness ​LAWs will not be subject to the uncertainty in situational awareness that participants in military operations may go through because of communication problems or sight or vision obstructions (fog of war). Through ​interconnected system of multiple sensors and intelligence sources, LAWs could have the capacity to update instantly more information than humans and faster, which would enable better awareness of their surroundings.  +  * Better responsivenessLAWs will not be subject to the uncertainty in situational awareness that participants in military operations may go through because of communication problems or sight or vision obstructions (fog of war). Through ​an interconnected system of multiple sensors and intelligence sources, LAWs could have the capacity to update instantly more information than humans and faster, which would enable better awareness of their surroundings.  
-  * Emotionless advantage ​LAWs would not have emotions that cloud their judgement.  +  * Emotionless advantageLAWs would not have emotions that cloud their judgement.  
-  * Self sacrificing nature ​LAWs would not have a self-preservation tendency and thus could be used in self sacrificing manners if needed and appropriate. ​+  * Self sacrificing natureLAWs would not have a self-preservation tendency and thus could be used in self sacrificing manners if needed and appropriate. ​
 == Ethical superiority == == Ethical superiority ==
   * Because LAWs could be programmed to follow the Laws of Armed Conflict, and given their robotic nature, they would not be subject to human failings, which will permit them to comply more rigorously with International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically following in a highly precise matter the principles of distinction,​ proportionality,​ and military necessity.   * Because LAWs could be programmed to follow the Laws of Armed Conflict, and given their robotic nature, they would not be subject to human failings, which will permit them to comply more rigorously with International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically following in a highly precise matter the principles of distinction,​ proportionality,​ and military necessity.
 == Casualty reduction == == Casualty reduction ==
-  * LAWs will substitute human soldiers and as consequence reduce own soldier casualties.  +  * LAWs will substitute ​for human soldiers and as consequence reduce own-soldier casualties.  
-  * LAWs’ better target precision capabilities could reduce collateral ​damages ​such as civilian casualties or civilian property ​damages. LAWs, being a product of robotics, could be faster, stronger, and have better endurance than human soldiers in every perspective,​ not being subject to fatigue. ​+  * LAWs’ better target precision capabilities could reduce collateral ​damage, ​such as civilian casualties or civilian property ​damage. LAWs, being a product of robotics, could be faster, stronger, and have better endurance than human soldiers in every perspective,​ not being subject to fatigue. ​
  
 The following arguments have been offered against the development of LAWs:  The following arguments have been offered against the development of LAWs: 
Line 31: Line 31:
   * The complexity of the interrelation of the principles of distinction,​ proportionality,​ and military necessity, and their required value judgements, makes the Laws of Armed Conflict unprogrammable. Thus, LAWs would not be able to comply with IHL.   * The complexity of the interrelation of the principles of distinction,​ proportionality,​ and military necessity, and their required value judgements, makes the Laws of Armed Conflict unprogrammable. Thus, LAWs would not be able to comply with IHL.
 == Unpredictability == == Unpredictability ==
-  * Because LAWs could be designed with machine learning algorithms their actuation will be unpredictable and thus commanders would lose control of outcomes. ​+  * Because LAWs could be designed with machine learning algorithmstheir actuation will be unpredictable and thus commanders would lose control of outcomes. ​
 == Algorithmic bias == == Algorithmic bias ==
-  * LAWs programs could be subject to human bias inserted in the algorithmic design process which would open the possibility of unethical ​discriminations ​and human treatment. ​+  * LAWs programs could be subject to human bias inserted in the algorithmic design process which would open the possibility of unethical ​discrimination ​and inhumane ​treatment. ​
 == Accountability == == Accountability ==
   * It is uncertain how accountability could be addressed with LAWs because of the number of humans associated with the use or production of these weapons (operators, commanders, programmers,​ manufacturers,​ etc.). Neither criminal law nor civil law guarantees adequate accountability for individuals directly or indirectly involved in the use of autonomous weapons systems. ​   * It is uncertain how accountability could be addressed with LAWs because of the number of humans associated with the use or production of these weapons (operators, commanders, programmers,​ manufacturers,​ etc.). Neither criminal law nor civil law guarantees adequate accountability for individuals directly or indirectly involved in the use of autonomous weapons systems. ​
 == Totalitarian possibilities == == Totalitarian possibilities ==
-  * LAWs will lack the human capacity of acting against orders seemed unethical or immoral to them and thus could more easily serve totalitarian purposes on the hands of commanders. ​+  * LAWs will lack the human capacity of acting against orders ​that seemed unethical or immoral to them and thus could more easily serve totalitarian purposes on the hands of commanders. ​
 == Lack of constraints == == Lack of constraints ==
-  * LAWs will not be subject to human constraints given by emotions ​like empathy and compassion which work as an important check for humans in the killing of civilians. ​+  * LAWs will not be subject to human constraints given by emotionsempathyand compassionwhich work as an important check for humans in the killing of civilians. ​
 == Force Multiplier == == Force Multiplier ==
-  * Because LAWs will distant ​humans from the risks and tragedies of war by enabling ​remote ​driven tactics, they will make the political decision of going to war easier and thus function as a force multiplier, promoting more conflict rather than less. This will lead to a war paradigm shift where remoteness plays the center ​role. +  * Because LAWs will distance ​humans from the risks and tragedies of war by enabling ​remotely ​driven tactics, they will make the political decision of going to war easier and thus function as a force multiplier, promoting more conflict rather than less. This will lead to a war paradigm shift where remoteness plays the central ​role. 
 == Arms Race == == Arms Race ==
   * The development of LAWs would initiate a global arms race that will lead to increased international instability.   * The development of LAWs would initiate a global arms race that will lead to increased international instability.
Line 47: Line 47:
 ==== II. SOLUTION ==== ==== II. SOLUTION ====
  
-The solution is an international preemptive ban on the development of lethal autonomous weapons adopted by the High Contracting Parties of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. This ban would build on other humanitarian disarmament treaties and the preemptive ban of blinding laser weapons by the The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.+The solution is an international preemptive ban on the development of lethal autonomous weapons adopted by the High Contracting Parties of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.This ban would build on other humanitarian disarmament treaties and the preemptive ban of blinding laser weapons by the The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
  
-The adoption of this solution depends in its entirety on the willingness of the parties to agree and adopt the ban. As of today, the call for the lethal autonomous weapons ban is being supported by the following 25 states: ​+The adoption of this solution depends in its entirety on the willingness of the parties to agree and adopt the ban.As of today, the call for the lethal autonomous weapons ban is being supported by the following 25 states: ​
  
 Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Cuba, Djibouti Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, Holy See, Iraq, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, State of Palestine, Uganda, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. China has expressed support on a ban on the use of LAWs, not on their development. ​ Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Cuba, Djibouti Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, Holy See, Iraq, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, State of Palestine, Uganda, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. China has expressed support on a ban on the use of LAWs, not on their development. ​
  
-There has been numerous citizen expressions from the technology industry in favor of the ban on the development of LAWs. Over 1,000 experts in robotics and artificial intelligence have signed two letters ​of the Future of Life Institute supporting the ban (Autonomous Weapons: An [[https://​futureoflife.org/​open-letter-autonomous-weapons/​|Open Letter]]) from AI & robotics Researchers;​ Lethal Autonomous Weapons [[https://​futureoflife.org/​lethal-autonomous-weapons-pledge/?​cn-reloaded=1|Pledge]]. Signatories of these letters include Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Noam Chomsky, [[https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Skype|Skype]] co-founder Jaan Tallinn, Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis, and others. ​+There have been numerous citizen expressions from the technology industry in favor of the ban on the development of LAWs. Over 1,000 experts in robotics and artificial intelligence have signed two letters ​from the Future of Life Institute supporting the ban (Autonomous Weapons: An [[https://​futureoflife.org/​open-letter-autonomous-weapons/​|Open Letter]]) from AI & robotics Researchers;​ Lethal Autonomous Weapons [[https://​futureoflife.org/​lethal-autonomous-weapons-pledge/?​cn-reloaded=1|Pledge]]. Signatories of these letters include Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Noam Chomsky, [[https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Skype|Skype]] co-founder Jaan Tallinn, Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis, and others. ​
  
-Seventy religious leaders, representatives and faith based organisations have signed an [[https://​www.paxforpeace.nl/​stay-informed/​news/​religious-leaders-call-for-a-ban-on-killer-robots/​|interreligious declaration]], ​an initiative of PAX in cooperation with Pax Christi International,​ calling on states to work towards a global ban on fully autonomous weapons. ​+Seventy religious leaders, representatives and faith based organisations have signed an [[https://​www.paxforpeace.nl/​stay-informed/​news/​religious-leaders-call-for-a-ban-on-killer-robots/​|interreligious declaration]],​ initiative of PAX in cooperation with Pax Christi International,​ calling on states to work towards a global ban on fully autonomous weapons. ​
  
 More than 20 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates have endorsed a [[http://​nobelwomensinitiative.org/​2014/​05/​nobel-peace-laureates-call-for-preemptive-ban-on-killer-robots/​|joint statement]] calling for a ban on weapons that would be able to select and attack targets without meaningful human control. ​ More than 20 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates have endorsed a [[http://​nobelwomensinitiative.org/​2014/​05/​nobel-peace-laureates-call-for-preemptive-ban-on-killer-robots/​|joint statement]] calling for a ban on weapons that would be able to select and attack targets without meaningful human control. ​
  
-The United States and Russia have expressed that an international ban on lethal autonomous weapons would be premature ​and instead ​encourage further analysis of the possible benefits this new technology could offer. The Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom [[https://​www.theguardian.com/​politics/​2015/​apr/​13/​uk-opposes-international-ban-on-developing-killer-robots|expressed its opposition]] to the international ban since it states that international humanitarian law already addresses the issue. ​+The United States and Russia have expressed ​the view that an international ban on lethal autonomous weapons would be premature. Instead, they encourage further analysis of the possible benefits this new technology could offer. The Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom [[https://​www.theguardian.com/​politics/​2015/​apr/​13/​uk-opposes-international-ban-on-developing-killer-robots|expressed its opposition]] to the international ban since it states that international humanitarian law already addresses the issue. ​
  
-LAWs have not been fully developed yet. In fact, much of its proposed technology still does not exist. This positions the international community in a advantage ​point where we can actually prevent, as we did with laser blinding weapons, a humanitarian catastrophe and its consequences altogether.+LAWs have not been fully developed yet. In fact, much of its proposed technology still does not exist. This positions the international community in an advantageous ​point where we can actually prevent, as we did with laser blinding weapons, a humanitarian catastrophe and its consequences altogether.
  
 ==== Note ==== ==== Note ====
  
-In the robot context, “actuate” refers to the acts or operations of a robot caused by its programming. The terminology is rooted in Ryan Calo’s sense-think-act paradigm introduced by robots:+In the robot context, “actuate” refers to the acts or operations of a robot caused by its programming.The terminology is rooted in Ryan Calo’s sense-think-act paradigmintroduced by robots:
  
-“The utility here of the so-called sense-think-act paradigm lies in distinguishing robots from other technologies. [...] The idea of a robot or robotic system is that the technology combines all three. [...] My working assumption is that a system acts upon its environment to the extent it changes that environment directly. A technology does not act, and hence is not a robot, merely ​by providing information in an intelligible format. It must be in some way. A robot in the strongest, fullest sense of the term exists in the world as a corporeal object with the capacity to exert itself physically.[...] [R]obots are best thought of as artificial objects or systems that sense, process, and act upon the world to at least some degree.”+“The utility here of the so-called sense-think-act paradigm lies in distinguishing robots from other technologies. [...] The idea of a robot or robotic system is that the technology combines all three. [...] My working assumption is that a system acts upon its environment to the extent it changes that environment directly.A technology does not act, and hence is not a robot by merely ​providing information in an intelligible format. It must be in some way. A robot in the strongest, fullest sense of the term exists in the world as a corporeal object with the capacity to exert itself physically.[...] [R]obots are best thought of as artificial objects or systems that sense, process, and act upon the world to at least some degree.”
  
 Ryan Calo, “Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw”,​ 102 Cali L Rev 2015, p.529-32 [[http://​papers.ssrn.com/​sol3/​papers.cfm?​abstract_id=2402972]] Ryan Calo, “Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw”,​ 102 Cali L Rev 2015, p.529-32 [[http://​papers.ssrn.com/​sol3/​papers.cfm?​abstract_id=2402972]]
un_convention_on_ccw_and_all_states_shall_prohibit_developing_or_deploying_lethal_autonomous_weapons.txt · Last modified: 2019/06/20 05:41 by 99.238.240.127