Could We Trust Killer Robots?

[W.G.Ewald]

Could We Trust an Army of Killer Robots? - WSJ.com

In the year 2015, somewhere over the tribal territories of Pakistan, an American MQ-9 Reaper drone patrols a complex "kill zone"—an area of terrorist activity in which large numbers of civilians are also present. But on this mission, the drone isn't piloted from afar. It's on its own.

The aircraft moves closer to gather information about a potential target. Infrared cameras, heat sensors and other tools of surveillance determine whether the target is indeed a militant, examining, for instance, whether he seems ready to attack. The drone's computer system ranks the suspect on a scale from -1 (a noncombatant) to +1 (a confirmed combatant). Having determined that no children or other civilians are in the vicinity, and that everything else is in order, it chooses a weapon and fires. It then assesses the damage and either fires again or, if the enemy is dead, continues its patrol.

 

[ashicjose]

Is this true that, there is no man behind this drone to decide whether it to fire or not ?.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Is this true that, there is no man behind this drone to decide whether it to fire or not ?.

That is specifically stated in the article.

Arkin and his colleagues have been working to develop features for a new generation of smart weapons: robot drones that are capable not only of carrying out pinpoint attacks but of deciding on their own when it is permissible to fire on a particular target.

 

[ashicjose]

Think of a sky where drones patrolling and some waiting on the tarmac to intercept the enemy and what will be the roll of humans in that world ?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Think of a sky where drones patrolling and some waiting on the tarmac to intercept the enemy and what will be the roll of humans in that world ?

To be targets.

The Terminator (1984) - IMDb

 

[Razor]

Could We Trust an Army of Killer Robots? - WSJ.com

But on this mission, the drone isn't piloted from afar. It's on its own.

What advantage is achieved by allowing the drone to be autonomous ?
Can the same thing not be done by a soldier in control of the drone ?
Don't tell me, it's to save money by reducing soldiers on pay roll.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

What advantage is achieved by allowing the drone to be autonomous ?
Can the same thing not be done by a soldier in control of the drone ?
Don't tell me, it's to save money by reducing soldiers on pay roll.

The man proposing such a system gives this reason as the benefit:

Dr. Arkin thinks ... his work has been motivated in large part by his concerns about the failures of human decision-makers in the heat of battle, especially in attacking targets that aren't a threat.

 

[Razor]

The man proposing such a system gives this reason as the benefit:

Dr. Arkin thinks so. In fact, his work has been motivated in large part by his concerns about the failures of human decision-makers in the heat of battle, especially in attacking targets that aren't a threat

I think humans are better decision makers than any machine and will be for the foreseeable future. Humans have intelligence, machines run calculations. Besides, there is minimal 'heat of battle' as the controllers are probably in far-away (air conditioned) rooms making their decisions and confirming with higher ups.

Probably the only advantage is the speed of the machine, and that is why I think the future of battle will involve fusing of man and machine with man in control.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

I think you are right. There is a link in the 7th paragraph of the article to a video by Dr. Arkin. It may show some more of his thinking. He has been funded for six years by the U.S. Army Research Office, and he must want funding to continue. Whether the project results in an operational system remains to be seen.

 

[Razor]

I just read an article on UCAV's and noted that the only disadvantage of having a controller (man in the loop), is as I mentioned earlier, slower response time.

Anyways, according to international Laws of War, there are certain restrictions on using autonomous systems for targeted killings. Check this out.

Most countries are bound to international laws of war (such as the Geneva Conventions). These laws govern the conduct of participants in war (and also defines combatants). These laws place a burden upon participants to limit collateral damage through proper identification of targets and distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The use of completely autonomous weapon systems is problematic, however, because of the difficulty in assigning accountability to a person. Therefore, current designs still incorporate an element of human control (a "man in the loop") – meaning that a ground controller must authorize weapons release.

Source : Unmanned combat air vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia