Pentagon hires British scientist to help build robot
soldiers that 'won't commit war crimes'
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 7:36AM GMT 01 Dec 2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3536943/Pentagon-hires-British-scientist-to-help-build-robot-soldiers-that-wont-commit-war-crimes.html
The US Army and Navy have both hired experts in the ethics of
building machines to prevent the creation of an amoral
Terminator-style killing machine that murders indiscriminately.
By 2010 the US will have invested $4 billion in a research
programme into "autonomous systems", the military jargon for
robots, on the basis that they would not succumb to fear or the
desire for vengeance that afflicts frontline soldiers.
A British robotics expert has been recruited by the US Navy to
advise them on building robots that do not violate the Geneva
Conventions.
Colin Allen, a scientific philosopher at Indiana University's
has just published a book summarising his views entitled Moral
Machines: Teaching Robots Right From Wrong.
He told The Daily Telegraph: "The question they want
answered is whether we can build automated weapons that would
conform to the laws of war. Can we use ethical theory to help
design these machines?"
Pentagon chiefs are concerned by studies of combat stress in
Iraq that show high proportions of frontline troops supporting
torture and retribution against enemy combatants.
Ronald Arkin, a computer scientist at Georgia Tech university,
who is working on software for the US Army has written a report
which concludes robots, while not "perfectly ethical in the
battlefield" can "perform more ethically than human soldiers."
He says that robots "do not need to protect themselves" and
"they can be designed without emotions that cloud their judgment or
result in anger and frustration with ongoing battlefield
events".
Airborne drones are already used in Iraq and Afghanistan to
launch air strikes against militant targets and robotic vehicles
are used to disable roadside bombs and other improvised explosive
devices.
Last month the US Army took delivery of a new robot built by an
American subsidiary of the British defence company QinetiQ, which
can fire everything from bean bags and pepper spray to
high-explosive grenades and a 7.62mm machine gun.
But this generation of robots are all remotely operated by
humans. Researchers are now working on "soldier bots" which would
be able to identify targets, weapons and distinguish between enemy
forces like tanks or armed men and soft targets like ambulances or
civilians.
Their software would be embedded with rules of engagement
conforming with the Geneva Conventions to tell the robot when to
open fire.
Dr Allen applauded the decision to tackle the ethical dilemmas
at an early stage. "It's time we started thinking about the issues
of how to take ethical theory and build it into the software that
will ensure robots act correctly rather than wait until it's too
late," he said.
"We already have computers out there that are making decisions
that affect people's lives but they do it in an ethically blind
way. Computers decide on credit card approvals without any human
involvement and we're seeing it in some situations regarding
medical care for the elderly," a reference to hospitals in the US
that use computer programmes to help decide which patients should
not be resuscitated if they fall unconscious.
Dr Allen said the US military wants fully autonomous robots
because they currently use highly trained manpower to operate them.
"The really expensive robots are under the most human control
because they can't afford to lose them," he said.
"It takes six people to operate a Predator drone round the
clock. I know the Air Force has developed software, which they
claim is to train Predator operators. But if the computer can train
the human it could also ultimately fly the drone itself."
Some are concerned that it will be impossible to devise robots
that avoid mistakes, conjuring up visions of machines killing
indiscriminately when they malfunction, like the robot in the film
Robocop.
Noel Sharkey, a computer scientist at Sheffield University, best
known for his involvement with the cult television show Robot
Wars, is the leading critic of the US plans.
He says: "It sends a cold shiver down my spine. I have worked in
artificial intelligence for decades, and the idea of a robot making
decisions about human termination is terrifying."
Why don't they just build suicide machines to put themselves
inside?
If the machine fails and start mass killing, who do we blame?
The creators for professional negligence or the Pentagon for being
too stupid?
I don't see any rationality in using a device to make judgement
since computing an algorithm to deduce possibilities does not make
it conventionally adequate since they probably can't provide
sufficient trial inputs of possibilities to confirm that the
machine is incapable of errors.
What happens if the coding has a bug, how the phark do these
morons perform their testing? On live specimens?
