Search: robots

In honor of Ken, I wanted to post a quick heads-up to this post by Tom James at Futurismic, which has the excellent title “I, For One, Welcome Our New Robodog Overlords.” Money quote: According to Prof Steve Wright of Leeds Metropolitan University: “What we have here are the beginnings of something designed to enable robots to hunt down humans like a pack of dogs. Once the software is perfected we can reasonably anticipate that they will become autonomous and become armed. We can also expect such systems to be...

...last, there are still major questions about what form that conflict would take. Could we possibly see a return to massive armies hurtling themselves at each other on defined battlefields? I’d be willing to engage suggestions to that effect, but it seems intuitively unlikely against the backdrop not just of nuclear weapons but also of the battlefield robots that all Ken Anderson fans will be familiar with. (Nor would it look like the asymmetric warfare we saw during Cold War sideshows and now in Iraq and Afghanistan.) So what’s the...

...areas not really related to law, but raise topics appropriate to CTLab. You should check out CTLab – it has wonderful academic symposia, an active blog, and many fascinating features that go far outside of the usual international law frame on group violence. Anyway, I am devoted to OJ, and want to be clear that joining up with Volokh is not at all about leaving OJ. Alas, there will be many, many a post devoted to robots and war, and I’ll start talking about microfinance and development finance again. So...

...framework for counterterrorism – which is to say, a framework of domestic law for things like detention, interrogation, FISA, etc. My paper, which I’ll post up if Brookings will let me once complete, is forward looking with respect to the tactics of counterterrorism, specifically targeted killing, particularly by Predators and advancing robotic technologies. (Yes, dear readers, you knew I would work around to robots eventually.) My fundamental observation to the Obama administration is that, to judge by Campaign Obama and Administration Obama, it embraces targeted killing as a useful method...

...‘killer robots’”.  While AI DSS developed around the world are not inherently unlawful, the ways in which they have reportedly been used suggest that humans risk not having the opportunity to exercise the necessary level of agency. For instance, accounts of the IDF using AI DSS in ways that prioritize the quantity of targets or where humans appear to ‘rubber stamp’ targets within seconds suggest that in many contexts of use, human decision-making appears to be not positively ‘supported’ by AI systems. The debate at the UN remains focused on...

...malaise about removing human judgment from the cycle of violence, including at the stage of executing orders. For example, Christof Heyns, then UN Expert on Extraterritorial Execution, called the use of force without reflection “mechanical slaughter.” One of the concerns expressed by Heyns, in comparing AWS with human soldiers, was precisely the lack of “ability of robots to distinguish legal from illegal orders.” The development of mechanical soldiers has, it seems, contributed to a greater recognition of the value of human judgment and common sense in human soldiers. Embracing that...

Following on Ken’s most recent post on autonomous battlefield robots, I came across the short story Malak by Peter Watts (you can read it here). What jumped out at me was a short story that beginning with epigrams such as these: “An ethically-infallible machine ought not to be the goal. Our goal should be to design a machine that performs better than humans do on the battlefield, particularly with respect to reducing unlawful behavior of war crimes.” –Lin et al, 2008: Autonomous Military Robotics: Risk, Ethics, and Design “[Collateral] damage...

...recession had gone worldwide. The full text of the blog post, as it happened, was pretty nearly, ” The recession has gone global.” It linked to a news article of about three paragraphs. This gives me pause. And yet there are plenty of blog posts that I do think citable, including some of my stuff on proportionality and the laws of war, just war theory, theorizing about Michael Walzer’s work, and, of course, robots. Many bloggers, including folks here at OJ, are much more academic in their approach to blogging...

...nature I’m intrigued by the idea that the social world can be modeled by reference to discount rates and net present value and capital budgeting for the private firm. Not entirely convinced, possibly because I am a finance professor, but … intrigued. Autonomous battlefield robots. Or as I like to refer to them, because no editor can resist this … Ethics for Robot Soldiers. This speaks for itself. Just war theory and laws of war. I’m active and interested in matters of just war theory and the ethics of war...

...informative discussion had run its course, and that the time was right to proceed with a more formal mandate, to “explore and agree on possible recommendations on options related to emerging technologies in the area of LAWS”. Once confirmed, this raised expectations amongst some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that a ban on ‘killer robots’ may follow. However, as other commentators noted at the time, the formal mandate made no reference to negotiating a LAWS treaty, and this was clearly a result of divergent views within the CCW’s membership over how best...

...legislation and interpretation, make them do new tricks. Perhaps this is all that is needed and technology has not left law in the dust. If that is the case, while battlefield robots may present some new risks, do they actually overturn IHL as we know it? (Similarly do some of the other topics mentioned in the links, such as the implications of DNA hacking, raze pre-existing rules?) Are these actually areas where many whole new areas of substantive rules are needed, or are these examples of areas where regulatory enforcement...

...to society and/or to innovation. (Uh, you know, issues having to do with African cyberpunk, DNA hacking and stuff like that. And don’t even let Ken Anderson (1, 2, 3, etc.) or me (1, 2, etc.) get started on robots…) So I was happy to see that the current issue of Scientific American looks at “The Future of Science: 50, 100, and 150 Years from Now.” Heady stuff. Ubiquitous computing, biotech, colonizing Mars, possibly even my long-awaited flying cars. But reading this with the cool eye of a lawyer (as...