Killer Robots

Boston Dynamics' robotic quadrupeds have achieved infamy and virality through a series of social media videos since 2008. In 2019 Boston Dynamics began commercial sale of 'Spot', a moving, sensing, networked robot dog. Spot has been designed to be a platform, which can be augmented with hardware payloads (e.g. sensors, robotic arm) and software to command Spot to conduct specific missions. In this paper we first trace the development of Spot and highlight the interest of the United States military in its development. This is followed by our text analysis of social media reactions to Boston Dynamics' quadrupeds, revealing public fascination as well as ongoing suspicion and dark humour about 'killer robots'. We then discuss how humanitarian applications, including in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, have been used as an opportunity to promote Spot and overcome public negativity. This is an example of a more general strategy advocates use to garner acceptance for autonomous robots in both civilian and military roles using humanitarian justifications: the robots 'save lives.' We conclude by discussing how Spot and other robot quadrupeds demonstrate the intertwining of humanitarian and military applications in the development, normalization and deployment of autonomous robots.

Рущин Д. А. Проблемы и перспективы развития искусственного интеллекта в России // Медиа в современном мире. 59-е Петербургские чтения: сб.матер. Междунар. научн. форума (9–12 ноября 2020 г.) / отв. ред.В. В. Васильева. В 3-х т. Т. 2. — СПбГУ. 2020. — 264 с. С. 254 - 256.
Развитие искусственного интеллекта становится важным приоритетом национального развития России. Однако шансы страны догнать лидеров (США, Китай, Японию и Великобританию) весьма маловероятны. При наличии политической воли и достаточного финансирования Россия может стать крупным игроком в сфере искусственного интеллекта и добиться лидерства по отдельным направлениям. Работа выполнена при поддержке гранта СПбГУ 26520757.
The development of artificial intelligence is becoming an important priority for Russia's national development. However, the country's chances of catching up with the leaders (USA, China, Japan and UK) are highly unlikely. If there are political will and sufficient funding, Russia can become a major player in the field of artificial intelligence and achieve leadership in certain areas. The work was supported by the SPBU grant 26520757.

Urban conflict is on the rise. Ranging from the prospects for conventional warfare in megacities and mega-city regions to urban riots and disorder, as currently seen in Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests or France’s Gilets Jaunes movement to gang violence and criminal insurgencies in global cities and global slums, these conflicts are a global potential. They pose extreme risk to civilians, and challenge military, police, intelligence services, and humanitarian operators alike.

There are two interwoven trends in cyber-counterterrorism. On the one hand, countries such as Israel and Russia announce the deployment of lethal autonomous weapons. Such weapons constitute the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms. On the other hand, researchers try and embed ethics into the design of these weapons (so-called artificial conscience or "ethics by design"). The contention of this paper is that artificial conscience is a mere marketing ruse aimed at making the deployment of lethal autonomous weapons and other autonomous robots acceptable in society. Whereas there are strong reasons to object to this trend, some solutions to the pitfalls of ethics by design have been presented. However, they do not seem viable in a military context. In particular, the so-called customised-ethics approach is applicable only to commercial and civil machines. When deciding whether to kill 600 civilians in order to hit 14 al-Qaeda leaders, which set of values should be implemented? This is a compelling argument for banning lethal autonomous weapons altogether. PLEASE CITE AS Guido Noto La Diega, ‘The artificial conscience of lethal autonomous weapons: marketing ruse or reality?’ (2018) 1 Law and the Digital Age 1-17

When diplomacy and other available means of settling disputes among states fail, war becomes inevitable. In times of war, states struggle to subdue their adversaries by employing superior weapons. These weapons are usually the latest according to the spirit of the times and as such, technology has always been a major factor to reckon with in war. The contemporary paradigm of war is far different from past centuries and this is responsible for the shift from traditional Clausewitz warfare to an extreme one where empathy is thrown to the wind and described by some scholars as the rise of the machines. Modern military technology poses a grave threat as it is responsible for destroying lives and infrastructures yet developers of these fascinating and sophisticated weapons have not ceased in making more. Meanwhile, most of these weapons negate ethical standards but unfortunately, it is of little or no importance to developers. The big question is why develop most of these weapons if it cannot be used? Some analysts argue that it is used as a form of deterrence which ironically leads to the arms race. Equally, technology has made Non-state actors to actively rebel against the state mostly because they possess modern weapons which in most cases have helped to prolong conflict. Above all, these modern technologies used in war have created a radical ethos which if not handled properly could lead to annihilation of the human race instead of anticipated victory. Thus, it is appropriate to say; the devils are here and waiting for instructions to wipe out humanity through technology in war.

Comprehending and analysing Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fundamental to embrace the next challenges of the future, specifically for the defence sector. Developments in this sector will involve both arms and operations. The debate is linked to the risks that automation could bring into the battlefield, specifically for the Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). While AI could bring many advantages in risk detection, protection and preparation capabilities, it may bring also several risks on the battlefield and break the basic principles of International Law. Indeed, having the human operator "out of the loop", could lead to unprecedented challenges and issues. Such weapons may also strengthen terroristic groups, allowing them to plan mass attacks or specific assassinations with no human sacrifice. The article, divided into three parts, aims to analyse the LAWS and its related issue. The first one introduces the LAWS and is applications worldwide. The second one summarizes the problems concerning International Humanitarian Law. Eventually, the last part is focused on the research for a proper regulation and the EU position on the topic.

Amint ezt a nagyhatalmak katonai befektetéseinek tendenciái is tanúsítják, a mesterséges intelligencia egyre inkább átveszi az emberek helyét a háború számos területén. A gyilkos robotok, pontosabban a halálos autonóm fegyverrendszerek képesek lennének bármilyen emberi beavatkozás, illetve annak lehetősége nélkül, teljesen önállóan kiválasztani és megsemmisíteni célpontjaikat. Ezek a rendszerek, bár jelenleg nincsenek tömeggyártásban, illetve katonai bevetésükre elvétve került sor, már számos helyen léteznek és fejlesztés alatt állnak.

Némi keresés után terjedelmes szakirodalomra bukkanunk arra vonatkozóan, hogy a gyilkos robotok számos módon sértik meg a nemzetközi emberi jogi és humanitárius szabályozásokat és normákat. Nem így a gyermekjogokkal kapcsolatban. A gyermekek jogai és védelme mindig is kiemelt szerepet kaptak a nemzetközi jogban, azonban az autonóm fegyverrendszerek vonatkozásában ez a szabályozás nem jelenik meg. Nemcsak a gyermek speciális védelmére, egészséges fejlődésére vagy oktatáshoz való jogára tekintettel érdemes körbejárnunk a témát, de a gyermekkatonák tömeges helyzete, illetve a megtámadásuk legitimitására vonatkozó jogi és erkölcsi kérdések miatt is.

A kutatásban két szempontból vizsgáljuk a gyermekek jogait a gyilkos robotok használatának tükrében. Áttekintjük, egy gyilkos robotok által vívott harcban a gyermekek mely jogai, miért és hogyan sérülnének – erről interjút folytatunk a gyermekjogok, illetve a gyilkos robotok szakértőivel is. Megkérdezzük, hogyan viszonyulnak a fiatalok a gyilkos robotokhoz, és rávilágítunk véleményük jelentőségére, jogi erejére a közlelkiismeret követelményeire tekintettel. Konklúzióként megállapítjuk a gyilkos robotok szembenállását a nemzetközi gyermekjogokkal, és felvetjük a lehetséges jogvédelmi intézkedéseket.

(The first, Hungarian version of research 'Swarm drones and teddy bears - killer robots and the rights of the child' by Illés László Katona first appeared on Academia.edu in 06.04.2020. All rights reserved. Translated version coming soon.)

Waging warfare and developing technologies are two distinctively human activities that have long been closely intertwined. Emerging technologies have continually shaped military strategy and policy, from the invention of Greek fire, to gunpowder, artillery, nuclear weapons, and GPS- and laser-guided munitions. The diligent student of military history is also a keen observer of technological change. Once again, a new technology on the horizon promise to drastically alter the texture and norms of combat: lethal autonomous weapons. Remarkable advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and computer vision lend an urgent credibility to the suggestion that reliable autonomous weapons are possible.

We are, once again, witnessing a technological revolution in warfare: the progressing autonomy in weapons systems. Autonomy refers to capabilities of weapons to operate without human guidance, pertaining to less controversial functions such as navigation and reconnaissance – but also to the alarming prospect of robots making the killing decision. The latter in particular has given rise to fundamental ethical and legal concerns: To what extent is it morally acceptable to use robots in military operations? Are autonomous weapons capable of compliance with International Humanitarian Law? Who can be held accountable for their actions and how? Responding to these concerns, this Spotlight echoes the calls for a ban on killer robots, and proposes to adopt a new principle, which would turn meaningful human control of lethal weapons into an obligation under International Humanitarian Law.

Artificial intelligence and technological advancements have headed to the development of robots capable of performing various functions. One of the purposes of robots is to replace human soldiers on battlefields. Killer robots, referred to as "autonomous weapon systems," pose a threat to the principles of human accountability that underpin the international criminal justice system and the current law of war that has arisen to support and enforce it. It poses a challenge to the Law of War's conceptual framework. In the worst-case scenario, it might encourage the development of weapons systems specifically to avoid liability for the conduct of the war by both the government and individuals. Furthermore, killer robots cannot comply with the fundamental law of war principles like the principle of responsibility. The accountability of autonomous

We show how one of international relations’ founding debates – the causes of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE) – offers interesting insights into current political deliberations about killer robots. We then trace how concerns about AWS moved from the margins of academia to the NGO disarmament community and finally into official diplomatic forums. We demonstrate how campaigners have resisted states’ claims to ‘know best’ about security matters, by pushing officials to answer questions about the necessity and risks of killer robots as well as the underlying social norms that guide global security policymaking.

This paper argues for a legal- ly-binding instrument on lethal autonomous weapons systems, such as an additional protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.  There is a need both for a legally-binding prohibition of certain autonomous weapons and for strong positive obligations to ensure meaningful human control of the use of force rooted in International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law. The Alliance for Multilateral- ism has endorsed voluntary Guiding Principles on LAWS. Its Member States should now lead the Principles’ up- grade towards more robust international agreements.

This piece examines the development of military AI (MAI), and in particular, of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) that combine AI with defence and war purposes. The acronym is clever but misleading. It subtly conveys an aura of legitimacy and acceptance. The reality is different. The use of LAWS involves significant risks for civilians and can be contrary to international humanitarian law.

This article has three sections. Section one offers working definitions of MAI and LAWS, underlining their complex nature as novel technologies. The second section analyses the effects of LAWS in the military. The third section studies the indeterminacy that characterises the use of AI weapons, considering international humanitarian law, while showing potential dangers. Finally, the case for a ban on LAWS is argued, highlighting the advantages of such a ban and considering the possibilities for New Zealand.

During the 23rd Human Rights Council Session in June 2013, nations, non-governmental organizations, and campaigns debated on whether the international community should ban “killer robots,” or autonomous machines such as Star Wars’ Battle Droids, from future war zones. Admittedly, everyone present at Geneva brought science fiction into reality for the first time. In this essay, I will look into what the arguments were for both sides. On one side, NGOs and campaigns urged the international community to ban killer robots for the sake of mankind and put them back into the toy box, where they forever belong. On the other side, countries currently producing predecessors of the killer robots argued that these robots would become a soldier’s new best friend, for they would save the lives of soldiers and civilians. But in the end, both sides failed to mention a simple phrase: with great power, comes great responsibility.