# Call for an International Ban on Autonomous Killer Robots



## McG (19 Nov 2012)

Interesting.


> *Ban Urged on Killer Robots*
> The Globe and Mail
> 19 Nov 2012
> 
> ...


See Article Here:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ban-urged-on-killer-robots/article5456209/


----------



## brihard (20 Nov 2012)

Yeah, I'll actually buy that. Removing the human from the loop entirely just gives me the heebie jeebies. Maybe I've seen too many movies where that's gone wrong...


----------



## Infanteer (20 Nov 2012)

They better be careful, or Skynet will send the T-1000 back to deal with them....


----------



## Robert0288 (20 Nov 2012)

I can see them useful as an area denial system instead of a mine field.  Easier to mange, and deactivate afterwards.  And with a proper aiming algorithm you hopefully eliminate blowing things up you don't want hit.

Anything other than that.  Oh hell no.  I've seen Terminator.


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Nov 2012)

I guess we are learning from sci-fi movies.  Make sure we as humans stay in control.


----------



## GK .Dundas (20 Nov 2012)

Next up! an international ban on sharks with fricking lasers on their heads!
 I have long felt that the only reason Canada championed The AP mine treaty was that a certain Cabinet minister wanted a certain award and a better paying job.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Nov 2012)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Next up! an international ban on sharks with fricking lasers on their heads!
> I have long felt that the only reason Canada championed The AP mine treaty was that a certain Cabinet minister wanted a certain award and a better paying job.




The government of the day also had to fend of increasingly effective attacks from the _left_/NDP and BQ (there was no effective opposition from the _right_ as the PCs and Reform were still deeply divided).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Nov 2012)

The Treaty has already been written:

Fully Autonomous Robots have to be made to follow the Three laws of Robotics (Isaac Asimov):

1- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2- A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.


----------



## FJAG (20 Nov 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The Treaty has already been written:
> 
> Fully Autonomous Robots have to be made to follow the Three laws of Robotics (Isaac Asimov):
> 
> ...



I checked the ICRC website and no one has ratified this treaty yet.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Nov 2012)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I checked the ICRC website and no one has ratified this treaty yet.


Should have checked the IMDb website; Dr. Alfred Lanning had...but look what happened to him.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Nov 2012)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Next up! an international ban on sharks with fricking lasers on their heads!



Aw now you are ruining ALL our fun! What's an evil genius to do? Next you will want to get rid of our unneccessarily complicated plans to kill off our nemesis!!!


----------



## Haggis (20 Nov 2012)

I'm not surprised that it only took two posts for a "Terminator" reference to pop up.

Asimov's "Three Laws" although written for a science fiction novel, are perfect in a world in which autononmous robots ("Autobots") are not used as weapons.  Neither the Autobots or Decepticons have ratified the Asimov laws, either.   ;D


----------



## Remius (20 Nov 2012)

Didn't Robocop have directives programmed into him?  I can see all sorts of things that makes this a plus.  Program robots with all the steps of battle procedure.  Program all the steps from SHARP training.  Perhaps all the defence ethics ethos.   Heck even range standing orders.  The potential is limitless...


----------



## busconductor (20 Nov 2012)

Our beloved among our kins inside the household, our "bitterest enemy in public places: The Political Left." Since time immemorial have they been acting as agents of influence for foreign communist countries. Not fomenting reading 'survival guides' here. "It's worse than Sodom"- God.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2012)

busconductor said:
			
		

> Our beloved among our kins inside the household, our "bitterest enemy in public places: The Political Left." Since time immemorial have they been acting as agents of influence for foreign communist countries. Not fomenting reading 'survival guides' here. "It's worse than Sodom"- God.


busconductor - less posting, more reading for you.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Scott (20 Nov 2012)

busconductor said:
			
		

> Our beloved among our kins inside the household, our "bitterest enemy in public places: The Political Left." Since time immemorial have they been acting as agents of influence for foreign communist countries. Not fomenting reading 'survival guides' here. "It's worse than Sodom"- God.



I totally get you, dude. No need for you to patrol the arctic while trying to fornicate with polar bears if we gets them robots. Heck, they will be able to, like, download all of those mad skillz you possess.

Newfound respect: you talk to God, eh?


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Nov 2012)

I approve wholeheartedly with this preemptive move.  I've been noticing some muttering and surly sideways looks from my JeevesBot 9000 lately, I believe he's plotting against me.


----------



## GAP (20 Nov 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> I totally get you, dude. No need for you to patrol the arctic while trying to fornicate with polar bears if we gets them robots. Heck, they will be able to, like, download all of those mad skillz you possess.
> 
> Newfound respect: you talk to God, eh?



You Scare Me!








You are soooo....right dude....how did you know??


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Nov 2012)

busconductor said:
			
		

> Our beloved among our kins inside the household, our "bitterest enemy in public places: The Political Left." Since time immemorial have they been acting as agents of influence for foreign communist countries. Not fomenting reading 'survival guides' here. "It's worse than Sodom"- God.


100+ just for giving me a good laugh at your babble.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Nov 2012)

Autonomous Killer Robots have been with us for a long time - their called "suicide bombers."


----------



## DBA (21 Nov 2012)

ED 209's 'incident' in the boardroom pretty much killed off autonomous killer robots without the need for a treaty. We won't even arm static defence robots where the situation can be a lot more controlled as we don't trust them. 

YouTube video (warning: graphic content): ED 209 Just Won't Stop


----------



## The_Falcon (21 Nov 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Didn't Robocop have directives programmed into him?  I can see all sorts of things that makes this a plus.  Program robots with all the steps of battle procedure.  Program all the steps from SHARP training.  Perhaps all the defence ethics ethos.   Heck even range standing orders.  The potential is limitless...



Robocop is a cyborg, whole other set of rules.


----------



## Shrek1985 (21 Nov 2012)

DEAL! Can we trade the landmine, anti-cluster bombs, anti-incendiary and anything relating to deforming bullets treaties for this one? Common Sense for The Win!

I've been saying we needed this for years, it's a huge philosophical quagmire.


----------



## Haggis (21 Nov 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Autonomous Killer Robots have been with us for a long time - their called "suicide bombers."



Not entirely accurate.  Those models still suffer from the software glitch called "morality" that permits them to deviate from their programming from time to time.

The sentry robots from the director's cut of "Aliens" are but another example of autonomous killers, albeit with some remote control.


----------



## GAP (3 May 2013)

UN report wants to terminate killer robots, opposes life-or-death powers over humans
By: Peter James Spielmann, The Associated Press Posted: 05/2/2013
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/un-report-wants-to-terminate-killer-robots-opposes-life-or-death-powers-over-humans-205847021.html

Killer robots that can attack targets without any human input "should not have the power of life and death over human beings," a new draft U.N. report says.

The report for the U.N. Human Rights Commission posted online this week deals with legal and philosophical issues involved in giving robots lethal powers over humans, echoing countless science-fiction novels and films. The debate dates to author Isaac Asimov's first rule for robots in the 1942 story "Runaround:" ''A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."

Report author Christof Heyns, a South African professor of human rights law, calls for a worldwide moratorium on the "testing, production, assembly, transfer, acquisition, deployment and use" of killer robots until an international conference can develop rules for their use.

His findings are due to be debated at the Human Rights Council in Geneva on May 29.

According to the report, the United States, Britain, Israel, South Korea and Japan have developed various types of fully or semi-autonomous weapons.

In the report, Heyns focuses on a new generation of weapons that choose their targets and execute them. He calls them "lethal autonomous robotics," or LARs for short, and says: "Decisions over life and death in armed conflict may require compassion and intuition. Humans — while they are fallible — at least might possess these qualities, whereas robots definitely do not."

He notes the arguments of robot proponents that death-dealing autonomous weapons "will not be susceptible to some of the human shortcomings that may undermine the protection of life. Typically they would not act out of revenge, panic, anger, spite, prejudice or fear. Moreover, unless specifically programmed to do so, robots would not cause intentional suffering on civilian populations, for example through torture. Robots also do not rape."

The report goes beyond the recent debate over drone killings of al-Qaida suspects and nearby civilians who are maimed or killed in the air strikes. Drones do have human oversight. The killer robots are programmed to make autonomous decisions on the spot without orders from humans.

Heyns' report notes the increasing use of drones, which "enable those who control lethal force not to be physically present when it is deployed, but rather to activate it while sitting behind computers in faraway places, and stay out of the line of fire.

"Lethal autonomous robotics (LARs), if added to the arsenals of States, would add a new dimension to this distancing, in that targeting decisions could be taken by the robots themselves. In addition to being physically removed from the kinetic action, humans would also become more detached from decisions to kill - and their execution," he wrote.
a little more on link


----------



## McG (30 Apr 2014)

Canada is being asked to lead this initiative.  The hope is we will pick-up from where we were in pushing the landmine ban.

... I enjoy the apparent need to mention the terminator whenever this topic comes up.  I suppose it is good for sensationalizing the topic.


> *Keep killer autonomous drones off the battlefield, activists say
> Campaign to Stop Killer Robots wants Canada to be a leader in efforts to ban autonomous weapons*
> The Canadian Press
> 29 April 2014
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/keep-killer-autonomous-drones-off-the-battlefield-activists-say-1.2625748


----------



## pbi (3 May 2014)

busconductor said:
			
		

> Our beloved among our kins inside the household, our "bitterest enemy in public places: The Political Left." Since time immemorial have they been acting as agents of influence for foreign communist countries. Not fomenting reading 'survival guides' here. "It's worse than Sodom"- God.



Hey! Remember what I told you, busconductor?

We have to keep quiet for now!!!  Really, really quiet!  These people will never understand us.

But wait patiently...our Moment approaches!


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jun 2014)

Two reasons autonomous killer robots won't be coming any time soon:

Short term: Hackers. If robots have rigid built in programming to defeat hackers they will be predictable and relatively easy to neutralize or defeat.

Long term: Robots with sufficiently flexible programming to operate autonomously in the real world will be complex, adaptive systems with unpredictable reactions to changing situations.


----------



## McG (9 Apr 2015)

The second UN meeting on autonomous killing robots will take place next week.  While the tendancy still seems to lean in favour of Terminator jokes, the pro narrative sounds a lot more like the Robocop remake.


> *Killer robots' pose risks and advantages for military use*
> Human rights groups to push for ban on lethal autonomous weapons at UN meeting next week
> Kathleen Harris
> CBC News
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/killer-robots-pose-risks-and-advantages-for-military-use-1.3026963


----------



## dimsum (9 Apr 2015)

It's been mentioned before somewhere, but I wonder why everyone gets worked up over "killer" RPAs which have an entire crew flying them, but no one says boo about CIWS, which are essentially autonomous.


----------



## Robert0288 (10 Apr 2015)

I think they would have more to say if a CIWS was mounted in a guard tower or on a side of a hill and set to shoot anything that moves.


----------



## Ostrozac (10 Apr 2015)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> I think they would have more to say if a CIWS was mounted in a guard tower or on a side of a hill and set to shoot anything that moves.



The systems have been deployed on land for over a decade, and no one says boo about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar


----------



## Robert0288 (11 Apr 2015)

I didn't mean in a counter rocket/mortar role, but in an area denial/anti-pers role similar to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjGbOyd2ek


----------



## dimsum (11 Apr 2015)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> I didn't mean in a counter rocket/mortar role, but in an area denial/anti-pers role similar to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjGbOyd2ek



I'm no expert on CIWS, but I'd assume that if it was able to autonomously track and engage cruise missiles, mortar rounds, small boats, etc. then it's not a big jump to use it in an area denial role.


----------



## CougarKing (31 Mar 2016)

2 notable updates, including one about autonomous QF16s in the 2nd article quoted below:

NATO Association of Canada



> *Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems- Changing the Environment of Warfare*
> 
> March 24, 2016
> March 24, 2016 Sandra Song
> ...



Not mere drones, but self-piloting QF16s:

Fortune



> *The Pentagon Wants Autonomous Fighter Jets to Join the F-35 in Combat*
> 
> 
> March 30, 2016, 6:22 PM EDT
> ...






> But remotely controlled aircraft and autonomous piloting are two vastly different things. *The Air Force isn’t just looking for an unmanned aircraft that can be piloted from afar, but a robotic aircraft that can pilot itself, taking cues from a human pilot in another aircraft. *“The onboard autonomy must be sufficient for the Loyal Wingman to complete all basic flight operations untethered from a ground station and without full-time direction from the manned lead,” the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) explained in a request for industry input published earlier this month.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------

