Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday March 11 2019, @04:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the killbots-and-cream dept.

The U.S. is seeking bids to improve its "basic" killbot to the the point where it can "acquire, identify, and engage targets at least 3X faster than the current manual process."

U.S. Army Assures Public That Robot Tank System Adheres to AI Murder Policy

Why does any of this matter? The Department of Defense Directive 3000.09, requires that humans be able to "exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force," meaning that the U.S. won't toss a fully autonomous robot into a battlefield and allow it to decide independently whether to kill someone. This safeguard is sometimes called being "in the loop," meaning that a human is making the final decision about whether to kill someone.

Industry Day for the Advanced Targeting and Lethality Automated System (ATLAS) Program. Also at Boing Boing.

Surely these will never be hacked!

Will an operator feel more trepidatious about taking life, due to not being in direct peril themselves? Or less because of greater desensitization? Anyone have any insightful links about drone operator psych outcomes? (Ed: Don't worry about it.)

Related information to inform the philosophical background of why having a human in the loop is required (they don't specify this but e.g. without the human, land mine agreements might start to apply): https://www.act.nato.int/images/stories/media/capdev/capdev_02.pdf

HEY EDITORS! I suggest a new topic: "tech and society" for stuff like this. (Ed: It's Digital Liberty.)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Monday March 11 2019, @10:29PM (7 children)

    by Freeman (732) on Monday March 11 2019, @10:29PM (#812942) Journal

    18 August: The United States finally joined the Ottawa Process. The White House announced that the USA would be a full participant in the negotiations at the forthcoming Oslo Diplomatic Conference. But in a letter to key foreign ministers the US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, laid down five conditions for the USA’s eventual signature of the treaty:

            a geographical exception for the use of mines in South Korea;
            a change of the definition of APM’s to allow the use of mixed anti-tank and anti-personnel “munitions” systems;
            a transition period requiring, either through entry into force requiring 60 countries, including all five permanent members of the Security Council and at least 75 per cent of historic producers and users of APM’s, or an optional nine-year deferral period for compliance with certain provisions;
            a strengthening of the verification regime; and
            a clause permitting a party to withdraw when its superior national interests were threatened.

    Seems like a reasonable list of demands to me.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Monday March 11 2019, @10:38PM (5 children)

    by pe1rxq (844) on Monday March 11 2019, @10:38PM (#812947) Homepage

    How is that reasonable????
    'We will join, but only if we can keep using them whenever we feel like'

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday March 11 2019, @10:48PM (4 children)

      by Freeman (732) on Monday March 11 2019, @10:48PM (#812954) Journal

      Not, whenever we feel like it. As the demands listed show. If you equate, "a clause permitting a party to withdraw when its superior national interests were threatened.", with whenever we feel like it. Go right ahead and think that. In reality, that's probably just another reason tacked onto our list of demands. When likely, the biggest reason on that list is our support of South Korea.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:03AM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:03AM (#813042) Journal

        If you equate, "a clause permitting a party to withdraw when its superior national interests were threatened.", with whenever we feel like it.

        I don't know about the grandparent, but I sure would. It's not hard to come up with a superior national interest on demand. There might be all kinds of restrictions on the US's ability to use that clause, but coming up with the excuses isn't one.

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:49PM (2 children)

          by Freeman (732) on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:49PM (#813318) Journal

          Perhaps, but it would really depend on the definition of superior national interests. The ultimate goal of such a treaty should be the elimination of the threat anti-personnel landmines have towards civilians, so innocents aren't getting themselves blown-up. It seems to me that the United States' approach to this is effective. Especially, compared to say the likes of Turkey, who actually signed the treaty.

          Turkey reported that between 1957 and 1998, Turkish forces laid 615,419 antipersonnel mines along the Syrian border "to prevent illegal border crossings". These mines are killing Syrians stuck on the border or trying to cross near Kobanî. Turkey is required under the treaty to destroy all antipersonnel mines, but has missed deadlines. Human Rights Watch claims in its report that as of November 18, 2014, over 2,000 civilians were still in the Tel Shair corridor section of the mine belt because Turkey had been refusing entry for cars or livestock, and the refugees did not want to leave behind their belongings.[96]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty [wikipedia.org]

          Now, just think, what people's reactions would be, if the United States did the same thing with the US/Mexico border. The United States isn't even close to one of the "bad guys" when talking about anti-personnel landmines.

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday March 12 2019, @04:10PM

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 12 2019, @04:10PM (#813331) Journal

            And before the election everyone was saying that nearly nobody would vote for a racist bigot who was also an admitted sexual predator. So I don't think you can count on public disgust to prevent the govt. from deciding that making the border an exclusion zone was a superior national interest.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 13 2019, @06:14AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 13 2019, @06:14AM (#813606) Journal

            Perhaps, but it would really depend on the definition of superior national interests.

            Currently, that looks like interests that the US has.

  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday March 11 2019, @10:40PM

    by Freeman (732) on Monday March 11 2019, @10:40PM (#812949) Journal

    Also, from that same wikipedia link:

    The United States has unilaterally committed to never using persistent landmines of any kind, whether anti-personnel or anti-vehicle, which they say is a more comprehensive humanitarian measure than the Ottawa Convention. All US landmines now self-destruct in two days or less, in most cases four hours. While the self-destruct mechanism has never failed in more than 65,000 random tests, if self-destruct were to fail the mine will self-deactivate because its battery will run down in two weeks or less.[not in citation given] That compares with persistent anti-vehicle mines which remain lethal for about 30 years and are legal under the Ottawa Convention.[93][94]

    What's really sad:

    Little progress in actual reduction of mine usage has been achieved. In 2011, the number of landmines dispersed is higher than ever since 2004, landmines being dispersed in Libya, Syria, and Myanmar.[95]

    Turkey reported that between 1957 and 1998, Turkish forces laid 615,419 antipersonnel mines along the Syrian border "to prevent illegal border crossings". These mines are killing Syrians stuck on the border or trying to cross near Kobanî. Turkey is required under the treaty to destroy all antipersonnel mines, but has missed deadlines. Human Rights Watch claims in its report that as of November 18, 2014, over 2,000 civilians were still in the Tel Shair corridor section of the mine belt because Turkey had been refusing entry for cars or livestock, and the refugees did not want to leave behind their belongings.[96]

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"