Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday April 06 2018, @05:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the not-with-my-work dept.

South Korean university boycotted over 'killer robots'

Leading AI experts have boycotted a South Korean university over a partnership with weapons manufacturer Hanwha Systems. More than 50 AI researchers from 30 countries signed a letter expressing concern about its plans to develop artificial intelligence for weapons. In response, the university said it would not be developing "autonomous lethal weapons". The boycott comes ahead of a UN meeting to discuss killer robots.

Shin Sung-chul, president of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (Kaist), said: "I reaffirm once again that Kaist will not conduct any research activities counter to human dignity including autonomous weapons lacking meaningful human control. Kaist is significantly aware of ethical concerns in the application of all technologies including artificial intelligence." He went on to explain that the university's project was centred on developing algorithms for "efficient logistical systems, unmanned navigation and aviation training systems".

Also at The Guardian and CNN.

Related: U.N. Starts Discussion on Lethal Autonomous Robots
UK Opposes "Killer Robot" Ban


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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @05:26AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @05:26AM (#663277)

    If they don't, someone else would.
    You already have autonomous cars that recognize pedestrians, so its not a farfetched idea to install a gun and train it on the same pedestrians.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @05:52AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @05:52AM (#663281)

      If they don't, someone else would.

      Is that an argument on the line of "If you don't go shooting kids in a US school, someone else would"?
      Yes, we know school shooting will still happen in US.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @06:25AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @06:25AM (#663294)

        Yes, unless you want to claim credit for it that is. /me shrugs some more.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @06:46AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @06:46AM (#663304)

          Ah, gotta just love chatting with myself. A dialogue between two AC-alike minds.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @11:24AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @11:24AM (#663373)

        Is that an argument on the line of "If you don't go shooting kids in a US school, someone else would"?

        Not exactly. By shooting kids in a US school, you don't reduce the probability of others doing so. But by taking a job at weapons research, someone else cannot get that job any more. Also, the result of shooting kids in US schools is always the same: Dead kids. But the result of research depends very much on the researcher, therefore it matters who does the research.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @02:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @02:33PM (#663428)

          Not exactly. By shooting kids in a US school, you don't reduce the probability of others doing so.

          What's the fun in repeating the massacre at Columbine?

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday April 06 2018, @06:47AM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday April 06 2018, @06:47AM (#663306) Homepage Journal

    You say that like they're a bad thing.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @10:33AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @10:33AM (#663366)

    The problem with all ethical AI researchers boycotting research of autonomous lethal weapons is that then the research will be done by unethical AI researchers (who, obviously, don't have an ethical problem with that research). But if there's one thing that, if it gets developed at all, I'd prefer to be developed by ethical researchers, it is autonomous lethal weapons.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @12:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @12:28PM (#663395)

      Another version of the problem (and solution) can be found in the current arc on LICD, starting yesterday:
          http://leasticoulddo.com/comic/20180405 [leasticoulddo.com] ...and the punch line today.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 06 2018, @02:48PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 06 2018, @02:48PM (#663435) Journal

      This argument sounds to my ears very much like the installing an antivirus on voting machines [xkcd.com]

      It simply will not matter how ethical the autonomous lethal weapons will be developed. What matters is how ethical they will be used once developed.
      And, believe it or not, it will not be the scientists to use them.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday April 06 2018, @01:12PM (5 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Friday April 06 2018, @01:12PM (#663408) Homepage Journal

    (Kaist), said: "I reaffirm once again that Kaist will not conduct any research activities counter to human dignity including autonomous weapons lacking meaningful human control.

    So, there's dignity so long as it was a human that pulled the trigger? Or pressed the button. Bullshit.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 06 2018, @02:55PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 06 2018, @02:55PM (#663438) Journal

      So, there's dignity so long as it was a human that pulled the trigger? Or pressed the button. Bullshit.

      It has to be human, tho.
      No other animal will feel dignified in any way by pressing a button, because it requires a dose of vanity only (some) humans are able of.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday April 06 2018, @04:19PM (3 children)

      by Freeman (732) on Friday April 06 2018, @04:19PM (#663470) Journal

      As in, you're not worth even thinking about, because we have our autonomous robot army "taking care of" the problem. So, yeah, there's a difference.

      --
      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: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Friday April 06 2018, @04:23PM (2 children)

        by acid andy (1683) on Friday April 06 2018, @04:23PM (#663474) Homepage Journal

        You're right, but death's the great leveler. In the end, for the one that dies, it won't much matter who or what initiated the act. In some cases they won't know anyway. If human operators are hidden in secret remote bases, how does one know if they even exist?

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @07:15PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @07:15PM (#663521)

          The point is many a government have been toppled by their own army deciding to not follow a direct order to fire on unarmed citizens. A robot on the other hand will do as ordered and mow down people as long as it has ammunitions.

          • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday April 06 2018, @08:10PM

            by acid andy (1683) on Friday April 06 2018, @08:10PM (#663536) Homepage Journal

            I guess I was too subtle. I wasn't supporting the robots. I was questioning the implication in the quote that there's any dignity in being murdered by a human.

            --
            If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(1)