EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Military Killer Robots 'Could Endanger Civilians'
Action on a global scale must be taken to curb the development of military killer robots that think for themselves, a leading British expert said.
"Terminator"-style machines that decide how, when and who to kill are just around the corner, warns Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield.
Terminator style killer robots could lead to a major escalation in civilian deaths, warns Prof Noel Sharkey (Photo: WARNER BROS. PICTURES) Far
from helping to reduce casualties, their use is likely to make conflict
and war more common and lead to a major escalation in numbers of
civilian deaths, he believes.
"I do think there should be some international discussion and arms control on these weapons but there's absolutely none," said Prof Sharkey.
"The military have a strange view of artificial intelligence based on science fiction. The nub of it is that robots do not have the necessary discriminatory ability. They can't distinguish between combatants and civilians. It's hard enough for soldiers to do that."
Iraq and Afghanistan have both provided ideal "showcases" for robot weapons, said Prof Sharkey.
The "War on Terror" declared by President George Bush spurred on the development of pilotless drone aircraft deployed against insurgents.
Initially used for surveillance, drones such as the Predator and larger Reaper were now armed with bombs and missiles.
The US currently has 200 Predators and 30 Reapers and next year alone will be spending 5.5 billion dollars (£3.29 billion) on unmanned combat vehicles.
Britain had two Predators until one crashed in Iraq last year.
At present these weapons are still operated remotely by humans sitting in front of computer screens. RAF pilots on secondment were among the more experienced controllers used by the US military, while others only had six weeks training, said Prof Sharkey. "If you're good at computer games, you're in," he added.
But rapid progress was being made towards robots which took virtually all their own decisions and were merely "supervised" by humans.
These would be fully autonomous killing machines reminiscent of those depicted in the "Terminator" films.
"The next thing that's coming, and this is what really scares me, are armed autonomous robots," said Prof Sharkey speaking to journalists in London. "The robot will do the killing itself. This will make decision making faster and allow one person to control many robots. A single soldier could initiate a large scale attack from the air and the ground.
"It could happen now; the technology's there."
A step on the way had already been taken by Israel with "Harpy", a pilotless aircraft that flies around searching for an enemy radar signal. When it thinks one has been located and identified as hostile, the drone turns into a homing missile and launches an attack - all without human intervention.
Last year the British aerospace company BAe Systems completed a flying trial with a group of drones that could communicate with each other and select their own targets, said Prof Starkey. The United States Air Force was looking at the concept of "swarm technology" which involved multiple drone aircraft operating together.
Flying drones were swiftly being joined by armed robot ground vehicles, such as the Talon Sword which bristles with machine guns, grenade launchers, and anti-tank missiles.
However it was likely to be decades before such robots possessed a human-like ability to tell friend from foe.
Even with human controllers, drones were already stacking up large numbers of civilian casualties.
As a result of 60 known drone attacks in Pakistan between January 2006 and April 2009, 14 al Qaida leaders had been killed but also 607 civilians, said Prof Sharkey.
The US was paying teenagers "thousands of dollars" to drop infrared tags at the homes of al Qaida suspects so that Predator drones could aim their weapons at them, he added. But often the tags were thrown down randomly, marking out completely innocent civilians for attack.
Prof Sharkey, who insists he is "not a pacifist" and has no anti-war agenda, said: "If we keep on using robot weapons we're going to put civilians at grave risk and it's going to be much easier to start wars. The main inhibitor of wars is body bags coming home.
"People talk about programming the 'laws of war' into a computer to give robots a conscience, so that if the target is a civilian you don't shoot. But for a robot to recognise a civilian you need an exact specification, and one of the problems is there's no specific definition of a civilian. Soldiers have to rely on common sense.
"I'm not saying it will never happen, but I know what's out there and it's not going to happen for a long time."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

45 Comments so far
Show AllIsn't that the purpose of the whole thing? We the unwashed populace needs to be held in fear so that the military can continue to consume the world's resources.
"Military Killer Robots 'Could Endanger Civilians'"
Really? Thanks for the tip.
Yeah, that was my reaction.
Oh good grief. The military endangers civilians. That is what it is for. It has been a very long time since soldiers fought soldiers - now military machines, whether self directed or fired by humans, seek to terrorise and intimidate by killing sufficient numbers of "the enemy" population to make war seem unwinnable. "The enemy" strike back using asymmetrical warfare, trying to get at the soldiers controlling the weapons by using guerilla tactics. The obvious counterstroke is to remove the soldiers in control even further from the "battlefield". And the obvious counterstroke to that is yet more terrorism in "soft" urban centres. All this does is wind up the cycle of violence even tighter. The only solution is, in fact, non violence. Think how quickly we could find alternative energy sources if all this technological knowhow was used to create something other than death machines.
Ray Berthiaume
I wonder how many people who consider themselves Christian are involved in this program?
All of them.
Walk in peace.
Tut tut, you are generalizing again, old chum.
What would you care to wager that any Non-Christians that may have been involved with this project have been quietly shunted into research away from these lines by the developers involved? All in the name of Homeland Security, of course.
Walk in peace.
I'm sure there were a few Jews too. And a few atheists/agnostics to round 'em out. You'd be surprise how many college kids are agnostic these days...and I bet plenty of this work was farmed out to universities.
No doubt. But they all bow to the altar of Money.
Walk in peace.
My mind flashed back to the old movie, "Robocop." The powermad assistant CEO of the company that developed Robocop also was trying to make an autonomous robot cop. They brought it into the board room to demonstrate it. The ACEO handed one of the board members a gun. They then activate the robot. It announces, "Drop your gun, you have ten seconds to comply." The guy immediately drops the gun. The robot repeats the demand with five seconds remaining. The guy is screaming, "I've dropped the gun, I'm unarmed." The robot says, You have disregarded my last warning." and opens up with a machine gun, blowing the guy out the shattered window. Everyone is looking at the thing with horror and the ACEO says, "Oh, well, every invention has a few bugs to be worked out."
I guess he now works for the government or the Pentagon.
It wouldn't be so bad if the robots turned on their designers and marketers. In fact it might be kind of enjoyable to watch. That was a great scene in Robocop.
Joe
I'm sure there are all kinds of computer hackers out there that could make that happen.
"People talk about programming the 'laws of war' into a computer to give robots a conscience, so that if the target is a civilian you don't shoot. But for a robot to recognise a civilian you need an exact specification, and one of the problems is there's no specific definition of a civilian. Soldiers have to rely on common sense"
And soldiers, being plunked down among strangers in alien lands, often get it wrong. Who would write the rules and guidelines for recognizing a civilian? This is stupid.
We just have to stop invading other people's countries and that is the end to the problem.
Joe
Exactly.
And anyway, why do these people talk about laws? And then about laws of war? War is the absence of laws. War is destruction, death and plunder. Laws of war, my ass!
Scared eighteen year olds solution to who is dangerous "If it moves kill it." Robots solution to who is dangerous "If it moves kill it." I would say the robot will do as well as the kid.
Cons will use robots to kill libs, killing their stupid selves in the process.
I suppose, despite the U.S. military's best efforts, their flesh and blood robotic creations do occasionally retain some reluctance to murder innocent men, women and children, especially among their nominal compatriots. In the circumstances, the temptations of AI devices from which any such undesirable traits can be expunged, is certainly understandable, particularly in cases such as Northcom where they're likely to be called upon to operate on the home front in the foreseeable future.
Military killer robots could endanger civilians?
NONSENSE!!! NONSENSE, I SAY!!!
Whoever heard of anything military ever endangering civilians?
The military is our friend. Now go on about your business, people -- nothing to see here.
The most intelligent response I can offer to this Preview of Coming Destruction is that when the robots turned renegade at Itchy and Scratchy Land, the Simpsons were able to defeat them with disposable cameras-- the flashes scrambled the robots' circuits and disabled them.
A word to the wise: don't go anywhere without a disposable camera!
· Yr Obd't Servant
... or at least a squirt gun filled with acidified water.
I think I'm falling in love with you.
If such machines are ever developed, someone will capture one of then, jigger the programming, and turn them against their designers.
Poet
I hope somebody is exploring low-tech cheap countermeasures, e.g. dummy targets.
Bugs Bunny would dress up as a lady robot with big red lips and give the soldier robot an exploding cigar...
as ezeflyer implies: the automated soldier, whether walking, rolling, or flying, is not likely to suffer the same confusion of purpose that a hired human soldier might...the queasiness of quandary surrounding the senseless slaughter of innocent fellow humans, who simply want to simply live, for the profiteering corporation...
No, the robotic soldier feels no remorse, so is ideal for such things...not to mention superior abilities in surveillance, movement, repair, communication, analysis, response, weaponry, tactics, etc.
How interesting if and when the begotten robot, like the doberman or pit bull, turns on the very master that begat...
Indeed.
Droid Killer Robots 'Could Endanger Civilians' the same as our 'man-in-the-loop' drones do now.
Communication satellites and their makers are 'enemy' combatants now, reprisals are fair game.
If we're down to this, I say we send the heads of countries into the cage to fight it out MMA-style. At least it would take only one death to decide the outcome, and it wouldn't be an innocent civilian.
Oh dear ??????
Isn't every civilian killed a terrorist anyway ????
What is this sudden interest in civilians ?????
Colin Powell said that Iraqi dead were of no interest.
Way to go USA USA USA bomb and kill Muslims.
"Why do they hate us"?-W
W's answer: They hate us for our freedoms.
Then, W's mantra, "Freedom is on the march!" Freedom for corporations to make billions without regard for workers, consumers, or the environment, including freedom to spend billions of dollars to make weapons of death and use them to kill people who "hate us"; and then, oops maybe we killed a few people who don't hate us (though their friends and relatives will). But hey, collateral damage happens.
What is so sad is that this same unbelievable crap (not in my name) continues under Obomba (The twisting of his name doesn't mean I've given up on him, but accurately depicts the foreign policy he's presiding over.)
We have to bombard him with letters and emails, do the same with our congresspeople, write letters to the editor, and try to organize protests in the streets.
I've sent three letters to Mr. Obama at the white house, return receipt requested. The letters were carefully thought out, requesting him to be the agent of change that he purported to be when he was running.
So far, I've gotten two of the receipts, then I received a pre-printed card in a hand addressed envelope.
——————————————————————————
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Friend:
Thank you for taking the time to share your views.
Americans across the country are eager for information about the state of the economy, national security, and a host of other issues. President Obama is committed to making his Administration the most open and transparent in history, and the Internet will deliver a major role in delivering that promise.
We hope you will join us at WhiteHouse.gov to learn more about President Obama’s views on a range of topics, as well as his efforts to provide a window for all Americans into their government. Your voice is shaping our country’s future, and we encourage you to join us online, share your thoughts, and build a community of connected citizens that will help address the pressing issues of our time.
(It is signed by an unreadable stamped signature and below it is)
F. Michael Kelleher
Director of Presidential Correspondence
------------------------------------------------
If you try to put a reasoned e-letter on that site, it has to be less than a thousand characters or it is refused. Short thoughts only. (Attaboy preferred, no doubt) No, We the People's concerns probably go straight into the circular file. They do not get any sort of response to concerns, especially about such things as returning the Constitution, intact and functioning, to the Halls of Government, and ending our endless, ever expanding, wars, or cutting a small part of the military budget and applying that to our domestic problems. The only trend in that direction is apparently NorthCom and its combat brigades, trained to "help us" in case of civil unrest.
Doomsday machine.
Leaving the killing entirely in electronic/mechanical hands virtually eliminates the inconvenient Freedom-Lover casualty lists and therewith, a lot of criticism of the government whenever it chooses a new country to attack.
This is probably what will happen eventually:
The Animatrix~~The Second Renaissance Part I & II
Check it out.....
Also in the news:
Hannibal used elephants to squash people when he attacked the Romans.
Moral of the story by Bill Cosby:
"If you put a bullet in a furnace, it will blow up".
Geee, I hate to tell you guys this,
But the Professor is kind of "out there" by saying that these systems are a long way off. Autonomous Combat Autopilot subroutines already exist. They've been demonstrated for decades on various cruise missiles and other weapons and guidance systems. CIA already flew these predator drones on autonomous, live-fire, pilotless missions in asia. This is well known in aviation circles. What is not known, is the actual results. Obviously they must have taken out a lot of the wrong guys (weddings) or they'd still be using the software to make the call.
Pilots at predator computer terminals, didn't show up until the automation probably massacred countless victims sitting in their houses and schoolyards. The passengers of Air France AF447 are missing for the exact same reason. Automation doesn't have morals or common sense to over-ride it (kinda like our current batch of politicians in D.C.)
If an Airbus jet can't be trusted to fly without pilots, then how can we make the leap of faith that an airborne killing machine can? (A pilotless Airbus was flown at Edwards AFB ten years ago. It was never put into service.)
This sounds to me like a very Christian methodology. Why don't we just quit fooling around and paint big Holy Crosses on our predator drones? That way, if the victim holds up a cross, the software can see it and break off the attack. If the victim bows down to the East we can blast him.
I mean, that's apparently what this holy war is all about right? Good Christians won't attack the oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea to India. Let's stop all the subterfuge and tell the taxpayers the truth of why they are now dirt poor. The bailouts are for Oil Wars in which the American people are not allowed to benefit at all by.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
ThomasJefferson: "Geee, I hate to tell you guys this,
But the Professor is kind of 'out there' by saying that these systems are a long way off. Autonomous Combat Autopilot subroutines already exist."
Geee, I hate to tell you ThomasJefferson, but the Professor was referring to robots having a conscience and being able to discriminate between civilians and and enemy combatants as being a long way off. If you re-read the last TWO paragraphs of the article, it is pretty clear the line you referred to was a continuation of the thoughts expressed in the preceding paragraph. So, I guess the professor is as "out there" as you want to believe. LOL
I'm sorry, you and the professor are wrong. No machine can have a "conscience". No matter how sophisticated the code, no matter how many channels (parallel processors) involved, no matter what design, no matter how hard you teach it's neural net, no computer will ever match the human mind's ability to mutiny against its superiors. The military would never launch such a moral device anyway because it would undoubtedly see NATO as more evil than anyone in the combat zone. NFL star Pat Tillman could, however, distinguish evil and told them he was going to report it when he got back from Iraq. Well, he never got back because a US caliber bullet lodged in the back of his skull.
Cruise missiles thirty years ago could distinguish between civilian structures such as churches and military and industrial structures that had boiler heat signatures, so again, you and the professor are out to lunch. Your using differential yardsticks of "conscience" from the single processor days. Try getting a degree in Computer Science. You will attain AI illumination. AI tried and failed to mimic the human mind. And it always will because military or even industrial systems cannot be allowed free will. The very danger of workers rebelling and joining a Union is a result of their possessing a mutinous conscience that lurks deep in their souls and will surface if tyranny and evil get out of hand.
No machine could ever have such a thing.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
This kind of technology kills indiscriminately in much the way that nuclear bombs did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the fire bombing of Dresden, or etc. Smaller scale, but similar lack of discriminating targets from bystanders. Interesting that drone operators in trailers in the desert are reported to be suffering from PTSD anyway, and that eliminating the human operator is a goal of our military industrial thinkers.
Just finished Chalmer Johnson's piece here http://www.truthout.org/073009X about problems in the Corporate Empire, and he had a lot to say about rape -- how U.S. military personnel are immune to prosecution because of Status of Forces Agreements (hey, what ever happened to that referendum on the SOFA the Iraqi people were supposed to be having right around now?). Here's a quote:
"In Japan, of 3,184 U.S. military personnel who committed crimes between 2001 and 2008, 83% were not prosecuted...It is fair to say that the U.S. military has created a worldwide sexual playground for its personnel and protected them to a large extent from the consequences of their behavior."
Protecting imperial troops from the consequences of their behavior (and providing "comfort women" for male warriors -- note that rapes of women in uniform go largely unpunished as well) seems to be a goal our military is working toward on many fronts.
What sickens me is that for mainstream debate, this is passed off as military progress, just like mercenaries are "cool" and "professional".
1. There's no foolproof way of distinguishing one group's troops from another's. At least a human has the brainpower to deduce friend from foe. Having machines making the kill decision necessarily implies either heavy self-damage to human soldiers (of the nation that deployed the robots) or using no humans at all.
2. Using no humans at all, not even for backup, can seriously ruin a nation's military campaign. I haven't looked into the details of these machines, but it seems to me these standardized drones probably can all be hacked in the same way, or perhaps even deactivaed from a distance (by messing with computer chips?).
3. IF such things were hacked, what's to stop illegal domestic activites by government and gangs, or just simple accidents? A release of robots into a city could spell disaster.
4. When more than 1 country starts using robots against each other, the targeting systems would likely run into more problems. If you think ID'ing humans is difficult, try ID'ing enemy and friend robots made by the same company or designs (with nations probably trying their best to make their robots resemble their foes' robots, just to avoid destruction).
5. What if robots ran outside human supervsion? For the sake of us all, let's please keep the Terminator movies fiction.
Notice that these are just practical and logistical concerns. The ethical issues of further separating society from the killing, deaths of innocents, barbarism, suffering, and sacrifice of war is enough to stop any war, with any weapons. If we're on the verge of the military robotic revolution (which I doubt, only because cheap electricity and minerals, even for the military/mercenaries, is about to end), war would be transformed the way nukes did so 50 years ago.
Every historical military innovation (calvary, longbow, gun, machine gun, airplane, nuclear bomb, biological weapon) has only created either more widespread destruction or the threat of such to mankind. What makes the Pentagon think this can allow America to "win" (and what would that even mean)?
Demoralizing civilian populations is one of the objectives of invading a country. You tie down the local people with grief and caring for the wounded. Thus they have less ability to create a homegrown patriotic or democratic government that will keep foreigners from looting resources.
If you use robots, there is no need to hide coffins here or to deal with disabled veterans.
Also, and this is the beauty part, a company gets a lucrative contract.
In summation:
1. Demoralized population in invaded country
2. Lucrative contract for war profiteers
3. No US soldiers directly hurt (if the robot can tell who they are).
WIN-WIN-WIN situation.
Joe
The military mechanizes to kill more civilians, not fewer.
Why don't people call drones robots?
In practice, gamers will remain cheaper than AI for some time, but that's not apt to brighten a lot of Pakistani weddings.
This should creep you out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2bExqhhWRI
Creepy as hell.
Funded by DARPA no doubt.
Walk in peace.
How about spending all this money on something of more value to life on Earth??? How many more "killing machines" does this world need?