Who is Responsible for Military Robots’ Lethal Actions? Essay

Despite all they have done for the world, robots have a very unique and extensive history of villainization. There will be many opportunities for them in the future to either make or break society. Popular theories of a robot war are often favorites, but a lot of the possible realities involve a much more passive takeover. Overall, robots are an important aspect to be educated about in this changing world. Simply understanding the implications of artificial intelligence can completely change its impact. Robots will be a part of the future, whether for the good of humans, or to their

Singer describes Iraq operations as they were being performed in 2008 with the threat of Improvised Explosive Devices, IEDs. “The Explosive Ordnance Disposal, EOD, teams were tasked with defeating this threat, roving about the battlefield to find and defuse the IEDs before they could explode and kill.” 3 Robots such as Packbot and Talon were used to disarm IEDs which save lives of Soldiers and civilians. The proliferation of technology in the battlefield can be seen in today’s combat environment on the ground, sea and air and will continue to grow. He states that “man’s monopoly of warfare is being broken” because digital weapons such as Packbot, Talon, SWORDS, Predator, Global Hawk and many others are a “sign” that “we are entering the era of robots of war.” 4 He supports his theory of the proliferation of technology in weapons by looking at industry growth by providing quantifiable data of rapid growth in industry to meet demands. As he states “in 1999, there were nine companies with federal contracts in homeland security. By 2003, there were 3,512. In 2006, there were 33,890.” 5 Mr. Singer then provides a history of robots, trends, and what we can expect in the future. The book also provides a glimpse of what the author believes can be expected on future battlefields and changes that he thinks U.S. policy makers and military leaders need to address. Some of the changes that can be affected concern law of war, robots role in war, level of robot authority to fight wars and robot

With Robots becoming a popular part of our everyday lives people are beginning to question if people are treating robots with the same respect that they treat people with. Researchers are also beginning to wonder if there need to be laws to protect robots from being tortured or even killed. Scientists have done research to test and see if people react the same to robots as they would to actual people or animals. In Is it Okay to Torture or Murder a Robot Richard Fisher contemplates the reason on why it is wrong to hurt or kill a robot by using a stern and unbiased tone.

I support the advancements being made to robots in having them become more equipped to carry out tasks like guarding a bank or other establishment. Where I get a little skeptical in recognizing the questions Leetaru raised, is robots having any rights at all. Seeing as they are not an actual human being, it seems somewhat crazy to think that a robot would appear in a court case if they happened to harm someone. I believe that in a case like the one Leetaru outlined in his article, about the robber entering cardiac arrest after being subdued by the robot, should be dealt on a case-by-case situation. The programing for the robot should be looked at heavily to ensure that the robot was programmed to act in such a way. The robot obviously cannot be held responsible, because they act solely on how they were programmed. I believe it should be handled on a case-by-case situation seeing as malfunctions can occur, and it not be the programmers fault at all. I think that using robots for any kind of security work brings great risk to a company. In the case of accident, and even death, the other party wants justice. Using these robots makes that system very bumpy. We are left with this question: if advancements in this technology steadily keep rising, and usage becomes more prominent, will a separate justice system for these cases have to be

Furthermore, in The Veldt, the technology wasn’t always controllable. As stated by Signature- reads.com it states,“Killer robots aren’t fiction: We’re on the verge of starting an out-of-control arms race in AI-controlled weapons, which can weaken today’s powerful nations by making cheap and convenient assassination machines available to everybody with a full wallet and an axe to grind, including terrorist groups. Leading AI researchers oppose this and want an international AI, arms control treaty.” This shows that, since

In recent years technology has begun to grow at an astounding rate. Within the article “The Pentagon’s ‘Terminator conundrum” one such advancement in technology is discussed, describing the utilization of autonomous weapons within the military and the possibility of utilizing them to supersede human soldiers. While such technology seems like it wouldn’t be feasible till the distant future, the concept is presently being tested in military based drones within the pentagon. Some people disagree with the notion of giving machines the competency to make autonomous decisions on the battlefield, particularly the use of lethal force, believing machines aren’t trustworthy and could result in greater loss of life. If we were to ask an ancient philosopher

Besides developing their nuclear weapons or any other heavy lethal weapons, many states are also developing their high-tech weapons. Thus, so called autonomous weapons, have finally introduced in this modern era. Many people must not familiar with the term ‘autonomous weapons’, many scholars have defined that it is a weapons which are select and engage targets without human intervention. This autonomous weapon is a killer robot in any possible forms, and very ideal for task such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group. It is locked the target, and attack, no intervention no halt after it is

Over the past few decades, military equipment has received major technological advancements and has been reaching new heights. Modern improvements to technology have almost entirely changed the outlook we have on war. Robots have proven beneficial in carrying out dangerous tasks that involve casualties, but questions arise when robots are used to carry out missions that involve maintaining peace. More specifically, robots in war.

The boundless potential of tomorrow's artificial intelligence is plighted by the hurdle of ethical conundrums. While robot weapons allow for countries to extirpate the security threats which produce the daily fear that dictates many lives, the use of these tools has to follow a legal precedent. What is the value of life? Further, what constitutes the characteristics of a target? Although, even after such a ruling the use of said weapons should be discouraged given the implications that such strikes will bring about.

The primary objective of this study is to summarise the findings of a review of recent literature on lethal autonomous weapon systems. This study seeks to address concerns articulated by some scholars on banning the autonomous weapons. This paper argues that such a ban might be challenging for several reasons and can hinder the future development of artificial intelligent systems. Finally, the paper concludes with recommendations on realising the benefits of autonomous weapons by employing regulatory frameworks without prohibiting the autonomous weapons and not compromising human rights.

Science-fiction novels originated with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in the 19th century. Since then, we have upgraded our sci-fi books, from reanimating the dead to killer robots. But are killer robots really fictitious? Science-Fiction author and Ted Talk speaker Daniel Suarez argues that releasing autonomous robots for warfare will revert our nations into governments with centralized power; therefore, we need to ban the use of autonomous weapons if we want to prevent an immoral and anonymous arms race with robots. His allegations are backed with research that leaves me feeling confident in supporting him.

Lately there have been more and more smart machines that have been taking over regular human tasks but as it grows the bigger picture is that robots will take over a lot of tasks now done by people. But, many people think that there are important ethical and moral issues that have to be dealt with this. Sooner or later there is going to be a robot that will interact in a humane manner but there are many questions to be asked like; how will they interact with us? Do we really want machines that are independent, self-directed, and has affect and emotion? I think we do, because they can provide many benefits. Obviously, as with all technologies, there are dangers as well. We need to ensure that people always

Another issue brought forward from the movie is whether they should be given the same rights as humans. The movie shows us that the robots have three laws that they live by, the first one being they must protect human from any harm. This first law has a few issues in being that sometimes humans do not need to be protected, for example people who have committed a crime, need to be punished, not protected. The second law tells the robot they are to obey every order given unless it violates the first law. Even if the order is unethical the robot must still obey it. The third law states the robot must protect the robot its self unless it would violate the first two laws. If they were given the same rights as humans would set them free from their laws. Robots cannot function as human because they lack the ability to have compassion or emotion. Robots do not have the ability to make ethical decisions.

What image comes to mind when one hears the words “Killer Robot”? If one visualises the laser-wielding android in Terminator 2 which threatens to overpower its defenceless human adversaries, one would not be too far from the truth[1]. Today, advanced robots capable of engaging a human target autonomously are no longer confined to fiction but are instead rapidly becoming a reality.

Hollywood blockbusters such as Terminator and Terminator Two have fueled the idea of artificial intelligence taking on humanoid characteristics and taking over the world. Let me answer the last question once and for all. It is not possible for a robot to think, feel, or act for itself, it may be programmed to mimic the actions, but not experience the real thing. We can program them to react to a certain stimulus, but a robot cannot and will never be able to comprehend, have feelings genuine guilt and much less act without the use of a programmer some were along the line. The second question is also a rather simple one. Of course there are robots that should not be created. For example, robots made for the sole purpose of mass destruction or robots made with the intention of harm to