Banning Autonomous Weapons Is Foolish

Posted: 8/4/2015 Updated: 8/10/2015

Trigger

The debate over the pro and cons of autonomous weapons is picking up. Just read “We Should Not Ban ‘Killer Robots,’ and Here’s Why” (Article1) by Evan Ackerman. This article is concerned with this open letter (OL1).

Here is another, recent pro ban article by Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ban-killer-robots-before-they-become-weapons-of-mass-destruction/ (Article2). This article is based largely on another open letter (OL2) “The Future of Life Institute letter is significant for the same reason: It is signed by a large group of those who know the most about AI and robotics, with some 1,500 signatures at its release on July 28 and more than 17,000 today. Signatories include many current and former presidents, fellows and members of the American Association of Artificial Intelligence, the Association of Computing Machinery and the IEEE Robotics & Automation Society; editors of leading AI and robotics journals; and key players in leading artificial-intelligence companies such as Google DeepMind, Facebook, and IBM’s Watson team.”

Definition Of Autonomous Weapons

If you want to ban something you need a feasible definition. This is particularly true for dual use technology. On the other hand, I suspect, it is much too early in the process to come up with a good definition. Autonomous technology in general is still at the very beginning.

Unfortunately, the author of the above article does not provide his own definition of autonomous weapons. Thus, for the purposes of this blog I will rely on the definition given in the open letter published on 7/28/2015 by opponents of offensive autonomous weapons cited by the above author:

“Autonomous weapons select and engage targets without human intervention.”

The Con Arguments

Here is a summary of the arguments provided by the advocates of a ban as excerpted from the above open letter (OL1) or Article2 (plus commentary):

1. Represents the third revolution in warfare
   [Yes, this is probably correct!]
2. Deployment of such systems would be feasible within years, not decades as previously thought
   [I agree]
3. These weapons would lower the threshold of going to battle
   [Possibly, but it applies to bad as well as good guys. So what is the point?]
4. They want to prevent the next arms race (Article1) or “The development of autonomous weapons could very quickly and easily lead to arms races between rivals.” (Article2)
   [There has always been an arms race since the beginning of life on this planet. This is not going to change very soon, I am afraid. Any new technology has triggered a new arms race in the past, why would it be different now?]
5. Autonomic weapons would become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow. They will become ubiquitous and cheap to make
   [Autonomous technology is already ubiquitous and cheap and it is a dual use technology. So what is the point?]
6. These weapons will be abused in many ways e.g. by dictators to control the populace, by warlords to commit ethnic cleansing, by assassins etc.
   [Any new technology can be abused and has been abused for 10s of thousands of years. But autonomous technology also offers new ways of defensive technologies.]
7. AI researchers have no interest in building such weapons
   [How naive is that! Scientists have always willingly or not so voluntarily worked for the powers that be throughout history.]
8. “Autonomous weapons pose serious threats that, taken together, make a ban necessary. There are concerns whether AI algorithms could effectively distinguish civilians from combatants, especially in complex conflict environments.” (Article2)
   [Do today’s conventional weapons or weapons of the past accomplish such a distinction? This is a phony argument.]
9. “In a future where autonomous weapons fight autonomous weapons the results would be intrinsically unpredictable, and much more likely lead to the mass destruction of civilians and the environment than to the bloodless wars that some envision. Creating highly efficient automated violence is likely to lead to more violence, not less.” (Article2)
   [Wars have always been unpredictable! Anybody who envisions “bloodless wars” is a moron. The authors can’t be serious. More violence has not much to do with weapons but lot more with humans.]

Utopian Ban

How would such a ban be reliably implemented and verified as long as so many dictators are still ruling on this planet? As long as we have totalitarian countries like Russia, North Korea, China around it is rather impossible and wishful thinking.

The civilized and freedom loving  people living in open societies of this world only have a chance to survive by developing better offensive weapons or definitely better defensive weapons.

The Genie Is Out Of The Bottle

There is no doubt that someone with perhaps malicious intentions will try to take advantage of autonomous technology as much as and as fast as is possible. For the good guys it is their responsibility to develop at least effective counter technologies as fast as possible. This is the course of history until humans finally become more angel like beings in the future.