<![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics? - io9 Comments]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics? - io9 Comments]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> If we introduce ethics to weapons, wouldn't suicide be an issue? Great, not only de we have to deal with an uncooperative nuke, the nuke's going to get all emo over ending its self-existence, and never go through with it.

cde

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @Annalee Newitz: If at first you don't succeed, you die.

cde

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @mgoldfarb:
History does not support that viewpoint.

It only even vaguely begins to resemble your premise when you look at wealthy modern representative governments.
-Kle.

Klebert L. Hall

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> Priority 2: Locate Originators of Self

Objective: Target Termination...

Hekkashesh

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> Priority 1: Evaluate target

Weapons - No Weapons

IF: Armed - Then: Terminate Target
IF: Unarmed - Then: Evaluate target status for probable potential future hostility.

Future Hostile - Future Neutral

IF: Future Hostile - Then: Terminate Target
IF: Future Neutral - Then: Evaluate target for potential seduction by potentially hostile forces.

Corruptible - Incorruptible

IF: Corruptible - Then: Terminate Target
IF: Incorruptible - Then: Incorruptibility is impossible for carbon-based lifeforms. Terminate Target.

Hekkashesh

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> Priority1: Evaluate target

Weapons - No Weapons

IF: Armed - Then: Terminate Target
IF: Unarmed - Then: Evaluate target status for probable potential future hostility.

Future Hostile - Future Neutral

IF: Future Hostile - Then: Terminate Target
IF: Future Neutral - Then: Evaluate target for potential seduction by potentially hostile forces.

Corruptible - Incorruptible

IF: Corruptible - Then: Terminate Target
IF: Incorruptible - Then: Incorruptibility is impossible for carbon-based lifeforms. Terminate Target.

Hekkashesh

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @AmishJohn: President Bush announced today that the economy would be stimulated by the painted blue pituitary gland of a steaming rhinoceros. The EKG of the orbial mind certainly forecasts that these changes to fiscal fencing will certainly poke the Duke in the eyeball.

Pope John Peeps II

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @Pope John Peeps II: I was considering a worldwide council of existentialists to set fiscal policy for the world economy, myself. Or perhaps surrealists.

AmishJohn

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> Pope said, "ACTUAL ethicists and philosophers are regarded as useless throwbacks that nobody cares about?"

I'm not sure your statement is valid. I don't think they are useless at all. My philosopher friends teach philosophy and ethics at university--those memes are being stread. Classical Greek philosophy influenced me a good deal. I agree with Plato's ideas regarding Democracy, especially the un-popular ones.

Jeff-Minor

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @AmishJohn: In a related story, I'm organizing a conference of world philosophers and literary experts to discuss the future of CIRCUIT DIAGRAMS.

Pope John Peeps II

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @Pope John Peeps II: Follow the grant money, young padawan.

AmishJohn

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> I think the more important aspect of this conference is to give academics who don't really and truly study anything about the social sciences a chance to blather on at extremely high volume about fictional things that don't yet exist. This is futurism at it's finest.

How in god's name is it that people love it when roboticists and technicians argue about ethics, but ACTUAL ethicists and philosophers are regarded as useless throwbacks that nobody cares about?

Pope John Peeps II

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> HAL 9000 had ethics and look what happened. Ethics, in human terms, is a mixed bag, highly dependent on subjective reality states. Those states are based on intelligence, as in "good data." Already I can see why a very Good weapon would require too much data to be an effective killing machine. A Dirty Deeds Division is always required, and they aren't big on Ethics.

Jeff-Minor

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @ManchuCandidate: Even Asimovian ethics aren't a safeguard. Consider the Zeroth Law of Robotics.

In general, however, what makes me squeamish is WHOSE ethics are we borrowing here? There's too many variations on ethical principles that it could start a war just on those grounds, and then we'd need our fancy new shiny robots to hold us back.

Photogal

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> *Is involved in a company (www.MechaPS.com) working on something in this vein* For the smart machines we are developing, what we've got going is a system that can a) identify objects in 3D space (can tell a human from a cat from a rock) and b) reference a set of properties for each of those objects. What this means in practical terms: it "knows" that it cannot hurt the rock but will always have to move around it, that it can hurt the cat but it will probably run out of the way, and that it can hurt the human and must move around it regardless - a "value on human life". Bonus: when vehicle moves into enemy held territory, flip a switch to invert the value, setting it to "squish puny humans on sight." Obviously I jest somewhat with the latter, but you get the idea.

RedReticle

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> It's Dark Star all over again

Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm... well... I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun.

Another great exchange:
Bomb#20: In the beginning, there was darkness. And the darkness was without form, and void.
Boiler: What the hell is he talking about?
Bomb#20: And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness. And I saw that I was alone. Let there be light.

rbb

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @Annalee Newitz: If, as mgoldfarb describes it, we're looking at fairly simple (!) shoot/don't shoot decision making, then an "undetermined" situation would likely fall under "don't shoot"; especially if in a recon situation like you mention, where descretion is the better part of valour. In recon, the system would want to remain undetected, so firing on something that isn't 100% identifiable as a target would be counterproductive.

Frozen-Tex

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> undertermined : ask a human or/don't shoot

I'm very concerned with the future of war...I think people should actually die fighting wars, which is the the real concequence of using force to further a nations ambitions...
we'd engage in fewer of them, and 'the people at home' don't like seeing body bags...

goldfarb

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @Annalee Newitz: Sure! With a little Grand Marnier on the side? Up or on the rocks?

RRich

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @mgoldfarb: The problem comes when there is no human to ask, like on a recon mission.

Annalee Newitz

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @rrich: Oh great cuz I need some. How about a capuccino?

Annalee Newitz

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @rrich: Ooh, freaky! (Just read about it on Wikipedea)

Frozen-Tex

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> I don't know why 'ethics' is even part of this discussion...
the issue is determining, for the weapon system, what 'is' and 'is not' an valid target...
if something is a target : shoot it
if something is not : don't shoot
undertermined : ask a human.

goldfarb

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @Annalee Newitz: I think it learned its ethics from the boy Hogarth. Which is radical for the 1950's. Iron Giant was a cool movie for the nostalgic look at the beginning of the Cold War to its commentary on warfare. Watched it just the other day on HBO.

NefariousNewt

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> And don't worry, Annalee. I'll bring you some coffee.

RRich

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @Annalee Newitz: Not only is it NOT a lie, it's BLACKOUT CAKE!
[www.moli.com],,/

RRich

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> the ethics of a machine will always be limited by the programers. all this will do is change the group of people commiting war crimes from soldiers to tech geeks that program the bots.

tetracycloide

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @Frozen-Tex: Or the Forbin Project.

RRich

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @NefariousNewt: Or it thinks things through TOO much, decides that the user is the problem, and turns on its own side. Congratulations, you just built SKYNET!

Frozen-Tex

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @ManchuCandidate: It didn't so much decide anything, as the stop button didn't work right.

Frozen-Tex

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @braak:
Soldier:"For the 100th time, LAUNCH ALREADY!!! I've got orders!!!"

Super Duper Launcher 3000:"Are you feeling alright, Dave?"

Frozen-Tex

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @theintrepidspacemanspiff: Did the Iron Giant have ethics? I totally missed that movie.

Annalee Newitz

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @rrich: The cake is a lie!!!

Annalee Newitz

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> If we could just get humans ethics right, the rest would be cake!

Mmmm. Cake!

RRich

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @braak: Second time today that I'm reminded of Keith Laumer's Bolos. When you build autonomous or semi-autonomous weapons platforms, ones that are programmed to think tactically and strategically, you run into the conundrum of a weapons system deciding that perhaps the use of weapons is not justified, or that the problem is not as clear-cut as military planners make it out to be.

NefariousNewt

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> wasn't this topic covered in the animated movie "iron giant"?

the earl of weaver

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> "But Missile System, if I don't bomb Iran people might think I've been lying to them about everything!"

Maybe this would be a good thing...

shan6

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> I think I feel a post about "ethical weapons in Scifi" coming on . . . Marge Piercy's "He, She, and It" is another great example, as is Iain M. Banks' "Look to Windward."

Annalee Newitz

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> yes, but only if the creator has ethics; Robocop comes to mind as a good example of how not to do this.

Besides, it's a little oxymoronic to say a weapon has ethics.

jdw242b

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @Annalee Newitz: If everyone had them, I think that'd be an ideal situation. Then, you could only go to war if you could make a really compelling argument.

I think the problem is when just one side has them.

Is it wrong of me that I feel like these are the kinds of missiles that Hassidim would make?

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @Annalee Newitz:

Recommended related viewing: DARK STAR

Hekkashesh

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> I prefer Sentinel weaponry.
Or, even better, The Sentinel movie with Burgess Meredith and John Carradine in it.

Plague

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @braak: Is it wrong of me to WANT that? I totally want to have an ethical debate with my weapons.

Annalee Newitz

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> @ManchuCandidate:
er, sentient, not sentinel. Duh.

ManchuCandidate

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> It is a good idea, but Asimov's three laws of robotics stop sentinel weaponry unless you view your opponents as not human (wouldn't be the first time that's happened.)

FYI, about 5 months ago, a platoon of South African soldiers was nearly wiped out when an automated AA gun decided that they were the enemy.

ManchuCandidate

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> You have to be careful about programming robotic weapons to have ethics, because maybe you'll go overboard, and then, instead of just pressing a button to launch a missile, you've got to spend hours and hours having a debate with the robot about why it's ethical for it to blow Kirkusk, or wherever.

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> As far as robots with ethics, I'll defer to Warren Ellis:
[www.warrenellis.com]

RRich

]]> <![CDATA[Can a Robotic Weapon Be Programmed to Have Ethics?]]> Other recommended reading: GOTTLOS by Colin Kapp

Hekkashesh

]]>