SectionsTechnology could soon replace human beings on frontline
Colin Wright
Issue date: 4/20/07 Section: Opinion
The future of warfare may be at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. It is at this school that Dr. Ronald Arkin is developing a set of rules that could determine how robot soldiers will kill on the battlefield. Potentially even more important, he is also figuring out how to keep those robots ethical.
Developing ethics for robots or other autonomous artificial intelligences is not a task for the weak-willed. There are many questions to be asked before any other actions can be taken in advancing the technology.
For example, if a dozen enemy soldiers could be killed, would it be worth the death of one friendly soldier? How about if it were only four enemies? Two?
The late Isaac Asimov, the science fiction writer who wrote I, Robot, among other works, often toyed with the idea of a standard set of rules for all robots, the first and foremost of these rules being that robots may not harm humans under any circumstances. Even in Asimov's fictional worlds, however, these rules were often inadvertently broken, allowing his writings to serve as a kind of warning for people like Dr. Arkin who are charged with making these robots as near infallibility as possible.
There have been arguments that bringing autonomous or near-autonomous robots to the battlefield will actually reduce the number of unnecessary deaths on both sides, as the robot will not be susceptible to emotions like rage or fear, and therefore will act with perfect rationality at all times.
The trouble with this assessment is that ideas about what is rational vary from person to person. There are some who would consider blowing themselves up for their cause perfectly rational, and in fact heroic. Most others, thankfully, don't feel the same. Who will determine how a robot reacts in a given situation?
There is also the possibility that with increased practicality (as far as human lives go, anyway) there could be an increase in the number of combat situations around the world. As soon as politicians don't have to worry about so called 'body bag politics,' they may be more permissive in their use of force.
Regardless of these concerns, the United States Department of Defense plans to replace one-third of its armed vehicles and weaponry with robots by the year 2015, and rightly so. Despite the possibility of political deviousness and the issues that arise in regards to the ethical and moral guidelines by which the robots will abide, it is necessary for the definition of war to change radically in the near future.
If war continues to be waged as it is now, there will be a continued brain drain in war-torn countries like the Sudan, and the cost of war on certain generations in the United States will continue to go far beyond the tangible into the psychological.
It's not very likely that international disputes will be solved by a Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots match any time soon, but if the trend of replacing human beings with technology continues in earnest, the time of human killing human over politics or resources could soon be all but gone.
Developing ethics for robots or other autonomous artificial intelligences is not a task for the weak-willed. There are many questions to be asked before any other actions can be taken in advancing the technology.
For example, if a dozen enemy soldiers could be killed, would it be worth the death of one friendly soldier? How about if it were only four enemies? Two?
The late Isaac Asimov, the science fiction writer who wrote I, Robot, among other works, often toyed with the idea of a standard set of rules for all robots, the first and foremost of these rules being that robots may not harm humans under any circumstances. Even in Asimov's fictional worlds, however, these rules were often inadvertently broken, allowing his writings to serve as a kind of warning for people like Dr. Arkin who are charged with making these robots as near infallibility as possible.
There have been arguments that bringing autonomous or near-autonomous robots to the battlefield will actually reduce the number of unnecessary deaths on both sides, as the robot will not be susceptible to emotions like rage or fear, and therefore will act with perfect rationality at all times.
The trouble with this assessment is that ideas about what is rational vary from person to person. There are some who would consider blowing themselves up for their cause perfectly rational, and in fact heroic. Most others, thankfully, don't feel the same. Who will determine how a robot reacts in a given situation?
There is also the possibility that with increased practicality (as far as human lives go, anyway) there could be an increase in the number of combat situations around the world. As soon as politicians don't have to worry about so called 'body bag politics,' they may be more permissive in their use of force.
Regardless of these concerns, the United States Department of Defense plans to replace one-third of its armed vehicles and weaponry with robots by the year 2015, and rightly so. Despite the possibility of political deviousness and the issues that arise in regards to the ethical and moral guidelines by which the robots will abide, it is necessary for the definition of war to change radically in the near future.
If war continues to be waged as it is now, there will be a continued brain drain in war-torn countries like the Sudan, and the cost of war on certain generations in the United States will continue to go far beyond the tangible into the psychological.
It's not very likely that international disputes will be solved by a Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots match any time soon, but if the trend of replacing human beings with technology continues in earnest, the time of human killing human over politics or resources could soon be all but gone.
Be the first to comment on this story