Austria on Monday (Apr 29) called for renewed global efforts to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) in weapon systems, highlighting the potential emergence of autonomous so-called "killer robots."&nbsp;

During a conference in Vienna, which gathered representatives from 143 countries, and various non-governmental and international organisations, Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg stressed that "We cannot let this moment pass without taking action. Now is the time to agree on international rules and norms to ensure human control."

<h2>'Humanity at crossroads'</h2>

The conference titled 'Humanity at the Crossroads: Autonomous Weapons Systems and the Challenge of Regulation,' as per AFP, focused on the ethical and legal dilemmas posed by AI weapons capable of operating without human oversight.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/ais-achilles-heel-pentagon-developing-tech-to-prevent-rogue-machines-slaughterbots-in-battle-707623">AI's Achilles' heel: Pentagon developing tech to avoid rogue machines, slaughterbots in battle</a>

Giving the opening remarks at the conference, Schallenberg said, "At least let us make sure that the most profound and far-reaching decision, who lives and who dies, remains in the hands of humans and not of machines."

Despite years of discussions at the United Nations, little progress has been made in regulating these technologies. Participants at the Vienna conference expressed concern that the window to address these challenges was closing rapidly.

Mirjana Spoljaric, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, echoed the need for swift action.

"It is so important to act and to act very fast," said Spoljaric, adding, "What we see today in the different contexts of violence are moral failures in the face of the international community."

"We do not want to see such failures accelerating by giving the responsibility for violence, for the control over violence, over to machines and algorithms," she warned during a panel discussion.

<h2>AI in battlefield</h2>

Diplomats at the conference cited examples of AI already being used on the battlefield. This includes drones in Ukraine, which can autonomously navigate to targets when cut off from operator signals, and reports of AI being used by the Israeli military to identify bombing targets in Gaza.

Also read |&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-israeli-militarys-use-of-ai-lavender-to-generate-kill-lists-707558" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-israeli-militarys-use-of-ai-lavender-to-generate-kill-lists-707558&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjr36i1h-mFAxVtfGwGHaVSCE4QFnoECAkQAg&amp;usg=AOvVaw2bgG367EukdD9O8MwIK9_5&amp;arm=e" dir="ltr" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-israeli-militarys-use-of-ai-lavender-to-generate-kill-lists-707558" target="_blank">Explained: Israeli military's use of AI tool 'Lavender' to generate kill lists</a>

Highlighting the potential for error in AI systems, Jaan Tallinn, a software programmer and tech investor in a keynote speech, warned, "We must be extremely cautious about relying on the accuracy of these systems, whether in the military or civilian sectors."

Cited incidents of AI misidentification in both civilian and military contexts, he said, "We have already seen AI making selection errors in ways both large and small, from misrecognising a referee's bald head as a football, to pedestrian deaths caused by self-driving cars unable to recognise jaywalking."

(With inputs from agencies)

Austria on Monday (Apr 29) called for renewed global efforts to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) in weapon systems, highlighting the potential emergence of autonomous so-called "killer robots.

Austria on Monday (Apr 29) called for renewed global efforts to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) in weapon systems, highlighting the potential emergence of autonomous so-called "killer robots." During a conference in Vienna, which gathered representatives from 143 countries, and various non-governmental and international organisations, Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg stressed that "We cannot let this moment pass without taking action. Now is the time to agree on international rules and norms to ensure human control." 'Humanity at crossroads' The conference titled 'Humanity at the Crossroads: Autonomous Weapons Systems and the Challenge of Regulation,' as per AFP, focused on the ethical and legal dilemmas posed by AI weapons capable of operating without human oversight. Also read | AI's Achilles' heel: Pentagon developing tech to avoid rogue machines, slaughterbots in battle Giving the opening remarks at the conference, Schallenberg said, "At least let us make sure that the most profound and far-reaching decision, who lives and who dies, remains in the hands of humans and not of machines." Despite years of discussions at the United Nations, little progress has been made in regulating these technologies. Participants at the Vienna conference expressed concern that the window to address these challenges was closing rapidly. Mirjana Spoljaric, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, echoed the need for swift action. "It is so important to act and to act very fast," said Spoljaric, adding, "What we see today in the different contexts of violence are moral failures in the face of the international community." "We do not want to see such failures accelerating by giving the responsibility for violence, for the control over violence, over to machines and algorithms," she warned during a panel discussion. AI in battlefield Diplomats at the conference cited examples of AI already being used on the battlefield. This includes drones in Ukraine, which can autonomously navigate to targets when cut off from operator signals, and reports of AI being used by the Israeli military to identify bombing targets in Gaza. Also read | Explained: Israeli military's use of AI tool 'Lavender' to generate kill lists Highlighting the potential for error in AI systems, Jaan Tallinn, a software programmer and tech investor in a keynote speech, warned, "We must be extremely cautious about relying on the accuracy of these systems, whether in the military or civilian sectors." Cited incidents of AI misidentification in both civilian and military contexts, he said, "We have already seen AI making selection errors in ways both large and small, from misrecognising a referee's bald head as a football, to pedestrian deaths caused by self-driving cars unable to recognise jaywalking." (With inputs from agencies)

Experts call for rapid regulation of killer robots, say humans should decide 'who lives and who dies'

United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, and the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mirjana Spoljaric, echoed a similar sentiment in the need for governments worldwide to immediately take action and "act now" to ensure human control over the use of lethal autonomous weapons and safety against 'killer robots', as they are popularly known.&nbsp;

In a joint appeal, they implored the 193 member states of the UN to take resolute steps and engage in negotiations for a new international treaty, with the goal of implementing a ban on and regulation of autonomous weapons systems by 2026, a statement by the rights group pointed out.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-kim-putin-meet-train-traffic-between-north-korea-and-russia-spikes-643622">After Kim-Putin meet, train traffic between North Korea and Russia spikes</a>

Guterres initially proposed this ambitious timeline in his "New Agenda for Peace" briefing paper, published in July.

"Such a treaty should prohibit autonomous weapons systems that function in such a way that their effects cannot be predicted. Clear restrictions are also needed for all other types of autonomous weapons to ensure compliance with international law and ethical acceptability," it added.&nbsp;

The high-level proposal, along with its proposed timeline for negotiation and implementation, is a step toward crafting a treaty in the future.&nbsp;But there has been disappointment in what has been achieved so far. Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a coalition of non-governmental organisations, is seeking to ban these 'killer robots'.

"Machines should not be allowed to make life and death decisions. There have been 10 years of international discussions on killer robots without concrete outcomes. This October, that could all change. At the United Nations General Assembly, there will be a vote on a resolution – a first step towards new international law," the coalition said.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/first-gandhi-museum-in-north-america-opens-in-houston-643616">First Gandhi Museum in North America opens in Houston</a>

<h2>UN General Assembly resolution</h2>

A proposed resolution within the UN General Assembly, slated for a vote at the end of October, is presenting as a crucial step towards the realisation of an international treaty.

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/putin-russia-successfully-tested-nuclear-powered-missile-643636">Putin: Russia successfully tested nuclear-powered missile</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/putin-russia-successfully-tested-nuclear-powered-missile-643636/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

This resolution, introduced by Austria and co-sponsored by a minimum of 10 other countries, is seeking to facilitate the sharing of viewpoints among all nations concerning autonomous weapons. It also invites responses to the associated risks of these autonomous weapons.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, and the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mirjana Spoljaric, echoed a similar sentiment in the need for governments worldwide to immediately take action and "act now" to ensure human control over the use of lethal autonomous weapons and safety against 'killer robots', as they are popularly known.

United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, and the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mirjana Spoljaric, echoed a similar sentiment in the need for governments worldwide to immediately take action and "act now" to ensure human control over the use of lethal autonomous weapons and safety against 'killer robots', as they are popularly known. In a joint appeal, they implored the 193 member states of the UN to take resolute steps and engage in negotiations for a new international treaty, with the goal of implementing a ban on and regulation of autonomous weapons systems by 2026, a statement by the rights group pointed out. Also Read | After Kim-Putin meet, train traffic between North Korea and Russia spikes Guterres initially proposed this ambitious timeline in his "New Agenda for Peace" briefing paper, published in July. "Such a treaty should prohibit autonomous weapons systems that function in such a way that their effects cannot be predicted. Clear restrictions are also needed for all other types of autonomous weapons to ensure compliance with international law and ethical acceptability," it added. The high-level proposal, along with its proposed timeline for negotiation and implementation, is a step toward crafting a treaty in the future. But there has been disappointment in what has been achieved so far. Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a coalition of non-governmental organisations, is seeking to ban these 'killer robots'. "Machines should not be allowed to make life and death decisions. There have been 10 years of international discussions on killer robots without concrete outcomes. This October, that could all change. At the United Nations General Assembly, there will be a vote on a resolution – a first step towards new international law," the coalition said. Also Read | First Gandhi Museum in North America opens in Houston UN General Assembly resolution A proposed resolution within the UN General Assembly, slated for a vote at the end of October, is presenting as a crucial step towards the realisation of an international treaty. Watch | Putin: Russia successfully tested nuclear-powered missile × This resolution, introduced by Austria and co-sponsored by a minimum of 10 other countries, is seeking to facilitate the sharing of viewpoints among all nations concerning autonomous weapons. It also invites responses to the associated risks of these autonomous weapons. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. ×

UN, Red Cross call for international treaty for safety against 'killer robots'

You may have seen many Sci-Fi movies. You may have enjoyed scenes with robots fighting each other. But let us tell you, killer robots are no longer limited to the fictional world. Fighting robots are now becoming a real threat. These robots are turning out to be quite dangerous. In fact, the future is uncertain if the countries continue to design such killer robots aggressively. Watch the story for more details.

Killer robots: The weapons of war | Tech It Out

Better late than never. Governments around the world are taking steps to tackle the risks of allowing the development and spread of killer robots, technically known as Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS).&nbsp;

LAWS differ from the vast array of weapons in today’s arsenals – from intercontinental ballistic missiles to the drones used to devastating effect by Russia and Ukraine – because they can make decisions on what or whom to strike, who lives and who dies, without human intervention.

Artificial intelligence, facial recognition and millions of lines of codes will take the place of human operators. It is a concept in sharp contrast to the way the United States used Predator drones in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were flown by pilots sitting in front of television screens in cubicles at the Creech Air Force base in Nevada, 8,000 miles from the target areas.&nbsp;

The human operators were “on the loop,” the military jargon for constant control. LAWS would operate on the principle of “human out of the loop.”

Watch | War in Ukraine: 30 minutes after Zelensky's speech, Russia launches drone attacks

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/war-in-ukraine-30-minutes-after-zelenskys-speech-russia-launches-drone-attacks-548577/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The United States, the world’s biggest maker and exporter of weapons, has no LAWS in its arsenal, according to the Pentagon. But it does have a definition: “weapons systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator.”&nbsp;

The pros and cons of killer robots have been debated in military academies and among arms control experts for almost two decades but the topic won little public attention and scant news coverage despite the efforts of advocacy groups such as stopkillerrobots.org and humanrightswatch.org.

The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been outspoken on the subject: “Autonomous machines with the power and discretion to select targets and take lives without human involvement are politically unacceptable, morally repugnant and should be prohibited by international law,” he has said.

Such statements produced few headlines. One reason: Unlike the years-long campaign that led to the 1997 treaty banning anti-personnel mines, the anti-LAWS movement has lacked celebrity backers. The mine ban’s vocal supporters included the late Princess Diana and the actress Angelina Jolie.

There are signs now that a movement to ban or at least regulate killer robots is finally getting traction. Last October, the topic was formally raised at the UN General Assembly for the first time when 70 states agreed on a resolution calling for internationally agreed rules and limits on autonomous weapons systems.

A resolution by 70 countries falls far short of the two-thirds majority required in the General Assembly to stir the Security Council, the UN’s supreme decision-making body, into action.

But the issue will be raised again next month at a global summit, the first of its kind, hosted by the Dutch government, to discuss Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain. According to the Netherlands government, the meeting was prompted by the need to give the topic “a higher place on the international agenda.” Dubbed REAIM 2023, the summit is scheduled for February 15 and 16 at The Hague.

There is no full list of participants yet. The government says the summit will be a platform for governments, industry, civil society, academia and think tanks to forge a common understanding of the opportunities, dilemmas and vulnerabilities associated with military AI.

The 70 countries that signed the General Assembly statement included the US, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Australia, Belgium, and Germany – all countries with the capacity to produce LAWS.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/killer-robots-arent-science-fiction-a-push-to-ban-them-is-growing-437886">Killer robots aren’t science fiction. A push to ban them is growing.</a>

No country has yet deployed LAWS in combat, according to military experts. But for proponents of using them, the logic appears obvious. If a country can fight wars with great efficiency, accurately pick out opponents from thousands of feet in the sky without the need for soldiers on the battlefield, why not?

The main argument by opponents is that the threshold for states going to war would be lowered by autonomous weapons. As an analysis in the Harvard Political Review put it, “many philosophers, political scientists and governments have expressed the concern that militaries will resort to conflicts more often if they do not need to rely on soldiers.”

One concern often expressed by experts in discussions on the future of war is that technology is running ahead of deliberations of ethical and legal questions.&nbsp;

&nbsp;Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/san-francisco-reverses-move-to-allow-police-use-killer-robots-after-backlash-540858">After backlash, San Francisco reverses move to permit use of ‘killer robots’ by police</a>

Many of those have no convincing answers. Such as, can you programme the Laws of War and the Rules of Engagement into an autonomous weapon? Or, if something goes wrong, resulting in the death of civilians, who will be held responsible? The robot’s manufacturer? The designers? Software programmers? The commanding officer in whose unit the weapon operates? Or the political leader who gave the green light for deploying LAWS in the first place?

The forthcoming summit in The Hague so far has no catchy slogan. Here’s my suggestion: We need laws about LAWS.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Better late than never. Governments around the world are taking steps to tackle the risks of allowing the development and spread of killer robots, technically known as Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS).

Better late than never. Governments around the world are taking steps to tackle the risks of allowing the development and spread of killer robots, technically known as Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). LAWS differ from the vast array of weapons in today’s arsenals – from intercontinental ballistic missiles to the drones used to devastating effect by Russia and Ukraine – because they can make decisions on what or whom to strike, who lives and who dies, without human intervention. Artificial intelligence, facial recognition and millions of lines of codes will take the place of human operators. It is a concept in sharp contrast to the way the United States used Predator drones in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were flown by pilots sitting in front of television screens in cubicles at the Creech Air Force base in Nevada, 8,000 miles from the target areas. The human operators were “on the loop,” the military jargon for constant control. LAWS would operate on the principle of “human out of the loop.” Watch | War in Ukraine: 30 minutes after Zelensky's speech, Russia launches drone attacks × The United States, the world’s biggest maker and exporter of weapons, has no LAWS in its arsenal, according to the Pentagon. But it does have a definition: “weapons systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator.” The pros and cons of killer robots have been debated in military academies and among arms control experts for almost two decades but the topic won little public attention and scant news coverage despite the efforts of advocacy groups such as stopkillerrobots.org and humanrightswatch.org. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been outspoken on the subject: “Autonomous machines with the power and discretion to select targets and take lives without human involvement are politically unacceptable, morally repugnant and should be prohibited by international law,” he has said. Such statements produced few headlines. One reason: Unlike the years-long campaign that led to the 1997 treaty banning anti-personnel mines, the anti-LAWS movement has lacked celebrity backers. The mine ban’s vocal supporters included the late Princess Diana and the actress Angelina Jolie. There are signs now that a movement to ban or at least regulate killer robots is finally getting traction. Last October, the topic was formally raised at the UN General Assembly for the first time when 70 states agreed on a resolution calling for internationally agreed rules and limits on autonomous weapons systems. A resolution by 70 countries falls far short of the two-thirds majority required in the General Assembly to stir the Security Council, the UN’s supreme decision-making body, into action. But the issue will be raised again next month at a global summit, the first of its kind, hosted by the Dutch government, to discuss Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain. According to the Netherlands government, the meeting was prompted by the need to give the topic “a higher place on the international agenda.” Dubbed REAIM 2023, the summit is scheduled for February 15 and 16 at The Hague. There is no full list of participants yet. The government says the summit will be a platform for governments, industry, civil society, academia and think tanks to forge a common understanding of the opportunities, dilemmas and vulnerabilities associated with military AI. The 70 countries that signed the General Assembly statement included the US, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Australia, Belgium, and Germany – all countries with the capacity to produce LAWS. Also Read | Killer robots aren’t science fiction. A push to ban them is growing. No country has yet deployed LAWS in combat, according to military experts. But for proponents of using them, the logic appears obvious. If a country can fight wars with great efficiency, accurately pick out opponents from thousands of feet in the sky without the need for soldiers on the battlefield, why not? The main argument by opponents is that the threshold for states going to war would be lowered by autonomous weapons. As an analysis in the Harvard Political Review put it, “many philosophers, political scientists and governments have expressed the concern that militaries will resort to conflicts more often if they do not need to rely on soldiers.” One concern often expressed by experts in discussions on the future of war is that technology is running ahead of deliberations of ethical and legal questions. Also Read | After backlash, San Francisco reverses move to permit use of ‘killer robots’ by police Many of those have no convincing answers. Such as, can you programme the Laws of War and the Rules of Engagement into an autonomous weapon? Or, if something goes wrong, resulting in the death of civilians, who will be held responsible? The robot’s manufacturer? The designers? Software programmers? The commanding officer in whose unit the weapon operates? Or the political leader who gave the green light for deploying LAWS in the first place? The forthcoming summit in The Hague so far has no catchy slogan. Here’s my suggestion: We need laws about LAWS. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Killer robots and the future of war

Lawmakers in San Francisco have voted to ban the controversial policy of letting police use robots for deadly force amidst concerns over militarisation and automation of policing.&nbsp;The San Francisco police department (SFPD) has 17 robots in its arsenal that can even kill people during action.

The city’s board of supervisors have decided to prohibit the use of police robots to be used in such a lethal manner, however, they have called for further review by a committee to later decided whether to allow killer robots to be used in limited cases.

The major U-turn comes a week after the board members voted to allow robots to be armed with explosives “when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD”.

They had also decided that only top officers would be granted permission to authorise the deployment of robots for deadly use.

The decision to revoke the earlier move comes in the wake of a series of protests by civil society organisations and three members of the board who earlier opposed using killer robots.

On Monday, they staged a protest outside City Hall seeking to reverse the decision, with chants like “We all saw that movie … No Killer Robots.”

One of the members who opposed the move, supervisor Dean Preston, on Tuesday welcomed the decision, saying that there is no place for “killer robots”.

“The people of San Francisco have spoken loud and clear: There is no place for killer police robots in our city,” he said in a statement after the vote, according to AP news agency.

“We should be working on ways to decrease the use of force by local law enforcement, not giving them new tools to kill people.”

So far, only San Francisco and Oakland have debated on the use of lethal robots. The Oakland police wanted to arm robots with shotguns but did not proceed with the move in the face of fierce public opposition.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE: 

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Lawmakers in San Francisco have voted to ban the controversial policy of letting police use robots for deadly force amidst concerns over militarisation and automation of policing.

Lawmakers in San Francisco have voted to ban the controversial policy of letting police use robots for deadly force amidst concerns over militarisation and automation of policing. The San Francisco police department (SFPD) has 17 robots in its arsenal that can even kill people during action. The city’s board of supervisors have decided to prohibit the use of police robots to be used in such a lethal manner, however, they have called for further review by a committee to later decided whether to allow killer robots to be used in limited cases. The major U-turn comes a week after the board members voted to allow robots to be armed with explosives “when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD”. They had also decided that only top officers would be granted permission to authorise the deployment of robots for deadly use. The decision to revoke the earlier move comes in the wake of a series of protests by civil society organisations and three members of the board who earlier opposed using killer robots. On Monday, they staged a protest outside City Hall seeking to reverse the decision, with chants like “We all saw that movie … No Killer Robots.” One of the members who opposed the move, supervisor Dean Preston, on Tuesday welcomed the decision, saying that there is no place for “killer robots”. “The people of San Francisco have spoken loud and clear: There is no place for killer police robots in our city,” he said in a statement after the vote, according to AP news agency. “We should be working on ways to decrease the use of force by local law enforcement, not giving them new tools to kill people.” So far, only San Francisco and Oakland have debated on the use of lethal robots. The Oakland police wanted to arm robots with shotguns but did not proceed with the move in the face of fierce public opposition. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

After backlash, San Francisco reverses move to permit use of ‘killer robots’ by police

It may have seemed like an obscure United Nations conclave, but a meeting this week in Geneva was followed intently by experts in artificial intelligence, military strategy, disarmament and humanitarian law.

The reason for the interest? Killer robots — drones, guns and bombs that decide on their own, with artificial brains, whether to attack and kill — and what should be done, if anything, to regulate or ban them.

Once the domain of science fiction films like the “Terminator” series and “RoboCop,” killer robots, more technically known as Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, have been invented and tested at an accelerated pace with little oversight. Some prototypes have even been used in actual conflicts.

The evolution of these machines is considered a potentially seismic event in warfare, akin to the invention of gunpowder and nuclear bombs.

This year, for the first time, a majority of the 125 nations that belong to an agreement called the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons said they wanted curbs on killer robots. But they were opposed by members that are developing these weapons, most notably the United States and Russia.

The group’s conference concluded Friday with only a vague statement about considering possible measures acceptable to all. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a disarmament group, said the outcome fell “drastically short.”

What is the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons?

Sometimes known as the Inhumane Weapons Convention, it is a framework of rules that ban or restrict weapons considered to cause unnecessary, unjustifiable and indiscriminate suffering, such as incendiary explosives, blinding lasers and booby traps that don’t distinguish between fighters and civilians. The convention has no provisions for killer robots.

What exactly are killer robots?

Opinions differ on an exact definition, but they are widely considered to be weapons that make decisions with little or no human involvement. Rapid improvements in robotics, AI and image recognition are making such armaments possible.

The drones the United States has used extensively in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere are not considered robots because they are operated remotely by people, who choose targets and decide whether to shoot.

Why are they considered attractive?

To war planners, the weapons offer the promise of keeping soldiers out of harm’s way, and making faster decisions than a human would, by giving more battlefield responsibilities to autonomous systems like pilotless drones and driverless tanks that independently decide when to strike.

What are the objections?

Critics argue it is morally repugnant to assign lethal decision making to machines, regardless of technological sophistication. How does a machine differentiate an adult from a child, a fighter with a bazooka from a civilian with a broom, a hostile combatant from a wounded or surrendering soldier?

“Fundamentally, autonomous weapon systems raise ethical concerns for society about substituting human decisions about life and death with sensor, software and machine processes,” Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross and an outspoken opponent of killer robots, told the Geneva conference.

In advance of the conference, Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic called for steps toward a legally binding agreement that requires human control at all times.

“Robots lack the compassion, empathy, mercy and judgment necessary to treat humans humanely, and they cannot understand the inherent worth of human life,” the groups argued in a briefing paper to support their recommendations.

Others said autonomous weapons, rather than reducing the risk of war, could do the opposite — by providing antagonists with ways of inflicting harm that minimize risks to their own soldiers.

“Mass-produced killer robots could lower the threshold for war by taking humans out of the kill chain and unleashing machines that could engage a human target without any human at the controls,” said Phil Twyford, New Zealand’s disarmament minister.

Why was the Geneva conference important?

The conference was widely considered by disarmament experts to be the best opportunity so far to devise ways to regulate, if not prohibit, the use of killer robots under the convention.

It was the culmination of years of discussions by a group of experts who had been asked to identify the challenges and possible approaches to reducing the threats from killer robots. But the experts could not even reach agreement on basic questions.

What do opponents of a new treaty say?

Some, like Russia, insist that any decisions on limits must be unanimous — in effect giving opponents a veto.

The United States argues that existing international laws are sufficient and that banning autonomous weapons technology would be premature. The chief U.S. delegate to the conference, Joshua Dorosin, proposed a nonbinding “code of conduct” for use of killer robots — an idea that disarmament advocates dismissed as a delaying tactic.

The U.S. military has invested heavily in AI, working with the biggest defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. The work has included projects to develop long-range missiles that detect moving targets based on radio frequency, swarm drones that can identify and attack a target, and automated missile defense systems, according to research by opponents of the weapons systems.

The complexity and varying uses of AI make it more difficult to regulate than nuclear weapons or land mines, said Maaike Verbruggen, an expert on emerging military security technology at the Center for Security, Diplomacy and Strategy in Brussels. She said lack of transparency about what different countries are building has created “fear and concern” among military leaders that they must keep up.

“It’s very hard to get a sense of what another country is doing,” said Verbruggen, who is working toward a doctorate on the topic. “There is a lot of uncertainty and that drives military innovation.”

Franz-Stefan Gady, a research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the “arms race for autonomous weapons systems is already underway and won’t be called off anytime soon.”

Is there conflict in the defense establishment about killer robots?

Yes. Even as the technology becomes more advanced, there has been reluctance to use autonomous weapons in combat because of fears of mistakes, Gady said.

“Can military commanders trust the judgment of autonomous weapon systems? Here the answer at the moment is clearly ‘no’ and will remain so for the near future,” he said.

The debate over autonomous weapons has spilled into Silicon Valley. In 2018, Google said it would not renew a contract with the Pentagon after thousands of its employees signed a letter protesting the company’s work on a program using AI to interpret images that could be used to choose drone targets. The company also created new ethical guidelines prohibiting the use of its technology for weapons and surveillance.

Others believe the United States is not going far enough to compete with rivals.

In October, the former chief software officer for the Air Force, Nicolas Chaillan, told the Financial Times that he had resigned because of what he saw as weak technological progress inside the U.S. military, particularly the use of AI. He said policymakers are slowed down by questions about ethics, while countries like China press ahead.

Where have autonomous weapons been used?

There are not many verified battlefield examples, but critics point to a few incidents that show the technology’s potential.

In March, U.N. investigators said a “lethal autonomous weapons system” had been used by government-backed forces in Libya against militia fighters. A drone called Kargu-2, made by a Turkish defense contractor, tracked and attacked the fighters as they fled a rocket attack, according to the report, which left unclear whether any human controlled the drones.

In the 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan fought Armenia with attack drones and missiles that loiter in the air until detecting the signal of an assigned target.

What happens now?

Many disarmament advocates said the outcome of the conference had hardened what they described as a resolve to push for a new treaty in the next few years, like those that prohibit land mines and cluster munitions.

Daan Kayser, an autonomous weapons expert at PAX, a Netherlands-based peace advocacy group, said the conference’s failure to agree to even negotiate on killer robots was “a really plain signal that the CCW isn’t up to the job.”

Noel Sharkey, an AI expert and chair of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, said the meeting had demonstrated that a new treaty was preferable to further convention deliberations.

“There was a sense of urgency in the room,” he said, that “if there’s no movement, we’re not prepared to stay on this treadmill.”

It may have seemed like an obscure United Nations conclave, but a meeting this week in Geneva was followed intently by experts in artificial intelligence, military strategy, disarmament and humanitarian law.

It may have seemed like an obscure United Nations conclave, but a meeting this week in Geneva was followed intently by experts in artificial intelligence, military strategy, disarmament and humanitarian law. The reason for the interest? Killer robots — drones, guns and bombs that decide on their own, with artificial brains, whether to attack and kill — and what should be done, if anything, to regulate or ban them. Once the domain of science fiction films like the “Terminator” series and “RoboCop,” killer robots, more technically known as Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, have been invented and tested at an accelerated pace with little oversight. Some prototypes have even been used in actual conflicts. The evolution of these machines is considered a potentially seismic event in warfare, akin to the invention of gunpowder and nuclear bombs. This year, for the first time, a majority of the 125 nations that belong to an agreement called the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons said they wanted curbs on killer robots. But they were opposed by members that are developing these weapons, most notably the United States and Russia. The group’s conference concluded Friday with only a vague statement about considering possible measures acceptable to all. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a disarmament group, said the outcome fell “drastically short.” What is the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons? Sometimes known as the Inhumane Weapons Convention, it is a framework of rules that ban or restrict weapons considered to cause unnecessary, unjustifiable and indiscriminate suffering, such as incendiary explosives, blinding lasers and booby traps that don’t distinguish between fighters and civilians. The convention has no provisions for killer robots. What exactly are killer robots? Opinions differ on an exact definition, but they are widely considered to be weapons that make decisions with little or no human involvement. Rapid improvements in robotics, AI and image recognition are making such armaments possible. The drones the United States has used extensively in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere are not considered robots because they are operated remotely by people, who choose targets and decide whether to shoot. Why are they considered attractive? To war planners, the weapons offer the promise of keeping soldiers out of harm’s way, and making faster decisions than a human would, by giving more battlefield responsibilities to autonomous systems like pilotless drones and driverless tanks that independently decide when to strike. What are the objections? Critics argue it is morally repugnant to assign lethal decision making to machines, regardless of technological sophistication. How does a machine differentiate an adult from a child, a fighter with a bazooka from a civilian with a broom, a hostile combatant from a wounded or surrendering soldier? “Fundamentally, autonomous weapon systems raise ethical concerns for society about substituting human decisions about life and death with sensor, software and machine processes,” Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross and an outspoken opponent of killer robots, told the Geneva conference. In advance of the conference, Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic called for steps toward a legally binding agreement that requires human control at all times. “Robots lack the compassion, empathy, mercy and judgment necessary to treat humans humanely, and they cannot understand the inherent worth of human life,” the groups argued in a briefing paper to support their recommendations. Others said autonomous weapons, rather than reducing the risk of war, could do the opposite — by providing antagonists with ways of inflicting harm that minimize risks to their own soldiers. “Mass-produced killer robots could lower the threshold for war by taking humans out of the kill chain and unleashing machines that could engage a human target without any human at the controls,” said Phil Twyford, New Zealand’s disarmament minister. Why was the Geneva conference important? The conference was widely considered by disarmament experts to be the best opportunity so far to devise ways to regulate, if not prohibit, the use of killer robots under the convention. It was the culmination of years of discussions by a group of experts who had been asked to identify the challenges and possible approaches to reducing the threats from killer robots. But the experts could not even reach agreement on basic questions. What do opponents of a new treaty say? Some, like Russia, insist that any decisions on limits must be unanimous — in effect giving opponents a veto. The United States argues that existing international laws are sufficient and that banning autonomous weapons technology would be premature. The chief U.S. delegate to the conference, Joshua Dorosin, proposed a nonbinding “code of conduct” for use of killer robots — an idea that disarmament advocates dismissed as a delaying tactic. The U.S. military has invested heavily in AI, working with the biggest defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. The work has included projects to develop long-range missiles that detect moving targets based on radio frequency, swarm drones that can identify and attack a target, and automated missile defense systems, according to research by opponents of the weapons systems. The complexity and varying uses of AI make it more difficult to regulate than nuclear weapons or land mines, said Maaike Verbruggen, an expert on emerging military security technology at the Center for Security, Diplomacy and Strategy in Brussels. She said lack of transparency about what different countries are building has created “fear and concern” among military leaders that they must keep up. “It’s very hard to get a sense of what another country is doing,” said Verbruggen, who is working toward a doctorate on the topic. “There is a lot of uncertainty and that drives military innovation.” Franz-Stefan Gady, a research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the “arms race for autonomous weapons systems is already underway and won’t be called off anytime soon.” Is there conflict in the defense establishment about killer robots? Yes. Even as the technology becomes more advanced, there has been reluctance to use autonomous weapons in combat because of fears of mistakes, Gady said. “Can military commanders trust the judgment of autonomous weapon systems? Here the answer at the moment is clearly ‘no’ and will remain so for the near future,” he said. The debate over autonomous weapons has spilled into Silicon Valley. In 2018, Google said it would not renew a contract with the Pentagon after thousands of its employees signed a letter protesting the company’s work on a program using AI to interpret images that could be used to choose drone targets. The company also created new ethical guidelines prohibiting the use of its technology for weapons and surveillance. Others believe the United States is not going far enough to compete with rivals. In October, the former chief software officer for the Air Force, Nicolas Chaillan, told the Financial Times that he had resigned because of what he saw as weak technological progress inside the U.S. military, particularly the use of AI. He said policymakers are slowed down by questions about ethics, while countries like China press ahead. Where have autonomous weapons been used? There are not many verified battlefield examples, but critics point to a few incidents that show the technology’s potential. In March, U.N. investigators said a “lethal autonomous weapons system” had been used by government-backed forces in Libya against militia fighters. A drone called Kargu-2, made by a Turkish defense contractor, tracked and attacked the fighters as they fled a rocket attack, according to the report, which left unclear whether any human controlled the drones. In the 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan fought Armenia with attack drones and missiles that loiter in the air until detecting the signal of an assigned target. What happens now? Many disarmament advocates said the outcome of the conference had hardened what they described as a resolve to push for a new treaty in the next few years, like those that prohibit land mines and cluster munitions. Daan Kayser, an autonomous weapons expert at PAX, a Netherlands-based peace advocacy group, said the conference’s failure to agree to even negotiate on killer robots was “a really plain signal that the CCW isn’t up to the job.” Noel Sharkey, an AI expert and chair of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, said the meeting had demonstrated that a new treaty was preferable to further convention deliberations. “There was a sense of urgency in the room,” he said, that “if there’s no movement, we’re not prepared to stay on this treadmill.”

Killer robots aren’t science fiction. A push to ban them is growing.

30 countries have backed the plan to fully ban autonomous weapons, or as they’re more commonly called - “killer robots”, a report by Human Rights Watch has revealed.

The weapons in question will be capable of inflicting mass casualties without human intervention.

97 countries have acknowledged such weapons

The report was released by the watch group on Monday, and was based on a review of policies from 97 countries that have publicly acknowledged such weapons. This issue was first taken up at the Human Rights Council in 2013.

According to the report titled "Stopping Killer Robots: Country Positions on Banning Fully Autonomous Weapons and Retaining Human Control”, more and more countries are acknowledging the need to stop “killer robots”, formally categorised as lethal autonomous weapon system.

A coalition of 161 non-governmental organisations including the HRW has been pleading for a complete ban on such weapons since 2013.

Weapons&nbsp;systems that select and engage targets without meaningful human control are unacceptable and need to be prevented," HRW said.

<h6><img alt="People look a mock &quot;killer robot&quot; in central London on April 23, 2013 during the launching of the Campaign to Stop &quot;Killer Robots,&quot; which calls for the ban of lethal robot weapons that would be able to select and attack targets without any human intervention. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots calls for a pre-emptive and comprehensive ban on the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons." data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c30a8ece-f70b-40f5-92f4-368e07dc7559" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design-8_6.jpg" /> 
People look a mock "killer robot" in central London on April 23, 2013 during the launching of the Campaign to Stop "Killer Robots," which calls for the ban of lethal robot weapons that would be able to select and attack targets without any human intervention. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots calls for a pre-emptive and comprehensive ban on the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons. | AFP 
&nbsp;</h6>

"Grave threat to humanity"

"Removing human control from the use of force is now widely regarded as a grave threat to humanity that, like climate change, deserves urgent multilateral action," said Mary Wareham, the coordinator of the “Campaign to Stop Killer Robots”.

"An international ban treaty is the only effective way to deal with the serious challenges raised by fully autonomous weapons," Wareham added.

"All countries have a duty to protect humanity from this dangerous development by banning fully&nbsp;autonomous&nbsp;weapons. Retaining meaningful human control over the use of force is an ethical imperative, a legal necessity, and a moral obligation", the organisation added.

Many countries are calling for a ban on such weapons. These are: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China (only on using them), Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, El Salvador, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, the Holy See, Iraq, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, the State of Palestine, Uganda, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

Major military hubs like Russia and the United States have halted the progress towards banning such weapons. At the same time, both the countries have upped investment in artificial intelligence for military purposes besides developing autonomous weapons systems for land, water, and air.

Warhem shed light on the “existential threats to humanity”, including “killer robots”.

30 countries have backed the plan to fully ban autonomous weapons, or as they’re more commonly called - “killer robots”, a report by Human Rights Watch has revealed.

30 countries have backed the plan to fully ban autonomous weapons, or as they’re more commonly called - “killer robots”, a report by Human Rights Watch has revealed. The weapons in question will be capable of inflicting mass casualties without human intervention. 97 countries have acknowledged such weapons The report was released by the watch group on Monday, and was based on a review of policies from 97 countries that have publicly acknowledged such weapons. This issue was first taken up at the Human Rights Council in 2013. According to the report titled "Stopping Killer Robots: Country Positions on Banning Fully Autonomous Weapons and Retaining Human Control”, more and more countries are acknowledging the need to stop “killer robots”, formally categorised as lethal autonomous weapon system. A coalition of 161 non-governmental organisations including the HRW has been pleading for a complete ban on such weapons since 2013. Weapons systems that select and engage targets without meaningful human control are unacceptable and need to be prevented," HRW said. People look a mock "killer robot" in central London on April 23, 2013 during the launching of the Campaign to Stop "Killer Robots," which calls for the ban of lethal robot weapons that would be able to select and attack targets without any human intervention. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots calls for a pre-emptive and comprehensive ban on the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons. | AFP "Grave threat to humanity" "Removing human control from the use of force is now widely regarded as a grave threat to humanity that, like climate change, deserves urgent multilateral action," said Mary Wareham, the coordinator of the “Campaign to Stop Killer Robots”. "An international ban treaty is the only effective way to deal with the serious challenges raised by fully autonomous weapons," Wareham added. "All countries have a duty to protect humanity from this dangerous development by banning fully autonomous weapons. Retaining meaningful human control over the use of force is an ethical imperative, a legal necessity, and a moral obligation", the organisation added. Many countries are calling for a ban on such weapons. These are: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China (only on using them), Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, El Salvador, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, the Holy See, Iraq, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, the State of Palestine, Uganda, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Major military hubs like Russia and the United States have halted the progress towards banning such weapons. At the same time, both the countries have upped investment in artificial intelligence for military purposes besides developing autonomous weapons systems for land, water, and air. Warhem shed light on the “existential threats to humanity”, including “killer robots”.

30 countries support explicit ban on 'killer robots': Report

killer-robots

Killer Robots, News on Killer Robots, stories on Killer Robots, articles on Killer Robots, Killer Robots stories at Wion, Killer Robots news, Killer Robots latest news