Home | About | Donate

Citing Moral and Legal Void, Rights Groups Demand Preemptive Ban on 'Killer Robots'


Citing Moral and Legal Void, Rights Groups Demand Preemptive Ban on 'Killer Robots'

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

Fully autonomous weapons, or "killer robots," present a legal and ethical quagmire and must be banned before they can be further developed, a new human rights report published Thursday urges ahead of next week's United Nations meeting on lethal weapons.


“Fully autonomous weapons could allow manufacturers, military to escape liability for wrongful deaths”

That ship done sailed a long time ago.


Killer Robots: A logical conclusion to a culture of death.

“[P]ossess the ability to select and engage their targets without meaningful human control.”: This presumes that everything that has come before has come with “meaningful human control”.


In one famous case, a college student wrote a “worm”, a program that hacked its way into another computer, copied itself over to the other computer, turned itself on in the other computer, then erased itself on the original computer. He wondered where the program would end up.

He forgot the part about erasing itself afterward. The program copied itself and then there were two programs. Then there were four programs. …

In only a few hours the Pentagon was abuzz because something had hacked into most of the Department of Defense’s hundreds of mainframe computers and had crashed them all. The virus was all over the world. In the end they wanted to throw the book at the kid, but the kid had just made a small mistake.

That’s the ultimate problem with killer robots, a small mistake. The mistake was in building them in the first place.


Two things spring to mind. FIrst, what does a libertarian think of these robots? Should they be regulated or should we let the market forces decide? 2nd, if killer robots should be regulated because there is noone to hold responsible when they start destroying innocent lives, couldn’t the exact same argument be made for corporations? Don’t they have the exact same problem? Maybe that means killer robots will eventually be considered legal people (like corporations) who have first amendment rights, and the courts will say the right to accidentally kill someone is a free speech issue protected by the 1st amendment.


Why the Dilemma?

Simply legislate that those manufactured them, who voted for their purchase, those who voted to deploy them, those who transported them, and finally deployed them in the case of an unlawful killing face a mandatory 20 years sentence.

No defence. Simple question: Was it an unlawful killing?.

I suspect that the use of the ifernal machines would become damned unpopular, rapidly.


These weapons should be subject to an extended evaluation inside the Pentagon with an inexhaustible supply of live, dangerous and destructive ammunition.


Anyone who thinks such things are a good idea should watch Robocop. And, for a real-life horror, read about Therac-25


Granted that real, breathing, blood and guts humans beings aren’t doin a bang up job running their governments and husbanding the world that supports them but do we really to build and deploy a bunch of mechanical minders? Whine about a nanny state will ya?
This whole issue screams about corporate deniability.


Come On You Guys…Whats the Worst that could happen >>>>>>>>>
Hacking the Target List would never be an issue.
Nod to AnonymoUS…