Back to Writings

Is That a Gun or an Ice Cream? The Rise of Killer Robots

November 27, 2021 IVolunteer International
AI Ethics Autonomous Weapons International Law Technology Human Rights
Is That a Gun or an Ice Cream? The Rise of Killer Robots

For years, humanity has toyed with the idea of sentient robots killing humans, whether in sci-fi movies or books. The fear that machines will surpass humans in violent ways has become more rampant than ever and the term “killer robots” is inching closer to reality.

But how close are we to inventing conscious machines and confronting the many existential threats that come with them? How far is the day where a robot will decide which one of us lives and which one is designated for extermination? To these questions, the answers are less than encouraging — perhaps even petrifying.

With emerging technologies, more and more of our lives are being outsourced to self-learning machines whether it is the assistant in our phones or the air conditioner that adjusts to our behaviour. Even police authorities have started to rely upon robot dogs and the use of artificial intelligence-based algorithms in the military is common too. But what do we have to say about the drones, the missiles and the guns that think and kill?

What Exactly Is a Killer Robot?

Why a “killer,” you may ask? By technical standards, such weapons are termed “lethal autonomous weapon systems” or “LAWS” — but with an interesting play on words, a report published by Human Rights Watch popularized the term “killer robots” in a genius move to rally public support.

Unlike fearful graphical representations and movie references, not all machines with the potential to kill are designed to look like humans. A killer robot may be any machine that possesses the capability to take any lethal action or force against a human being out of its own discretion. When a human target is in the crosshair, the robot — not a human — makes the final decision for any action to be taken.

The International Committee of the Red Cross defines autonomous weapons as “any weapon system with autonomy in its critical functions — that is, a weapon system that can select and attack targets without human intervention.” Hence, in essence, any and all weapon systems that do not require an input from human operators to perform their key function — elimination of targets — are autonomous in nature.

A simple example of such a weapon can be smart sea mines that have the ability to detect and differentiate between enemy and friendly ships using their AI-enhanced software. Another example is the proudly presented Harpy Drone designed and used by the Israeli military that can choose and destroy targets on its own once launched.

Automated or Autonomous — What’s the Difference?

One of the most effective ways to distinguish the two is to understand the relationships that these systems share with humans as they perform their tasks. An automated weapon may possess lethal capabilities, but such capabilities depend solely on the prerogative of a human operator behind a set of controls. In simpler words, the finger on the trigger for such weapons is always flesh and bones.

On the contrary, autonomous weapons have an intrinsic capacity to determine, without human control or interference, when and against whom to use lethal force, defying the concept of pre-planned algorithms to emerge as “artificially conscious machines.” Such weapons will be fully capable of performing military operations on their own and, at times, choose to kill human beings that the machine deems a threat.

Data Decides Life and Death

Unlike humans who possess natural sensors such as eyes, machines depend upon various mechanical sensors developed by their manufacturers to understand their surroundings. These may be cameras, built-in image processors, infrared and motion sensing equipment, and other related sensors to determine when to perform their functions. For robots, everything around them is data.

When placed in front of autonomous weapons and killer robots, our facial and bodily features, personalities and behaviours are analyzed and sorted into profiles. The robot then proceeds to make a decision based on our assigned profile: “Kill, Harm or Ignore.”

On paper, proponents of lethal autonomous weapons argue that such systems are not only morally acceptable but even suggest that they are ethically preferable. Experts like Ronald C. Arkin believe that, unlike humans who can be clouded by emotions such as fear, hate or hysteria, killer robots can be far more “humane.” Their ability to take objective decisions regardless of their circumstances gives them an immense edge over humans who often struggle to make immediate decisions.

However, who deems these decisions accurate? Do machines have the potential to recognize people as “people” — as living things that can be uncertain, unpredictable and full of sentiments? Do machines have the ethical concept of the value of a human life, or the consequences of their actions?

Are Robots Better Soldiers and Enforcers of Law?

To many, robots are a step forward towards making wars and law enforcement more “humane.” After all, a robot does not hate, does not possess a sadistic urge to harm or kill, neither does it have the potential to rape anyone, nor commit a war crime.

Let us examine what potential barriers exist that bar autonomous weapons from becoming discriminate and legitimate.

Inaccurate Machine Perception

Robots are dependent upon complex hardware and related software to distinguish objects and to profile them. Even though technology continues to improve, it becomes very difficult for robots to distinguish between a real object and a shadow. Such difficulties continue to increase as the circumstances around the object grow complex, especially in the presence of countermeasures such as visual or electrical jamming equipment.

Robots cannot be currently expected to possess the ability of distinguishing legitimate and illegitimate targets, especially when facing situations where violent or delinquent activities are being targeted. A robot does not question — it will carry out all orders with disregard to their legality. Within the tap of a button, all of us could be marked for elimination regardless of what we do or don’t.

Noel Sharkey, a professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, argues that he can already imagine children being zapped because they offered an ice cream to a robot — simply because a robot cannot process the situation.

The Framing Problem

No surroundings involving humans can ever be static or constant enough for a robot to ideally react to. Despite possessing far more processing capability than normal humans, increasing data from their surroundings can easily “confuse” robots, resulting in unpredictable results and outcomes.

“Most soldiers would not, for example, blow up a school full of children if there is a sniper on its roof, but who knows what a robot would do.” — Royal United Services Institute Conference

Unreliability of Software

The software being used in any system must be reliable, safe and trustworthy. However, no software is perfect and none of it has any loyalties. The same software that is used to guide your electric car can be used to cause crashes. An army of killer robots is only a simple “hack” away from turning against the people that built them.

With reports highlighting how machines have a bias against certain skin tones and an inability to distinguish between facial features, the fact that they can be hacked as well does not inspire further confidence.

Can a machine be held accountable for war crimes? If a killer robot massacres a school full of children because of a software glitch, who faces the International Criminal Court? The manufacturer? The programmer? The commanding officer who deployed it? The machine itself?

These questions have no satisfactory answers, yet militaries around the world continue to invest billions in autonomous weapons research. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots continues to advocate for a pre-emptive ban on fully autonomous weapons before the genie escapes the bottle permanently.

Sources & Further Reading

Back to Writings