http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ar-crimes.html
The US Army and Navy have both hired experts in the ethics of building machines to prevent the
creation of an amoral Terminator-style killing machine that murders indiscriminately.
By 2010 the US will have invested $4 billion in a research programme into "autonomous systems", the
military jargon for robots, on the basis that they would not succumb to fear or the desire for
vengeance that afflicts frontline soldiers.
...
"It takes six people to operate a Predator drone round the clock. I know the Air Force has
developed software, which they claim is to train Predator operators. But if the computer can train
the human it could also ultimately fly the drone itself."
Some are concerned that it will be impossible to devise robots that avoid mistakes, conjuring up
visions of machines killing indiscriminately when they malfunction, like the robot in the film
Robocop.
Noel Sharkey, a computer scientist at Sheffield University, best known for his involvement with the
cult television show Robot Wars, is the leading critic of the US plans.
He says: "It sends a cold shiver down my spine. I have worked in artificial intelligence for
decades,
and the idea of a robot making decisions about human termination is
terrifying."
Yeah same here. I appreciate the lack of retribution with robots, but one small malfunction and you
have Skynet, Terminator, ED-209, countless other tales in sci-fi to warn against autonomy with
armed robots. I approve of the Predator program, even though it takes a large manned effort to back
them up, because it removes the element of danger to our forces. It's much easier to take somebody
shooting a Predator out of the skies than a manned aircraft. That takes retribution out of the
equation without necessitating autonomous decisions about KILLING. Autopilot=yes, autofire=no. I'd
be much more interested in ground robots that detect enemy presence and alert humans to their
whereabouts, but the final decision to shoot should always be under human control.