Given the recent interest in creating swarms of robotic flies that carry explosives and contain face recognition circuitry (as described in Bot Flies, The Economist, Dec 16, 2017) will a time come when the enablers of such killing machines will be made to account? We all know that machines will never—and I emphasize never—be able to make decisions without the assistance of humans so expect arguments such as “the machine did it” to fail in a court law. Can you imagine a world where people like Robert Oppenheimer (the developer of the atomic bomb) are hauled off to prison and later put to death for the creation of lethal autonomous weaponry?
The question that you ask is a very complex one and therefore I will try to break it down into several possible arguments. But before I do that I will question your statement that machines " will never ...make decisions without the assistance of humans". In terms of the technology there are algorithms that learn without any prior knowledge. That being said the notion of independence is not a matter of yes/no but a matter of degrees and maturity. The same can be said for humans and that is why jurisdictions have varying notions on what can be considered to be an "adult".
Back to the question
a) There is already legal precedent on what is known as the "Trojan horse made me do it" where a piece of code is blamed for insertion of illegl material on a computer. Already the courts are skeptical of these but do not close the door to such possibilities, but the burden of proof usually falls on the person invoking the concept"
b) Depending on the jurisdiction the requirements for a person being found guilty varies widely. But, take for example, the notion of an entity(I generalize it to entity as opposed to a person due to robots, AI, etc) that has committed a "crime" and the court imposes three elements that need to be present to be found guilty of committing a "crime". The element of means, motive and opportunity. For the AI or robot the concept that would be under debate is motive since humans think that this is mostly their domain under the court. Yet a complex enough system of neural networks, it can be argued that the AI can derive a motive from the data given, since it learns and have discriminative choices on the data (and yes this is possible). What would be under debate is the freedom of the system to choose such rules. Again a neural network system can be made to allow for those choices. But it can also be argued ad infinitum on the level of freedom. This has not been brought on human cases because we just deal with it as a closed system. But the future will decide whether this defense is admissible or not and be just treated as a human.
c) The notion of independence will come at intermediate stages of legal decisions made on drones. The debate will come between the difference between unmanned vehicles and autonomous systems. Again the degree of independence will be an issue(see b above) though this notion has been dealt with so far as product liability (bad construction). This approach in my view will change as more learning algorithms appear and the degree of relationship to the designer becomes more detached.
d) Your example of the atomic bomb is not accurate with respect to the question because a bomb as those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just the explosive agents, not the "brains", the transport and the executors of the act. A manufacturer of knives cannot be held responsible for the acts of a killer since the device was used for an alternate purpose. The atomic explosion is just an uncontrolled release of energy, but energy can be used for all sorts of translations into mechanical movement.
Hope this helps
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
Dear Edward,
I propose you to see links and attached files in subject.
-Who is Responsible for Autonomous Weapons? - Future of Life Institute
https://futureoflife.org/2016/11/.../peter-asaro-autonomous-weapo...
-When Thinking Machines Break the Law - Schneier on Security
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/.../when_thinking_m.html
-UN urged to ban 'killer robots' before they can be developed | Science ...
https://www.theguardian.com › Science › Weapons technology
-We can't ban killer robots – it's already too late | Philip Ball | Opinion ...
https://www.theguardian.com › Opinion › Robots
-Making the Case: The Dangers of Killer Robots and the Need for a ...
https://www.hrw.org/.../making.../dangers-killer-robots-and-need-...
-Killer robots: No one liable if future machines decide to kill, says ...
www.independent.co.uk/.../gadgets.../killer-robots-no-one-liable-if...
-Humans Can't Escape Killer Robots, but Humans Can Be Held ...
https://news.vice.com/.../killer-robots-autonomous-weapons-syste...
-Military Robots and the Laws of War - The New Atlantis
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/.../military-robots-and-the-laws-of...
-In defence of killer robots: Interview with expert Dr. William Boothby ...
uk.businessinsider.com/in-defence-of-killer-robots-interview-with-...
Best regards
Dear Mohamed-Mourad Lafifi,
Thank you so much for the extensive list. I am currently putting together a piece for publication on the topic of Consciousness and Information Transfer within which I will devote some text to the issue of autonomous robotics. This topic is directly related to the neuro-volitional control of behavior by animals. I will certainly read all your suggestions before putting pen to paper.
Sincerely,
Ed Tehovnik
Dear Arturo Giegel,
Thank you for your informed response. I might use portions of your assessment to formulate arguments in future publications with (of course) full credit going to you and RG.
Sincerely,
Ed Tehovnik
Dear Arturo Giegel,
Your point about causality is important: should the parents of the child throwing the rock be held accountable? In warfare entire families are apt to be punished after one of its family members challenges the authorities, a method of retribution commonly used in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Ed Tehovnik
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology