The problematisation of human control over lethal autonomous weapons

2021 ◽  
pp. 190-212
Author(s):  
Mikolaj Firlej
Keyword(s):  
Human Control ◽  
Autonomous Weapons

Autonomous Weapons and the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

2020 ◽  
pp. 212-236
Author(s):  
Peter Asaro
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Autonomous System ◽  
Human Control ◽  
Moral Agents ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Weapons Systems

As the militaries of technologically advanced nations seek to apply increasingly sophisticated AI and automation to weapons technologies, a host of ethical, legal, social, and political questions arise. Central among these is whether it is ethical to delegate the decision to use lethal force to an autonomous system that is not under meaningful human control. Further questions arise as to who or what could or should be held responsible when lethal force is used improperly by such systems. This chapter argues that current autonomous weapons are not legal or moral agents that can be held morally responsible or legally accountable for their choices and actions, and that therefore humans need to maintain control over such weapons systems.

scholarly journals Autonomous Weapons Systems, Artificial Intelligence, and the Problem of Meaningful Human Control

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-72
Author(s):  
Elke Schwarz
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Moral Agency ◽  
Human Control ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Weapons Systems

In this article, I explore the (im)possibility of human control and question the presupposition that we can be morally adequately or meaningfully in control over AI-supported LAWS. Taking seriously Wiener’s warning that “machines can and do transcend some of the limitations of their designers and that in doing so they may be both effective and dangerous,” I argue that in the LAWS human-machine complex, technological features and the underlying logic of the AI system progressively close the spaces and limit the capacities required for human moral agency.

scholarly journals The Design of Human Oversight in Autonomous Weapon Systems

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilse Verdiesen
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Emerging Technology ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Strict Sense ◽  
Weapon Systems ◽  
Human Control ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Technical Architecture ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Weapons Systems

Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) can be defined as weapons systems equipped with Artificial Intelligence (AI). They are an emerging technology and are increasingly deployed on the battlefield. In the societal debate on Autonomous Weapon Systems, the concept of Meaningful Human Control (MHC) is often mentioned as requirement, but MHC will not suffice as requirement to minimize unintended consequences of Autonomous Weapon Systems, because the definition of ‘control’ implies that one has the power to influence or direct the course of events or the ability to manage a machine. The characteristics autonomy, interactivity and adaptability of AI  in Autonomous Weapon Systems inherently imply that control in strict sense is not possible. Therefore, a different approach is needed to minimize unintended consequences of AWS. Several scholars are describing the concept of Human Oversight in Autonomous Weapon Systems and AI in general. Just recently Taddeo and Floridi (2018) describe that human oversight procedures are necessary to minimize unintended consequences and to compensate unfair impacts of AI. In my PhD project, I will analyse the concepts that are needed to define, model, evaluate and ensure human oversight in Autonomous Weapons and design a technical architecture to implement this.

scholarly journals Autonomous Weapons Systems and Meaningful Human Control: Ethical and Legal Issues

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 187-194
Author(s):  
Daniele Amoroso ◽  
Guglielmo Tamburrini
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Shared Control ◽  
Human Intervention ◽  
Human Control ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Responsibility Ascription ◽  
Ethical And Legal Issues ◽  
Weapons Systems

Abstract Purpose of Review To provide readers with a compact account of ongoing academic and diplomatic debates about autonomy in weapons systems, that is, about the moral and legal acceptability of letting a robotic system to unleash destructive force in warfare and take attendant life-or-death decisions without any human intervention. Recent Findings A précis of current debates is provided, which focuses on the requirement that all weapons systems, including autonomous ones, should remain under meaningful human control (MHC) in order to be ethically acceptable and lawfully employed. Main approaches to MHC are described and briefly analyzed, distinguishing between uniform, differentiated, and prudential policies for human control on weapons systems. Summary The review highlights the crucial role played by the robotics research community to start ethical and legal debates about autonomy in weapons systems. A concise overview is provided of the main concerns emerging in those early debates: respect of the laws of war, responsibility ascription issues, violation of the human dignity of potential victims of autonomous weapons systems, and increased risks for global stability. It is pointed out that these various concerns have been jointly taken to support the idea that all weapons systems, including autonomous ones, should remain under meaningful human control (MHC). Main approaches to MHC are described and briefly analyzed. Finally, it is emphasized that the MHC idea looms large on shared control policies to adopt in other ethically and legally sensitive application domains for robotics and artificial intelligence.

scholarly journals Coupling levels of abstraction in understanding meaningful human control of autonomous weapons: a two-tiered approach

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Umbrello
Keyword(s):  
Target Selection ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Levels Of Abstraction ◽  
International Debate ◽  
Design Ethics ◽  
Weapon Systems ◽  
Human Control ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Military Planning ◽  
Design Requirements

AbstractThe international debate on the ethics and legality of autonomous weapon systems (AWS), along with the call for a ban, primarily focus on the nebulous concept of fully autonomous AWS. These are AWS capable of target selection and engagement absent human supervision or control. This paper argues that such a conception of autonomy is divorced from both military planning and decision-making operations; it also ignores the design requirements that govern AWS engineering and the subsequent tracking and tracing of moral responsibility. To show how military operations can be coupled with design ethics, this paper marries two different kinds of meaningful human control (MHC) termed levels of abstraction. Under this two-tiered understanding of MHC, the contentious notion of ‘full’ autonomy becomes unproblematic.

scholarly journals Toward a Normative Model of Meaningful Human Control over Weapons Systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-272
Author(s):  
Daniele Amoroso ◽  
Guglielmo Tamburrini
Keyword(s):  
Moral Agency ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Default Rule ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Control ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
International Regulations ◽  
Fail Safe ◽  
Weapons Systems

AbstractThe notion of meaningful human control (MHC) has gathered overwhelming consensus and interest in the autonomous weapons systems (AWS) debate. By shifting the focus of this debate to MHC, one sidesteps recalcitrant definitional issues about the autonomy of weapons systems and profitably moves the normative discussion forward. Some delegations participating in discussions at the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems meetings endorsed the notion of MHC with the proviso that one size of human control does not fit all weapons systems and uses thereof. Building on this broad suggestion, we propose a “differentiated”—but also “principled” and “prudential”—framework for MHC over weapons systems. The need for a differentiated approach—namely, an approach acknowledging that the extent of normatively required human control depends on the kind of weapons systems used and contexts of their use—is supported by highlighting major drawbacks of proposed uniform solutions. Within the wide space of differentiated MHC profiles, distinctive ethical and legal reasons are offered for principled solutions that invariably assign to humans the following control roles: (1) “fail-safe actor,” contributing to preventing the weapon's action from resulting in indiscriminate attacks in breach of international humanitarian law; (2) “accountability attractor,” securing legal conditions for international criminal law (ICL) responsibility ascriptions; and (3) “moral agency enactor,” ensuring that decisions affecting the life, physical integrity, and property of people involved in armed conflicts be exclusively taken by moral agents, thereby alleviating the human dignity concerns associated with the autonomous performance of targeting decisions. And the prudential character of our framework is expressed by means of a rule, imposing by default the more stringent levels of human control on weapons targeting. The default rule is motivated by epistemic uncertainties about the behaviors of AWS. Designated exceptions to this rule are admitted only in the framework of an international agreement among states, which expresses the shared conviction that lower levels of human control suffice to preserve the fail-safe actor, accountability attractor, and moral agency enactor requirements on those explicitly listed exceptions. Finally, we maintain that this framework affords an appropriate normative basis for both national arms review policies and binding international regulations on human control of weapons systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document