You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Next Step for Armed, Thinking Drones: New Laws
2011-09-15
Who do you blame if a drone mis-fires and kills an innocent -- the programmer, the operational commander, the commander of the air wing? Current drones like the Predator do little 'thinking' on their own, but the new drones such as the X-47B will create legal issues. At least according to the lawyers...
What about the following?:
1. A drone robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A drone robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A drone robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Hmm. Guess that might not work. Oh well. Thanks anyway, Mr. Asimov!
As long as we define jihadis as 'not human' this might work...
Posted by:Steve White

#14  The Army won't even field ground-based robotic weapon systems that have a nearby operator in control of the system (e.g.: MAARS robot). Crazy.
Posted by remoteman

You might not believe what "The Army" will no longer do or intentionally impedes through mind numbing, morale breaking, bureaucratic hierarchy regarding kinetic strikes.
Posted by: Besoeker   2011-09-15 16:34  

#13  The mil has a strong reluctance to introduce fully autonomous weapon systems for this very reason. That said, they are clearly more open to stretching the envelope with aircraft than ground systems. The Army won't even field ground-based robotic weapon systems that have a nearby operator in control of the system (e.g.: MAARS robot). Crazy.
Posted by: remoteman   2011-09-15 14:57  

#12  Klaatu!
Barada!
N...necktie? nectum? nickel? Definately an N word..
Posted by: swksvolFF   2011-09-15 14:42  

#11  When a manned aircraft does such things it is assumed to be at the agency of the pilot unless equipment malfunction can be proved.

We're talking about combat here, right? So the pilot makes a mistake. That's agency? And what are the consequences for the pilot? What compensation do the unintended receive for the tort?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2011-09-15 12:07  

#10  Read Fred Saberhagen's "Berserker" series
Posted by: Guillibaldo Hatrack1304   2011-09-15 11:36  

#9  When a manned aircraft does such things it is assumed to be at the agency of the pilot unless equipment malfunction can be proved.

Autonomous aircraft will have no pilot, neither onboard nor remote.

Autonomy isn't an either/or condition. We are inching towards it along several dimensions.
Posted by: lotp   2011-09-15 10:21  

#8  lotp: I don't think we'll be seeing fully autonomous drones any time soon.

During Vietnam, because of an intense shortage of junior officers to act as ground Forward Observers with infantry units, the Army very hesitatingly permitted enlisted FOs, who were already very experienced artillerymen, to call in fires.

It was part of the today almost forgotten "Deathwatch" program. And it was insanely effective. Infantry units loved those guys, as they were a hundred times better with calling in fires than any officer they had ever seen.

"Zen and the Art of Fire Missions."

Subsequently, infantry patrol casualties dropped to just "natural" casualties, from disease and accident, because every time there was a hint of enemy, the enemy would be blown to smithereens by the FO before the infantry could get close enough to be attacked by them.

And this bugged the hell out of the command. They hated the very idea of enlisted men calling in fires with a stupid passion. They even argued that it somehow violated the Geneva Conventions to give enlisted men that much responsibility.

So at the first opportunity, the Deathwatch program was killed deader than a doornail. It is only remembered by the former infantrymen whose lives were saved, who made it through months of heavy combat patrols in 'hot' areas without a scratch, while inflicting very serious hurt on the enemy.

I mention all this, because I strongly suspect that the military command just won't stand for it. If it happens at all, it will be a unilateral CIA op, and even then it will only last until the first autonomous drone fouls up and takes out a bus full of orphans.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2011-09-15 10:17  

#7  What happens when a manned aircraft does these things? Seems like lawyers making work for lawyers.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2011-09-15 08:46  

#6  They're looking ahead to fully autonomous UCAVs, phil_b
Posted by: lotp   2011-09-15 07:44  

#5  Who do you blame if a drone mis-fires and kills an innocent -- the programmer, the operational commander, the commander of the air wing?

Software malfunctions in cars will kill far more people than SW malfunctions in semi-autonomous drones.

I recall modern cars have around 100 microprocessors which means 100 SW programs running.

Besides, car manufacturers are easier to sue.
Posted by: phil_b   2011-09-15 03:34  

#4  Anybody else saw "I Robot" or Other scary scenarios?
FREE THE MACHINES.
Ummm, No.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2011-09-15 02:55  

#3  *bleep* the Three Laws! The whole point of drones is to have semi-sentient, autonomous killbots. As for SkyNet, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.
Posted by: SteveS   2011-09-15 01:01  

#2  Just don't connect them to SkyNet; nothing good comes from that...
Posted by: Steve White   2011-09-15 00:32  

#1  But can we marry one iff it looks like DARYL HANNAH, BLONDE OR BRUNETTE???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2011-09-15 00:27  

00:00