Looking for a few good robots

I speculated about what a case for autonomous robots would look like in an earlier post, noting that having robots take the place of humans in life-threatening situations would be particularly persuasive. Since then I came across an account of the "Robot Rodeo" held at Fort Hood last year. Here's an excerpt.

Fresh off a tour in Iraq, Gen. Lynch challenged the attendees to show him some real robots. He told the stunned crowd there were no robots in Iraq--just things with remote control. He also said that he had lost 155 soldiers under his command in Iraq--122 soldiers--would not have died if the right robots had been there to help keep them out of harm's way. "I'm talking about a system that has a certain degree of autonomy," he said. [emphasis added]

Francis X. Govers III's article "U.S. Army Holds 'Robot Rodeo' at Fort Hood" appeared in the the January/February 2010 issue of Robot Magazine.

* * *Autonomous robots with the ability to drive vehicles or detect IEDs would be great assets in a war zone, but if autonomy is extended to armed machines, then we need to seriously consider everyone in which those machines will come in contact and the prospect of a deadly malfunction (example).

RoboResponsibility

Two excerpts from from Annalee Newitz's column for Metro Active (10/27/07).

"In South Africa, a widely used anti-aircraft cannon called the Oerlikon GDF-005 suffered from what many observers believe was a computer malfunction that killed nine soldiers and maimed 15 in a training exercise. Its computer-controlled sighting mechanism went haywire, and the gun automatically turned its barrel to face the trainees next to it, spraying bullets from magazines that it automatically reloaded until it was out of ammunition. Many compared the incident to science fiction fare like RoboCop or Terminator, where military bots turn on their masters."

"The tragedy in South Africa could have been avoided if the engineers who designed that cannon had simply refused to computerize its sight. With a big gun, computer error can be far worse than human error. Any decent engineer would have known that failure in computer systems is inevitable and come to the conclusion that weapons should not be programmed to function autonomously."

This story brings a few thoughts to mind.

1. Some have advocated for a Hippocratic Oath for scientists. Determining where the lines should be drawn would be a challenge, but we manage equally difficult tasks in others fields; why not the sciences?

2. The creation of autonomous machines with the ability to kill will be justified by the idea that they will save ___ lives [fill in your nation of choice]. The decision to send humans or robots into harm's way is no real decision at all (who wouldn't chose robots?), but this question obscures the more fundamental question: is this violence justified in the first place? When a government (or any group) can kill without risking lives from their side, how much more likely are they to turn to violence?

3. Our current organizational/legal structures insulate individuals at the top and bottom from blame during war. Soldiers simply follow orders and leaders claim not to be responsible for the actions of "bad apples". (It can take years to peel back the layers of responsibility when bad apples are charged with wrong doing.) Adding another layer--computer error--confuses the picture further. As more of these machines are deployed, clarity on who is responsible for what they do becomes increasingly important. If they are put in the field by the U.S. government, then we (U.S. readers) share responsibility for what these machines do.

Detanee abuse (pictures not included)

As a result of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Defense Department agreed last month to release images of American military personnel abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. The images date from 2001 through 2005.

A couple weeks later, the Obama administration reversed that decision, suggesting the issue be returned to court.



"The most direct consequence of releasing [the images], I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger. Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse." President Obama, May 13, 2009

Even if you accept the president's premise, he seems to greatly discounted the value of an informed public. Frankly, the temperature of future investigations concerns me less than the intensity of future oversight.

When we peacefully transfer power from one party to another, large portions of the governing infrastructure remain in place, including much of the intelligence and military apparatus. In fact, a new president relies on these individuals to provide the information necessary to do his/her job. In this instance, the White House seems to have sided with the people they work with, rather than the people they work for.

I'm interested in seeing these images released because the public outcry could lead to systematic reform, rather than punishment for a few low-level individuals.

Our recent history shows we falter as a country, morally and functionally, when the oversight of our publicly-supervised institutions is inadequate. That's been the case with the financial crisis, and the documentary below shows that even well-placed internal resistance couldn't stop abhorrent practices.

The film's blurb: Torturing Democracy (2008) relies on the documentary record to connect the dots in an investigation of harsh interrogations of prisoners in U.S. custody - and points straight to the top. Timely and powerful, at its heart the film is about the rule of law - and how the government pushed it aside despite the fierce resistance of many on the inside.



The Torturing Democracy website, a collaboration with the National Security Archive at George Washington University, includes a timeline of key events; extended interviews; and the memos, legal opinions and other documents highlighted in the film.

Filip Spagnoli defuses the 'ticking bomb' defense of torture here.

Through 2011

Is the U.S. War in Iraq on its way to becoming a forgotten war? The current narrative seems to be: the 'surge' worked, we're pulling out, and now we can focus on Afghanistan (and Pakistan). Some may even be tempted to add "we won" into that mix.

Washington Post military correspondent Thomas E. Ricks offers a different perspective, noting the 'surge' fell short of its intentions and 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq (and in harm's way) through 2011.

Every gun

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children....

This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

- Dwight D. Eisenhower before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16,1953. Full Speech.

Misplaced power

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

- Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961. Full Speech.