Uses of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems

Boisboissel, Gérard de

doi:10.1109/miltechs.2015.7153656

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The key term here is "estimates of value," since it depends upon some moral decision-making structure for its meaning. Here, one can argue that LAWs should not be permitted to make lethal decisions because of their inability not only to accurately categorize the targets that they encounter, but to estimate the value and understand the context of those targets (Roff 2014;de;Boisboissel 2015). 2 Thus, KRC and similar organizations argue that humans should remain in the decision-making loop (Heyns 2013)-for example, the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC), founded in 2009 by Juergen Altmann, Peter Asaro, Noel Sharkey, and Rob Sparrow, specifies its mission as inspiring the "international community [to create] a legally binding treaty to prohibit the development, testing, production and use of autonomous weapon systems in all circumstances" (ICRAC 2009(ICRAC , 2014).…”

Section: Distinguishing Valid Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of war: could lethal autonomous weapons make conflict more ethical?

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) are robotic weapon systems, primarily of value to the military, that could engage in offensive or defensive actions without human intervention. This paper assesses and engages the current arguments for and against the use of LAWs through the lens of achieving more ethical warfare. Specific interest is given particularly to ethical LAWs, which are artificially intelligent weapon systems that make decisions within the bounds of their ethics-based code. To ensure that a wide, but not exhaustive, survey of the implications of employing such ethical devices to replace humans in warfare is taken into account, this paper will engage on matters related to current scholarship on the rejection or acceptance of LAWs-including contemporary technological shortcomings of LAWs to differentiate between targets and the behavioral and psychological volatility of humans-and current and proposed regulatory infrastructures for developing and using such devices. After careful consideration of these factors, this paper will conclude that only ethical LAWs should be used to replace human involvement in war, and, by extension of their consistent abilities, should remove humans from war until a more formidable discovery is made in conducting ethical warfare.

show abstract

Section: Distinguishing Valid Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%