INTRODUCTION:
In the aspect of artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming is present in various aspects of human life including healthcare and finances, the idea of applying it on the warfare proved to be one of the most questionable topics of the 21st century. The core of a debate consists of their elaboration and their possible use of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) or killer robots as they are commonly referred to. They are AI-enabled systems that can choose targets and interact with them without any involvement of the person. Though its supporters greet the idea of LAWS as a way to shrink the number of human casualties as well as allow larger battles to be led more efficiently some critics fear that LAWS will create a dystopian future in which life-and-death decisions are made by machines and out of human control. This blog discusses the numerous ethical issues surrounding artificial weapons such as responsibility adherence to international law risks to the civilian population, and the growing demands to establish a blanket ban on such weapons.
THE EMERGENCE OF AUTONOMY WEAPONS:
One of main difference between the normal drone and military drone the drones which used autonomous weapon systems engage with their target own with out the human interpretion These systems are able using AI algorithms sensors and machine learning to identify track and destroy while in real time without human order. Advancing technologies in the field of military equipment, fully autonomous weapons are not as far in the future as Harpy drone designed and produced in Israel, and the autonomous drone Sea Hunter belonging to the U.S. Navy demonstrate. Against a philosophical and theological background on war the Just War Theory is used to assess whether or not a war is morally good. It has two big parts which includes jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and jus in bello (the right conduct in war). Ethical problems arising due to LAWS are mainly the ones that concern the jus in bello which must be characterized by proportionality and distinguishing legitimate targets and non-combatants.
Autonomous systems having lack of judgment and the inability to feel of any moral guilt would in itself offer a challenge to the principle of discrimination. Having no empathy or the ability to understand situation can a robot decide whether or not proportionality is survived and know what it means to surrender? The potentially sophisticated AI can incorrectly recognize threats on the basis of incorrect data or designer adversarial intervention and cause unjustifiable attacks.
The applied and developed LAWS are of great concern according to the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as stated in the Geneva Conventions which regulate behavior of the waging of war. IHL requires that weapons should discriminate between combatants and non-combatants and to cause distress of an unnecessary kind. The absence of the legal framework regarding autonomous weapons has resulted in the grey area. Though the existing IHL has been applied to all weapons which include LAWS it is still unclear as to how the laws will be applied in instances where autonomous systems will be making judgments by themselves.
Accountability is one of the most burning ethical dilemmas of AI in war. Traditional war is a system living with chain of command where responsibilities can be traced and determined. With autonomous war, this chain is obscured. The principle designers of the autonomous system may not be the only liable agent in a scenario of malfunction or wrongful death involving such a system it could be the software engineers, the military operator, or the policymakers who authorized the use of the system. This lack of accountability which is referred to as the accountability gap in some quarters destroys the sense of justice to the victims, and makes international legal recourse hard. In addition, machines are not punishable or morally responsible. Such lack of liability further destroys the confidence of the people and increases ethical concerns over the use of AI in combat systems
The primary goal of the IHL and the Just War Theory is to safeguard the lives of civilians as a result of armed violence. LAWS poke holes in this goal because the law may easily identify civilians as combatants. The environment can biases, corrupts, or even confuses AI algorithms.
As an example a child holding a toy gun may be marked as a threat or a group of civilians may be tagged as insurgents based on movement pattern. Unlike humans, who can think and doubt the autonomous systems work according to the pre-programmed logic and the errors could end as lethal. Reports of a Turkish Kargu-2 drone destroying an apparent objective without human direction have been recorded amid the 2020 Libyan conflict and it is these capabilities that trigger concerns over the potential dangers of LAWS.
Appreciating these risks international calls to ensure the prohibition or control of autonomous weapons have been in increase. More than 30 nations as well as major scientists and civil society organizations, have requested an immediate prohibition of LAWS under the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). Nonetheless there is a hard time to reach agreement. The most powerful militant nations like the United States, Russia and China refuse to accept the binding limitation on the pretexts of strategic advantages and the national security knick-knacks. Numerous UN conferences and panels of experts besides have not yet led to a formal ban.
A possible legal instrument is required to avert an artificial intelligence (AI) arms race and enforce international humanitarian law on the grounds that vocal campaigning organizations, including the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots (an international coalition of non-governmental organizations or NGOs) around the world support. They are determined that AI defense must be designed ethically and tightly regulated, rather than free to do as it pleases in the hell of battlefield.
DEFENSE ETHICAL AI DEVELOPMENT:
Ethical AI progress in the defense industry is picking up speed as governments and technology firms are coming to terms with how they want to influence future warfare. AI rules in the field of defense are being introduced including such principles as transparency accountability non-malfeasance and human governance. To give an example the U.S. Department of Defense has defined the AI Ethics Principles that should be used in the military pointing out the fact that AI should be responsible equitable traceable reliable and governable. On the same note Google and other technology companies have also expressed in their mission statements that they will not build AI that has autonomous weapons indicating the emerging ethical questions in the technological industry.
THE COMBAT SYSTEMS DECISION-MAKING PUZZLE:
Military leadership tends to make judgments that are subtle and need to be applied in a dynamic environment. Either human soldiers can evaluate intentions negotiate or act restrainedly. Such depth is missing to autonomous systems however. They are working on a binary basis and they perform operations according to algorithms usually in microseconds. Such velocity can be desirable in missile defense or cyber warrior but when such a velocity is applied in the lethal targeting then there is no room to show empathy mercy or the reconsideration at the eleventh hour. This black box issue clarifying that even the developers cannot know how AI systems make decisions being a central concern only enhances potential unpredictability and danger of autonomous warfare.
CONCLUSION:
This has not been imagined as another issue but rather an evolving aspect of reality that needs to be given ethical and legal as well as political attention very soon. Ethical considerations of the use of Laws cannot be left on the wayside, though technological force behind them might be irreversible. Machine outsourcing does not apply to human dignity, ethical responsibility and laws of armed conflict. The threat of permanent damage, mistaken identity, and weakening of accountability, make powerful cross-border norms, transparent governance, and renewed devotion to ethical manufacturing of AIs a necessity. Even an international consensus such as the UN or multilateral force is needed to make sure that mankind has control over instruments of war. The world will be faced with an important question as the distinction between soldier and machine disappears: In what world governed by algorithms do we place responsibility when people die in the war the algorithms are hurtling us along through?
REFERENCES:
United Nations Security Council. (2021). Final report of the Panel of Experts on Libya established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1973 (2011).
Boulanin, V., & Verbruggen, M. (2017). Mapping the Development of Autonomy in Weapon Systems. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Heyns, C. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. United Nations Human Rights Council.
Sparrow, R. (2007). “Killer Robots,” Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62-77.
Human Rights Watch. (2020). Stopping Killer Robots: Country Positions on Banning Fully Autonomous Weapons and Retaining Human Control.
Related
