Autonomous Weapons Research Articles

Autonomous Weapon Systems and Acting for the Right Reasons

Autonomous Weapon Systems and Acting for the Right Reasons

Operating itself safely: merging the concepts of ‘safe to operate’ and ‘operate safely’ for lethal autonomous weapons systems containing artificial intelligence

ABSTRACT The Ministry of Defence, specifically the Royal Navy, uses the ‘Duty Holder Structure’ to manage how it complies with deviations to maritime laws and health and safety regulations where military necessity requires it. The output statements ensuring compliance are ‘safe to operate’ certification for all platforms and equipment, and the ‘operate safely’ declaration for people who are suitably trained within the organisation. Together this forms the Safety Case. Consider a handgun; the weapon has calibration, design and maintenance certification to prove it is safe to operate, and the soldier is trained to be qualified competent to make predictable judgement calls on how and when to pull the trigger (operate safely). Picture those statements as separate circles drawn on a Venn diagram. As levels of autonomy and complexity are dialled up the two circles converge. Should autonomy increase to the point that the decision to fire be under the control of an Artificial Intelligence within the weapon’s software then the two circles will overlap. This paper details research conclusions within the overlap, and proposes a new methodology able to certify that an AI based autonomous weapons system is “safe to operate itself safely” when in an autonomous state.

Responsibility Gaps and Retributive Dispositions: Evidence from the US, Japan and Germany

Danaher (2016) has argued that increasing robotization can lead to retribution gaps: Situations in which the normative fact that nobody can be justly held responsible for a harmful outcome stands in conflict with our retributivist moral dispositions. In this paper, we report a cross-cultural empirical study based on Sparrow’s (2007) famous example of an autonomous weapon system committing a war crime, which was conducted with participants from the US, Japan and Germany. We find that (1) people manifest a considerable willingness to hold autonomous systems morally responsible, (2) partially exculpate human agents when interacting with such systems, and that more generally (3) the possibility of normative responsibility gaps is indeed at odds with people’s pronounced retributivist inclinations. We discuss what these results mean for potential implications of the retribution gap and other positions in the responsibility gap literature.

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems: Ethical Dilemmas and Legal Compliance in the Era of Military Disruptive Technologies

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) have emerged as one of the most significant advancements in military technology, leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to execute missions without direct human control. As these systems become central to modern warfare, they raise critical questions about their compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL). This paper delves into the legal and ethical debates surrounding LAWS with particular attention to the discussions within the Group of Governmental Experts on LAWS (GGE on LAWS). We analyze whether these technologies can adhere to fundamental human rights while maintaining their operational efficacy. Through the application of the Autonomy Spectrum Framework to real-world scenarios, the study highlights both the strategic advantages of LAWS and the risks of dehumanizing warfare. The need for robust legal frameworks to ensure accountability and human oversight remains paramount.

How AI Systems Can Be Blameworthy

AbstractAI systems, like self-driving cars, healthcare robots, or Autonomous Weapon Systems, already play an increasingly important role in our lives and will do so to an even greater extent in the near future. This raises a fundamental philosophical question: who is morally responsible when such systems cause unjustified harm? In the paper, we argue for the admittedly surprising claim that some of these systems can themselves be morally responsible for their conduct in an important and everyday sense of the term—the attributability sense. More specifically, relying on work by Nomy Arpaly and Timothy Schroeder (In Praise of Desire, OUP 2014), we propose that the behavior of these systems can manifest their ‘quality of will’ and thus be regarded as something they can be blameworthy for. We develop this position in detail, justify some of its crucial presuppositions, and defend it against potential objections.

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems and Automation Bias

Autonomy in weapon systems is already a genuine concern. States try to come up with their own definitions of these systems and pay utmost effort to impose their own understanding of these systems upon other states. For a fairly high number of states barring a total ban on such weapons would be the ideal solution; however, such states that are anxious about the increase in autonomy in war-making capabilities, as adopts a second-best scenario to contain risks created by the deployment of such systems. To this end, placing them under meaningful human control emerges as an important political and legal objective. The author believes that placing autonomous weapons under human supervision, despite its initial promise, will yield negative results. This is due to the fact that humans tend rather to be too willing to follow the solutions generated by autonomous systems. First observed in other industries of civilian nature like aviation or health, automation bias has the potential to negate most if not all of supervision measures expected to ensure proper implementation of international humanitarian law.

ICRC’s Intervention on AI Based Weapon under International Humanitarian Law: A Critical Analysis

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has exerted pressure on nations to enact new international legislation that would limit the use of certain autonomous weapons, including those under third-party control, and forbid the deployment of others. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a neutral, independent organization that offers victims of armed conflict and other perilous situations humanitarian protection and support. In addition to responding to emergencies, it promotes compliance with international humanitarian law and its assimilation into national laws. In modern times, the military is making significant investments in artificial intelligence, and there are already instances of AI being used in conflict. A number of sectors that create serious humanitarian concerns include those that the ICRC has identified as areas in which artificial intelligence is being developed for use in combat by armed actors. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been pressuring governments to pass new international laws that would prohibit the deployment of some autonomous weapons and restrict the use of others, including those that are controlled by third parties.

ROBOTIC REVOLUTION: DOES ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TRIGGER INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT OR NON- INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT

The introduction of new forms of artificial intelligence (AI) military weaponry specifically autonomous weapon systems (AWS) can select and engage targets without human intervention therefore the application of lethal AWS incorporation with AI has revolutionized armed conflicts.The main concern regarding the military application of AI is the use of force should be maintained by only human soldiers. There is an urgent need to reinterpret the threshold for triggering an international armed conflict because AI technology unintentionally causes war during border control or surveillance operation. This article predominantly focuses on fully autonomous weapon systems which refer to human agents being removed from certain force applications. The main research questions in this article are first, is it possible that an AWS might, alone, spark an international armed conflict, thus bringing international humanitarian law into force? Second, can the criteria of organisation and intensity that give rise to non-international armed conflicts be met when AWS are controlled by non-state armed actors? This study will examine the research questions by focusing on the main areas of debate in the field of international law on AWS, specifically the compatibility of AI with the principles of humanitarian law, the determination of international responsibility, and ethical problems.

The International Law Dilemma of Autonomous Weapon System

This paper aims to highlight the potential for serious humanitarian disasters caused by the rapid development of autonomous weapons systems, as they are currently unable to fully grasp the ability to analyze their targets and clearly distinguish between combatants and military targets due to current technological limitations. There is also controversy over whether autonomous weapons systems are combatants, and there is a certain degree of regulatory deficiencies in the field of international law. Existing international treaties are unable to perfectly regulate autonomous weapons systems and punish unlawful behavior. The paper mainly uses the method of analyzing specific problems based on legal principles and draws conclusions by referring to some cases. The conclusion of this paper is that the international community needs to establish a new, targeted international legal treaty, establish a more reasonable and realistic international soft law, establish and improve a broader international exchange system, and encourage countries to work together to solve this problem.

The ethical debate about the use of autonomous weapon systems from a theological perspective

The ethical debate about the use of autonomous weapon systems from a theological perspective

THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGIES APPLICATION IN THE MILITARY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

This article analyzes the use of artificial intelligence technologies in military systems. Artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the modern areas of information technology. The history of human-like mechanisms development dates back to ancient times and has gone through a complex evolutionary path from myths and legends about the first androids, mechanical chess players and other complex mechanisms with human behaviour to modern autonomous robots. The first research on AI in the modern sense began almost immediately since the appearance of the first computers. Since the late 1950s, AI researchers have been trying to create smart machines that mimic the brain. AI has become a key technology in various industries, including the military, in recent decades. Thanks to its characteristics, AI transforms traditional strategies and tactics into a military art. Various aspects of the artificial intelligence use are discussed, in particular autonomous weapons systems, forecasting and analytics, cybersecurity and strategic planning. The advantages and opportunities provided by the use of artificial intelligence by military formations are highlighted, as well as attention is drawn to the ethical and legal aspects of this issue. Artificial intelligence technologies open up new opportunities for the military in many aspects, from autonomous systems to analytics and strategic planning. However, it is also important to take into account the ethical and legal aspects of these technologies use, as well as the risks associated with their implementation. A balanced approach to the use of artificial intelligence will help ensure its effective application in military systems. The article focuses on the importance of a balanced approach to the artificial intelligence technologies use for military purposes, taking into account their capabilities and risks.

Challenges and Prospects for the Law of Armed Conflict — A Humanitarian Perspective

The law of armed conflict, as the international legal system that regulates the conduct of war and mitigates its catastrophic consequences, has in recent years faced the challenges of high-tech forms of warfare, the involvement of non-state actors, and the complexities of civil-military integration. To address the complexity of non-international armed conflict, international humanitarian law should be “strategically” disseminated, non-government parties should be urged to issue unilateral declarations or codes of conduct, and the UN Security Council Action Plan model and the Geneva Call’s “Deed of Commitment” model should continue to be explored and implemented. The distinction between combatants and civilians in cyber-armed conflict requires more attention to actual behavior than to the appearance of the operator, with full consideration of the relationship between full membership and function. For the use of autonomous weapons systems, we must balance military interests and the consequences of damage, maximize the recognition and decision-making capabilities of autonomous weapons systems, and maintain human oversight and control during high-risk decisions.

The Rapid Emergence of Autonomous Weapons (AWS) and its Ethical Challenges

Purpose: This article aims to derive ethical challenges for the Republic of Korea (ROK) military in response to the rapid emergence of Autonomous Weapons (AWS) and propose development strategies. Method: To identify previous research on AWS and ethical challenges regarding AWS in the international community, this research proposed ethical challenges and development strategies for AWS in the ROK military. Results: The ethical challenges regarding AWS in the ROK military include controllability, accountability, reliability, transparency, data management, and human rights protection. To overcome the ethical challenges associated with the development of AWS, active collaboration with not only the Ministry of National Defense but also relevant agencies, industry-academia partnerships, and other stakeholders is necessary to promote their advancement. Conclusion: The ethical issues related to the dignity of life, control over decision-making, and other aspects must be continuously improved in the process of utilizing AWS for ROK military purposes in cooperation with the international community.

The commission of crimes using autonomous weapon systems: Issues of causation and attribution

Today’s military takes advantage of technological progress primarily through developments in the war industry. Of particular importance is the development and use of advanced autonomous weapon systems, which are changing the way conflicts are fought and redefining the basic strategies on the modern battlefield. The use of these systems raises ethical, philosophical, and legal questions about the relationship of causality and attribution that must exist between an act and its criminal result.

Conceptual Difficulties in the Transformation of Human Rights to the Realm of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence has been seeping into various fields of international law for some time, affecting fields such as international humanitarian law – especially regarding the legality of autonomous weapon systems, but also intellectual property law and the legal profession as a whole. A conflicting zone encompassing many subfields is human rights, where an already sensitive subject that is open to debates and interpretation is met with rough questions. For instance, should and could human rights norms be transferred into pre-programmed entities? What relevance can human rights have to a non-human being that has been created, programmed and assembled by humans? Vast regional differences exist between the European, African and Inter-American systems with a lack of coherent structure in the Asia-Pacific region. Our understanding of human rights has also developed substantially over the decades, especially regarding norms on slavery, free speech, the prohibition of discrimination and the rights of women, of disabled persons and indigenous peoples to name a few examples. Furthermore, a vast array of international documents on human rights are political manifestos utilising expressions such as “respecting” and “ensuring” human rights as obligations for members of the international community. Since these provisions deliberately leave a lot of room for interpretation, it seems almost an impossible task to translate them to “binary code”, to a format that is digestible for an artificial entity. The article aims to answer these questions by analysing the abovementioned line of thought and combining it with various attempts at international regulation by states, international organisations as well as non-governmental organisations and think-tanks. The fundamental focus of this paper is to ascertain whether human rights and AI can be made compatible under the current framework of international law at today’s level of development.

Owning Decisions: AI Decision-Support and the Attributability-Gap

Artificial intelligence (AI) has long been recognised as a challenge to responsibility. Much of this discourse has been framed around robots, such as autonomous weapons or self-driving cars, where we arguably lack control over a machine’s behaviour and therefore struggle to identify an agent that can be held accountable. However, most of today’s AI is based on machine-learning technology that does not act on its own, but rather serves as a decision-support tool, automatically analysing data to help human agents make better decisions. I argue that decision-support tools pose a challenge to responsibility that goes beyond the familiar problem of finding someone to blame or punish for the behaviour of agent-like systems. Namely, they pose a problem for what we might call “decision ownership”: they make it difficult to identify human agents to whom we can attribute value-judgements that are reflected in decisions. Drawing on recent philosophical literature on responsibility and its various facets, I argue that this is primarily a problem of attributability rather than of accountability. This particular responsibility problem comes in different forms and degrees, most obviously when an AI provides direct recommendations for actions, but also, less obviously, when it provides mere descriptive information on the basis of which a decision is made.

A cybersystemic view of autonomous weapon systems (AWS)

Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWSs) are perhaps one of the most contentious forms of technology. However, the notion of an AWS is not easily defined since its differentiating feature from a weapon is the autonomous system. This lends itself to a systems approach to making sense of what constitutes an AWS.This paper's aim is to examine how a systemic perspective can aid our understanding of an AWS. It is proposed that an AWS can be interpreted in terms of three pillars. Firstly is system, which, when viewed in terms of self-regulating systems, leads to the second pillar which is autonomy. Underpinning the functioning of these self-regulating systems is the third pillar, values, manifesting in their legal and moral considerations. The UK approach to AWS, revealed in a number of recent Ministry of defence documents is explored using the three pillars. This provides a rich insight into the complexity associated with AWS and the challenge of defining what constitutes the system, the nature of autonomy and how values govern their use, in particular legal compliance and ethical judgement. It is concluded that the three pillars offers a useful framework to make sense of the complexity of other forms of autonomous technological systems.

Real-virtual Point Cloud Augmentation Method for Test and Evaluation of Autonomous Weapon Systems

Autonomous weapon systems act according to artificial intelligence-based judgement based on recognition through various sensors. Test and evaluation for various scenarios is required depending on the characteristics that artificial intelligence-based judgement is made. As a part of this approach, this paper proposed a LiDAR point cloud augmentation method for mixed-reality based test and evaluation. The augmentation process is achieved by mixing real and virtual LiDAR signals based on the virtual LiDAR synchronized with the pose of the autonomous weapon system. For realistic augmentation of test and evaluation purposes, appropriate intensity values were inserted when generating a point cloud of a virtual object and its validity was verified. In addition, when mixing the generated point cloud of the virtual object with the real point cloud, the proposed method enhances realism by considering the occlusion phenomenon caused by the insertion of the virtual object.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapon Systems in Military Operations

Abstract In the modern era, artificial intelligence and autonomous weapon systems represent an important step in the evolution of military conflicts. The ability of these technologies to make fast and accurate decisions in real time brings significant benefits to the military, improving the efficiency of actions and protecting the lives of soldiers. Artificial intelligence can analyze vast amounts of data and information in a much shorter time than humans, thus providing critical information for decision-making in order to surprise the adversary and achieve strategic objectives. Artificial intelligence is becoming an indispensable tool for modern armed forces because it allows actions to be carried out with maximum efficiency that would involve a high consumption of human resources, time and would involve numerous risks for human operators, from data analysis to identifying enemy targets and anticipating adversary movements or even engaging adversary forces under certain conditions. At the same time, autonomous weapon systems, equipped with AI technologies, have the ability to act independently, reducing the dependence on human intervention and speeding up the response time in critical situations. These systems can detect and neutralize threats faster and more efficiently than humans could. However, the use of artificial intelligence in military conflicts raises numerous ethical and moral challenges. Concerns about the loss of control over the technology and the possibility that it could be mistakenly used against civilians or against protected targets have generated intense debate in the international community.

Putting algorithmic bias on top of the agenda in the discussions on autonomous weapons systems

Biases in artificial intelligence have been flagged in academic and policy literature for years. Autonomous weapons systems—defined as weapons that use sensors and algorithms to select, track, target, and engage targets without human intervention—have the potential to mirror systems of societal inequality which reproduce algorithmic bias. This article argues that the problem of engrained algorithmic bias poses a greater challenge to autonomous weapons systems developers than most other risks discussed in the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (GGE on LAWS), which should be reflected in the outcome documents of these discussions. This is mainly because it takes longer to rectify a discriminatory algorithm than it does to issue an apology for a mistake that occurs occasionally. Highly militarised states have controlled both the discussions and their outcomes, which have focused on issues that are pertinent to them while ignoring what is existential for the rest of the world. Various calls from civil society, researchers, and smaller states for a legally binding instrument to regulate the development and use of autonomous weapons systems have always included the call for recognising algorithmic bias in autonomous weapons, which has not been reflected in discussion outcomes. This paper argues that any ethical framework developed for the regulation of autonomous weapons systems should, in detail, ensure that the development and use of autonomous weapons systems do not prejudice against vulnerable sections of (global) society.