Killer robot weapons are an existential threat
Allowing machines to select and target humans sounds like something out of an apocalyptic sci-fi movie. But as we enter another decade, it is becoming increasingly obvious that we’re teetering on the edge of that dangerous threshold.
Countries including China, Israel, South Korea, Russia and the United States are already developing and deploying precursors to fully autonomous weapons, such as armed drones that are piloted remotely. These countries are investing heavily in military applications of artificial intelligence with the goal of gaining a technological advantage in next-generation preparedness for the battlefield.
These killer robots, once activated, would select and engage targets without further human intervention. The United States and other countries developing them are trying to prevent progress toward an international treaty to ban them and retain meaningful human control over the use of force. They call efforts to regulate these weapons premature, and question concerns that deploying them will threaten the right to life and principles of human dignity.
Recognizing that, the momentum to prevent a future of killer robots intensifies. Killer robots are now seen as one of the top existential threats faced by the planet. A growing number of countries and some unlikely allies are now backing the drive for a new treaty to prohibit lethal autonomous weapons systems. As Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams warns, such weapons would cross “a moral and ethical Rubicon.”
In September at the United Nations General Assembly, an “Alliance for Multilateralism” initiative led by France and Germany and including dozens of foreign ministers, identified killer robots as one of six “politically relevant” issues requiring an urgent multilateral response. (The others included climate change and gender equality in education.)
At eight meetings on killer robots by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons since 2014, there has been widespread agreement among virtually all of the 80 participating countries on the need to retain some form of human control over the use of force. Thirty countries now vigorously promote a ban treaty as essential to stigmatize the removal of human control from weapons systems.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres expressed alarm last month that “killer robots could take the place of soldiers.” Deeming the prospect of machines with the power and discretion to take human life “politically unacceptable and morally despicable,” he has called for a new treaty to be negotiated and offered U.N. support toward that goal in his Agenda for Disarmament.
Leading artificial intelligence experts, roboticists, scientists and technology workers at Google and other companies are also demanding regulation. Liz O’Sullivan of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control warned at a U.N. event last fall that algorithms are fed by data that inevitably reflect various social biases. If applied in weapons, she said, they could cause people with certain profiles to be targeted disproportionately. Killer robots would also be vulnerable to hacking and attacks in which minor modifications to data inputs could “trick them in ways no human would ever be fooled.”
The concerns around killer robots are also beginning to impact their military acquisition and development. Increasingly jittery defense planners are becoming reluctant to budget millions of dollars for autonomous weapons systems that might be prohibited before they are even built. In 2019, for example, a major German industry association comprised of businesses and defense contractors, including Rheinmetall, called for the government to work for a new treaty to ban killer robots.
With public pressure, calls for a new treaty to ban killer robots will soon become too overwhelming for military powers to contain the current diplomatic talks to the failing Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
There’s increasing recognition that it’s time to chart a new path forward to create the treaty desired by so many. Only through new international law will it be possible to draw the line and determine what is acceptable when it comes to increasingly complex autonomous weapons systems.