Explores how artificial intelligence (AI) influences U.S. public policy, what gaps exist due to AI methods and applications and examines what trends and insights are emerging that can help stakeholders plan for the future.

/pdf/the-unforeseen-consequences-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-on-3qd788cas1.pdf

The Unforeseen Consequences of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on Society: A Systematic Review of Regulatory Gaps Generated by AI in the U.S.

To provide readers with a compact account of ongoing academic and diplomatic debates about autonomy in weapons systems, that is, about the moral and legal acceptability of letting a robotic system to unleash destructive force in warfare and take attendant life-or-death decisions without any human intervention. A precis of current debates is provided, which focuses on the requirement that all weapons systems, including autonomous ones, should remain under meaningful human control (MHC) in order to be ethically acceptable and lawfully employed. Main approaches to MHC are described and briefly analyzed, distinguishing between uniform, differentiated, and prudential policies for human control on weapons systems. The review highlights the crucial role played by the robotics research community to start ethical and legal debates about autonomy in weapons systems. A concise overview is provided of the main concerns emerging in those early debates: respect of the laws of war, responsibility ascription issues, violation of the human dignity of potential victims of autonomous weapons systems, and increased risks for global stability. It is pointed out that these various concerns have been jointly taken to support the idea that all weapons systems, including autonomous ones, should remain under meaningful human control (MHC). Main approaches to MHC are described and briefly analyzed. Finally, it is emphasized that the MHC idea looms large on shared control policies to adopt in other ethically and legally sensitive application domains for robotics and artificial intelligence.

/pdf/autonomous-weapons-systems-and-meaningful-human-control-oloiadntt4.pdf

Autonomous Weapons Systems and Meaningful Human Control: Ethical and Legal Issues

Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) are platforms that can perform military tasks and take decisions relating thereto on their own—using artificial intelligence. While such technology has not yet been developed, research is headed this way. Are these systems capable of complying with current rules under international humanitarian law (IHL)? Which factors of substantive legal provisions pose particular challenges and what parameters would LAWS have to meet in order to act lawfully? Core principles of IHL under treaties and custom are identified, explained and applied. As regards distinction, it is argued that research here offers the most promising advancements. However, the rule rests upon subjective determinations and ever-present doubt. One may also differentiate when examining proportionality: expected collateral damage is relatively objective and can already be calculated by software. In contrast, military advantage anticipated proves too complex and subjective. Furthermore, the open wording of this rule and its dependence on moral standards leads makes adherence to IHL currently impossible. It is suggested that extralegal issues should also be given sufficient consideration; details are however beyond the scope here. It is finally concluded that for the time being as well as the foreseeable future, LAWS are incompatible with IHL. Thus, humans must stay in or on the loop and retain (meaningful human) control in order to ensure observance of the law of armed conflict. Any technological achievement may nevertheless enhance the human-machine interface in the sense that humans and systems are partnered; thereby allowing for utilizing progress while securing lawful conduct at the same time.

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems and Their Compatibility with International Humanitarian Law: A Primer on the Debate

The chapter examines the relationship between Autonomous Weapons Systems -AWS’s—and the collective security system. The argument is that the goals of the collective security system impose restrictions in the evolution and implementation of the AWS’s so that new factors endangering international peace and security will not appear possibly disorientating the collective security system. Relevant governance mechanisms must be foreseen. The chapter starts with the examination of the essence of the collective security system, moves on with the analysis of some fundamental elements of AWS’s and their definition and in the conclusions provides the proposals for th legitimacy or not of the different forms of AWS’s.

AI and International Security- the Case of AWS’ and Collective Security System

/pdf/strictly-human-limitations-of-autonomous-systems-5bgxy4cke2.pdf

Strictly Human: Limitations of Autonomous Systems

C An Ability to Experience Emotions and Compassion Human Rights Watch ('HRW') (303) and Robert Sparrow (304) argue that an ability to experience emotions, compassion and connection to citizens of the adversary's state are central to good targeting decisions. Similarly, Lieutenant Colonel Jorg Wellbrink believes that feelings, empathy and intuition are vital for understanding the situation on the battlefield. (305) Although the rules of targeting do not directly address the role of emotions and compassion in decision-making, it would be strange if the rules did not assume the decision-makers to have this capacity. The ICJ articulated in the Nuclear Weapons Case that a 'great many' IHL rules are 'fundamental to the respect of the human person' and reflect 'elementary considerations of humanity'. (306) It would be odd if states did not expect the decision-makers, who determine what verification measures to use, whether to use lethal force, what weapons to employ and whether an attack is proportionate, to understand and to experience respect for other human beings. Emotions and empathy allow individuals to have respect for the life and dignity of other persons. Wagner's scenario of boys playing with a ball, (307) which has already been described, lends support to HRW's assertion (308) that the possession of emotions and compassion enables the soldiers to distinguish civilians from individuals who take a direct part in hostilities. In this particular scenario, soldiers will be able to identify with the feelings of fear that a parent who sees children running towards a soldier experiences. This is because they can imagine what it is like to be in their position. Because the man with a dagger in this scenario poses no threat to the soldiers or their colleagues, the soldiers are in a position to abstain from firing at the adversary. Of course, the possession of emotions and compassion may be less relevant to identifying military objectives which have a distinct appearance or signature, such as a tank or another LAR. Nevertheless, since the purpose of the forces is to kill or destroy as many lawful targets as possible, an LAR which could be employed against the whole array of possible targets would need to possess these qualities. Another value of the ability to experience emotions and compassion is that the possession of these qualities lead soldiers to assume a risk of injury when faced with a decision of whether to open fire, in circumstances when they are not sure whether the person is taking a direct part in hostilities or not. The soldiers abstain from firing in such situations because they perceive the death of an individual who does not pose a threat to them as a tragic loss. This sensitivity stems from the ability of the soldiers to identify with the feeling of bereavement which the family and friends of the deceased experience. A counterargument would be that the diaries of soldiers reveal that whilst some soldiers felt pain at the time they killed the enemy, (309) others felt pleasure and the satisfaction of winning. (310) A response to this observation would be that those soldiers who viewed fighting as a thrill took the horrors of war more seriously than civilians who were located far away from the combat zone. (311) These soldiers experienced trauma after combat was over. (312) When soldiers captured prisoners of war, they felt sympathy for those individuals. (313) Moreover, in 2011 the psychologists of the US Air Force completed a mental health survey of 600 drone pilots. (314) They found that 20 per cent of the pilots reported emotional exhaustion or burnout due to seeing death, despite not being physically present on the battlefield. (315) This information suggests that human beings feel compassion for each other, but that this feeling may become displaced when an individual encounters someone who poses mortal danger to him or her. Just because soldiers experience mixed emotions when killing another soldier (316) does not mean that they do not feel compassion for civilians. …

Tetyana Krupiy

Papers

Of souls, spirits and ghosts: Transposing the application of the rules of targeting to lethal autonomous robots