January 25, 2023
How ‘Killer Robots’ Can Help Us Learn from Mistakes Made in AI Policies
The use of lethal robots for law enforcement has turned from a science fiction concept to news snippets, thanks to recent high-profile debates in San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., as well as their actual use in Dallas. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 to grant police the ability to use ground-based robots for lethal force when “when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and officers cannot subdue the threat after using alternative force options or other de-escalation tactics.” Following immediate public outcry, the board reversed course a week later and unanimously voted to ban the lethal use of robots. Oakland underwent a less public but similar process, and in January the Dallas Police Department used a robot to end a standoff.
While recent events may have sparked a public outcry over the dangers of “killer robots,” we should not lose sight of the danger that poor processes create when deploying AI systems.
All of these events illustrate major pitfalls with the way that police currently use or plan to use lethal robots. Processes are rushed or nonexistent, conducted haphazardly, do not involve the public or civil society, and fail to create adequate oversight. These problems must be fixed in future processes that authorize artificial intelligence (AI) use in order to avoid controversy, collateral damage and even international destabilization.
The chief sin that a process can commit is to move too quickly. Decisions about how to use AI systems require careful deliberation and informed discussion, especially with something as high-stakes as the use of lethal force. A counter example here is the Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 3000.09, which covers the development and deployment of lethal autonomous systems. Because it lacks clarity for new technology and terminology, this decade-old policy is in the process of a lengthy, but deliberate, update.
Read the full article from the The Hill.
More from CNAS
-
Technology & National Security
Prepared, Not ParalyzedExecutive Summary The Trump administration has embraced a pro-innovation approach to artificial intelligence (AI) policy. Its AI Action Plan, released July 2025, underscores t...
By Janet Egan, Spencer Michaels & Caleb Withers
-
Indo-Pacific Security / Technology & National Security
Sharper: Tech + ChinaRecent talks between President Donald Trump and Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping placed a spotlight on emerging technologies, from high-end chips to minera...
By Charles Horn & Sevi Silvia
-
Indo-Pacific Security / Technology & National Security
CNAS Insights | The Cost of Silence on China’s Cyber AggressionJust weeks before the much anticipated meeting between President Donald Trump and General Secretary Xi Jinping, the United States discovered yet another major China-backed cyb...
By Morgan Peirce
-
Defense / Technology & National Security
What to Expect from Military AI in 2030As the US military races to harness artificial intelligence, experts say the biggest AI breakthroughs may not come from “killer robots” or autonomous war machines, but from al...
By Josh Wallin
