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
-
Commentary
Indo-Pacific Security / Technology & National Security
Sharper: China's AI RiseArtificial intelligence has become a strategic priority for Beijing and Washington, yet both countries continue to pursue dramatically different strategies in their bid for gl...
By Charles Horn & Cadence Barker
-
Video
Technology & National Security
UN, Red Cross Call for Rules on Fully Autonomous WeaponsPaul Scharre, executive vice president at the Center for a New American Security, joins CNN to discuss the advent of fully autonomous weapons, the dangers of handing over targ...
By Paul Scharre
-
Commentary
Technology & National Security
Beneath the Surface: Overlooked Cyber Security ThreatsThis article was originally published in War on the Rocks. Cyber security remains a persistent concern for public and private sector organizations alike. Given the potential i...
By Caleb Withers
-
Commentary
Technology & National Security
Why Empowering Private Companies to Fight Cybercrime Had to HappenThere is no question that the government needs to adapt to the reality of the evolving civilianization of the security environment. It should do so boldly, quickly, but carefu...
By Gary Corn
