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
-
Indo-Pacific Security / Technology & National Security
America’s New Plan to Defeat China in the AI Race | Trump | Xi JinpingIn an exclusive HT Podcast video interview, Vivek Chilukuri of the Center for a New American Security gives insight into the rapidly evolving global race for artificial intell...
By Vivek Chilukuri
-
Defense / Technology & National Security
Ukrainians Build Low-Tech Defense Against Russian DronesIn Ukraine, one weapon has revolutionized the battlefield: the drone. It's cheap, precise and widely available. Many of them are now immune to high-tech jamming. In southern U...
By Samuel Bendett
-
Technology & National Security
AI Action Plan: Janet Egan, Jessica Brandt, Neil Chilson, and Tim FistJanet Egan, senior fellow with the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security and Tim Fist, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a N...
By Janet Egan & Tim Fist
-
Energy, Economics & Security / Technology & National Security
Don’t Let Tariffs Ruin America’s Quantum LeadershipMounting costs and bureaucracy are derailing U.S. quantum innovation....
By Constanza M. Vidal Bustamante