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
Technology & National Security
CNAS Insights | The Export Control Loophole Fueling China's Chip ProductionThis week, Reuters reported that China has apparently built a prototype of an extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) system, a highly intricate machine used to produce cutting-...
By Michelle Nie, Autumn Dorsey & Janet Egan
-
Video
Technology & National Security
Paul Scharre on How AI Could Transform the Nature of WarPaul Scharre, CNAS Executive Vice President, joins host Luisa Rodriguez to explain why we are hurtling toward a “battlefield singularity” — a tipping point where AI increasing...
By Paul Scharre
-
Commentary
Energy, Economics & Security / Technology & National Security
Recommendations for Promoting American AI AbroadStrategic Context and Program Objectives The American AI Exports Program is an ambitious and essential proposal to expand the reach of American AI technologies in foreign mar...
By Janet Egan, Geoffrey Gertz, Daniel Remler & Ruby Scanlon
-
Podcast
Technology & National Security
Defense One Radio, Ep. 200: Paul Scharre Explains the Global AI Arms RacePaul Scharre, executive vice president at the Center for a New American Security, joined Defense One to discuss science and technology. The former Army Ranger explored how AI ...
By Paul Scharre
