Politicians have taken to describing drone strikes as “costless’’ or “judicious,’’ and too often fail to recognize the consequences and complications that come with any use of force. But the same problem extends back to the lab. For instance, there has been research, largely funded by the military, on how to create an “ethical governor’’ for unmanned weapons. Think Watson, the Artificial Intelligence program that won “Jeopardy,’’ given a law degree and dropped into war. Software would program robotic weapons to act ethically, such as only being able to fire in situations that conform to the Geneva Conventions.
The argument is that while soldiers sometimes let emotions of anger or hate get the worst of them and commit atrocities, an emotionless machine would only follow its program and war crimes would be less likely with robots than humans. As one professor at work on an ethics governor project for warbots put it, “Some robots are already stronger, faster and smarter than humans. We want to do better than people, to ultimately save more lives.’’
Such a vision is appealing, but also seductive. Unfortunately, while armed robotics are real, any true ethics governor for them remains “vaporware’’ - all design concept, but no reality. But even if such programs were to come to fruition, we need to understand there would still be problems.
Too frequently, there is the argument that the “fog of war can be lifted,’’ by either the perfection of our technology or the perfection of our souls. Instead, war in the 21st century shares the same qualities with past centuries: It is a terrible, awful mess.
So, whenever some politician or scientist asserts confidently that some new war technology will lead to less bloodshed or greater compliance with the law, we should look through a different, dirtier lens - war as it is, rather than how we wish it to be. Take these situations, all of which have happened in wars in the last decade:
