Justin Stuart Blog Post #2

The Case for Ethical Autonomy in Unmanned Systems by Ronald Arkin is an interesting and very thought provoking report. There has always been that idea that artificial intelligence will soon take over in wars leading to the saving of millions of human lives on both sides of the line. All over this idea of robotic warfare has captivated common people who have seen and books endless movies and books which have almost made this type of war as sexy and seem as if there is no real loss. But going deeper and looking at more real world mechanics and cases involving unmanned systems, there really seems to be a case against such artificial intelligence due to its limitations on itself and humans alike. 

At the beginning of his argument, Arkin talks about the the recent epidemic in ethical warfare or lack thereof. Especially in 21st Century battles he accuses soldiers of being unattached and willing to take out whomever. He believes that there is a disguise given to such combatants as heroes that the fact that they have killed innocent people is forgotten. Most importantly, he tries to prove this point but incorporating different research reports on soldier psychology.

In these reports from returning soldiers, doctors asked them a number of question regarding their feel on attacking those classified as noncombatants. To not much surprise, most soldiers in some way answered that they were willing to fire at noncombatants for a number of reasons. With this data, Arkin seems to make his case from the start that soldiers are naturally unethical as war is only capable if you had those that are such a mindset.

But what is interesting is how later in the report, Arkin introduces other data about past wars such as World War One and the Korean War. In the responses, combats were recorded saying that most did not either kill or either fire upon any type of person. Those that did only made up a some portion of the overall force. As wars went on, this type of pacifism died down once technology started to really become a part of modern warfare. Arvin point out that advances in weapons such as drones or laser guided missiles makes war  a forethought as humans become more and more distanced from it. 

Most importantly it shows that there is a strong correlation between technology and unethical behavior be it artificially or human controlled. I don’t think for one second that the inclusion of artificial intelligence on to the battlefield will immediately rid it of bad behavior as Arkin seems to almost suggest. To be honest, I think that it is the complete opposite. Yes robots can stand or walk without stopping but most importantly, robots cannot yet adapt and only work on data from the past. They do not have the ability to really find a solution as they have no conscious.

I believe that this is more dangerous. Everything to unmanned systems can become fair game. One object or person can look like a target. If a raid or plan goes wrong, robots really have no way to quickly readjust. Humans on the other hand are able to feel emotion, pain and fear that allow ourselves to really compromise to an efficient outcome. Arvin suggests that just is not the case but I think his ideas or dangerous.

Efficiency should be seen as being able to accomplish something without very little damage. It shouldn't be measured in technological systems or backward looking algorithms. We have seen such failure on the AI scale with computers playing chess, which have lost 90% of the time as the play on trends according to a recent Business Insider article and supercomputer in financial systems which have crashed global markets on a penny mistake. These reasons should show that in actuality Arkins assumptions of the inability for humans to react accordingly is wrong.

Humans possess the ability to do more than AI will ever do. For one AI is created by humans and not AI itself. If they can create it, they can defiantly do better than it. This goes also on the battlefield. When robots become to involved, humans are more likely to allow free reign and possible worse outcomes than what some say has happened in the current wars. Human interaction is critical is warfare, more so than robots, as we can put to work a range of resources to defeat an enemy that also thinks outside the box. With just robots, it would be a linear thought process against a web type one. In the end, Arkin seems to be pushing an idea that is based on few arbitrary reports. But in actuality be it intentional on accident, he also points out that with technology comes more unethical behavior.