Talk:Lethal autonomous weapon

Definition

Does anyone have a scholarly source for the definition of the term? K.Bog 17:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kbog: Yes, there are many scholarly sources about this topic. See here, for example.

Additional content on AI arms race: separate page or integrate into here?

As of 2017 we have quite a lot of scholarship on the "AI arms race", enough for its own article if desired. A draft of the content I'd like to insert into Wikipedia is here. Some options:

• Publish as a standalone article titled "Artificial intelligence arms race" or "Militarization of artificial intelligence". "Lethal autonomous weapon" would remain and be focused on specific hardware, whereas "AI arms race" would focus on policy.
• Integrate both into one article, titled "Militarization of artificial intelligence", or retaining "Lethal autonomous weapon". In this case I would probably attempt to remove much of the existing content of "Lethal autonomous weapon" as poorly sourced.

Thoughts? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The ideas presented make it difficult to grasp the concern because it conflates autonomous systems that automatically target things that aren’t alive (like a missile or rocket within its engagement envelope) with those that are engaging targets that may have people in them. A robot guard gun can’t differentiate (yet) between a person holding a gun and someone holding a pipe, but that doesn’t make it the same kind of moral question as an anti-missile system engaging a hypersonic attack system whose payload isn’t large enough to contain a human being.

Not being a silicon chip, I can’t speak to the morality of killing code or capacitors. I understand our future robot overlords may feel differently.

The concern (I believe) is with autonomous systems killing non-combatants, not with autonomous systems eliminating missiles. As to whether a combatant is shot by a robot or hit effectively at random by an artillery round is a difference in detail, not in kind. Kah13 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I created an article for Artificial intelligence arms race. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge Sentry gun into this article

I propose that Sentry gun be merged into Lethal autonomous weapon. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad idea. Sentry gun is a special case, so refer to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.232.22 (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed my merge template for now; it can be added back in if there's support for the proposal in the future. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge military robot to lethal autonomous weapon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn by proponent, discussion about these articles can continue in section below. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Merge military robot to lethal autonomous weapon: There is a great deal of overlap between these two articles and editors don't seem sure where to place what information. Robots are discussed here on this page and things such as sentry guns have been discussed on the robots page. Robots are a subtype of lethal autonomous weapon (they can move). The hat note of this article actually says "Killer robot" redirects here. To avoid confusion and overlap, I think these two articles should be merged. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I feel the page should be at "lethal autonomous weapon" because the article may cover things like police robots, privately owned robots, etc., not just military. While "military robot" is a common term it is not the common name for the overall topic that this article should cover. If you support the merge but prefer it to be to "military robot", please at least phrase it as a support of a merger but in the other direction. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer. These inevitably cover the same topic areas with the oft-forgotten distinction that perhaps the nuance of "robot" is that it can move around - in some senses of "robot" but not in others, in which it might be stationary. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support I can see that there is no clear delineation between the two articles. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Combat robot is the overall category and lethal autonomous weapon is the sub-category as not all combat robots are equipped with lethal weapons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66: Thanks for providing input on this. So what should be in this article and not in the military robot? Should this just be merged to "military robot" if it is a sub-category? Right now there is a lot of overlap. If you don't mind, would you look over what is currently in each article, if you have not already. As I requested above, if you do support a merger but in the other direction, it would be helpful for the closer if you said you would support that but oppose the other. Thanks again. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  The two should not be merged at all. I'll have to read through the military robot article to see how broadly "robot" is defined as, at its broadest, guided missiles could count as robots. And how broadly "autonomous" is defined in the lethal autonomous weapon article. But I'm pretty busy at the moment and can't promise a quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose >99% of military robots are not lethal autonomous weapons. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: What's a robot? What's in the article now are a lot of remote control vehicles which is hardly what I would even call a robot. It also mentions autonomous robots. 99% seems like hyperbole to be honest, looking over the article, unless assuming the broadest possible definition of robot where any machine would be a robot, and clearly more than 1% of what is depicted in the military robot article is weaponized, in fact quite the opposite, 99% of the article is about weapons, and a lot of it is about remote control vehicles, which are "robots" only loosely speaking. No civilian in a field with an RC airplane or RC car is saying "look at my robot!". Respectfully and thoroughly disagree with your statement and would have to ask if you have read over these two articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Weaponized military robot =/= lethal autonomous weapon. Those are very very rare, they make up much less than 1% of military robots. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  How did you arrive at this "less than 1% of military robots" number, thin air? The article is not 99% about unarmed robots. Again, this looks like hyperbole, or manufactured numbers, or not to reflect what is actually in the article, or all three. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where you're getting from armed robot to armed autonomous robot. The first is widespread the second is almost unheard of, the only combat uses I am aware of are Turkish tests (and some rather shifty stories from the tale end of the Gaddafi regime). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  So this article's page you are posting on does not exist? I'm baffled by what you are saying, there's some communication problem. There are a ton of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wait what? They exist, but they are extremely rare. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  The article whose talk page I'm commenting on appears to have a significant amount of WP:OR. (deleted by Horse Eye's Back) Your >99% number was the most stunning piece of OR I have seen in a long time. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Semi-autonomous weapons are not lethal autonomous weapons. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  So sir/madam, what is it you think should be in this article here topic-wise and how should "lethal autonomous weapon" be defined and what is your source for that? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  The current article is fine, its scope is well defined using the given sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Scholars such as Peter Asaro and Mark Gubrud are trying to set the threshold lower and judge more weapon systems as autonomous. They believe that any weapon system that is capable of releasing a lethal force without the operation, decision, or confirmation of a human supervisor can be deemed autonomous. According to Gubrud, a weapon system operating partially or wholly without human intervention is considered autonomous. He argues that a weapon system does not need to be able to make decisions completely by itself in order to be called autonomous. Instead, it should be treated as autonomous as long as it actively involves in one or multiple parts of the "preparation process", from finding the target to finally firing. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  theirs is a minority opinion and we can note it but note that the key is that they're "trying" to do it, not that they've succeeded in doing it (they haven't). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  On the contrary I would say 100% of "killer robots" are lethal, autonomous, or semi-autonomous, weapons. If it's not semi-autonomous it's not a robot at all. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  "Killer robots" are both lethal and autonomous (at least for the strike portion of their mission). Remote controlled robots are still robots. I think the problem here is that you don't know what a military robot is and you don't know what a lethal autonomous weapon is. Also yes RC cars and planes are robots, of course they are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  You have to be kidding that you 1) think an RC plane is a "robot" 2) think a Phalanx CIWS is not an autonomous lethal weapon, and a very common one 3) that there aren't other examples 4) that robots are not either autonomous or semi-autonomous by definition. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Phalanx has the ability to be used as an autonomous lethal weapon, it almost never is. Until very recently almost all military robots were remote control, UAV (like RC planes) are robots. Also note that many RC planes are semi-autonomous and some are even fully autonomous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I really don't think you have any idea what you are talking about on these topics, sorry. Something is very confused here. You clearly feel expert enough to pull absurd numbers out of thin air though. What would you say a self-guided missile like a Sidewinder or Stinger is? Either that is a very common "lethal autonomous weapon" that makes up a large part of "military robots" or it is not a robot at all. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  If it doesn't select its own target and launch itself it isn't autonomous. If you can find a source which calls Sidewinder, Stingers, Hellfires, etc "lethal autonomous weapon" present it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  There would not be any such thing as a fully autonomous robot, that's science fiction/fantasy. By your definition possibly even soldiers aren't autonomous because they are told what targets to kill and when to kill them. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, they are currently extremely rare and largely confined to science fiction. That is why most of the discussions featured in the article are *theoretical* ones about limiting future weapons systems. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ever heard of Aegis Combat System? etc. etc. etc. Clearly more than a fraction of 1% of military robots are lethal autonomous weapons, and 0% of remote control airplanes are robots. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Aegis Combat System is a combat system not a robot or a weapon. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  An RC airplane with a receiver and a few servos sure as heck isn't a robot. I'd say a ship with Aegis is one big robot when it selects and shoots down planes on its own. I'm about done here. I gotta say you got me heated on Wikipedia for the first time I can remember. Good luck with your Wikipedia adventures sir/madam. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh come on now, you can't pose a new set of questions and bow out. So how many receivers and servos does it need to become a military robot? What's the line between a RC plane and a Reaper for you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  A robot is autonomous or semi-autonomous. An RC car that can't drive itself isn't a robot. A Mars rover or helicopter is a robot.

  In reality anything made is semi-autonomous rather than purely autonomous because it is beholden to some commands, program or instruction, and arguably even people under any circumstance (depending on one's religious, philosophical and scientific beliefs) are not "autonomous" which is more of an abstract idea or approximation. Ignoring philosophy/science/religion, a private is less autonomous than a captain who is less autonomous than a general who is less autonomous than a president who is still not autonomous. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Any RC vehicle that has some form of stability control (which is most of them) is semi-autonomous. When it comes to military robotics the early stuff like the teletank was less sophisticated than what you can buy on the RC toy shelf today. All people are autonomous, how they exercise that autonomy is what differs. The private and the president are both autonomous but within a certain social system they have differing freedom to exercise that autonomy (the president and the private can both strike the man next to them, what happens to them afterwards has nothing to do with whether they are autonomous or not) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Many military robots are not autonomous because they have operators. Examples are the US assault breacher based on the M1 Abrams, the Type-X tank, RQ-180 and MARRS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As mentioned previously, many military robots are not lethal autonomous weapons. For example, they might be remote-controlled or lack the ability to autonomously select and kill targets. Taking a look at the second Google result for "military robot", "7 Types of Robots Used in the Military", we observe several types of robots which aren't even weaponized: transportation robots, search and rescue robots, mine clearance robots, firefighting robots, surveillance and reconnaissance robots, and training robots. Conversely, not all lethal autonomous weapons would be military robots. For example, see [1] [2] [3] for discussion of lethal autonomous weapons in the context of law enforcement. Additionally, [4] [5] are concerned about how lethal autonomous weapons could be used by non-state actors (again, not the military). —Enervation (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

• Comment An argument is made that not all military robots are lethal. Autonomous weapon system is presently a redirect to this article. Solution: adopt Autonomous weapon system as the title. Problem solved. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not clear if Horse Eye's Back and Peacemaker67 believe that something can be a robot without being autonomous at all. I don't think so, I think a robot implies something degree of autonomy and "thinking". As to "weapon" not all military robots are weapons. I've heard Navy submersibles described as robots (if I remember correctly) which are not weapons at all, but since the Navy operates it, one would probably call it "military". I'm not quite sure what to do here or if there is an easy answer to the fact that a person might arrive at one article and think it covers the other article's topic. Hat notes are how this is normally handled. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Add to this the complication that almost any autonomous system can be made into a lethal weapon if you Kamikaze it. IMO the correct response here is not to merge today, if in ten years the literature treats military robotics and lethal autonomous weapons as synonymous we can revisit the issue. Today the sources don't do that so we don't have the option to do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Robots are not necessarily autonomous. They are (often electrically actuated) mechanical devices that are capable of replicating a given task or set of tasks. Those tasks being directed by programing or by direct human intervention does not a robot unmake. For example, if a robot can pick things up and put them down, it is still a robot regardless of where the instructions come from. 192.77.12.11 (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter what our personal opinions are on what makes a robot. I have no doubt we can find sources that call a directly manually controlled "robot arm" a robot, and to me and to other sources that is not the meaning of "robot". I think the military robot article should be expanded with whatever can fit in there to differentiate it from the content of this article, and tend to link to more in depth discussion of lethal robots in this article. It should be an overview article IMO. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I can acknowledge after discussion with Sturmvogel 66, Horse Eye's Back and Peacemaker67 that these articles are not precisely synonymous. I would like to establish what should be in each of these two articles, or if they may simply need cleanup to for each article to be more aware that the other exists, or perhaps if there is no problem at all and I should just move on to other Wikipedia tasks. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No, no, you correctly identified some muddy water, I agree that these articles need some cleanup. That is absolutely true and when I can find some time I will work on it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

In response to the query, it isn’t about what any editor thinks about what autonomy means in terms of military robots, it is about what the reliable sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Per my OP, I am seeing substantial overlap between the two articles which does tend to support a merge.

At military robot the lead states: Military robots are autonomous robots or remote-controlled mobile robots designed for military applications, from transport to search & rescue and attack. However, the OED a definition of a robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer—capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. Other definitions consistently refer to automatic operation as being defining. A remote control device, without any degree of automation is not, by definition, a robot. Remote control devices are related, at least historically. Some remote control devices may be loosely termed robots, even if they lack automation.

At Lethal autonomous weapon the lead states: Lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) are a type of autonomous military system that can independently search for and engage targets based on programmed constraints and descriptions. LAWs are also known as lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), autonomous weapon systems (AWS), robotic weapons or killer robots. The distinction to be made is that an LAW is destructive. It is otherwise a subset of military robots.

All LAWs are military robots. The military robot article is largely about LAWs but not exclusively. Many mobile LAWs platforms are adaptable to non-lethal applications such as logistics or reconnaissance. All of this would indicate a merge to be appropriate. However, the direction of merge should be Lethal autonomous weapon into military robot, which is the reverse of the OP proposal. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Arguably a police force could have a LAW, or a private citizen, which is not a military use (particularly in the case of a private citizen). Otherwise I agree. It seems like something needs to happen to bring these two articles into harmony... —DIYeditor (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I should add that I definitely agree with you, Cinderella157, that a robot is something that can operate automatically. Right now I think the solution is to have military robot cover both lethal and non-lethal military robots on a more superficial level, and then for a detailed discussion of lethal ones the reader can be directed to this page. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment/oppose merge Pretty clear case. From what I saw I agree totally with editors Peacemaker67, Horse Eye's Back and Enervation about.178.222.27.60 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

cited sentence refers to something not in this article. without context this citation is nonsense.

this sentence: "Likewise, Steven Umbrello, Émile P. Torres and Angelo F. De Bellis argue that if the technical capacities of LAW-s are at least as accurate as human soldiers, then given the psychological shortcomings of human soldiers in war warrants that only these types of ethical LAWs should be used."

-assumes that LAW-s (what a terrible name) have technical capacities better than human soldiers, without clarifying what it means by technical capacities.

-makes the implicit assumption that the (undefined) technical capacities are all that matters, with the exception of psychological shortcomings (that affect only humans). from this false premise follows that human soldiers are always worse (not clear in what sense) than LAW-s.

-jumps to the conclusion that autonomous killer machines are the ones to be used, while sneaking in "these types of ethical" which is again undefined.

For this reason (the cited sentence makes no sense, gives no support to its conclusions) the best is to delete this sentence. IF you think the cited reference is valuable to add clarity to this topic, then please add the citation again, including the missing arguments and definitions, to support the conclusion. 62.92.48.67 (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC).

The following sentence also needed some clearing up. (To get rid of the profusely used "likewise"-s.) "Likewise, they propose using the value sensitive design approach as a potential framework for designing these laws to align with human values and International Humanitarian Law.[39]" 62.92.48.67 (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)