A future for drones: Automated killing

A future for drones: Automated killing

By , Published: September 19

One afternoon last fall at Fort Benning, Ga., two model-size planes took off,
climbed to 800 and 1,000 feet, and began criss-crossing the military base in
search of an orange, green and blue tarp.

The automated, unpiloted planes worked on their own, with no human guidance,
no hand on any control.

After 20 minutes, one of the aircraft, carrying a computer that processed
images from an onboard camera, zeroed in on the tarp and contacted the second
plane, which flew nearby and used its own sensors to examine the colorful
object. Then one of the aircraft signaled to an unmanned car on the ground so it
could take a final, close-up look.

Target confirmed.

This successful exercise in autonomous robotics could presage the future of
the American way of war: a day when drones hunt, identify and kill the enemy
based on calculations made by software, not decisions made by humans. Imagine
aerial “Terminators,” minus beefcake and time travel.

The Fort Benning tarp “is a rather simple target, but think of it as a
surrogate,” said Charles E. Pippin, a scientist at the Georgia Tech Research
Institute, which developed the software to run the demonstration. “You can
imagine real-time scenarios where you have 10 of these things up in the air and
something is happening on the ground and you don’t have time for a human to say,
‘I need you to do these tasks.’ It needs to happen faster than that.”

The demonstration laid the groundwork for scientific advances that would
allow drones to search for a human target and then make an identification based
on facial-recognition or other software. Once a match was made, a drone could
launch a missile to kill the target.

Military systems with some degree of autonomy — such as robotic, weaponized
sentries — have been deployed in the demilitarized zone between South and North
Korea and other potential battle areas. Researchers are uncertain how soon
machines capable of collaborating and adapting intelligently in battlefield
conditions will come online. It could take one or two decades, or longer. The
U.S. military is funding numerous research projects on autonomy to develop
machines that will perform some dull or dangerous tasks and to maintain its
advantage over potential adversaries who are also working on such systems.

The killing of terrorism suspects and insurgents by armed drones, controlled
by pilots sitting in bases thousands of miles away in the western United States,
has prompted criticism that the technology makes war too antiseptic. Questions
also have been raised about the legality of drone strikes when employed in
places such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, which are not at war with the United
States. This debate will only intensify as technological advances enable what
experts call lethal autonomy.

The prospect of machines able to perceive, reason and act in unscripted
environments presents a challenge to the current understanding of international
humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions require belligerents to use
discrimination and proportionality, standards that would demand that machines
distinguish among enemy combatants, surrendering troops and civilians.

“The deployment of such systems would reflect a paradigm shift and a major
qualitative change in the conduct of hostilities,” Jakob Kellenberger, president
of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said at a conference in Italy
this month. “It would also raise a range of fundamental legal, ethical and
societal issues, which need to be considered before such systems are developed
or deployed.”

Drones flying over Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen can already move
automatically from point to point, and it is unclear what surveillance or other
tasks, if any, they perform while in autonomous mode. Even when directly linked
to human operators, these machines are producing so much data that processors
are sifting the material to suggest targets, or at least objects of interest.
That trend toward greater autonomy will only increase as the U.S. military
shifts from one pilot remotely flying a drone to one pilot remotely managing
several drones at once.

But humans still make the decision to fire, and in the case of CIA strikes in
Pakistan, that call rests with the director of the agency. In future operations,
if drones are deployed against a sophisticated enemy, there may be much less
time for deliberation and a greater need for machines that can function on their
own.

The U.S. military has begun to grapple with the implications of emerging
technologies.

“Authorizing a machine to make lethal combat decisions is contingent upon
political and military leaders resolving legal and ethical questions,” according
to an Air Force treatise called Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047.
“These include the appropriateness of machines having this ability, under what
circumstances it should be employed, where responsibility for mistakes lies and
what limitations should be placed upon the autonomy of such systems.”

In the future, micro-drones will reconnoiter tunnels and buildings, robotic
mules will haul equipment and mobile systems will retrieve the wounded while
under fire. Technology will save lives. But the trajectory of military research
has led to calls for an arms-control regime to forestall any possibility that
autonomous systems could target humans.

In Berlin last year, a group of robotic engineers, philosophers and human
rights activists formed the International Committee for Robot Arms Control
(ICRAC) and said such technologies might tempt policymakers to think war can be
less bloody.

Some experts also worry that hostile states or terrorist organizations could
hack robotic systems and redirect them. Malfunctions also are a problem: In
South Africa in 2007, a semiautonomous cannon fatally shot nine friendly
soldiers.

The ICRAC would like to see an international treaty, such as the one banning
antipersonnel mines, that would outlaw some autonomous lethal machines. Such an
agreement could still allow automated antimissile systems.

“The question is whether systems are capable of discrimination,” said Peter
Asaro, a founder of the ICRAC and a professor at the New School in New York who
teaches a course on digital war. “The good technology is far off, but technology
that doesn’t work well is already out there. The worry is that these systems are
going to be pushed out too soon, and they make a lot of mistakes, and those
mistakes are going to be atrocities.”

Research into autonomy, some of it classified, is racing ahead at
universities and research centers in the United States, and that effort is
beginning to be replicated in other countries, particularly China.

“Lethal autonomy is inevitable,” said Ronald C. Arkin, the author of
“Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots,” a study that was funded by the
Army Research Office.

Arkin believes it is possible to build ethical military drones and robots,
capable of using deadly force while programmed to adhere to international
humanitarian law and the rules of engagement. He said software can be created
that would lead machines to return fire with proportionality, minimize
collateral damage, recognize surrender, and, in the case of uncertainty,
maneuver to reassess or wait for a human assessment.

In other words, rules as understood by humans can be converted into
algorithms followed by machines for all kinds of actions on the battlefield.

“How a war-fighting unit may think — we are trying to make our systems behave
like that,” said Lora G. Weiss, chief scientist at the Georgia Tech Research
Institute.

Others, however, remain skeptical that humans can be taken out of the loop.

“Autonomy is really the Achilles’ heel of robotics,” said Johann Borenstein,
head of the Mobile Robotics Lab at the University of Michigan. “There is a lot
of work being done, and still we haven’t gotten to a point where the smallest
amount of autonomy is being used in the military field. All robots in the
military are remote-controlled. How does that sit with the fact that autonomy
has been worked on at universities and companies for well over 20 years?”

Borenstein said human skills will remain critical in battle far into the
future.

“The foremost of all skills is common sense,” he said. “Robots don’t have
common sense and won’t have common sense in the next 50 years, or however long
one might want to guess.”

 

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: