Autonomous weapons, with artificial intelligence, are portrayed as "the third revolution in warfare," following gunpowder and nuclear arms. The moral stakes are high as autonomous systems reshape the world’s arsenals.
Will these weapons challenge our ethics and accountability thresholds? Most likely. But let’s explore a few of the considerations, moral and legal, through the prism of how people will be increasingly removed from battlefield decision-making as conflict unfolds at machine speed.
Militaries define autonomous weapons as "systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator."
So-called "intelligentized" systems that longer term will evolve to independently surveil, spot, identify, engage, and precisely target the adversary. And to do that with better ethical outcomes than when people are at the controls.
The core of these weapons’ “brain” is advanced artificial intelligence. The marrying of AI algorithms, deep machine learning, and massive data sets along with sophisticated technology will transform the world’s arsenals. The science and caution over removal of human operational control may zigzag, but the allure of intelligent, nimble, precise, fast and cheaper systems will prove irresistible.
Russia’s president Putin made no bones about this transformation, purportedly saying in a 2017 broadcast that "whoever becomes the leader in [AI] will become the ruler of the world." Hyperbole? Maybe; maybe not. Regardless, the force-multiplying intersection of artificial intelligence and weapons functionality will prove consequential.
Avoiding adversaries acquiring a monopoly on autonomous weapons will lead to the competitive leapfrogging of weapons design with which we’re historically familiar. A technological vaulting across military domains: land, ocean surface, undersea, air, and space. Nations will feel compelled not to cede ground to adversaries.
All the more reason we can’t lose sight of the ethical issues in this arena, where utilitarianism is definable as measures built into the decision loop to avoid or minimize harm to civilians’ lives and property. Yet, some people may view automated weapons as existential.
The question often asked is: Ought we trust machine autonomy to do war-fighting right, upholding our values? Maybe, however, the more pertinent question is this: Ought we continue to trust people to do war-fighting right, given the unpredictability of human decision-making and behavior?
The assumption is that humans are prone to errors exceeding those of a smart autonomous weapon. It’s more likely that a human controller will make assessments and miscues resulting in civilian casualties or attacks against hospitals, schools, homes and buildings of worship. Modern history is replete with such incidents, violating humanitarian law.
Machine precision, processing speed, analytical scope, ability to deconstruct complexity, handling of war’s chaotic nonlinearity, and ability to cut through war’s fog and friction intersect with ‘just-war doctrine’ to govern how to conduct war according to moral and legal principles — all of which matter greatly.
Human agency and accountability will transect decisions around how to design, program and deploy autonomous weapons, rather than visceral decisions by combatants on the battlefield. New grounds and precedents as to who’s responsible for outcomes.
Accountability will also be bound by the Geneva Conventions’ Martens Clause, which says this: “[C]ivilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of . . . international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.”
There are no moral take-backs. Avoiding faulty calls, with unintended harm, is critical in calculating the appeal of replacing hands-on humans with the unbiased automaticity of machines. Autonomous weapons will outperform humans in regards to consistently implementing the ethical and legal imperatives whether conflicts are fought justly.
Such imperatives include discrimination to target only combatants; proportionality in line with the advantage; accountability of participants; and necessity in terms of the least-harmful military means chosen, like choice of weapons, tactics, and amount of force applied.
Treaty bans on systems’ development, deployment and use likely won’t stick, given furtive workarounds and the enticement of geostrategic advantage. Regulations, developed by multidisciplinary groups, to include ethicists along with technologists, policymakers and international institutions, are expected only spottily to slow the advance.
Ethics must be scrupulously factored into these calculations from the start — accounting for "principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience" — so that nations make policy with their moral charters intact.
Keith Tidman is an author of essays on social, political and scientific opinion.
As written, the amendment to HB 5412 would require general contractors to pay the wages of a subcontractors’ employees, even if the prime contractor has already paid the subcontractor in full. However, those opposed to the bill say the measure would do the exact opposite.
"Opponents feel it would do nothing to prevent Wage Theft, but only encourage it by allowing rogue subcontractors to get off the hook by not paying their workers," states a press release from Black Contractors Owners & Executives/Hispanic American Construction Industry Association this week. According to the release, payment for wages will become "the responsibility onto the prime contractor, while allowing these bad apples to move onto the next job and underbid legitimate contractors since they have no payroll costs."
The Federation of Women Contractors, an advocacy organization that protects the interests of women-owned construction firms said that should HB5412 passes, it would be damaging to her members and result in many of them going out of business.
"For our members who are small businesses, any increase in cost has a catastrophic impact on the financial health of their companies and their ability to compete in the marketplace," said Jaemie Neely, Executive Director for the association. "We oppose HB5412 because it would not prevent or deter unethical subcontractors from stealing wages from their employees but rather the bill would expose general contractors to a risk of having to pay twice for wages and we think our alternative amendment is a much better solution."
Fourteen other professional organizations, from the building industry to mechanical contractors, are fighting the proposal that has the backing of the Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council.
The Associated Builders & Contractors, Black Contractors Owners & Executives, Chicago Chamber of Commerce, Chicago & Downstate Roofing Contractors Association, Chicago Area General Contractors, Hispanic American Construction Industry Association, Home Builders Association of IL, IL Chamber of Commerce, IL Chemical Industry Council, IL Construction Industry Council, IL Manufacturers Association, Il Mechanical & Specialty Contractors Association, IL Road & Transportation Builders Association, and the Women’s Construction Owners & Executives are against HB 5412.
Jacqueline Gomez, Executive Director of Hispanic American Construction Industry Association said HB 5412 would lock out future entrepreneurs from the construction industry and increase the costs for clients. "Punishing good companies for a few bad apples is a bad idea."
The committee asked the sponsor for additional revisions before HB 5412 goes in front of the house for a final vote.
In America we pursue the occupation of our choice. That doesn’t mean we always like our jobs but we can choose to pursue another career or several different careers. We can choose our state, community and house. That doesn’t mean we can easily afford to live where we choose but we are free to pursue life in another neighborhood if we want to work toward such a move.
We change our lives if we have the desire and the will power. People make choices every day regarding health, habits and lifestyles. Some choose to develop themselves further and strive to be better while others may choose to do nothing.
You choose your house, your car, your clothes, and your hairstyle (if you have any). You choose what you will do on your days off from work or during your retirement years. You choose if you retire or if you just keep on working until the end.
Often, we may feel as if we don’t have choices and that we are stuck in a rut. Chances are we made choices that put us there. We have to make tough choices to climb out of the rut. We can easily become disabled physically, financially and domestically which will significantly limit our choices. Because of health, money, and maybe even age, our choices are often very limited. Most of the time, even when we have limitations, we can find freedom of choice.
The bottom line is we live in America and we cherish our freedom. We should remember our history and the great sacrifices made by so many. We should never take for granted the unimaginable hardships endured by the early settlers and every generation that has fought wars and lost tens of thousands of men and women in wars to keep our sacred and blessed freedom.
In his 1961 State of the Union address, President John F. Kennedy reminded us that every generation of Americans has had to win its freedom. We will never stay free unless we are willing to fight and sacrifice to keep our freedom.
How much is freedom worth?
The brave people of Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are showing the world what freedom is worth. Their lives. While many of the young and aged are exiting Ukraine, President Zelenskyy and thousands are risking their lives to keep Ukraine free from the aggression of Russia and the evil of Vladimir Putin.
Putin is not our friend or a friend to the free world. His path to conquer Ukraine is an Adolph Hitler move. Destroying a city and attempting to conquer a nation while killing thousands in order to increase his domain is barbaric.
In the midst of all this, we are surely reminded that we must once again become energy independent. Russia is a supplier of 40% of the natural gas used by Germany and most of Europe. They and America must stop buying energy and anything else from Russia. We have made them a rich nation while sacrificing our own independence.
Watching as Ukraine’s government hands out AK-47s and other guns surely reminds us of the importance of being able to protect ourselves. Keep your guns, stock up on your ammunition, and never vote for anyone who wants to edit our Second Amendment.
We must pray for Zelenskyy and the Ukraine people but we must also help them with whatever aid necessary to push Russia out. Keep in mind that Russia is only 55 miles from Alaska’s closest port. Putin just might decide that Russia should have Alaska back. We bought Alaska fair and square in 1867 for $7.2 million and we won’t be handing it back.
How much is freedom worth? Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine are demonstrating how much freedom is worth.
