Continuing with all the problems I see inherent in the programming of combat robots to have 'functional morality'...
Putting aside the very real difficulties in the mere logistics of trying to program a wartime 'morality' into a machine for a moment, I find a much deeper issue with the moral questions inherent in trying to make a machine act as a human would in such an extreme situation as a war zone, in the first place. What does this say about us, our feelings toward robots and the wars we want to put them in? What would be the point of using robots instead of soldiers in the first place?
Ostensibly, I'm sure, the idea would be that using robots, we could spare the lives of our soldiers, which are worth immeasurably more to us on an emotional level than the thousands and millions of dollars we'd have poured into robot soldiers. But, let's step back for a minute and look at the bigger picture, which will tell us in no uncertain terms that most wars are fought for money these days anyway, and that in the grand scheme of things, human life has never stood up to the powers that be trying to get to the bottom line. Simply through experience, I think we can make the assumption that a military engineer saying he's concerned with protecting human life is kind of like a slave owner saying he believes that all men are created equal. It sounds nice, and we want to believe it, but there's something else going on there. In this case, it seems to me that the something else goes along the lines of: "Dude, let's make a super-powered robot with awesome firepower capabilities to do our work for us!"
Not exactly an irresponsible idea, given that we very well could save human lives with these things. But, given that they're to be 'super-powered robots with awesome firepower capabilities' (according to me), we do not seem to be too worried about anybody's lives but our guys'. We seem to want to kill the crap out of anybody who could be on the other side. Which was all well and good for, you know, the Mongol hordes, but in this day and age, a bit more forebearance and good judgment is required. Good MORAL judgment, that is, which I've already posited, is simply out of the reach of robot soliders, no matter how well-programmed. They're not people, and yes, that's the whole point, but if they can't actually understand the morality we've programmed into them, they can't be expected to use it discerningly to protect innocent lives on both sides. They're just killing machines.
So, if we can take my superior reasoning skills here as scientific fact (which we obviously can), and the robots are not going to save the lives of the innocent, nor are they really at their root being used to save our guys, then what are they for? Besides blowing things up in a science-fiction-awesome way?
I know I'm cynical and will go to almost any length to discredit robots, but honestly, regardless of cynicism, doesn't the idea of a super-powered robot with a very non-functional morality and the ability to kill lots of people in place of soldiers that have historically been trained to do that job, smell just a bit like a placeholder? Doesn't it seem like the robot here would be just an agent that, because it is not technically alive or sentient or capable of understanding the morality with which we have endowed it, can be used to absolve ourselves of all moral culpability for the destruction it will cause? Sure, we made it, and sure, we programmed it, and sure, we sent it into that town with those rocket-launchers, but we didn't actually kill all those people. We can't be held morally responsible if it screwed up. We can't be held morally responsible if it didn't.
This isn't to say that we wouldn't be responsible in other ways, as the government/military behind combat robots would be forced to accept responsibility in a practical sense, but it would sure make us feel better knowing that the agents of destruction we sent in and who blew things up and who got blown up weren't people with a moral responsibility to other people. They're just robots! They must've malfunctioned or something, who knows! But hey, we didn't lose any men, and that's great, right? More champagne!
...see the sliminess in there? I guess I had to dig for it but I think it's just as plain as any gigantic rotting tuber when you find it...
More tomorrow.
Le Gross National Happiness
16 years ago


I think 'not being too worried about anyone's lives but our guys' is exactly what a war morality theorist would say is the appropriate position for a government or organization involved in a war. I mean, yeah, you want to save lives all over. But the other guys are trying to kill you, and there is only one practicable response to that: kill them first. Unpleasant, yes, but supposedly the preferable of two evils. In other words, it is better to kill than to die.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why, of course, I will do my best never to be put in a position where I have to make that sort of decision.
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about innocent lives from the other side. Civilians, unarmed soldiers, POWs, etc.
ReplyDelete