Washington
(AFP) - Amazon, Microsoft and Intel are among leading tech companies putting
the world at risk through killer robot development, according to a report that
surveyed major players from the sector about their stance on lethal autonomous
weapons.
Dutch NGO Pax ranked 50 companies
by three criteria: whether they were developing technology that could be
relevant to deadly AI, whether they were working on related military projects,
and if they had committed to abstaining from contributing in the future.
"Why are companies like
Microsoft and Amazon not denying that they're currently developing these highly
controversial weapons, which could decide to kill people without direct human
involvement?" said Frank Slijper, lead author of the report published this
week.
The use of AI to allow weapon
systems to autonomously select and attack targets has sparked ethical debates
in recent years, with critics warning they would jeopardize international
security and herald a third revolution in warfare after gunpowder and the
atomic bomb.
A panel of government experts
debated policy options regarding lethal autonomous weapons at a meeting of the
United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva on
Wednesday.
Google, which last year published
guiding principles eschewing AI for use in weapons systems, was among seven
companies found to be engaging in "best practice" in the analysis
that spanned 12 countries, as was Japan's Softbank, best known for its humanoid
Pepper robot.
Twenty-two companies were of
"medium concern," while 21 fell into a "high concern"
category, notably Amazon and Microsoft who are both bidding for a $10 billion
Pentagon contract to provide the cloud infrastructure for the US military.
Others in the "high
concern" group include Palantir, a company with roots in a CIA-backed
venture capital organization that was awarded an $800 million contract to
develop an AI system "that can help soldiers analyse a combat zone in real
time."
"Autonomous weapons will
inevitably become scalable weapons of mass destruction, because if the human is
not in the loop, then a single person can launch a million weapons or a hundred
million weapons," Stuart Russell, a computer science professor at the
University of California, Berkeley told AFP on Wednesday.
"The fact is that autonomous
weapons are going to be developed by corporations, and in terms of a campaign
to prevent autonomous weapons from becoming widespread, they can play a very
big role," he added.
The development of AI for
military purposes has triggered debates and protest within the industry: last
year Google declined to renew a Pentagon contract called Project Maven, which
used machine learning to distinguish people and objects in drone videos.
It also dropped out of the
running for Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI), the cloud contract
that Amazon and Microsoft are hoping to bag.
The report noted that Microsoft
employees had also voiced their opposition to a US Army contract for an
augmented reality headset, HoloLens, that aims at "increasing
lethality" on the battlefield.
- What they might look like -
According to Russell,
"anything that's currently a weapon, people are working on autonomous
versions, whether it's tanks, fighter aircraft, or submarines."
Israel's Harpy is an autonomous
drone that already exists, "loitering" in a target area and selecting
sites to hit.
More worrying still are new
categories of autonomous weapons that don't yet exist -- these could include
armed mini-drones like those featured in the 2017 short film "Slaughterbots."
"With that type of weapon,
you could send a million of them in a container or cargo aircraft -- so they
have destructive capacity of a nuclear bomb but leave all the buildings
behind," said Russell.
Using facial recognition
technology, the drones could "wipe out one ethnic group or one gender, or
using social media information you could wipe out all people with a political
view."
The European Union in April
published guidelines for how companies and governments should develop AI,
including the need for human oversight, working towards societal and
environmental wellbeing in a non-discriminatory way, and respecting privacy.
Russell argued it was essential
to take the next step in the form of an international ban on lethal AI, that
could be summarized as "machines that can decide to kill humans shall not
be developed, deployed, or used."
Comments
Post a Comment