In the continuing drive to stop the development of autonomous weapons, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots (which I’ll just call “the Campaign” in this post) has released a video which is a bit of fake reality. It explores the spectrum of results, none exclusive of the other, that they believe would come with the development of autonomous weapons combined with swarming drone technology. It’s effectively done, and finishes with a note from Professor Stuart Russell, University of California-Berkeley, Computer Science, which is a plea that this is a road we shouldn’t walk down. Here’s the video:
The one avenue they didn’t really explore was counter-measures, which is understandable in that counter-measures are often hard to predict. In this scenario, many counter-measures would take a toll on those so-defended, such as an electronic counter-measure that not only disables the drones, but everyone’s smart devices (communications, medical, etc) as well, to physical defenses which may result in collateral damage, as they called it in Vietnam.
I think it communicates its message quite well.
But do you know what brought this to my attention? I received an MP4 in my email, which unfortunately WordPress doesn’t let me usefully embed in a post. (Mail me if you want a copy, using the mail link up on the right.)
If you’ve already viewed the first video, you know it starts with a faux-TED talk, and follows it with realistic fake news coverage of attacks on various institutions, and finally the cautionary message from Professor Russell. The second video consists only of the faux-TED talk, and thus no real context. It’s distributed without explanation or commentary.
Why and who? Viral marketing by the Campaign? Someone just decided to edit and distribute this for their own reasons? It’s quite curious.
Moving onwards, it strikes me that this is a vivid example of how the cost of goods continues to drop, with the usual hard to predict consequences. The drop in the price of computer power, once only within the grasp of the United States government and certain very large corporations following the end of World War II, and now so cheap that smartphones sit in your pocket, has been bloody well huge, if you think about it, and has enabled personal power and autonomy to a degree unseen in human history. This has also been true of powerful weapons, by which I mean weapons for which counter-measures are difficult. Anyone can pick up a rock and pitch at someone. A machine-gun is a lot harder to evade. Not coincidentally, the United States bans the individual’s ownership of machine guns, which is generally the goal of the Campain.
But now we may be on the cusp of a magnitude jump in individual firepower, and a concomitant increase in difficulty of counter-measures. Because software is trivial to reproduce once it is developed, drones are consumer-level cheap, and development continues with few, if any, legal constraints in the areas of drones or Artificial Intelligence, once someone (singular or plural) actually develops the software that can do these sorts of things, and (if necessary) it leaks out, then we may see personal or small group firepower leap to an entirely new level.
Perhaps the NRA will be foolish enough to argue that everyone should have these killer drones and then everyone will be safe, but I think that’s both naive and shallow thinking. A first strike may be undetectable and completely effective, thus making your ownership of a retaliatory force useless. And such a technology would render guns refreshingly … quaint.
But more importantly is the hidden assumption that we are a rational species. As science has discovered, this is not true. We are a species that is capable of being rational, it’s true, but we often are not rational. We formulate rules which help us survive, and then rely on them without applying our intellects. An innocuous example is the rustling in the bushes. It might seem most rational to investigate to see if it’s a tiger or not, thus permitting you to expend precious calories in running away only when necessary, but the general rule is just run. You can see this in many things we do, from driving cars to our voting habits. Some of us examine the issues and the candidates and make a decision based on what we perceive – and some of us are dyed in the wool Democrats. Maybe it’ll be rational to simply vote Democrat next time around – but how about the time after that? Or will you just vote Democrat, because you perceive that as the safe default choice, and you can now spend your time and precious intellectual bandwidth on subjects that truly interest you?
Rather than continue down the prose path of this discussion, let me toss this in your lap.
Oh, Lord, thank you, Lord, for this gift of power, that blesses us to smite our enemies and bring them low, all in Your Name, oh Lord, for you are the Creator, and we are the Chosen, who thank you now for your blessed weapon and child, the Drone of Death!
Yeah. Generally, the irrationality of religion can be seen to have a certain survival utility, but there’s little to keep its adherents from wandering into the territory of xenophobia, backed with the arrogant belief that the Divine is in their corner. Can you imagine Jim Jones equipped with this technology? Or David Koresh?
One sect against another. Perhaps that’s how we’ll de-populate the world. I wonder how the elephants are betting tonight.
Happy New Year.
