Lot's Wife Edition 6 2015

More documents

Recommendations

Info

32 SCIENCE & ENGINEERING BY KATHY ZHANG Autonomous Weapons: A Call to Arms With special thanks to Gavin Kroeger and Jessie Crossman Honda’s ASIMO, a Humanoid AI Over 1,000 artificial intelligence (AI) experts, researchers and tech luminaries have signed an open letter calling for "a ban on offensive autonomous weapons beyond meaningful human control". Not to be confused with automatic weapons, these weapons are able to select and fire upon targets without any human intervention. Released at the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence on 28 July, signatories include Professor Stephen Hawking, Tesla’s Elon Musk and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. The letter aimed to prevent a "global arms race" in the development and deployment of AI systems. Described as the "third revolution in warfare" and the "Kalashnikovs of tomorrow", autonomous weapons may be suited for assassinations, subduing populations or selective killing. The raw materials required for construction are cheap and easily obtainable, meaning it is possible for them to be massproduced. Experts suggest the technology may be mature within decades, but scientists and researchers involved have "no interest in building AI weapons" or "tarnish[ing] their field". While they may make battlefields safer for humans by negating the need for new weapons, the potential repercussions of autonomous weapons are profound. A weapons system is defined by four functions: trigger, targeting, navigation and mobility. Depending on the technology and programming, weapons are given varying degrees of autonomy. Precision-guided munitions like the Maverick missile include infrared, laser and television seekers. This affords them autonomous mobility, triggering and navigation. Targeting, however, may be decided using a preselected set of coordinates or data. Targeting and triggering often require some intervention by a human operator, such as programming targeting criteria or pulling the trigger. Currently, the US Department of Defence defines a semiautonomous weapon as one that "is intended only to engage individual targets or specific target groups that have been selected by a human operator". Yet this definition invites several questions. It does not define the identity and role of the operator, the target selection process and criteria, or the nature of engagement. The extent of the operator’s involvement must be considered, and how meaningful human control of the machine is. Furthermore, with current technology it is possible for semi-autonomous weapons to resemble something more
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING 33 fully autonomous. They could easily have autonomous navigation and mobile capabilities. With advances in AI, targeting software could even be dynamic. Systems could use a set of training data and efficiently learn while deployed, then make their own decisions. Other targeting technologies include facial and image recognition software. But what of the triggering system? When, if ever, do we allow the machine to make the call? Take facial recognition software for instance. Facebook’s experimental DeepFace algorithm is able to identify human faces with 97.35% accuracy regardless of lighting or position. This is almost as accurate as the human capabilities, which score 97.5%. While this accuracy rate may seem high, we have to wonder if we can ever entrust a machine with the task of deciding whether someone should live or die if there is even a 2.65% chance it will make the wrong call. Similar questions are currently being raised of the U.S.’s drone program. Created in the name of eliminating terrorism by Bush in 2001, Obama dramatically expanded the program. As autonomous weapons, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have the advantage of replacing soldiers, risking fewer U.S. lives on the battlefield. However, the program is not only widely criticised for its lack of transparency but also the high number of civilian casualties. Since 2004, drones have killed approximately 4,000 Pakistani people alone, 1,000 of them civilians, including children. Drones reveal several other flaws in our use of autonomous weapons. Nobody knows how accurate the intelligence, the data, or the machines themselves are. Nobody knows whether or not the machine can then make the right call. Nobody knows whom the machine might kill. And if and when that happens, nobody will know whom to blame if meaningful levels of human intervention and control are not defined. It might be the programmers who select the targeting criteria, the operators responsible for the machine, or the one who signs off on the order. Whether it’s the judge, the jury, or the executioner, we have to ask ourselves: who will we hold personally accountable for the taking of a human life? The use of UAVs and assorted autonomous weapons leads us to question how they change the reality of warfare. While their use removes humans from the battlefield, this also removes the atrocities of war, allowing us to distance, excuse and desensitise ourselves from what should be recognised as a human tragedy. Additionally, some worry that machine initiated attacks will lower our threshold for warfare. "Personally, I believe warfare needs to stay horrific and brutal. We need it to be so to ensure we only fight wars as a last resort," says Toby Walsh, Professor of Artificial Intelligence at UNSW and NICTA, and fellow signatory to the letter. "Politicians have to see body bags coming home and be prepared to justify why they risk the lives of our sons and daughters." Without regulating these weapons we face dire consequences, perhaps even the ‘end of the human race’ as Stephen Hawking warns. We must maintain meaningful control. Experts are exploring the possibility that the weapons might be taught to differentiate between combatants and civilians. Lawmakers question whether they abide by international humanitarian and human rights laws, whether they can function ethically. Consequently, the possibility that this technology might be upon us within the coming decades necessitates such a letter and the consideration of pre-emptive policies. Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is one such group calling for prohibition. These issues were also discussed during a Human Rights Council session in April 2013, where questions such as: "in what situations are distinctively human traits, such as fear, hate, sense of honour and dignity, compassion and love desirable in combat?" and, "in what situations do machines lacking emotions offer distinct advantages over human combatants?" were considered. While many countries raised concerns, a ban was opposed by the UK. "Is a ban on technology which has yet to be full developed to maturity an appropriate course of action? I suggest not," said Dr William Boothby in a separate interview. A retired RAF air commodore and lawyer, Boothby was responsible for ensuring that newly acquired weapons conformed to the UK’s international humanitarian law obligations. Aside from weaponry however, AI has many more applications and moreover, benefits. While fully autonomous weapons rely on AI technologies, they are not one and the same. In the simplest terms, an autonomous weapon is able to make a decision. AI on the other hand, is far more dynamic, and able to emulate more complex human cognitive processes such as reasoning, problem solving and planning, among other things. While a mathematical model from the University of Wisconsin-Madison suggests that computers will be incapable of human consciousness and emotion, Hawking suggests that, "Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded." As of July, the Nao robot created by French company Aldebaran Robotics passed a self-awareness test. They were given a riddle, and in order to answer it, had to show understanding of the question, recognise its voice as distinct from other robots, and then link this back to the original question to show self-awareness. Additionally, in June, computer programme "Eugene Goostman" passed the Turing test, albeit mildly unconvincingly. The Turing Test assesses a robot’s capacity to mimic human thought and speech in a conversation. It should be noted that each of these tests are inherently flawed, however. A robot may be specifically programmed to emulate both of these functions. Robots may also be used to automate industrial processes, increase productivity and perform tasks too dangerous or impossible for people. AI technology from Honda’s humanoid robot ASIMO may be used in disaster response. Yet despite the increasing intelligence and application of robotics and AI, any responsible programmer will ensure their machine has safeguards. ASIMO is programmed to shut down should it attempt to build itself. Asimov’s laws of robotics stipulate that: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm." So while robots may replace us and take our jobs, there’s no need to worry about them taking our lives. That is, unless they learn how to reprogram and control themselves.
Page 1 and 2: Lot’s Wife MoNASH UNIVERSITY stud
Page 3 and 4: Monash Student Association (Clayton
Page 5 and 6: EdIToRIAL 3 Editorial Imagine the s
Page 7 and 8: oB REPoRTS 5 Environment & Social J
Page 9 and 10: 7 7 PoLITICS Politics ILLUSTRATION
Page 11 and 12: POLITICS 9 The ALP National Confere
Page 13 and 14: POLITICS 11 The Tumblr page ‘Your
Page 15 and 16: POLITICS 13 This month’s issue: S
Page 17 and 18: POLITICS 15 The Past, Present and F
Page 19 and 20: 17 17 PoLITICS Student Affairs ILLU
Page 21 and 22: STUDENT AFFAIRS 19 Electronic Cheat
Page 23 and 24: STUdENT AFFAIRS 21 Fossil Fuels: Mo
Page 26 and 27: 24 STUDENT AFFAIRS By Georgia Cox S
Page 28 and 29: 26 STUdENT AFFAIRS Event Schedule M
Page 30 and 31: 28 SCIENCE & ENGINEERING By Timothy
Page 32 and 33: 30 SCIENCE & ENGINEERING BY CoURTNE
Page 36 and 37: 34 SCIENCE & ENGINEERING By Farah I
Page 38 and 39: 36 SCIENCE & ENGINEERING By Riana S
Page 40 and 41: 38 ARTS & CULTURE By Anna Zhang Edu
Page 42 and 43: 40 ARTS & CULTURE By Emily Neilsen
Page 44 and 45: 42 ARTS & CULTURE By LISA HEALY Cel
Page 46 and 47: 44 ARTS & CULTURE BY GRACE MCKINNoN
Page 48 and 49: 46 arts & culture By brodie everist
Page 50 and 51: 48 ART SHOWCASE CHLOE BLYTHMAN
Page 52: Peer Support offers one-on-one sess

Lot's Wife Edition 6 2015

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?