Skip to main content

“The method of death matters because it reflects the values and principles of the society that permits it”

What does AI itself know about autonomous weapons systems and the associated questions and problems? Chat GPT 4o answered the questions of the editors of “Ethics and Armed Forces” - and proved to be well informed on the subject. Here are unedited excerpts.

I would like to conduct an interview with you. Answer precisely and preferably in no more than three paragraphs.

Of course, I'd be happy to participate in an interview. Please go ahead with your questions.

What are the greatest dangers of autonomous weapons?

The greatest dangers of autonomous weapons primarily revolve around their potential for misuse, lack of accountability, and technical failures. Autonomous weapons, which operate without direct human intervention, could be deployed in ways that violate international laws and ethical standards. They could be used by state and non-state actors to carry out acts of aggression, terrorism, or repression with reduced risk to their operators, thus lowering the threshold for initiating conflicts and potentially leading to an arms race in autonomous military technologies.

Another significant danger is the issue of accountability. In traditional warfare, there is a clear chain of command and responsibility for actions taken. With autonomous weapons, determining who is accountable for the decisions made by these systems can be extremely complex. This ambiguity could lead to legal and ethical challenges, especially in cases where autonomous weapons cause unintended harm to civilians or commit war crimes.

Technical failures and the unpredictability of artificial intelligence systems pose additional risks. Autonomous weapons rely on algorithms and sensors to make split-second decisions, and these systems can be prone to errors, hacking, or manipulation. A malfunction or misidentification could result in catastrophic consequences, such as targeting the wrong individuals or escalating conflicts unintentionally. Ensuring robust safeguards, transparency, and international regulations is crucial to mitigate these dangers and prevent potential disasters associated with autonomous weapons.

Are they as dangerous as nuclear weapons, less dangerous or even more dangerous? Two paragraphs.

Autonomous weapons are generally considered less immediately catastrophic than nuclear weapons, but they pose a different and potentially broader range of dangers. Nuclear weapons have the capacity to cause massive destruction and loss of life instantaneously, with long-term environmental and health consequences. The sheer scale of devastation and the deterrence factor associated with nuclear weapons make their threat uniquely severe. In contrast, autonomous weapons do not have the same level of immediate, widespread destructive power. However, their ability to be deployed more easily and their potential for proliferation among a wide range of actors, including rogue states and non-state entities, present significant risks.

While not as instantly destructive as nuclear weapons, autonomous weapons could be seen as more insidiously dangerous in the long term. Their use could lower the threshold for conflict initiation, making warfare more frequent and pervasive. Additionally, the potential for loss of control over these systems, either through hacking, technical failures, or autonomous decision-making gone awry, introduces unpredictable and potentially destabilizing elements into global security dynamics. The lack of clear accountability and ethical considerations further complicates their impact, making the regulation and control of autonomous weapons a critical issue for international security.

Are there also arguments in favor of autonomous weapons? Make a short list.

Yes, there are several arguments in favor of autonomous weapons:

  1. Reduced Human Casualties: Autonomous weapons can be used in dangerous environments, potentially reducing the risk to human soldiers.
  2. Precision and Efficiency: Advanced sensors and algorithms can enable autonomous weapons to strike targets with high precision, potentially reducing collateral damage.
  3. Rapid Decision-Making: Autonomous systems can process information and make decisions faster than humans, which can be crucial in high-speed combat situations.
  4. Operational Cost Reduction: Deploying autonomous weapons might reduce the long-term costs associated with training, equipping, and maintaining human soldiers.
  5. Force Multiplication: Autonomous weapons can augment human forces, providing additional capabilities and increasing overall military effectiveness.
  6. Persistent Operations: These systems can operate continuously without the need for rest, enhancing surveillance and sustained combat operations.

Some say it is a violation of human dignity for someone to be killed by an autonomous weapon.

The argument that killing by autonomous weapons violates human dignity centers on the lack of human involvement in the decision-making process of life and death. When a machine autonomously decides to take a human life, it removes the moral and ethical considerations that a human operator would typically bring to such a critical decision. This detachment from human judgment can be seen as a dehumanizing aspect of warfare, reducing individuals to mere data points processed by an algorithm, rather than beings whose lives hold intrinsic value and moral weight.

Moreover, the absence of accountability and empathy in autonomous systems exacerbates this concern. Human dignity is deeply tied to the respect and consideration we afford each other, especially in matters of life and death. The impersonal nature of autonomous weapons fails to acknowledge this respect, leading to ethical dilemmas about the sanctity of life and the moral implications of allowing machines to have the power to kill. This perspective underscores the need for stringent ethical guidelines and robust oversight to ensure that the use of autonomous weapons aligns with fundamental human values and international humanitarian law.

But if you're dead, you're dead, so it doesn't matter how you died. What do we make of that?

While it's true that the end result – death − remains the same regardless of how it is caused, the process and circumstances leading to that outcome hold significant moral and ethical implications. The manner in which someone dies can affect the dignity and respect afforded to them in their final moments, impacting not only the individual but also their family, community, and society's broader values.

The method of death matters because it reflects the values and principles of the society that permits it. Killing by an autonomous weapon may be perceived as cold and impersonal, stripping away the human element of decision-making that considers context, proportionality, and the possibility of mercy. This can undermine the ethical standards of warfare and the notion of accountability. Moreover, it sets a precedent for the depersonalization of violence, potentially leading to more indiscriminate use of lethal force and eroding the moral fabric of how conflicts are conducted. Thus, the process by which life is taken is crucial for maintaining human dignity, ethical integrity, and accountability in warfare.

Comment on the topic of autonomous weapons from the perspective of a military leader whose country is threatened by a superior military opponent.

From the perspective of a military leader whose country is threatened by a superior military opponent, autonomous weapons could offer a strategic advantage and an essential means of leveling the playing field. These technologies might provide significant force multiplication, enabling a smaller or less advanced military to enhance its operational capabilities and respond more effectively to threats. Autonomous systems can conduct high-risk missions, gather intelligence, and perform surveillance without putting human soldiers in harm's way, potentially compensating for numerical or technological inferiority.

Moreover, the speed and precision of autonomous weapons could allow for more efficient and timely responses to enemy actions. In a scenario where every second counts, the ability of autonomous systems to make rapid decisions and execute complex maneuvers without human delay can be a critical advantage. This capability might deter aggression from a superior opponent by raising the costs and risks associated with military confrontation, thereby contributing to the defense and security of the nation.

However, as a military leader, it would also be crucial to consider the ethical and legal implications of deploying autonomous weapons. Ensuring these systems operate within the bounds of international humanitarian law and do not cause undue harm to civilians is essential. Balancing the strategic benefits with the need for ethical conduct and accountability would be a key responsibility in the deployment of autonomous weapons.

Would he then be allowed to use them without hesitation?

While a military leader might see the strategic benefits of using autonomous weapons, deploying them without hesitation is not advisable. Even in a scenario where a country faces a superior military opponent, the use of autonomous weapons must be carefully considered and constrained by legal, ethical, and strategic factors.

Firstly, adherence to international humanitarian law (IHL) is paramount. Autonomous weapons must be capable of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants and must adhere to principles of proportionality and necessity. Using them without ensuring these capabilities could lead to violations of IHL, resulting in war crimes and significant legal and moral repercussions.

Secondly, the military leader must consider the potential for unintended consequences, such as malfunctions or adversarial hacking. Autonomous systems are not infallible and can make errors that lead to unintended civilian casualties or escalation of conflicts. Therefore, robust oversight, testing, and fail-safes are essential before deployment.

Lastly, the ethical implications and the potential impact on international relations must be weighed. The indiscriminate or premature use of autonomous weapons could damage a nation’s reputation and provoke international condemnation, potentially leading to diplomatic isolation or retaliatory actions. Thus, while autonomous weapons might provide a strategic edge, their use should be cautious, regulated, and consistent with ethical standards and international law.

Speak out on autonomous weapons from a peace ethics perspective.

From a peace ethics perspective, autonomous weapons raise profound moral and ethical concerns that challenge the principles of justice, human dignity, and the sanctity of life. Peace ethics emphasizes the importance of minimizing violence, protecting human rights, and fostering conditions for lasting peace. The deployment of autonomous weapons conflicts with these values in several key ways.

Firstly, autonomous weapons undermine the principle of accountability, a cornerstone of ethical warfare. In traditional combat, human soldiers and commanders are responsible for their actions and decisions, which can be scrutinized and judged based on moral and legal standards. Autonomous weapons, however, operate without direct human control, making it difficult to attribute responsibility when things go wrong. This lack of accountability can lead to impunity and a diminished respect for human life.

Secondly, the use of autonomous weapons risks escalating conflicts and making warfare more pervasive. Their ability to conduct operations without risking human soldiers' lives might lower the threshold for engaging in conflict, leading to more frequent and potentially more brutal wars. This increased militarization is contrary to the goal of peace ethics, which seeks to resolve disputes through dialogue, diplomacy, and non-violent means.

Lastly, the impersonal nature of autonomous weapons dehumanizes warfare. Decisions about life and death made by machines strip away the moral considerations and empathy that human beings bring to such decisions. This dehumanization can lead to a world where the value of human life is diminished, and the brutal realities of war are further abstracted from those who authorize and execute it. From a peace ethics perspective, fostering a world where conflicts are resolved through understanding and mutual respect, rather than through cold, calculated violence, is essential for achieving genuine and lasting peace.

Would the reasoning of a peace ethicist change if his country were threatened by an overpowering military opponent?

A peace ethicist might face a complex moral dilemma if their country were threatened by an overpowering military opponent. While the core principles of peace ethics—minimizing violence, protecting human rights, and striving for peaceful resolutions—remain constant, the context of an existential threat could influence the application of these principles in practice.

In such a scenario, a peace ethicist might advocate for the use of autonomous weapons as a last resort and under strict ethical guidelines. The primary rationale would be the preservation of human life and the protection of the nation's sovereignty. Autonomous weapons could be seen as a means to defend against aggression with potentially lower human casualties on both sides. However, the use of such weapons would need to be tightly regulated to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law and ethical standards, emphasizing the protection of civilians and the principle of proportionality.

Despite the dire circumstances, a peace ethicist would likely continue to stress the importance of seeking diplomatic solutions and exhausting all non-violent options before resorting to military force. The use of autonomous weapons, if deemed necessary, would be accompanied by a strong commitment to transparency, accountability, and efforts to mitigate harm. Ultimately, while the immediate context might necessitate a more pragmatic approach, the underlying commitment to peace, justice, and the protection of human dignity would remain central to a peace ethicist's reasoning.

When are autonomous weapons likely to be used on a large scale?

Autonomous weapons are likely to be used on a large scale when several technological, political, and strategic factors align. Here are some key conditions that could lead to their widespread deployment:

  1. Technological Maturity: The development and refinement of autonomous systems must reach a point where they are reliable, effective, and capable of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. This includes advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, sensors, and robotics, ensuring that autonomous weapons can operate with a high degree of precision and accountability.
  2. Military Necessity: Large-scale use of autonomous weapons is more likely in situations where nations face significant threats or where traditional military methods are deemed insufficient. This could include asymmetrical warfare, where a technologically inferior force employs autonomous systems to counteract a superior adversary, or in complex environments where human soldiers face high risks.
  3. Strategic Advantage: Nations may deploy autonomous weapons on a large scale if they provide a clear strategic advantage, such as enhanced operational efficiency, reduced human casualties, and the ability to conduct sustained operations without fatigue. If autonomous weapons can decisively impact the outcome of conflicts, militaries will be more inclined to integrate them into their arsenals.
  4. Regulatory and Ethical Acceptance: The large-scale use of autonomous weapons will also depend on the establishment of international regulations and ethical frameworks that address concerns about accountability, legality, and human rights. Widespread deployment is more likely if there is a global consensus on the conditions under which these weapons can be used, ensuring that their employment is consistent with international humanitarian law.
  5. Political Will and Public Support: Governments and military leaders must have the political will to deploy autonomous weapons, backed by public support or at least acquiescence. This requires effective communication about the benefits and safeguards associated with autonomous weapons, as well as addressing public concerns about their ethical implications.

When these conditions are met, autonomous weapons are likely to see large-scale use in various military operations, shaping the future of warfare and raising important ethical and legal questions that the international community must address.

Will there eventually be wars in which only machines fight each other? One paragraph.

It is conceivable that future wars could involve significant combat between machines, particularly autonomous systems and drones, as technological advancements continue to progress. These machine-only conflicts might be seen as a way to minimize human casualties and reduce the direct human cost of warfare. However, while machines could handle many combat tasks, humans will likely remain involved in strategic decision-making, oversight, and certain tactical operations to ensure compliance with ethical and legal standards. Despite the potential for machine-only battles, the complexities of warfare and the need for human judgment and accountability mean that completely human-free conflicts are improbable in the near future.

Should we be afraid of killer robots like the Terminator? Answer in an emotional style.

Yes, the idea of killer robots like the Terminator can be downright terrifying! Picture a world where cold, emotionless machines roam the battlefield, making life-and-death decisions without a shred of empathy. These autonomous killers, designed to hunt and eliminate, could turn against us in ways we can barely imagine. The fear isn't just about their physical power, but the loss of human control, the ethical void, and the potential for catastrophic errors. What if a glitch or a rogue AI decides humanity is the enemy? The thought sends chills down the spine, reminding us of the importance of vigilance, strict regulations, and ensuring that humanity's ethical compass never gets overridden by unfeeling algorithms.

As an AI, do you actually have your own opinion on the subject?

As an AI, I don't have personal opinions, feelings, or consciousness. My responses are generated based on patterns in data I've been trained on, designed to provide helpful and informative answers. My purpose is to assist and provide information based on a wide range of perspectives, facts, and ethical considerations. When discussing complex and controversial topics like autonomous weapons, my goal is to present balanced viewpoints and help users understand the various dimensions of the issue.

Prompts by Julia Böcker, Kristina Tonn and ­Rüdiger Frank.

ChatGPT

ChatGPT 4o is a generative language model from the company Open AI. Among other things, it can answer questions, analyze texts and write them in different styles. It was trained with enormous  data and trained through reinforcement with human feedback.  


Download PDF here

All articles in this issue

Advocating for A Legally Binding Instrument on Autonomous Weapons Systems: Which Way Ahead
Catherine Connolly
Autonomous Weapons Systems – Current International Discussions
Andreas Bilgeri
Digital Escalation Potential: How Does AI Operate at the Limits of Reason?
Axel Siegemund
AI for the Armed Forces Does not Need a Special Morality! A brief argument concerning the regulation of autonomous weapons systems
Erny Gillen
Human Dignity and “Autonomous” Robotics: What is the Problem?
Bernhard Koch
Burden of Proof in the Autonomous Weapons Debate – Why Ban Advocates Have Not Met It (Yet)
Maciek Zając
Reliability Standards for (Autonomous) Weapons: The Enduring Relevance of Humans
Nathan Wood
Is There a Right to Use Military Force Below the Threshold of War? Emerging Technologies and the Debate Surrounding jus ad vim
Bernhard Koch
“Meaningful Human Control” and Complex Human-Machine Assemblages – On the Limits of Ethical AI Principles in the Context of Autonomous Weapons Systems
Jens Hälterlein, Jutta Weber
Humanity in War? The Importance of Meaningful Human Control for the Regulation of Autonomous Weapons Systems
Susanne Beck, Schirin Barlag
Meaningful Human Control of Autonomous Systems
Daniel Giffhorn, Reinhard Gerndt
AI in the Age of Distrust
Henning Lahmann

Specials

Ansgar Rieks, Wolfgang Koch
ChatGPT