The Unfounded Bias Against Autonomous Weapons Systems

IF 0.7 4区 管理学 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Informacios Tarsadalom Pub Date : 2021-06-01 DOI:10.22503/inftars.xxi.2021.2.2
Áron Dombrovszki
{"title":"The Unfounded Bias Against Autonomous Weapons Systems","authors":"Áron Dombrovszki","doi":"10.22503/inftars.xxi.2021.2.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) have not gained a good reputation in the past. This attitude is odd if we look at the discussion of other – usually highly anticipated – AI-technologies, like autonomous vehicles (AVs); whereby even though these machines evoke very similar ethical issues, philosophers’ attitudes towards them are constructive. In this article, I try to prove that there is an unjust bias against AWS because almost every argument against them is effective against AVs too. I start with\nthe definition of “AWS.” Then, I arrange my arguments by the Just War Theory (JWT), covering jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum problems. Meanwhile, I draw attention to similar problems against other AI-technologies outside the JWT framework. Finally, I address an exception, as addressed by Duncan Purves, Ryan Jenkins and Bradley Strawser, who realized the unjustified double standard, and deliberately tried to construct a special argument which rules out only AWS.","PeriodicalId":41114,"journal":{"name":"Informacios Tarsadalom","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informacios Tarsadalom","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22503/inftars.xxi.2021.2.2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) have not gained a good reputation in the past. This attitude is odd if we look at the discussion of other – usually highly anticipated – AI-technologies, like autonomous vehicles (AVs); whereby even though these machines evoke very similar ethical issues, philosophers’ attitudes towards them are constructive. In this article, I try to prove that there is an unjust bias against AWS because almost every argument against them is effective against AVs too. I start with the definition of “AWS.” Then, I arrange my arguments by the Just War Theory (JWT), covering jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum problems. Meanwhile, I draw attention to similar problems against other AI-technologies outside the JWT framework. Finally, I address an exception, as addressed by Duncan Purves, Ryan Jenkins and Bradley Strawser, who realized the unjustified double standard, and deliberately tried to construct a special argument which rules out only AWS.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对自主武器系统的无端偏见
自主武器系统(AWS)在过去并没有获得良好的声誉。如果我们看看其他——通常备受期待的——人工智能技术的讨论,比如自动驾驶汽车(AV),这种态度就很奇怪;尽管这些机器引发了非常相似的伦理问题,但哲学家对它们的态度是建设性的。在这篇文章中,我试图证明对AWS存在不公正的偏见,因为几乎每一个反对AWS的论点都对AV有效。我从“AWS”的定义开始,然后,我用正义战争理论(JWT)来安排我的论点,涵盖战争法、战争中法和战争后法问题。同时,我提请注意针对JWT框架之外的其他人工智能技术的类似问题。最后,我谈到了一个例外,正如Duncan Purves、Ryan Jenkins和Bradley Strawser所提到的那样,他们意识到了不合理的双重标准,并故意试图构建一个只排除AWS的特殊论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Informacios Tarsadalom
Informacios Tarsadalom INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
„Feltaláltuk újra az internetet?” Szülői bevonódás a digitális nevelésben: szisztematikus szakirodalom-elemzés Makrogazdasági adatok által determinált teniszsikerek 38 OECD-ország elit női játékosának vizsgálatában Az adatműveltség és a kritikai szellem Kiállítási kommunikáció a kiterjesztett térben
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1