Autonomous robots should be given the ability to kill.

Preface:Given the nature of the debate my opponent has asked for, I shall reserve Counter-Cases until the Third Round. Synopsis: The Resolution is “Autonomous robots should be given the ability to kill.”. Autonomous is a broad spectrum. It does not imply sentience. Simply independence. This fits well enough into Pro’s definition. “Kill” is also a massive range, which includes murder. Pro has not suggested limitations to killing. The use of the word “should” turns this debate into an absolute, which extends over all autonomous robots. I iterate that neither the resolution nor the opening statement describes which type. Proposition I: Bop and Requirements to Win. There are three theories as to whom carries BOP. First is whoever is Pro. Second is whomever is argues against a status quo. Finally the instigator. Pro fits all three. In order for Pro to win, Pro must show that we should allow, without restriction, the capacity of even slightly autonomous robots to kill. Because Pro does not provide in the Resolution nor Opening Statement any limits on the types of robots, all robots will be considered necessary to support. If even one class of robot is determined to need a “no kill” program, then Pro fails to affirm the resolution. The word “should” shows this to be an absolute (Pro’s definition supports this by showing it to be an “Obligation”). I need only show that the idea of presenting all robots the free ability to kill may not be the best option. I need not show that ALL robots need this programming. Case I: The Ability to Hack Thesis: In this Case I shall show that the ability to hack (either directly or over a network) in order to alter the aggression of an autonomous machine can lead to dangerous effects. Rationalization: A hacker is a person who illegal gains access to and tampers with software. {1} These people can hack either directly or indirectly, through networks.{2} Robots, even autonomous ones, will always be vulnerable to such matters, especially if they are “cheap” mass produced variants. Simply put, someone who can hack into a machine to change it’s programming could easily cause the machine to become violent. Now Pro may try to say that they can do that regardless of programming preventing killing. Ultimately however it would take only the best to alter hard-coded programming. What this means is that the programming is built into the very OS and Source Code, {3} meaning that any alteration to it is incredibly difficult, and even the slightest mess up could lead to the OS crashing. A Blue Screened Machine is better the a killing machine. If someone could hack the machine to make it violent (not a far fetched situation), it could prove catastrophic. No matter any other form of moral built into the machine, so long as “do not kill” is not among them, the potential to kill is always an option. Conclusion: By not hard coding the inability to hurt or kill, we risk even mildly skilled hackers from turning otherwise safe machines into dangerous weapons. It is incredibly dangerous, and should be prevented any way possible. Case II: We Don’t Even Want Humans to Kill Thesis: In this Case I will demonstrate that we strive to prevent each other from being able to kill. If we don’t want Humans to be able to freely Kill, we shouldn’t give Machines the ability to do it. Rationalization: This is the strong point in the case. We strive to prevent killing by other humans. We cannot code humans not to kill, like machines, but we do everything we can. {4/5/6} We are so against killing each other that we build it into our very religions. {7/8} We put down animals who have so much as harmed a human (never mind killing). {9/10/11} We work hard to prevent the deaths of humans, so much so that we have built vast social constructs to prevent it, and many people believe we aren’t doing enough, that we should ban weapons to limit our ability to kill. {12/13/14} Why then would we put ourselves at danger by presenting a machine with the ability to do what we strive to prevent ourselves from doing. It is irresponsible to say the least. Now sure, we have certain limits to it for ourselves. We can kill in self defense (although we prefer less lethal means), but the fact is that we don’t provide such benefits to non-humans often. Why give that benefit to a machine whom, even at it’s most advanced, we aren’t even certain is truly sentient. {15/16/17} And again, it doesn’t just include sentience, but even non-sentience autonomy. Conclusion: I put a major dent in Pros potential position by showing how counter-productive it is for us to provide the ability to kill to a machine, when we put our heart in soul into preventing ourselves from killing. Case III: Dangers of Glitching Thesis: In this Case, I’ll show that machines are susceptible to glitching, and without deeply implanted hard-coded rules against killing, major problems can arise. Rationalization: Let’s be clear. All machines glitch. Glitches are malfunctions in a machine, which cause them to act in a way not originally intended. {17} A glitch can easily cause massive damage. {18} In fact, they can be very dangerous when done at the worst times and places. {19} A glitch can be caused by any of multiple things, and can affect largely any form of programming. What happens when a sentient robot glitches? Things can go wrong very fast, especially when it has no true programming against killing. A mild glitch could easily make otherwise harmless things appear dangerous to the sentient machine, causing it to act in a way which would normally not be done. Now one might mention that the glitch could still shut down the “No Kill” switch, however why increase the danger? And if it is truly hardcoded, anything which damages that protocol (especially a random glitch) will likely compromise the OS in general, causing a system failure. We should strive to protect ourselves from the dangers of a malfunctioning robot, even if it only slightly increases our safety. Conclusion: By reminding everyone about the chance of problems forming in a machine, we only put ourselves at risk by hesitating to implement proper safety protocols, of which a “Do Not Kill” Program will be most effective. Case IV: Some Does Not Mean All Thesis: In the Case, I shall quickly point out how giving most machines the programming against killing doesn’t mean having to give them all that programming. Rationalization: Pro never mentions any specific quantity of exception to his resolution. Therefore he must show that all autonomous machines should be given the option to kill. I however point out that I need not prove all of them need the “do not Kill” option. Any program against any form of killing conflict with his resolution. Pro also does not state in Opening Round any exceptions to what kind of killing (thus murder is an option), in fact his definitions pretty well state killing in “any manner”. No matter what kind of machine we are talking about, we should, on principle, include programs against most forms of killing. Even killing machines (such as for war) must have programs against friendly fire. I’ll point out that his source for “autonomous robots” mentions Roombas being included. I think a “no kill” program is probably best to include if even that qualifies. Conclusion: I show here (in a quick iteration) that even small restrictions against killing in any substantial percentile of Autonomous machines would negate Pros resolution. Therefore he must somehow justify this. Closing Statement: In these four cases, I have shown multiple flaws in Pro’s case, including how far a spectrum his definitions reach, and the issues of allowing a machine with little qualifications of sentience to be able to kill, for any reason. I leave Pro the momentum task of somehow countering these matters. As per Pros instructions, my Counter-Cases will be made next turn. Best of luck to Pro. Your turn. Sources: http://tny.cz... ==Unitomic==