Autonomous robots should be given the ability to kill.

Preface: In accordance with the rules set by Pro, I will post only counters, and not Cases. In turn I remind voters that, given the structure, I cannot counter his rebuttals, only his cases (as he has no chance to counter mine). Brief summaries against his Rebuttals may be permitted final round. Counter-Case I: “In warfare, the use of autonomous robots...” And “Autonomous robots will not experience limitations” Summarization: Pro spends this Cases arguing that Soldiers are better on the battlefield. Including mentioning their willingness to self-sacrifice, and lack of human limitations. I will be dealing with both Contentions I and II, as they are functionally the same matters. Counter: Pro’s entire Case is a quote. This makes the entire display an appeal to Authority, {1} and in truth plagiarism. {2} Pro isn’t arguing anything, Ronald C. Arkin is. But pushing that aside, Pro has made the fatal mistake of talking about Autonomous War Machines, whereas the Resolution and Opening Statement (ROS) never mentions that this is only for Military Purposes. His ROS simply states autonomous robots, which includes civilian models. But again, moving on, Pro is discussing the value of Autonomous Machines on the battle field. I however will counter all of these through the use of an alternative. Instead of having purely autonomous machines, I will suggest instead “semi-autonomous” Remote Machines, similar to UAV. {3} These machines could still maintain many of the benefits of normal soldiers, while still requirement User Controls. An example may be the Foster-Miller Talons. {4} These machines bear almost every single benefit of a machine (no tiredness and such), while still maintaining the moral capacity of a human. Now Pro actually tries to make the lack of empathy and such to be a good thing in war. However he ended his first Case by saying that these machines could lead to a decrease of “ethical infractions”. These presents a problem. Machines who don’t have ethics are the most likely to commit ethical infractions because they view it the “smarter”. This could lead to the killing of many innocents simply because they could be considered a waste of time by the machine. Unless of course the Machines are programmed with morals, which in turn contradicts Pros case about lack of empathy. Now I’ll end this by pointing out what I’ve stated in my Cases. Autonomous machines can be hacked or suffer glitches. I’ll quickly point out that complex machines are more susceptible to glitches than simpler ones, and Pros autonomous war machines would require some of the most complex OSs in the world. Certainly we could “perfect” it, but in the mean time many people could die due to glitches. But the true problem in hacking. {5/6/7} Now some say they’ve developed “Hack-Proof” UAVs, however this is simply an attempt to garner favour. Any machine bound to a network can be hacked. If it isn’t attached, then it would completely free from our control. A machine which is hacked could easily give the enemy information about troop locations (which it would be stored with), technology (used in the machine), and could be used against us. It wouldn’t be farfetched for a single gap in the machines defenses to allow entire units to be hacked at once, depending on it they operate on a unit basis (which is the smartest system). And before anyone thinks about Firewalls and such being advanced enough, I’ve already given sources showing UAVs being hacked. I lied. One more concept. I hesitated to use it, but I figure that a rusty nail can still kill. There is the problem that a machine with enough autonomy may be able to shrug of human control. {8/9} The only true way to ensure something like this does not happen is to not make it truly autonomous, but rather (as I’ve stated) Remote Controlled. I’ll point out that Remote Control could still leave room for auto aiming, such as with tanks, but requiring the “Remote Pilot” to actually “pull the trigger”. Just like those horrible people who use auto-aiming on Multiplayer games. Also Pros last source is a book review. Conclusion: Simply enough, These Counter shows that use of RC Machines in warfare carry multiple benefits over high autonomy machines. I also pointed out that Pros ROS did not state that this was limited to war machines. Even if Pro wins on Warfare, he still needs to show the same for Civilian Models. Sources: 1] http://www.nizkor.org... 2] http://www.plagiarism.org... 3] http://www.theuav.com... 4] http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org... 5]http://resources.infosecinstitute.com... 6] http://rt.com... 7] http://www.totallyunmanned.com... 8] http://www.engadget.com... 9] Navy-Funded Research: http://tinyurl.com... Counter-Case II: Programmed with an Agreeable Set of Morals Summerization:Pro attempts to explain that we can simply program them with morals. Counter: Again, Pro uses a quote to make his entire case. Moving on, Pro tries to say we can program morals. This however disaffirms the resolution. If they are programmed with morals against killing, then they are programmed not to kill (as Pros definition, states ”to deprive of life in any manner”, and Pro accepted my pointing out of it). This means that, in order to maintain his stances, he must mean programming them with morals other than not killing, and hoping that those morals will somehow suffice to prevent death. Too tightly placed, and it counts as being programmed not to kill. Not tight enough, they may lead to death of others. If they receive tightly controlled morals, then we risk rigidity in morality hampering them. If they are programmed with morals that can shift based on events around them, then we risk them adjusting their morals in such a way that allows for killing. Of course denying them a morality against killing would require incredibly levels of reasoning. Ensuring Pro affirms the resolution is not enough of a reason. I’ll reiterate here that, as I’ve stated prior, there is the question of whether any number of machines are worth a human life. Should we give them the right to lethal self-defense? As I’ve stated, autonomous does not mean sentient. And a machine can be programmed for non-lethal defense. In fact this is easier for a machine then it is for a human. In every situation (non-military) where violence may be needed, a machine can suffice with non-lethal response. For what reason would we ever risk our friends and families lives just so that we can give machines the right to kill? Conclusion: I’ve shown that Moral programming will either disaffirm the resolution, or it will need to exclude a “no killing” rule so as to allow killing, as well as having morals loose enough to ensure killing is an option. Either Pro has disaffirm the resolution, or he is asking for the irresponsible action of programming morals that doesn’t include morals against taking a life. Epilogue: Simply put, all of Pros cases are from quotes. Also Simply put, Pro has mostly worked to show explanations for military machines, and I’ve shown reasons why there are better alternatives, as well as reminding Pro that this is not about just military machines, but also civilian machines. Pro tries to bring up morals, but instead disaffirms his own resolution. I also remind Pro that in every non-military situation, killing is better substituted with Non-lethal action. Ultimately Pro fails show why we would give all machines the ability to kill, and so fails to affirm his resolution for all autonomous machines. Good luck to Pro in the Final Round. ==Unitomic==