Click here to download

Roberto cordeschi on cybernetics and autonomous weapons: reflections and responses
Journal Title: PARADIGMI 
Author/s: Peter Asaro 
Year:  2015 Issue: Language: English 
Pages:  25 Pg. 83-107 FullText PDF:  94 KB
DOI:  10.3280/PARA2015-003006
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


Cordeschi and Tamburrini (2005) and Cordeschi (2013) lay out a view of autonomous weapons that situates these systems within their historical origin in cybernetics. Viewing autonomous weapons from this perspective is valuable not only as an historical exercise, but reveals some deeper notions about what autonomous weapons are, why we may find them objectionable or undesirable, and how we might "tame" them with engineering. In particular, Cordeschi (2013) develops the arguments of Wiener (1960) on the reliability of autonomous systems, and the potential dangers from their unreliability. He also extended these arguments to examine human-machine interactions, and their inherent unreliability. In response to the calls of academics, including myself, for a ban on autonomous weapons, Cordeschi further explored how the precautionary principle might be applied. While Cordeschi found the precautionary principle wanting, and a ban on autonomous weapons unworkable, his analysis of these questions reveals how some people might share these conclusions. In this paper, I review his analysis, challenge some of the assumptions made by Wiener and the early cyberneticians regarding teleology and epistemology, and offer a revised view drawn from the insights of second-order cybernetics to explore both the risks of autonomous weapons and the practical value of banning them. It is a view which is compatible with Cordeschi’s (2002) own views on cybernetic history, and one which I wish I had the opportunity to try to convince him of.
Keywords: Autonomous weapons, History of cybernetics and AI, Machine ethics, Precautionary principle, Reliability, Second-order cybernetics

  1. Altmann J., Asaro P., Sharkey N. and Sparrow R., eds. (2013). Special issue on armed military robots. Ethics and Information Technology, 15, 2: 73-76.
  2. Arkin R.C. (2009). Governing lethal behavior in autonomous robots. New York: CRC Press.
  3. Ashby W.R (1952). Mechanical chess player. In: von Foerster H., ed., Cybernetics: transactions of the ninth conference. New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation: 151-154.
  4. Asaro P. (2007). Heinz von Foerster and the bio-computing movements of the 1960s. In: Müller A. and Müller K.H., eds., An unfinished revolution? Heinz von Foerster and the biological computer laboratory | BCL 1958-1976.Wien: Edition Echoraum: 253-275.
  5. Asaro P. (2008). From mechanisms of adaptation to intelligence amplifiers: the philosophy of W. Ross Ashby. In: Wheeler M., Husbands P. and Holland O., eds., The mechanical mind in history. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press: 149-184.
  6. Asaro P. (2009). Modeling the moral user: designing ethical interfaces for tele-operation. Proceedings of IEEE Technology & Society, 28, 1: 20-24.
  7. Asaro P. (2011). Computers as models of the mind: on simulations, brains and the design of early computers. In: Franchi S. and Bianchini F., eds. The search for a theory of cognition: early mechanisms and new ideas. Amsterdam: Rodopi: 89-114.
  8. Asaro P. (2012). On banning autonomous lethal systems: human rights, automation and the dehumanizing of lethal decision-making. International Review of the Red Cross, 94, 886: 687-709.
  9. Cordeschi R. (2002). Discovery of the artificial: behavior, minds and machines before and beyond cybernetics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  10. Cordeschi R. (2013). Automatic decision-making and reliability in robotic systems: Some implications in the case of robot weapons. AI and Society, 28, 4: 431-441.
  11. Cordeschi R. and Tamburrini G. (2005). Intelligent machinery and warfare: historical debates and epistemologically motivated concerns. In: Magnani L. and Dossena R., eds. Computing, philosophy, and cognition. London: King’s College Publications: 1-23.
  12. Galison P. (1994). The ontology of the enemy: Norbert Wiener and the cybernetic vision. Critical Inquiry, 20, 1: 228-266.
  13. Hayles N.K. (1999) How we became post-human: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  14. Heyns C. (2014). Report of the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Report No. 4. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/ RegularSessions/Session29/Documents/A_HRC_29_37_ENG.DOCX.
  15. Human Rights Watch (2012). Losing humanity: the case against killer robots, Human Rights Watch Report. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/11/19/losing-humanity-0.
  16. Human Rights Watch (2014). Shaking the foundations: the human rights implications of killer robots, Human Rights Watch Report. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/reports/ 2014/05/12/shaking-foundations.
  17. Human Rights Watch (2015) Mind the gap: the lack of accountability for killer robots, Human Rights Watch Report. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/04/09/mind-gap/lack-accountability-killer-robots.
  18. Husbands P. and Holland O. (2008). The ratio club: a hub of British cybernetics. In: Wheeler M., Husbands P. and Holland O., eds. The mechanical mind in history. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  19. Marino D. and Tamburrini G. (2006). Learning robots and human responsibility. International Review of Information Ethics, 6: 46-51.
  20. Pickering A. (2010). The cybernetic brain: sketches of another future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  21. Rosenblueth A. and Wiener N. (1950). Purposeful and non-purposeful behavior. Philosophy of Science, 17: 318-326.
  22. Rosenblueth A., Wiener N. and Bigelow J. (1943). Behavior, purpose and teleology. Philosophy of Science, 10: 18-24.
  23. Schrodinger E. (1967). What is life? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Simon H.A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  25. Taylor R. (1950). Purposeful and non-purposeful behavior: a rejoinder. Philosophy of Science, 17: 327-332.
  26. UNIDIR (2014). The weaponization of increasingly autonomous technologies: considering how meaningful human control might move the discussion forward, UNIDIR Report No. 2. Available at: http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/considering-how-meaningful-human-control-might-move-the-discussion-forward-en-615.pdf.
  27. Wiener N. (1960). Some moral and technical consequences of automation. Science, 131, 3410: 1355-1358.
  28. Wolfram S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign (IL): Wolfram Media.

Peter Asaro, in "PARADIGMI" 3/2015, pp. 83-107, DOI:10.3280/PARA2015-003006

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content