Interest within the incorporation of robots into security, policing and military operations has been steadily increasing over the previous couple of years. It’s an avenue already being explored in each North America and Europe.

Robot integration into these areas may very well be seen as analogous to the inclusion of dogs in policing and military roles within the twentieth century. Dogs have served as guards, sentries, message carriers and mine detectors, amongst other roles.

Utility robots, designed to play a support role to humans, are mimicking our four-legged companions not only in form, but in function as well. Mounted with surveillance technology and capable of ferry equipment, ammunition and more as a part of resupply chains, they may significantly minimise the danger of harm to human soldiers on the battlefield.

However, utility robots would undoubtedly tackle a distinct dimension if weapons systems were added to them. Essentially, they might turn into land-based variants of the MQ-9 Predator Drone aircraft currently in use by the US military.

In 2021, the corporate Ghost Robotics showcased one in every of their four-legged robots, called Q-UGV, that had been armed with a Special Purpose Unmanned Rifle 4. The showcase event leaned into the weaponisation of utility robots.

It is vital to be aware of how each aspect of this melding of weaponry and robotics operates otherwise. Although the robot itself is semi-autonomous and may be controlled remotely, the mounted weapon has no autonomous capability and is fully controlled by an operator.

In September 2023, US Marines conducted a proof of concept test involving one other four-legged utility robot. They measured its abilities to “acquire and prosecute targets with a M72 Light Anti-Tank Weapon”.

The test reignited the ethics debate concerning the use of automated and semi-automated weapon systems in warfare. It wouldn’t be such an enormous step for either of those platforms to include AI-driven threat detection and the potential to “lock on” to targets. In fact, sighting systems of this nature are already available on the open market.

US marines test an anti-tank weapon mounted on a robot “goat”.

In 2022, a dozen leading robotics corporations signed an open letter hosted on the web site of Boston Dynamics, which created a dog-like utility robot called Spot. In the letter, the businesses got here out against the weaponisation of commercially available robots.

However, the letter also said the businesses didn’t take issue “with existing technologies that nations and their government agencies use to defend themselves and uphold their laws”. On that time, it’s price considering whether the horse has already bolted almost about the weaponisation of AI. Weapons systems with intelligent technology integrated into robotics are already getting used in combat.

This month, Boston Dynamics publicised a video showing how the corporate had added the AI chatbot ChatGPT to its Spot robot. The machine may be seen responding to questions and conversation from one in every of the corporate’s engineers using several different “personalities”, corresponding to an English butler. The responses come from the AI chatbot, but Spot mouths the words.

Boston Dynamics added ChatGPT to its robotic dog, Spot.

It’s a captivating step for the industry and, potentially, a positive one. But while Boston Dynamics could also be maintaining its pledge to not weaponise their robots, other corporations may not feel the identical way. There’s also the potential for misuse of such robots by people or institutions that lack an ethical compass. As the open letter hints: “When possible, we’ll fastidiously review our customers’ intended applications to avoid potential weaponisation.”

UK stance

The UK has already taken a stance on the weaponisation of AI with their Defence Artificial Intelligence Strategy, published in 2022. The document expresses the intent to rapidly integrate artificial intelligence into ministry of defence systems to strengthen security and modernise armed forces.

Notably, nevertheless, an annex to the strategy document specifically recognises the potential challenges related to lethal autonomous weapons systems.

For example, real world data is used to “train” AI systems, or improve them. With ChatGPT, that is gathered from the web. While it helps AI systems turn into more useful, all that “real world” information may pass on flawed assumptions and prejudices to the system itself. This can result in algorithmic bias (where the AI favours one group or option over one other) or inappropriate and disproportionate responses by the AI. As such, sample training data for weapons systems must be fastidiously scrutinised with ethical warfare in mind.

This yr, the House of Lords established an AI in Weapon Systems select committee. Its transient is to see how armed forces can reap the advantages of technological advances, while minimising the risks through the implementation of technical, legal and ethical safeguards. The sufficiency of UK policy and international policymaking can be being examined.

Robot dogs aren’t aiming weapons at opposing forces just yet. But all the weather are there for this scenario to turn into a reality, if left unchecked. The fast pace of development in each AI and robotics is making a perfect storm that could lead on to powerful recent weapons.

The recent AI safety summit in Bletchley Park had a positive final result for AI regulation, each within the UK and internationally. However, there have been signs of a philosophical split between the summit goals and people of the AI in Weapon Systems committee.

The summit was geared towards defining AI, assessing its capabilities and limitations and creating a world consensus with regard to its ethical use. It sought to achieve this via a declaration, very very like the Boston Dynamics open letter. Neither, nevertheless, is binding. The committee seeks to obviously and rapidly integrate the technology, albeit in accordance with ethics, regulations and international law.

Frequent use of the termguard rails” in relation to the Bletchley summit and declaration suggests voluntary commitments. And UK prime minister Rishi Sunak has stated that countries should not rush to control.

The nobility of such statements wanes in consideration of the passion in some quarters for integrating the technology into weapons platforms.

This article was originally published at