There appears to be a growing concern about “autonomous weapons” becoming a reality, and a campaign has been started to keep them from ever seeing the light of day. In other words…KILLER ROBOTS! See article: here. Considering my book “A Cold Black Wave” involves this very reality, I thought this would be an interesting topic to explore.
The article states the obvious, in that these machines do not actually exist yet AND the technology is readily available to make one in a short amount of time. In fact, I’d go so far to say that an enthusiast could create one in their garage. Xbox’s “Kinect” technology has already been used by kids to develop machines that can accurately shoot a basketball. Add a hydraulic arm with a gun attached, and now you’re shooting bullets.
My book leaves a lot of questions unanswered about the machines that inhabit Josh and Leah’s new world (which will be answered in the sequel!), however, it’s not difficult to divine their purpose. Killer machines are not unique to science fiction, it’s an idea that’s been toyed with for decades. If a nation were to create autonomous machines to be used in combat zones, how would they be controlled? Today, the United States’ recruitment for drone pilots is going parabolic. The 21st century pilot and co-pilot are sitting thousands of miles away from their aircraft, controlling it remotely in a secured location on the ground. Drone pilots are the new fighter jocks.
The move from human pilots (controllers) to fully autonomous control by the machine isn’t a technological hurdle, but a moral and political one. In a world where everyone tries to blame someone or something else for their errors and wrongdoing, an autonomous machine that kills the wrong person would simultaneously serve as the perfect scapegoat for “collateral damage”. Programming is never perfect, right? A machine is still prone to errors, but those errors will be judged in percentages. What percentage of their murderous errors will be considered acceptable? 10%? 5%? If a machine is responsible for 100 “kills” per month, but 10 of them are children due to “error”, will that be an acceptable margin? Would that number allow the DoD to “wash” their hands of such things? Innocent civilians are killed in error by our drone strikes, but this has become an acceptable consequence in our “war on terror”.
As science fiction writers, it’s our responsibility to envision a future that takes a current or potential technology to its horrifying limits. I still consider James Cameron’s Terminator story to be the de facto end-game for autonomous machines (except maybe without the time travel), which eventually consider their creators to be the greatest threat to their existence and decide to wipe them out. Once you create something that can think and make decisions on its own, you unleash an uncontrollable force (if you have kids, well, case in point!).
While we’re infinitely further away from that reality than the first combat-ready autonomous machines, it certainly doesn’t hurt to start laying the groundwork now to prevent such technology from becoming an acceptable way to conduct warfare. As our world governments remain somewhat civilized, the need for such technology is not pressing. We still have the budgets and the manpower to wage our little wars with real people, and enough civilized people to voice outrage over egregiously horrifying incidents of “collateral damage”, that the risk of deploying autonomous machines outweighs the benefits. If, God forbid, we are ever faced with another world war, where victory must come at nearly any cost, then the deployment of killing machines will be seen as a “game changer” and the inherent risks worth whatever moral and political backlash that may stem from their usage.
If we’re willing to use nuclear bombs on cities filled with millions of people, certainly the use of killer bots will seem humane in comparison.
*UPDATE*: New article released today titled, “Navy unveils squadron of manned, unmanned craft“. They herald the use of unmanned drones as they can conduct riskier missions that would traditionally put a human pilot in danger. Currently, drones used by the US are limited to aircraft. That won’t always be the case once someone develops a single machine that can do the work of 12 grunts. Why send 12 young men down a hostile street when you can send a machine?