Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Ethics and Information Technology
Erschienen in: Ethics and Information Technology 1/2014

01.03.2014 | Original Paper

Negotiating autonomy and responsibility in military robots

verfasst von: Merel Noorman, Deborah G. Johnson

Erschienen in: Ethics and Information Technology | Ausgabe 1/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Central to the ethical concerns raised by the prospect of increasingly autonomous military robots are issues of responsibility. In this paper we examine different conceptions of autonomy within the discourse on these robots to bring into focus what is at stake when it comes to the autonomous nature of military robots. We argue that due to the metaphorical use of the concept of autonomy, the autonomy of robots is often treated as a black box in discussions about autonomous military robots. When the black box is opened up and we see how autonomy is understood and ‘made’ by those involved in the design and development of robots, the responsibility questions change significantly.
Vorheriger Artikel Surveillance and persuasion
Nächster Artikel Robots and human dignity: a consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Hellstrom argues not exactly that autonomous robots will be responsible but that we will be inclined to consider them responsible when they are responsive to praise and blame. Asaro (2007) entertains the possibility of robots being legally liable and subject to punishment by comparing legal liability for robots to the legal liability of corporations. Wallach (2013) suggests that: “If and when robots become ethical actors that can be held responsible for their actions, we can then begin debating whether they are no longer machines and are deserving of some form of personhood.”
 
2
There are exceptions to this as in the case of Matthias (2004) who specifies several different kinds of programming that are considered autonomous.
 
3
In its Report on Technological Horizons, the Office of the Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force concludes that the single greatest theme to emerge from the report “is the need, opportunity, and potential to dramatically advance technologies that can allow the Air Force to gain the capability increases, manpower efficiencies, and cost reductions available through far greater use of autonomous systems in essentially all aspects of Air Force operations” (2010, p. ix).
 
4
A Task Force of the U.S. Defense Science Board defined autonomy as “a capability (or a set of capabilities) that enables a particular action of a system to be automatic or, within programmed boundaries, “self-governing.””(U.S. DoD 2012).
 
Literatur
Adams, T. (2001). Future warfare and the decline of human decision-making. Parameters, 31, 55–71.
Asaro, P. (2007). Robots and responsibility from a legal perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, Workshop on Roboethics, April 14, 2007, Rome.
Asaro, P. (2008). How just could a robot war be? In P. Brey, A. Briggle, & K. Waelbers (Eds.), Current Issues in computing and philosophy (pp. 50–64). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
Bekey, G. (2005). Autonomous robots: From biological inspiration to implementation and control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. London, UK: The MIT Press.
Boyd, J. (1987). A discourse on winning and losing. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Library Document No. M-U 43947.
Chopra, S., & White, L. W. (2011). A legal theory for autonomous artificial agents. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Clough, B. T. (2002). Metrics, schmetrics: How the heck do you determine a UAV’s autonomy anyway. Technical report. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Air Force Research Lab.
Crnkovic, G. D., & Çürüklü, B. (2012). Robots—Ethical by design. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1), 61–71.CrossRef
Crnkovic, G. D., & Persson, D. (2008). Sharing moral responsibility with robots: A pragmatic approach. In P. K. Holst & P. Funk (Eds.), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Amsterdam: IOS Press Books.
Elio, R., & Petrinjak, A. (2005). Normative Communication Models for Agent. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(3), 273–305.CrossRef
Elliott, L., & Stewart, B. (2011). Automation and autonomy in unmanned aircraft systems. Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems (pp. 99–122). Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRef
Falcone, R., & Castelfranchi, C. (2001). The human in the loop of a delegated agent: The theory of adjustable social autonomy. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 31(5), 406–418.CrossRef
Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K. W., & Wolf, M. J. (2008). The ethics of designing artificial agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 10, 115–121.CrossRef
Hellstrom, T. (2012). On the moral responsibility of military robots. Ethics and Information Technology (forthcoming).
Huang, H. (2008). Autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework volume I: Terminology version 2.0. NISTSP 1011-I-2.0, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, September 2004.
Huang, H., Messina, E., & Albus, J. (2003). Autonomy level specification for intelligent autonomous vehicles: Interim progress report. In Proceedings of the performance metrics for intelligent systems (PerMIS) workshop, September 16–18, 2003, Gaithersburg, MD.
Johnson, D. G. (2006). Computer systems: Moral entities but not moral agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 8(4), 195–204.CrossRef
Johnson, D. G., & Powers, T. M. (2005). Computer systems and responsibility: A normative look at technological complexity. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(2), 99–107.CrossRef
Khaleghi, B., Khamis, A., Fakhreddine, O. K., & Razavi, S. N. (2013). Multisensor data fusion: A review of the state-of-the-art. Information Fusion, 14(1), 28–44.CrossRef
Lee, N., & Brown, S. (1994). Otherness and the actor network. American Behavioral Scientists, 37(6), 772–790.CrossRef
Luck, M., McBurney, P., Shehory, O., & Willmot, S. (2005). Agent technology: A roadmap for agent based computing (A Roadmap for Agent Based Computing), AgentLink, 2005. http://​www.​agentlink.​org/​roadmap/​. Accessed February 12, 2014.
Luck, M., Munroe, S., & d’Inverno, M. (2003). Autonomy: Variable and generative. In H. Hexmoor, C. Castelfranchi, & R. Falcone (Eds.), Agent Autonomy (pp. 9–22). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Marino, D., & Tamburrini, G. (2006). Learning robots and human responsibility. International Review of Information Ethics, 6, 46–51.
Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175–183.CrossRef
Murphy, R. R., & Woods, D. D. (2009). Beyond Asimov: The three laws of responsible robotics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(4), 14–20.CrossRef
Nagenborg, M., Capurro, R., Weber, J., & Pingel, C. (2008). Ethical regulations on robotics in Europe. AI & SOCIETY, 22, 349–366.CrossRef
Noorman, M. (2009). Mind the gap a critique of human/technology analogies in artificial agent discourse. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors Society, 39(2), 230–253 (224).CrossRef
Perrow, C. B. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. 2nd Edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sheridan, T. B., & Verplank, W. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Cambridge, MA: Man–Machine Systems Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT.
Singer, P. (2009). Wired for war: The robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. New York, NY: Penguin.
Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of applied philosophy, 24(1), 62–77.CrossRef
U.S. Air Force Chief Scientist. (2010). Report on technological horizons: A vision for air force science & technology during 2010–2030. Vol 1. AF/ST-TR-10-01-PR, May 15, 2010.
Wallach, W. & Allen, C. (2013). Framing robot arms control. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(2), 125–135.
Metadaten
Titel
Negotiating autonomy and responsibility in military robots
verfasst von
Merel Noorman
Deborah G. Johnson
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2014
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Ethics and Information Technology / Ausgabe 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1388-1957
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8439
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9335-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

Ethics and Information Technology 1/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Lockbox: mobility, privacy and values in cloud storage

Original Paper

Surveillance in ubiquitous network societies: normative conflicts related to the consumer in-store supermarket experience in the context of the Internet of Things

Original Paper

Surveillance and persuasion

Original Paper

Contextual integrity’s decision heuristic and the tracking by social network sites

Original Paper

Robots and human dignity: a consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise