Putting algorithmic bias on top of the agenda in the discussions on autonomous weapons systems

Author:

Bhila IshmaelORCID

Abstract

AbstractBiases in artificial intelligence have been flagged in academic and policy literature for years. Autonomous weapons systems—defined as weapons that use sensors and algorithms to select, track, target, and engage targets without human intervention—have the potential to mirror systems of societal inequality which reproduce algorithmic bias. This article argues that the problem of engrained algorithmic bias poses a greater challenge to autonomous weapons systems developers than most other risks discussed in the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (GGE on LAWS), which should be reflected in the outcome documents of these discussions. This is mainly because it takes longer to rectify a discriminatory algorithm than it does to issue an apology for a mistake that occurs occasionally. Highly militarised states have controlled both the discussions and their outcomes, which have focused on issues that are pertinent to them while ignoring what is existential for the rest of the world. Various calls from civil society, researchers, and smaller states for a legally binding instrument to regulate the development and use of autonomous weapons systems have always included the call for recognising algorithmic bias in autonomous weapons, which has not been reflected in discussion outcomes. This paper argues that any ethical framework developed for the regulation of autonomous weapons systems should, in detail, ensure that the development and use of autonomous weapons systems do not prejudice against vulnerable sections of (global) society.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference59 articles.

1. Adelman, R.A. 2018. Security glitches: The failure of the universal camouflage pattern and the fantasy of “identity intelligence.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 43 (3): 431–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917724515.

2. Ams, S. 2023. Blurred lines: The convergence of military and civilian uses of AI & data use and its impact on liberal democracy. International Politics 60 (4): 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-021-00351-y.

3. Arkin, R.C. 2010. The case for ethical autonomy in unmanned systems. Journal of Military Ethics 9 (4): 332–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2010.536402.

4. Borrie, J., and A. Thornton, eds. 2008. The value of diversity in multilateral disarmament work. New York: United Nations.

5. Buolamwini, J. and Gebru, T. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification, in Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, PMLR, 77–91. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html. Accessed: 14 August 2023.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3