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.