Asleep at the switch? How killer robots become a force multiplier of military necessity

May 31, 2019 Ian Kerr

This chapter was written in collaboration with one of my favorite all-time coauthors and friends, Katie Szilagyi.

Lethal autonomous weapons—machines that might one day target and kill people without human intervention or oversight—are gaining attention on the world stage. While their development, deployment and perceived superiority over human soldiers are presumed to be inevitable, in this chapter we challenge the prevalent view, arguing that the adoption of these technologies is not fait accompli.

We begin by canvassing the state of the art in robotic warfare and the military advantages that autonomous weapons offer, aiming to scratch below the surface level success of robotic warfare and consider the drastic effects its implementation can have on international humanitarian law, adherence to humanitarian principles, and notions of technological neutrality. International humanitarian law governs the use of particular weapons and advancing technologies in order to ensure that the imperative of humanity modulates how war is waged. Based on the interest of protecting civilians, military actions are therefore restricted through compliance with humanitarian principles, including proportionality between collateral injuries and military advantages, discrimination between combatants and non-combatants, and military necessity for reaching concrete objectives.

This chapter suggests that serious and catastrophic consequences become foreseeable when robots are given full autonomy to pull the trigger in complicated and context-dependent situations, and that technological neutrality is not a safe presumption. We also argue that when a disruptive technology changes the nature of what is possible, there is a corresponding expansion in what can be perceived of as “necessary,” allowing lethal autonomous robots to become a force multiplier of military necessity. Ultimately, we ask our readers to consider the consequences of a future with lethal autonomous robots, when the power to implement them lies in the hands of those who have not fully come to terms with their implications.

Download the full article.

Chief Justice John Roberts Is a Robot

May 30, 2019 Ian Kerr

One day, when thinking about robots with a friend and colleague, Carissima Mathen, we happened upon a thought experiment we eventually decided to submit to the world’s premier conference on robotics and AI law and policy, We Robot.

In the piece, Carissima and I ask our readers to engage with a counterfactual designed to provoke questions about the nature of judicial purpose and legal reasoning. What if, sitting on the Court at the apex of the western legal tradition, there was a machine instead of a person? What if the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court was a robot?

In our thought experiment we imagined the following: after a brazen terrorist attack in which Chief Justice John Roberts is seriously injured, he is delivered to the hospital for life-saving treatment and cut open on the operating table, only to be revealed that he is actually a highly-sophisticated robot. Unbeknownst to the other justices, the entire legal profession, and the wider world, John Roberts, Robot (JR-R) was the product of an audacious experiment to see whether a social robot could successfully integrate into society, without human help or oversight. In order for the exercise to play out as planned, information about JR-R’s mechanical nature was kept highly secret, and even the robot itself was programmed to believe in its humanity.

Through this extravagant hypothetical, we invite you to evaluate the legitimacy of JR-R’s tenure on the bench. Does it matter that several landmark legal decisions of the twenty first century were written by an artificial intelligence? And what are the implications for a future that is certain to include at least some measure of mechanical jurisprudence? Today, legal scholars are grappling with the reality that integrating technology with the law will impact the way we administer justice. Embracing technology may lead to efficiencies, and perhaps even positive outcomes for access to justice and evidence-based decision making, but it may also fundamentally change our concept of what it means to follow a rule or be judged by our peers, and a number of other challenges to administration of law as a human endeavor.

Drawing chiefly on theories from HLA Hart, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Cass Sunstein, we explore three areas in which legal realities confront the legitimacy of JR-R: constitutional barriers, judicial fitness, and the law as integrity.

Download the full paper.

Website update

May 30, 2019 Ian Kerr

Anyone who pokes around iankerr.ca will notice—much to my chagrin—that that I haven’t updated my website in quite some time. Yes, I totally dropped the ball!!

Having had it hang over my head for far too long, I have finally completed the update!

Over the next few days, I’ll be sharing a number of articles, book chapters, peer reviewed articles and other publications that, in the mad rush of modern life, never made their way onto my site. You won’t be surprised at the topics: AI and robots still dominate my academic endeavours. But you might find some surprising crossovers (copyright, health care and more!).

You’ll be able to find all my updates here on my blog, or follow me on Twitter, if you’re into that kind of thing.

Campaign To Stop Killer Robots Comes To Ottawa

October 29, 2015 Ian Kerr

A global coalition is calling on Canada and other governments to ban autonomous weapons that would select targets and use force without further human intervention or oversight.

Join a panel of four experts for a 90-minute discussion that will provide an overview of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, its principle concerns, and recent developments at the UN, including Canada’s role and possible implications of the recent federal election in Canada.

Canadian Bar Association Conference (2015): Building A Better Lawyer

August 12, 2015 Ian Kerr

On August 15th 2015, I will be speaking at the 2015 CBA Legal Conference in Calgary on“Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Law Firms” with Dera J. Nevin from Proskauer Rose LLP, Noah Waisberg, CEO and Co-Founder of Kira Systems, and lawyer and blogger Omar Ha-Redeye. Other speakers at the conference include Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

My portion of the talk will focus on questions about the ethics of delegating legal tasks and legal decision-making to machines, proper and improper delegations and the relinquishment of human control that comes with automation.

You can find more information on our panel here.

Ian Kerr: A Ban On Killer Robots Is The Ethical Choice

August 8, 2015 Ian Kerr

“A ban on killer robots is the ethical choice”, Ottawa Citizen, July 31, 2015 C9

This opinion editorial, published by the Ottawa Citizen, describes the recent “Open Letter from AI & Robotics Researchers”, calling for a ban on offensive autonomous weapons and explains why I am a signatory. In addition to concerns about a global AI arms race, I argue that the decision to ban killer robots is the ethical choice because delegating life-or-death decisions to machines crosses a fundamental moral line. I further argue that playing Russian roulette with the lives of others can never be justified merely on the basis of efficacy. In the end, the decision whether to ban killer robots is not only a fundamental issue of human rights; it goes to the core of our humanity.