Norway Joins the Race to Develop Killer RobotsNorway is a large exporter of weapons, which makes the resolution of the debate about creating killer robots an important issue for everyone. One could debate the overall merits or failings of robotic systems, but an area that clearly has become a point for concern on all sides is the emergence of killer robots. According to robotics pioneer, David Hanson, we are on a collision course with exponential growth in computing and technology that might only give us a few years to counter this scenario. Even mainstream tech luminaries like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have proclaimed the magnitude of the threat following a reading of Nick Bostroms book Superintelligence. Musk flatly stated that robots infused with advanced artificial intelligence are potentially more dangerous than nukes. Robot-controlled missiles are being developed in Norway, and could easily be a path toward that ultimate danger. Universities such as Cambridge have said that terminators are one of the greatest threats to mankind according to their study program Centre for the Study of Existential Risk. Human rights groups and concerned citizens have echoed this with a Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. This campaign has even garnered support from one Canadian robot manufacturer who penned an open letter to his colleagues urging them not to delve into the dark side of robotics. Meanwhile, in the background, the United Nations and the U.S. military have been forced into the debate, but are currently stutter-stepping their way through the process. As the clock ticks, there is a global drone and artificial intelligence arms race as nations seek to catch up to others who have taken the lead. Perhaps one sign of how fast and far this proliferation extends, seemingly peaceful and neutral Norway is making the news as a debate rages there about plans to have artificial intelligence take over missile systems on its fighter jets. In reality, Norway is actually a large exporter of weapons, which makes the resolution of this debate an important issue for everyone. There is a general move to augment traditional weapons systems with artificial intelligence. A recent post from the U.S. Naval Institute News stated that A.I is going to be huge by 2030. A.I. is foreseen as a decision aid to the pilot in a way similar in concept to how advanced sensor fusion onboard jets like the F-22 and Lockheed Martin F-35 work now. This is the first step toward removing human decision making. According to Norwegian press, their government states this explicitly: Interference?! What, like compassion and having a conscience? Make no mistake, at the highest levels erasing those human qualities is exactly what is intended. This was highlighted in a recent report that certainly has military elite across the planet concerned. It seems that the distance they have attempted to create by putting humans in cubicles thousands of miles from the actual battlefield still has not alleviated the emotional impact of killing. Apparently its not a video game after all. That percentage might seem low, but the consequences can be incredible. Listen to what one former drone operator has to say about his role in 1,600 killings from afar. The military system sees this reaction as a defect. Consequently, the U.S. military has been pursuing moral robots that can supposedly discern right from wrong, probably to alleviate the growing pushback by those wondering what happens legally and ethically to a society that transfers responsibility from humans to machines. Some research is indicating that robotics/A.I. is not yet up to even the most basic ethical tasks, yet its role in weapons systems continues. The situation in Norway is very similar to that in the U.S. peace activists are alarmed, the military-industrial complex wants to push ahead, and local government and U.N. oversight dithers: So, what do we do when militaries across the world are not likely to constrain their own profits and power, and international oversight agencies continue to show that they are ineffectual and/or complicit? Unlike many of the threats we are given each day to digest as the next possible extinction-level event (ISIS and Ebola come to mind) this one is much more likely to be the real deal. What do you think? Sources: Recently by Nicholas West: 