Resolving responsibility gaps for lethal autonomous weapon systems

Patrick Taylor Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2022.1038507

2022-12-06

Frontiers in Big Data

Abstract:This paper offers a novel understanding of collective responsibility for AI outcomes that can help resolve the “problem of many hands” and “responsibility gaps” when it comes to AI failure, especially in the context of lethal autonomous weapon systems.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Unravelling Responsibility for AI

Zoe Porter,Philippa Ryan,Phillip Morgan,Joanna Al-Qaddoumi,Bernard Twomey,John McDermid,Ibrahim Habli

2024-05-08

Abstract:It is widely acknowledged that we need to establish where responsibility lies for the outputs and impacts of AI-enabled systems. But without a clear and precise understanding of what "responsibility" means, deliberations about where responsibility lies will be, at best, unfocused and incomplete and, at worst, misguided. To address this concern, this paper draws upon central distinctions in philosophy and law to clarify the concept of responsibility for AI for policymakers, practitioners, researchers and students from non-philosophical and non-legal backgrounds. Taking the three-part formulation "Actor A is responsible for Occurrence O," the paper unravels the concept of responsibility to clarify that there are different possibilities of who is responsible for AI, the senses in which they are responsible, and aspects of events they are responsible for. Criteria and conditions for fitting attributions of responsibility in the core senses (causal responsibility, role-responsibility, liability responsibility and moral responsibility) are articulated to promote an understanding of when responsibility attributions would be inappropriate or unjust. The analysis is presented with a graphical notation to facilitate informal diagrammatic reasoning and discussion about specific cases. It is illustrated by application to a scenario of a fatal collision between an autonomous AI-enabled ship and a traditional, crewed vessel at sea.

Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society,Robotics
Lethal autonomous robotics: Rethinking the dehumanization of warfare

A. Hillas,A. Warren

Abstract:To date, leading diplomats and policy-makers have resisted calls to ban Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). In the absence of international regulation, nation states will need to determine their own responses to the legal accountability questions that LAWS pose. While there are momentous challenges associated with the attainment of moral agency in a legal, political and technical sense, the 'dehumanization' of warfare is clearly on an upward trajectory, and will need to be monitored. The expanding number of roles that robots can perform is already being factored into states' planning and procurement. Owing to its superpower status, decisions made within the United States will influence and define the new global strategic context of 'dehumanized' force structures incorporating LAWS. While we acknowledge that the notion of autonomous robotics being held accountable for their own actions will remain an ongoing challenge, the article considers the U.S. military justice system to be closely related to its civilian counterpart. As the civilian domain is expected to grapple with distributed layers of responsibility in new technologies, like self-driving vehicles, that can injure or kill people, it is clear that both legal systems overall will need to transition toward a position in which machine intelligence is foreseen to approach that of humans, that will need constant adaptation. In seeking to provide guidance to practitioners, the article recommends revisiting any lessons learned from Military Working Dog (MWD) Teaming that may be applicable to the establishment of training programs and manuals for LAWS operators.

Political Science
Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems [Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues]

L. Righetti,R. Madhavan,Q.-C. Pham,R. Chatila

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2017.2787267

IF: 5.229

2018-03-12

IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine

Abstract:The topic of lethal autonomous weapon systems has recently caught public attention due to extensive news coverage and apocalyptic declarations from famous scientists and technologists. Weapon systems with increasing autonomy are being developed due to fast improvements in machine learning, robotics, and automation in general. These developments raise important and complex security, legal, ethical, societal, and technological issues that are being extensively discussed by scholars, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), militaries, governments, and the international community. Unfortunately, the robotics community has stayed out of the debate, for the most part, despite being the main provider of autonomous technologies. In this column, we review the main issues raised by the increase of autonomy in weapon systems and the state of the international discussion. We argue that the robotics community has a fundamental role to play in these discussions, for its own sake, to provide the often-missing technical expertise necessary to frame the debate and promote technological development in line with the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society (RAS) objective of advancing technology to benefit humanity

Computer Science,Law,Political Science,Sociology
Friend or frenemy? The role of trust in human-machine teaming and lethal autonomous weapons systems

Aiden Warren,Alek Hillas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2020.1743485

2020-05-18

Small Wars and Insurgencies

Abstract:This article explores the imprecise boundary between Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) and Human-Machine Teaming – as a subset of Human-Machine Interaction – and the extent both are emerging as a point of concern (and option) in military and security policy debates. As the development of Human-Machine Teaming relates to artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities there also exists an area of concern pertaining to reliability and confidence, particularly in the heat of battle. Also known as Manned-Unmanned Teaming, Human-Machine Teaming attempts to engender trust and collaborative partnerships with robots and algorithms. Clearly the prospect of LAWS in recent times, or so-called 'killer robots,' has raised questions relating to the degree such devices can be trusted to select and engage targets without further human intervention. Aside from examining the 'trust factor,' the article also considers security threats posed by both state and non-state actors and the complicit yet inadvertent role multinational corporations play in such developments where civilian technology is modified for dual-purposes. The effectiveness of government regulation over AI, including whether AI can be 'nationalised' for national security reasons, will also be examined as part of AI non-proliferation.
Commercial AI, Conflict, and Moral Responsibility: A theoretical analysis and practical approach to the moral responsibilities associated with dual-use AI technology

Daniel Trusilo,David Danks

2024-01-31

Abstract:This paper presents a theoretical analysis and practical approach to the moral responsibilities when developing AI systems for non-military applications that may nonetheless be used for conflict applications. We argue that AI represents a form of crossover technology that is different from previous historical examples of dual- or multi-use technology as it has a multiplicative effect across other technologies. As a result, existing analyses of ethical responsibilities around dual-use technologies do not necessarily work for AI systems. We instead argue that stakeholders involved in the AI system lifecycle are morally responsible for uses of their systems that are reasonably foreseeable. The core idea is that an agent's moral responsibility for some action is not necessarily determined by their intentions alone; we must also consider what the agent could reasonably have foreseen to be potential outcomes of their action, such as the potential use of a system in conflict even when it is not designed for that. In particular, we contend that it is reasonably foreseeable that: (1) civilian AI systems will be applied to active conflict, including conflict support activities, (2) the use of civilian AI systems in conflict will impact applications of the law of armed conflict, and (3) crossover AI technology will be applied to conflicts that fall short of armed conflict. Given these reasonably foreseeably outcomes, we present three technically feasible actions that developers of civilian AIs can take to potentially mitigate their moral responsibility: (a) establishing systematic approaches to multi-perspective capability testing, (b) integrating digital watermarking in model weight matrices, and (c) utilizing monitoring and reporting mechanisms for conflict-related AI applications.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Responsible AI and Its Stakeholders

Gabriel Lima,Meeyoung Cha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.11434

2020-04-23

Computers and Society

Abstract:Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) proposes a framework that holds all stakeholders involved in the development of AI to be responsible for their systems. It, however, fails to accommodate the possibility of holding AI responsible per se, which could close some legal and moral gaps concerning the deployment of autonomous and self-learning systems. We discuss three notions of responsibility (i.e., blameworthiness, accountability, and liability) for all stakeholders, including AI, and suggest the roles of jurisdiction and the general public in this matter.
Bad, mad, and cooked: Moral responsibility for civilian harms in human-AI military teams

Susannah Kate Devitt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.06326

2023-09-06

Abstract:This chapter explores moral responsibility for civilian harms by human-artificial intelligence (AI) teams. Although militaries may have some bad apples responsible for war crimes and some mad apples unable to be responsible for their actions during a conflict, increasingly militaries may 'cook' their good apples by putting them in untenable decision-making environments through the processes of replacing human decision-making with AI determinations in war making. Responsibility for civilian harm in human-AI military teams may be contested, risking operators becoming detached, being extreme moral witnesses, becoming moral crumple zones or suffering moral injury from being part of larger human-AI systems authorised by the state. Acknowledging military ethics, human factors and AI work to date as well as critical case studies, this chapter offers new mechanisms to map out conditions for moral responsibility in human-AI teams. These include: 1) new decision responsibility prompts for critical decision method in a cognitive task analysis, and 2) applying an AI workplace health and safety framework for identifying cognitive and psychological risks relevant to attributions of moral responsibility in targeting decisions. Mechanisms such as these enable militaries to design human-centred AI systems for responsible deployment.

Computers and Society
Responsible use of AI in military systems: prospects and challenges

Jan Maarten Schraagen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2023.2278394

IF: 2.5612

2023-11-08

Ergonomics

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds great potential for the military domain but is also seen as prone to data bias and lacking transparency and explainability. In order to advance the trustworthiness of AI-enabled systems, a dynamic approach to the development, deployment and use of AI systems is required. This approach, when incorporating ethical principles such as lawfulness, traceability, reliability and bias mitigation, is called 'Responsible AI'. This article describes the challenges of using AI responsibly in the military domain from a human factors and ergonomics perspective. Many of the ironies of automation originally described by Bainbridge still apply in the field of AI, but there are also some unique challenges and requirements that need to be considered, such as a larger emphasis on ethical risk analyses and validation and verification up-front, as well as moral situation awareness during deployment and use of AI in military systems. 'Responsible AI' is a relatively novel transdisciplinary field incorporating ethical principles in the development and use of AI in military systems. I describe the prospects and challenges with Responsible AI from a human factors and ergonomics perspective. There is in particular a need for new methods for testing and evaluation, validation and verification, explainability and transparency of AI, as well as for new ways of Human-AI Teaming.

engineering, industrial,ergonomics,psychology, applied
Applying AI on the Battlefield: The Ethical Debates

Gregory M. Reichberg,Henrik Syse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54173-6_12

2021-01-01

Abstract:Abstract Because lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) are designed to make targeting decisions without the direct intervention of human agents (who are “out of the killing loop”), considerable debate has arisen on whether this mode of autonomous targeting should be deemed morally permissible. Surveying the contours of this debate, the authors first present a prominent ethical argument that has been advanced in favor of LAWS, namely, that AI-directed robotic combatants have an advantage over their human counterparts, insofar as the former operate solely on the basis of rational assessment, while the latter are often swayed by emotions that conduce to poor judgment. Several counter arguments are then presented, inter alia, (1) that emotions have a positive influence on moral judgment and are indispensable to it; (2) that it is a violation of human dignity to be killed by a machine, as opposed to being killed by a human being; and (3) that the honor of the military profession hinges on maintaining an equality of risk between combatants, an equality that would be removed if one side delegates its fighting to robots. The chapter concludes with a reflection on the moral challenges posed by human-AI teaming in battlefield settings, and how virtue ethics provides a valuable framework for addressing these challenges.
A method for ethical AI in Defence: A case study on developing trustworthy autonomous systems

Tara Roberson,Stephen Bornstein,Rain Liivoja,Simon Ng,Jason Scholz,S. Kate Devitt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.10769

2022-06-22

Abstract:What does it mean to be responsible and responsive when developing and deploying trusted autonomous systems in Defence? In this short reflective article, we describe a case study of building a trusted autonomous system - Athena AI - within an industry-led, government-funded project with diverse collaborators and stakeholders. Using this case study, we draw out lessons on the value and impact of embedding responsible research and innovation-aligned, ethics-by-design approaches and principles throughout the development of technology at high translation readiness levels.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Find the Gap: AI, Responsible Agency and Vulnerability

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09674-0

IF: 5.339

2024-06-06

Minds and Machines

Abstract:The responsibility gap , commonly described as a core challenge for the effective governance of, and trust in, AI and autonomous systems (AI/AS), is traditionally associated with a failure of the epistemic and/or the control condition of moral responsibility: the ability to know what we are doing and exercise competent control over this doing. Yet these two conditions are a red herring when it comes to understanding the responsibility challenges presented by AI/AS, since evidence from the cognitive sciences shows that individual humans face very similar responsibility challenges with regard to these two conditions. While the problems of epistemic opacity and attenuated behaviour control are not unique to AI/AS technologies (though they can be exacerbated by them), we show that we can learn important lessons for AI/AS development and governance from how philosophers have recently revised the traditional concept of moral responsibility in response to these challenges to responsible human agency from the cognitive sciences. The resulting instrumentalist views of responsibility, which emphasize the forward-looking and flexible role of agency cultivation, hold considerable promise for integrating AI/AS into a healthy moral ecology. We note that there nevertheless is a gap in AI/AS responsibility that has yet to be extensively studied and addressed, one grounded in a relational asymmetry of vulnerability between human agents and sociotechnical systems like AI/AS. In the conclusion of this paper we note that attention to this vulnerability gap must inform and enable future attempts to construct trustworthy AI/AS systems and preserve the conditions for responsible human agency.

computer science, artificial intelligence
Regulating lethal autonomous weapon systems: exploring the challenges of explainability and traceability

Edward Hunter Christie,Amy Ertan,Laurynas Adomaitis,Matthias Klaus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00261-0

2023-02-21

AI and Ethics

Abstract:Abstract We explore existing political commitments by states regarding the development and use of lethal autonomous weapon systems. We carry out two background reviewing efforts, the first addressing ethical and legal framings and proposals from recent academic literature, the second addressing recent formal policy principles as endorsed by states, with a focus on the principles adopted by the United States Department of Defense and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We then develop two conceptual case studies. The first addresses the interrelated principles of explainability and traceability, leading to proposals for acceptable scope limitations to these principles. The second considers the topic of deception in warfare and how it may be viewed in the context of ethical principles for lethal autonomous weapon systems.
What's my role? Modelling responsibility for AI-based safety-critical systems

Philippa Ryan,Zoe Porter,Joanna Al-Qaddoumi,John McDermid,Ibrahim Habli

2023-12-30

Abstract:AI-Based Safety-Critical Systems (AI-SCS) are being increasingly deployed in the real world. These can pose a risk of harm to people and the environment. Reducing that risk is an overarching priority during development and operation. As more AI-SCS become autonomous, a layer of risk management via human intervention has been removed. Following an accident it will be important to identify causal contributions and the different responsible actors behind those to learn from mistakes and prevent similar future events. Many authors have commented on the "responsibility gap" where it is difficult for developers and manufacturers to be held responsible for harmful behaviour of an AI-SCS. This is due to the complex development cycle for AI, uncertainty in AI performance, and dynamic operating environment. A human operator can become a "liability sink" absorbing blame for the consequences of AI-SCS outputs they weren't responsible for creating, and may not have understanding of.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Examining Supply Chain Risks in Autonomous Weapon Systems and Artificial Intelligence

Austin Wyatt,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.60097/acig/162874

2023-12-28

Abstract:The development of increasingly AI-enabled autonomous systems and other military applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) have been recognised as emergent major military innovations. In the absence of an effective and enforceable ban on their development and/or usage arising from the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), it is likely that such systems will continue to be development. Amongst the legal, ethical, practical, and strategic concerns raised by the emergence of such systems, it is important not to lose sight of the risks involved in relying on a high-manufactured system in place of a human. This places additional strains and importance on securing diverse, complex, and over cross-jurisdictional supply chains. This article focuses on the vulnerability of and the risks to the integrity and security of the supply chains responsible for producing AI-enabled autonomous military systems.
Logical Limitations to Machine Ethics with Consequences to Lethal Autonomous Weapons

Matthias Englert,Sandra Siebert,Martin Ziegler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1411.2842

2014-11-11

Abstract:Lethal Autonomous Weapons promise to revolutionize warfare -- and raise a multitude of ethical and legal questions. It has thus been suggested to program values and principles of conduct (such as the Geneva Conventions) into the machines' control, thereby rendering them both physically and morally superior to human combatants. We employ mathematical logic and theoretical computer science to explore fundamental limitations to the moral behaviour of intelligent machines in a series of "Gedankenexperiments": Refining and sharpening variants of the Trolley Problem leads us to construct an (admittedly artificial but) fully deterministic situation where a robot is presented with two choices: one morally clearly preferable over the other -- yet, based on the undecidability of the Halting problem, it provably cannot decide algorithmically which one. Our considerations have surprising implications to the question of responsibility and liability for an autonomous system's actions and lead to specific technical recommendations.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
War Elephants: Rethinking Combat AI and Human Oversight

Philip Feldman,Aaron Dant,Harry Dreany

2024-04-30

Abstract:This paper explores the changes that pervasive AI is having on the nature of combat. We look beyond the substitution of AI for experts to an approach where complementary human and machine abilities are blended. Using historical and modern examples, we show how autonomous weapons systems can be effectively managed by teams of human "AI Operators" combined with AI/ML "Proxy Operators." By basing our approach on the principles of complementation, we provide for a flexible and dynamic approach to managing lethal autonomous systems. We conclude by presenting a path to achieving an integrated vision of machine-speed combat where the battlefield AI is operated by AI Operators that watch for patterns of behavior within battlefield to assess the performance of lethal autonomous systems. This approach enables the development of combat systems that are likely to be more ethical, operate at machine speed, and are capable of responding to a broader range of dynamic battlefield conditions than any purely autonomous AI system could support.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Meaningful human command: Advance control directives as a method to enable moral and legal responsibility for autonomous weapons systems

Susannah Kate Devitt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.06813

2023-08-04

Abstract:21st Century war is increasing in speed, with conventional forces combined with massed use of autonomous systems and human-machine integration. However, a significant challenge is how humans can ensure moral and legal responsibility for systems operating outside of normal temporal parameters. This chapter considers whether humans can stand outside of real time and authorise actions for autonomous systems by the prior establishment of a contract, for actions to occur in a future context particularly in faster than real time or in very slow operations where human consciousness and concentration could not remain well informed. The medical legal precdent found in 'advance care directives' suggests how the time-consuming, deliberative process required for accountability and responsibility of weapons systems may be achievable outside real time captured in an 'advance control driective' (ACD). The chapter proposes 'autonomy command' scaffolded and legitimised through the construction of ACD ahead of the deployment of autonomous systems.

Artificial Intelligence,Human-Computer Interaction
Examining Lethal Autonomous Weapons through the Lens of International Humanitarian Law

Nmesoma Nnamdi,Bolanle Oluwakemi Eniola,Babalola Abegunde

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36348/sijlcj.2023.v06i06.001

2023-06-07

Abstract:Technological growth and advancement, coupled with the advent and expansion of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, has brought about the invention of products that facilitate and enhance human life. Artificial intelligence and Machine Learning have permeated virtually all sectors of the world and have received both positive and negative feedbacks. Undoubtedly, the human race is yet to keep up with the accelerating expansion of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Artificial Intelligence being a subset of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is packed with enormous benefits which shall be accrued to participating states, and one of these benefits is the Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) otherwise known as Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) or “killer robots”. Since the inception of LAWs, researchers, lawyers, IT experts, and scientists have opposed its adoption, urging the international community to impose strict laws on states utilising it. The invention of AI programmed weapons is not the subject matter of contention, rather, the ground for opposition is the “autonomy” granted to the weapons. These machines can function without human oversight and are programmed to be unpredictable. International Humanitarian Law opposes the use of weapons that pose threats to the civilian population, of which LAWs is inevitably a part of. LAWs defile ethical and legal positions. These weapons are so accurate and swift that they can destroy hundreds of humans in a couple of minutes and countries in possession of these machines could use them without recourse to the victims. This research work investigates the threats and risks posed by Lethal Autonomous Weapons to the Society. It analyses International law provisions in respect to LAWs and feasible measure to curb the use of LAWs across the globe.
AI-Powered Autonomous Weapons Risk Geopolitical Instability and Threaten AI Research

Riley Simmons-Edler,Ryan Badman,Shayne Longpre,Kanaka Rajan

2024-06-01

Abstract:The recent embrace of machine learning (ML) in the development of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) creates serious risks to geopolitical stability and the free exchange of ideas in AI research. This topic has received comparatively little attention of late compared to risks stemming from superintelligent artificial general intelligence (AGI), but requires fewer assumptions about the course of technological development and is thus a nearer-future issue. ML is already enabling the substitution of AWS for human soldiers in many battlefield roles, reducing the upfront human cost, and thus political cost, of waging offensive war. In the case of peer adversaries, this increases the likelihood of "low intensity" conflicts which risk escalation to broader warfare. In the case of non-peer adversaries, it reduces the domestic blowback to wars of aggression. This effect can occur regardless of other ethical issues around the use of military AI such as the risk of civilian casualties, and does not require any superhuman AI capabilities. Further, the military value of AWS raises the specter of an AI-powered arms race and the misguided imposition of national security restrictions on AI research. Our goal in this paper is to raise awareness among the public and ML researchers on the near-future risks posed by full or near-full autonomy in military technology, and we provide regulatory suggestions to mitigate these risks. We call upon AI policy experts and the defense AI community in particular to embrace transparency and caution in their development and deployment of AWS to avoid the negative effects on global stability and AI research that we highlight here.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Machine Learning,Robotics
Command responsibility in military AI contexts: balancing theory and practicality

Ann-Katrien Oimann,Adriana Salatino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00512-8

2024-07-22

AI and Ethics

Abstract:Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) has found extensive applications to varying degrees across diverse domains, including the possibility of using it within military contexts for making decisions that can have moral consequences. A recurring challenge in this area concerns the allocation of moral responsibility in the case of negative AI-induced outcomes. Some scholars posit the existence of an insurmountable “responsibility gap”, wherein neither the AI system nor the human agents involved can or should be held responsible. Conversely, other scholars dispute the presence of such gaps or propose potential solutions. One solution that frequently emerges in the literature on AI ethics is the concept of command responsibility, wherein human agents may be held responsible because they perform a supervisory role over the (subordinate) AI. In the article we examine the compatibility of command responsibility in light of recent empirical studies and psychological evidence, aiming to anchor discussions in empirical realities rather than relying exclusively on normative arguments. Our argument can be succinctly summarized as follows: (1) while the theoretical foundation of command responsibility appears robust (2) its practical implementation raises significant concerns, (3) yet these concerns alone should not entirely preclude its application (4) they underscore the importance of considering and integrating empirical evidence into ethical discussions.

Resolving responsibility gaps for lethal autonomous weapon systems

Unravelling Responsibility for AI

Lethal autonomous robotics: Rethinking the dehumanization of warfare

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems [Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues]

Friend or frenemy? The role of trust in human-machine teaming and lethal autonomous weapons systems

Commercial AI, Conflict, and Moral Responsibility: A theoretical analysis and practical approach to the moral responsibilities associated with dual-use AI technology

Responsible AI and Its Stakeholders

Bad, mad, and cooked: Moral responsibility for civilian harms in human-AI military teams

Responsible use of AI in military systems: prospects and challenges

Applying AI on the Battlefield: The Ethical Debates

A method for ethical AI in Defence: A case study on developing trustworthy autonomous systems

Find the Gap: AI, Responsible Agency and Vulnerability

Regulating lethal autonomous weapon systems: exploring the challenges of explainability and traceability

What's my role? Modelling responsibility for AI-based safety-critical systems

Examining Supply Chain Risks in Autonomous Weapon Systems and Artificial Intelligence

Logical Limitations to Machine Ethics with Consequences to Lethal Autonomous Weapons

War Elephants: Rethinking Combat AI and Human Oversight

Meaningful human command: Advance control directives as a method to enable moral and legal responsibility for autonomous weapons systems

Examining Lethal Autonomous Weapons through the Lens of International Humanitarian Law

AI-Powered Autonomous Weapons Risk Geopolitical Instability and Threaten AI Research

Command responsibility in military AI contexts: balancing theory and practicality