The development of complex autonomous systems that use artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the nature of conflict. In practice, autonomous systems will be extensively tested before being operationally deployed to ensure system behavior is reliable in expected contexts. However, the complexity of autonomous systems means that they will demonstrate emergent behavior in the open context of real-world conflict environments. This article examines the novel implications of emergent behavior of autonomous AI systems designed for conflict through two case studies. These case (...) studies include (1) a swarm system designed for maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations, and (2) a next-generation humanitarian notification system. Both case studies represent current or near-future technology in which emergent behavior is possible, demonstrating that such behavior can be both unpredictable and more reliable depending on the level at which the system is considered. This counterintuitive relationship between less predictability and more reliability results in unique challenges for system certification and adherence to the growing body of principles for responsible AI in defense, which must be considered for the real-world operationalization of AI designed for conflict environments. (shrink)

The question of human control is a key concern in autonomous military systems debates. Our research qualitatively and quantitatively investigates values and concerns of the general public, as they relate to autonomous military systems, with particular attention to the value of human control. Using participatory value evaluation (PVE), we consulted 1980 Australians about which values matter in relation to two specific technologies: an autonomous minesweeping submarine and an autonomous drone that can drop bombs. Based on value sensitive design, participants were (...) tasked to enhance the systems with design features that can realize values. A restriction (limited budget) in each design task forced participants to make trade-offs between design options and the values that these options realize. Our results suggest that the ‘general public’ has diverse and nuanced stances on the question of human control over autonomous military systems. A third of participants that is opposed to autonomous military systems when asked directly, selected different combinations of design features realizing varying degrees of human control. Several contextual factors, technology-specific concerns, and certain values seemed to explain these different choices. Our research shows that a focus on human control might overlook other important values that the general public is concerned about, such as system reliability, verifiability, and retrievability. (shrink)

Our research is a value sensitive based approach to designing autonomous systems in a military context. Value sensitive design is an iterative process of conceptual, empirical and technical considerations. We enhance value sensitive design with Participatory Value Evaluation. This allows us to mine values of a large unorganized stakeholder group relevant to our context of research, namely Australian citizens. We found that value prioritizations differ depending on the context of use and that no one value fits all autonomous systems. General (...) ethical frameworks can serve as high level guiding principles, but when it comes to actual technologies, a more nuanced and granulated approach to selecting and incorporating values is needed. Our research contributes to a greater awareness of the importance of inclusion of values in autonomous systems design in the context of defence. We suggest relevant frameworks and methods for values-based autonomous military systems design in the context of Australia, which may serve as a blueprint for other countries. Finally, we provide suggestions on how to operationalise values in systems design, as this is underrepresented in the current literature. (shrink)

Artificially intelligent machines are different in kind from all previous machines and tools. While many are used for relatively benign purposes, the types of artificially intelligent machines that we should care about, the ones that are worth focusing on, are the machines that purport to replace humans entirely and thereby engage in what Brian Cantwell Smith calls “judgment.” As impressive as artificially intelligent machines are, their abilities are still derived from humans and as such lack the sort of normative commitments (...) that humans have. So while artificially intelligent machines possess a great capacity for “reckoning,” to use Smith’s terminology, i.e., a calculative prowess of extraordinary utility and importance, they still lack the kind of considered human judgment that accompanies the ethical commitment and responsible action we humans must ultimately aspire toward. But there is a perfect technological storm brewing. Artificially intelligent machines are analogous to a perfect storm in that such machines involve the convergence of a number of factors that threaten our ability to behave ethically and maintain meaningful human control over the outcomes of processes involving artificial intelligence. I argue that the storm in the context of artificially intelligent machines makes us vulnerable to moral complacency. That is, this perfect technological storm is capable of lulling people into a state in which they abdicate responsibility for decision-making and behaviour precipitated by the use of artificially intelligent machines, a state that I am calling “moral complacency.” I focus on three salient problems that converge to make us especially vulnerable to becoming morally complacent and losing meaningful human control. The first problem is that of transparency/opacity. The second problem is that of overtrust in machines, often referred to as the automation bias. The third problem is that of ascribing responsibility. I examine each of these problems and how together they threaten to render us morally complacent. (shrink)