Roberto cordeschi on cybernetics and autonomous weapons: reflections and responses

Journal title PARADIGMI
Author/s Peter Asaro
Publishing Year 2016 Issue 2015/3 Language English
Pages 25 P. 83-107 File size 94 KB
DOI 10.3280/PARA2015-003006
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Cordeschi e Tamburrini (2005) e Cordeschi (2013), trattando delle armi autonome, collocano le origini di questi sistemi all’interno della storia della cibernetica. Considerare le armi autonome da questo punto di vista non è solo un proficuo esercizio storico, ma rivela alcune profonde idee su cosa siano realmente tali armi, sulle ragioni per cui trovano possiamo considerarle discutibili o indesiderabili, e su come sia possibile "addomesticarle" con strumenti ingegneristici. In particolare, Cordeschi (2013) sviluppa gli argomenti di Wiener (1960) sull’affidabilità dei sistemi autonomi e sui potenziali pericoli derivanti dalla loro inaffidabilità, estendendo poi questi argomenti a un esame delle interazioni uomo-macchina e della loro inaffidabilità intrinseca. In risposta alla richiesta proveniente dal mondo accademico, me compreso, di mettere al bando le armi autonome, Cordeschi ha ulteriormente esplorato l’applicabilità del principio di precauzione a questo caso specifico, evidenziandone carenze e concludendo che una messa al bando delle armi autonome sia impraticabile. La sua analisi di tali questioni mostra che molti altri potrebbero condividere le sue conclusioni. In questo lavoro, prenderò in esame le analisi di Cordeschi sulle armi autonome, criticando alcune assunzioni di Wiener e dei primi cibernetici intorno alla teleologia e all’epistemologia. Svilupperò infine un punto di vista diverso, basato su idee emerse nel quadro della cibernetica di secondo ordine per esplorare sia i rischi delle armi autonome sia il valore pratico di una loro messa al bando. Si tratta di una visione che è compatibile con il punto di vista sviluppato da Cordeschi (2002) sulla storia della cibernetica, e della cui bontà avrei voluto convincerlo se avessi solo avuto l’opportunità di discuterne insieme.

Keywords: Autonomous weapons, History of cybernetics and AI, Machine ethics, Precautionary principle, Reliability, Second-order cybernetics

  1. Altmann J., Asaro P., Sharkey N. and Sparrow R., eds. (2013). Special issue on armed military robots. Ethics and Information Technology, 15, 2: 73-76.
  2. Arkin R.C. (2009). Governing lethal behavior in autonomous robots. New York: CRC Press.
  3. Ashby W.R (1952). Mechanical chess player. In: von Foerster H., ed., Cybernetics: transactions of the ninth conference. New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation: 151-154.
  4. Asaro P. (2007). Heinz von Foerster and the bio-computing movements of the 1960s. In: Müller A. and Müller K.H., eds., An unfinished revolution? Heinz von Foerster and the biological computer laboratory | BCL 1958-1976.Wien: Edition Echoraum: 253-275.
  5. Asaro P. (2008). From mechanisms of adaptation to intelligence amplifiers: the philosophy of W. Ross Ashby. In: Wheeler M., Husbands P. and Holland O., eds., The mechanical mind in history. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press: 149-184.
  6. Asaro P. (2009). Modeling the moral user: designing ethical interfaces for tele-operation. Proceedings of IEEE Technology & Society, 28, 1: 20-24.
  7. Asaro P. (2011). Computers as models of the mind: on simulations, brains and the design of early computers. In: Franchi S. and Bianchini F., eds. The search for a theory of cognition: early mechanisms and new ideas. Amsterdam: Rodopi: 89-114.
  8. Asaro P. (2012). On banning autonomous lethal systems: human rights, automation and the dehumanizing of lethal decision-making. International Review of the Red Cross, 94, 886: 687-709.
  9. Cordeschi R. (2002). Discovery of the artificial: behavior, minds and machines before and beyond cybernetics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  10. Cordeschi R. (2013). Automatic decision-making and reliability in robotic systems: Some implications in the case of robot weapons. AI and Society, 28, 4: 431-441.
  11. Cordeschi R. and Tamburrini G. (2005). Intelligent machinery and warfare: historical debates and epistemologically motivated concerns. In: Magnani L. and Dossena R., eds. Computing, philosophy, and cognition. London: King’s College Publications: 1-23.
  12. Galison P. (1994). The ontology of the enemy: Norbert Wiener and the cybernetic vision. Critical Inquiry, 20, 1: 228-266.
  13. Hayles N.K. (1999) How we became post-human: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  14. Heyns C. (2014). Report of the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Report No. 4. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/ RegularSessions/Session29/Documents/A_HRC_29_37_ENG.DOCX.
  15. Human Rights Watch (2012). Losing humanity: the case against killer robots, Human Rights Watch Report. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/11/19/losing-humanity-0.
  16. Human Rights Watch (2014). Shaking the foundations: the human rights implications of killer robots, Human Rights Watch Report. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/reports/ 2014/05/12/shaking-foundations.
  17. Human Rights Watch (2015) Mind the gap: the lack of accountability for killer robots, Human Rights Watch Report. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/04/09/mind-gap/lack-accountability-killer-robots.
  18. Husbands P. and Holland O. (2008). The ratio club: a hub of British cybernetics. In: Wheeler M., Husbands P. and Holland O., eds. The mechanical mind in history. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  19. Marino D. and Tamburrini G. (2006). Learning robots and human responsibility. International Review of Information Ethics, 6: 46-51.
  20. Pickering A. (2010). The cybernetic brain: sketches of another future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  21. Rosenblueth A. and Wiener N. (1950). Purposeful and non-purposeful behavior. Philosophy of Science, 17: 318-326.
  22. Rosenblueth A., Wiener N. and Bigelow J. (1943). Behavior, purpose and teleology. Philosophy of Science, 10: 18-24.
  23. Schrodinger E. (1967). What is life? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Simon H.A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  25. Taylor R. (1950). Purposeful and non-purposeful behavior: a rejoinder. Philosophy of Science, 17: 327-332.
  26. UNIDIR (2014). The weaponization of increasingly autonomous technologies: considering how meaningful human control might move the discussion forward, UNIDIR Report No. 2. Available at: http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/considering-how-meaningful-human-control-might-move-the-discussion-forward-en-615.pdf.
  27. Wiener N. (1960). Some moral and technical consequences of automation. Science, 131, 3410: 1355-1358.
  28. Wolfram S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign (IL): Wolfram Media.

Peter Asaro, Roberto cordeschi on cybernetics and autonomous weapons: reflections and responses in "PARADIGMI" 3/2015, pp 83-107, DOI: 10.3280/PARA2015-003006