Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
“ROBOTS ARE NOT taking over the world”, was the message given this week during United Nations talks on the issue of autonomous weapons.
That’s according to the diplomat leading the first official talks on the issue, the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), as they sought to ease criticism over slow progress towards restricting the use of so-called “killer robots”.
The United Nations was wrapping up an initial five days of discussions on weapons systems that can identify and destroy targets without human control, which experts say will soon be battle ready.
The meeting of the CCW marked an initial step towards an agreed set of rules governing such weapons.
But activists warned that time was running out and that the glacial pace of the UN-brokered discussions was not responding to an arms race already underway.
In August, Elon Musk called for a ban on killer robots, saying:
We do not have long to act. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be hard to close.
The CEO of Tesla and SpaceX joined more than 100 robotics and artificial intelligence entrepreneurs in signing a letter to the UN calling for action to prevent the development of autonomous weapons.
“Lethal autonomous weapons threaten to become the third revolution in warfare,” warned the statement signed by 116 tech luminaries, also including Mustafa Suleyman, cofounder of Google’s DeepMind.
“Once developed, they will permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever, and at timescales faster than humans can comprehend,” the letter reads.
But this week, India’s disarmament ambassador, Amandeep Gill, who chaired the CCW meeting, said: “Ladies and gentlemen, I have news for you: the robots are not taking over the world. Humans are still in charge.”
“I think we have to be careful in not emotionalising or dramatising this issue,” he told reporters in response to criticism about the speed of the conference’s work.
Twenty-two countries, mostly those with smaller military budgets and lesser technical know-how, have called for an outright ban, arguing that automated weapons are by definition illegal as every individual decision to launch a strike must be made by a human.
Gill underscored that banning killer robots, or even agreement on rules, remained a distant prospect.
He said nations are likely to meet on the issue again for two weeks next year for further discussions focused on how autonomous weapons work and how their use should be controlled.
“I am very happy with the start we made”, he said. “It would be unwise for us to rush into (anything) at this stage.”
No time to waste
Campaign groups agreed that there had been some progress at the inaugural meeting but sounded an alarm over further foot-dragging.
“Countries do not have time… to waste just talking about this subject,” Mary Wareham of the arms division at Human Rights Watch told AFP.
She said that “militaries around the world and defence companies are sinking a lot of money” into weapons that select and destroy targets without human control.
The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots pressure group, which Wareham coordinates, highlighted two key points of agreement that emerged during the UN meeting.
Most nations now agree on the need for a new “legally-binding instrument” controlling the use of killer robots and most “states now accept that some form of human control must be maintained over weapons systems”, a campaign statement said.
‘Weapons of mass destruction’
The question now is deciding “what effective human control means in practice”, the head of the Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross, Kathleen Lawand, told AFP in an email.
The ICRC has not called for a ban, but Lawand warned that action on setting limits was “urgently needed” as the technology was moving fast.
Academics attending the talks in Geneva urged the UN to act before it was too late.
The “arms race has happened (and) is happening today” said Toby Walsh, an expert on artificial intelligence at the University of New South Wales in Australia.
“These will be weapons of mass destruction”, he added during a side-event at the UN this week.
“I am actually quite confident that we will ban these weapons… My only concern is whether (nations) have the courage of conviction to do it now, or whether we will have to wait for people to die first.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This is what happens when you rush reforms. Wait until Juniour Cycle is fully operational – then there will be chaos. Reform should have started with bringing an element of project work at Leaving Cert. Now we have students doing a Junior Cycle that ill-prepares them for Leaving Cert
@P Quinn: Ricard bruton will go down as one of the worst ministers for education ever. Teachers still don’t know how to implement the new Junior cycle and the ones training them in don’t know what they’re doing either. All to fudge the numbers to look good internationally. FG are a crowd of con artists.
The points race here is the problem not necessarily the lc or jc courses.. that’s where the pressure is coming from!
I think some small adjustments to syllabus would help but largely it’s the whole cao system that the pressure is coming from. That’s what needs looking at here
@Bruce van der Gutschmitzer: totally agree. I actually don’t think the wider public are aware of what changes have taken place at JC. There is now only higher and ordinary level options in English, Irish and maths. Everything else is a common level paper. It’s forcing all students towards the middle and then they have to go onto LC. Bruton was a disgrace as minister, all initiatives and bluster.
@P Quinn: 100% idiot. He’s a slithery shnake that helped and is helping suck the lifeblood out of teaching. He even looks like a chameleon.
@Bruce van der Gutschmitzer: I take it that you don’t like Mr Bruton? Perhaps you should use more reasoned argument to make your point rather than resorting to such a venomous attack. (No pun intended.)
@Deborah Blacoe: I’ve no problem calling him that. I’m sure many others would too. FG have a policy of draining resources from education and then coming up with hairbrain ideas to counteract this to appear we are performing well internationally. Like health, housing and most things, education is crumbling.
@Deborah Blacoe: a more reasoned argument-we have the worst investment in early education in Europe. Our class sizes are the highest in Western Europe. Less than 11% of our budget goes towards it compared to 13-16%, the European average. Pay parity has not been restored and teachers are continuing to leave for better opportunities. Less ppl are taking up teaching courses. We already have a huge skills gap and can’t fill positions in secondary and this will continue to get worse if investment isn’t increased dramatically.
@Bruce van der Gutschmitzer: Excellent reasoning skills! 10/10. Go to the top of the class. Sorry for that, couldn’t help myself. I hear you loud and clear. And I don’t disagree. I wonder what happens to politicians between when they start out on their political career and when they reach the dizzy heights of government? The political life appears to be the best learning ground for subterfuge and the most unwelcome forms of compromise. Mr Bruton was the first politician I voted for over 40 years ago. Both he and George Birmingham (now Justice Birmingham) were the bright lights in our constituency. I was never a ‘party’ person. My vote has always been a considered one, but I took an interest in Mr Bruton’s career. That bright star has dimmed a little. Such is life.
@Deborah Blacoe: there was no offence taken, don’t worry. Agree 100%. Politics is a cesspit that would turn the most righteous of ppl into the biggest of mé féiners. I’d be aligned with the Russell Brand strand of politics and just scrapping the whole system and starting again after the failure that was Anglo being allowed to fail in the manner that it did. I just don’t trust most ppl that go into politics so quick without getting a rounded scope and view of the world. He just comes across as a careerist politician. Coming out with the shcuther that Ireland will be the best education system in Europe in 10 years when he has no plans to invest properly and implementing a new syllabus that has been proven to have failed but he decides to push on anyway because it looks progressive. We now have children who are less prepared for the leaving cert and will be under more stress compared to those before them. I anticipate that there will be higher suicide rate among leaving certs next year. That’s why I despise the guy. It’s all about optics.
@Bruce van der Gutschmitzer: the biggest problems with the current education system are that 1) it is outdated and 2) it is geared for winning points. The academic subjects introduced so far back in time, when the industrial revolution was happening across Europe, are the ones which earn most credibility. This path should no longer be followed exclusively. The development of the ‘whole’ child is imperative towards maximizing skills and options. Otherwise it will be a system which will increasingly polarize goals and waste the opportunity to nurture a cross section of abilities. The level of merit awarded to academic success by society has to change. Only then can we achieve the diversity necessary in our education system in order to fuel a changing workplace.
@P Quinn: Do you want some really bad news? If the present ‘reforms’ are deemed to be ‘successful’ there is a further plan to have completely common papers for JC English, Maths and Irish. So, never mind Foundation, there will be no Higher or Ordinary any more.
@sean o’dhubhghaill: that’s absolutely disgraceful and completely irresponsible
It’s called ‘dumbing down’ so everyone passes. While I agree we should be encouraging our youth, it’s another example of nanny state.
Both Micky mouse exams when it comes down it
@Barry Zuckerkorn: They might be Mickey Mouse to you, but they are very important to those students that are sitting them, and cause many of them a lot of stress.
It’s mainly due to the increase in points needed for most basic courses in decent universities and colleges .
Considering the maximum amount of points you can get for an ordinary subject is 56
Taking basically everything in higher is the only option you have if you want a decent course.
@Jason Byrne: For the most part, the points required is set by the students that get offered a place. If a course has 100 places and is filled on the first round, then the student with the 100th best points score will set the points – the last student to be offered a place in round 1!
The problem is, as subject reform occurs, subjects often get easier. This allows the more able student to get more points, and points for courses go up.
In certain instances, the Universities can cap the points level for a course.
have your say