I read an article on the development of robots in the US Military by Tim Weiner in the NY Times yesterday. These robots at present consist of not much more than a gun, camera , sensor mounted to a motor on a track, and are capable of performing simple tasks like hauling ammunition & searching rooms. The Pentagon, however, envisages a far greater role for them in the not too distant future. With advances in technology and the high costs* (monetary, & political) of deploying soldiers in harm's way, the future seems to point to combat robots, capable of performing a variety of tasks including autonomous killing, that are currently performed by human infantry.
Gordon Johnson of Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon, describes the advantages of robot soldiers, "They don't get hungry. They're not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes."
The advent of the robotic soldier raises a number of issues regarding the effects of artificial intelligence. Safety & control is an obvious concern as envisaged in Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of robotics: Do Not Hurt humans; obey humans unless that violates Rule 1; defend yourself unless that violates Rules 1 & 2. These types of issues are concerned with the management of the technology itself however there may be broader conseqeunces for society.
The potential ramifications of a robotic military/security apparatus may also challenge currently existing political structures and the distribution of power in society between the state, corporations, and citizens. The power and authority of the modern state has its foundation in the state's monopoly of legitimate means of force or violence. At the end of the day if you don't pay your parking fines or state taxes, the boys in blue (or black) will knock on your door and you will end up in jail (after a fair trial of course).
Throughout history, the state's (and any political entity's) source of violence has been human. This necessitated a degree of legitimacy in order to demand the loyalty of the security forces. Even despotic regimes had to at least look after their own band of henchmen & cronies in order to have that pool of potential violence available. Furthermore, at the end of the day it was always a game of numbers. Kings, tyrants, and oligarchies eventually gave way to more powerful political entities that could mobilise larger bases of support i.e. the modern state which claimed the allegiance of not just a single class of people, but all citizens.
Now try to imagine a world where people power, or the weight of numbers is no longer necessary. That is exactly what a robotic security force can provide. It would be a dictator's dream. No more doubts about the loyalty of one's henchmen, no doubt that the robotic troops would mercilessly fire on the protesting citizens when given the order. No need to pander to any support groups for legitimacy. In short a recipe for total power without qualification.
Let's imagine a variation on this scenario. Instead of say a dictator controlling a robotic army, perhaps it may be a more novel actor, the corporation. In the same way that the military could be robotic, the police force could also similarly be automated, but instead of human officers swearing an oath to serve and protect we could have robocops (yeah like the movie) instead. But who would control them? The government? No, it would be the corporation that developed them. But of course there would be laws governing them right? Ummm yeah ... but what good would the laws be if they couldn't be enforced except by robots built by the corporation. See where this is all heading? I suppose it could be worse, we could head down an even starker future towards the plot of another bad movie - Terminator, where instead of crooked military-industrial corporations taking over, the robots do it themselves.
