[DRAFT] LAWS Monitoring Act

[Bears Armed]

Is "Mild" a good strength to label this resolution? I figured that because of the specificity of the ban and the fact that not everyone has AI and therefore LAWSs the actual effect of such a ban would be mild.

There's certainly an argument for a Mild strength. I think that works.

Agreed. [one-sixth of GenSec]

[Danlina]

OOC: Unless you RP a magical nation in which you can enchant a sword to attack all on its own, there's no reasonable way to try to count a sword for this, since it needs to be wielded to be used. You do have a mild case on bombs, and I think ICBMs with computer guidance systems (though are they technically ballistic if they can guide their flight?) would count as LAWSs. Certainly any missile capable of adjusting its flightpath, would, which means we're also talking about aircraft-to-aircraft missiles.

That was the point, which perhaps was clearer under the previous revision of the proposal which, from a strict reading, would make illegal under international law any "weapons system", from a hatchet to a cruise missile, that could explain their motives to their operators.

The thing is that I can't find a way to solve this kind of misunderstanding without complicating this already complicated resolution. You think I should also define what a weapon system is??

[Falcania]

That was the point, which perhaps was clearer under the previous revision of the proposal which, from a strict reading, would make illegal under international law any "weapons system", from a hatchet to a cruise missile, that could explain their motives to their operators.

The thing is that I can't find a way to solve this kind of misunderstanding without complicating this already complicated resolution. You think I should also define what a weapon system is??

I'm going to work on a proposed wording. The general gist of it is you want to prohibit LAWS that don't meet a specific set of criteria, right?

[Danlina]

Thanks to everyone that helped so far. I will pick the nations that were the most helpful in phrasing and wording as co-authors.

[Falcania]

I've quickly cooked this up as what feels like more concise wording of the first two clauses. I feel like there's still tidying up to be done though.

LAWS are defined as weapons systems that are capable of independently engaging targets with lethal force.

The World Assembly mandates that all LAWS manufactured, stockpiled, bought, sold, transferred or received must comply with at least one of the following standards for operator intervention:

Be operated by a clearly identifiable sapient combatant.

Possess adaptive and learning systems that can explain their reasoning and decisions to sapient operators in transparent and understandable ways.

Operate under autonomous functions that are predictable to their operators.

[Danlina]

I've quickly cooked this up as what feels like more concise wording of the first two clauses. I feel like there's still tidying up to be done though.

LAWS are defined as weapons systems that are capable of independently engaging targets with lethal force.

The World Assembly mandates that all LAWS manufactured, stockpiled, bought, sold, transferred or received must comply with at least one of the following standards for operator intervention:

Be operated by a clearly identifiable sapient combatant.

Possess adaptive and learning systems that can explain their reasoning and decisions to sapient operators in transparent and understandable ways.

Operate under autonomous functions that are predictable to their operators.

I think I will just mandate all three standards to avoid having any kind of loophole in the system.

[Araraukar]

I will pick the nations that were the most helpful in phrasing and wording as co-authors.

OOC: Since doing that puts people's names in the actual proposal text, you'll need their permission for doing so.

Possess adaptive and learning systems that can explain their reasoning and decisions to sapient operators in transparent and understandable ways.

OOC: Hope you're aware that this puts the whole thing into the realm of Future Tech (or at the very least Post-Modern Tech) and as such will likely get quite a few votes against it from people who don't care for such roleplay? And also that any sapient weapons system wouldn't count (we have a separate resolution for sapient AIs)?

So I'm really struggling to understand how the "can explain their reasoning and decisions" wouldn't fall under sapient AIs, unless "reasoning" has a different meaning from the usual one.

[Danlina]

I will pick the nations that were the most helpful in phrasing and wording as co-authors.

OOC: Since doing that puts people's names in the actual proposal text, you'll need their permission for doing so.

Possess adaptive and learning systems that can explain their reasoning and decisions to sapient operators in transparent and understandable ways.

OOC: Hope you're aware that this puts the whole thing into the realm of Future Tech (or at the very least Post-Modern Tech) and as such will likely get quite a few votes against it from people who don't care for such roleplay? And also that any sapient weapons system wouldn't count (we have a separate resolution for sapient AIs)?

So I'm really struggling to understand how the "can explain their reasoning and decisions" wouldn't fall under sapient AIs, unless "reasoning" has a different meaning from the usual one.

If you will let me slide to what happens with LAWS in real life, is that a computer system can show the operator all of the calculations and decision making it has done in its algorithm, and from the research I have done this is what "explaining their reasoning" means in this context.

and about the names of co-authors, if I remember from the rules for resolution proposals is that I can and should give credit somewhere to co-authors.

[Araraukar]

If you will let me slide to what happens with LAWS in real life, is that a computer system can show the operator all of the calculations and decision making it has done in its algorithm, and from the research I have done this is what "explaining their reasoning" means in this context.

OOC: So basically human-controlled combat drones á la the Predator would count for this? Since the human uses a computer system to control the drone.

and about the names of co-authors, if I remember from the rules for resolution proposals is that I can and should give credit somewhere to co-authors.

You can, but you still have to ask people their permission.

[Danlina]

If you will let me slide to what happens with LAWS in real life, is that a computer system can show the operator all of the calculations and decision making it has done in its algorithm, and from the research I have done this is what "explaining their reasoning" means in this context.

OOC: So basically human-controlled combat drones á la the Predator would count for this? Since the human uses a computer system to control the drone.

Yes. The MQ-1 Predator is an example of a weapon that is legal according to the act. It also isn't officially registered as autonomous but remote piloted, though when you strip it down all the second clause does is restricting offensive LAWSs to being remote piloted.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: This structure could be vastly simplified. Remove Clause 4 and add a subclause 2(d): be manufactured for and specifically deployable only for defensive purposes and positions

The way this is currently written is tripping over itself with apparent self-contradictions that are removed a minute later. The whole thing could be a lot smoother - try writing it so that you don't have to tell the reader to go to a downstream clause in order to figure out what you mean.

Also Clause 2(b) still has the word "human."

[Danlina]

I've done everything so far, and adjusted the list a bit to be more chronical.
Anything else?

[Kenmoria]

“I do not think there is a need for all the subclause a in clause 3, as many weapons systems will have only one function, such as to shoot advancing tanks. Thus they would not need to have adaptive learning systems, as any changes in, for example, the make of tank the enemy uses, could be programmed in manually.”

[Danlina]

“I do not think there is a need for all the subclause a in clause 3, as many weapons systems will have only one function, such as to shoot advancing tanks. Thus they would not need to have adaptive learning systems, as any changes in, for example, the make of tank the enemy uses, could be programmed in manually.”

I still think that the system should be able to explain its reasoning and decisions, so I've just got rid of the "adaptive and learning systems" rather than the whole subclause.

[Araraukar]

Yes. The MQ-1 Predator is an example of a weapon that is legal according to the act. It also isn't officially registered as autonomous but remote piloted

OOC: But you just said that a computer system giving info to a person about why it does what it does would count as a LAWS. The Predator pilots have to use such systems.

Also, unless you actually count machine guns as LAWS under your proposal, your morality claim in the preamble still lacks any explanation.

[Danlina]

Yes. The MQ-1 Predator is an example of a weapon that is legal according to the act. It also isn't officially registered as autonomous but remote piloted

OOC: But you just said that a computer system giving info to a person about why it does what it does would count as a LAWS. The Predator pilots have to use such systems.

I admit I haven’t read the whole Wikipedia page on the predator, so I didn’t get any info about the system specifications, but to my knowledge adding a function than shows the operator the algorithm’s calculations shouldn’t be a problem in most autonomous and semi-autonomous systems.

Also, unless you actually count machine guns as LAWS under your proposal, your morality claim in the preamble still lacks any explanation.

I really want this part of the legislation to be as short and on point as I can, but if you think it may be a serious problem I will add more information into this section.
(Didn’t understand what was the point with the machine gun, a machine gun doesn’t make any decisions on the battlefield)

[Araraukar]

An OOC shredding.

KNOWING that one of the advancements a nation can make in technology is Artificial Intelligence, and that technologies such as this are used in Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWSs).

No, bad proposal. Artificial Intelligence in the sense it's normally used around here, refers to actually sapient entities of the same or higher intellectual level as RL humans. So you're already barking up the wrong tree, because AIs have the same rights as humans, and thus anything "using" them would be excluded from the proposal the way it's written now.

Also, don't put the term shortening into the preamble. Meaning, spell out in the actual definition what "LAWS" means.

RECOGNIZING the immorality embedded in giving a machine full responsibility over life and death situations on the battlefield.

Why is it bad? Humans make mistakes all the time. Friendly fire is a thing that happens. Why is it inherently worse to have a machine with similar control? Machines generally (meaning, when they've been properly programmed and parametres have been set appropriately) make fewer mistakes than humans. That's why most of manufacturing is done by machines rather than humans in Real Life.

BELIEVING that there should always be some degree of sapient intervention in offensive weapons systems.

Why?

RESOLVING that there should be international monitoring and restrictions set on LAWSs.

Why? How are they an international problem if used completely internally (such as riot suppression or facility security) by a nation?

On this matter, the GA thus declares that, except as limited by earlier resolutions that are still in place:

Don't use "GA". If you can't just replace the whole thing with "Hereby, except as limited by earlier still extant resolutions", then spell out General Assembly.

1. LAWSs are defined as weapons systems that operate independently from their sapient users while being used and are programmed to engage in lethal tactics.

So, again, you're still trying to ban guided missiles. You will not be able to pass this. Or it will be repealed instantly. So unless you're just badge-hunting, you need to do more work on this.

Also, spell out what "LAWS" means, in this clause.

2. The World Assembly mandates boycotting the manufacturing of and use of offensive LAWSs on the battlefield to all of its members.

Why? Also, what does "battlefield" mean here? Are they still forbidden in a civil war or only in a war between nations? Remember that non-WA nations don't have to abide by these rules, and that's why selling the idea of banning or restricting weapons is an anathema for many military nations.

3. The World Assembly mandates that to be manufactured, sold, bought, transferred and used by its members, a LAWS must have the following qualities:

All of them?

a. Can explain their reasoning and decisions to sapient operators in transparent and understandable ways.

Again, you're using "explain their reasoning and decisions" in a way that the words are not normally meant. Spell out your actual meaning rather than making it appear the weapons need to be able to talk or be sapient themselves.

b. Have responsible sapient operators who are clearly identifiable.

...so that the enemy can easily take them out on the battlefield?

c. Have autonomous functions that are predictable to their operators.

Wouldn't "programmed responses" cover all of this and thus make a fully autonomous weapon okay?

d. Be manufactured for defensive purposes and used solely by defensive units.

See before what I said about most nations purportedly having militaries only for defensive reasons, yet using them offensively.

e. Fit into previous laws of humane weaponry.

...there aren't any? Also, your "except as limited by earlier resolutions" already covers this.

Additionally, clause 3 in its entirety is unnecessary nonsense and fluff, since the definition in clause 1 makes any system fitting clause 3 not a LAWS. To fix that, you should reword clause 3 as something like "Excludes from the category of LAWS any weapons system with the following qualities".

[Bears Armed]

An OOC shredding.

KNOWING that one of the advancements a nation can make in technology is Artificial Intelligence, and that technologies such as this are used in Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWSs).

No, bad proposal. Artificial Intelligence in the sense it's normally used around here, refers to actually sapient entities of the same or higher intellectual level as RL humans. So you're already barking up the wrong tree, because AIs have the same rights as humans, and thus anything "using" them would be excluded from the proposal the way it's written now.

OOC
Would 'expert systems' be the appropriate term?

[Araraukar]

OOC
Would 'expert systems' be the appropriate term?

OOC: Or just leaving any kind of defining things out of the preamble, and going for more general concerns about how leaving a sapient person out of the command chain before lethal force can be used, would be a bad thing. Though they'd still have to explain why it would be a bad thing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This proposal was submitted and then deleted. http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/danlina_1548068515/

[Danlina]

This proposal was submitted and then deleted. http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/danlina_1548068515/

I have accidentally submitted it when checking if the esthetics I have used fit the format of a GA resolution.

[Danlina]

1. LAWSs are defined as weapons systems that operate independently from their sapient users while being used and are programmed to engage in lethal tactics.

So, again, you're still trying to ban guided missiles. You will not be able to pass this. Or it will be repealed instantly. So unless you're just badge-hunting, you need to do more work on this.

Funny thing, bit hard to go badge-hunting when I have yet to understand how badges work...

2. The World Assembly mandates boycotting the manufacturing of and use of offensive LAWSs on the battlefield to all of its members.

Why? Also, what does "battlefield" mean here? Are they still forbidden in a civil war or only in a war between nations? Remember that non-WA nations don't have to abide by these rules, and that's why selling the idea of banning or restricting weapons is an anathema for many military nations.

Yes, I've been thinking about it from this perspective and I am having second thoughts on this resolution as a whole.

[Separatist Peoples]

Yes, I've been thinking about it from this perspective and I am having second thoughts on this resolution as a whole.

"I imagine that would be for the best. By removing offensive automated weapons, you force manned weapons to take their place, which increases the risk to life and limb. That is most unwanted, especially since the underlying premise of your proposal makes indirect fire from artillery just as immoral as a hunter-killer drone. And that is assuming that morality should have anything to do with it."

[Falcania]

So, again, you're still trying to ban guided missiles. You will not be able to pass this. Or it will be repealed instantly. So unless you're just badge-hunting, you need to do more work on this.

Funny thing, bit hard to go badge-hunting when I have yet to understand how badges work...

Why? Also, what does "battlefield" mean here? Are they still forbidden in a civil war or only in a war between nations? Remember that non-WA nations don't have to abide by these rules, and that's why selling the idea of banning or restricting weapons is an anathema for many military nations.

Yes, I've been thinking about it from this perspective and I am having second thoughts on this resolution as a whole.

"I disagree with the delegation from Separatist Peoples. There is definitely a good core to this resolution; don't give up on it completely. There is a strong precedent for restricting, if not banning outright, armaments and you've definitely hit upon something here, I believe. The drafting process is a marathon, not a sprint. That said, I think you'd do well to ruminate on exactly what is distinct between a "good LAWS" and a "bad LAWS". Once you have that distinction clear, then we can look into specific wording. Let's look at the technical side here - I think words like 'Operate' and 'Use' aren't specific enough. We need to talk, I think, about the way a weapon acquires a target, and the way a weapon engages a target."

[Danlina]

Alright, so after a long time that this wasn't going anywhere, I have decided to give an IC reason why to continue with this resolution.
Now, where were we? Right, the argument of taking weapons out of WA members while none-WA members get to keep them. So the thing is that I am only banning offensive use of LAWSs, so WA members may still use LAWS technology to defend themselves.
And about the argument that in some nations in NS AI means sentient robots, it is irrelevant: in PMT and FT that uses a form of sentient AI there also exists the technology of non-sentient AI, and so I might specify my definition of LAWS to non-sentient AI weapons systems.
And last but not least: guided missiles aren’t LAWSs because it’s the operator who makes the decision of where and when to attack, the missile only makes sure it hits the target. Of course that guided missile systems that don’t need an operator to decide where and when to attack will be considered LAWSs and will be banned from offensive use.