2013
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-013-9484-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Responsibility Practices and Unmanned Military Technologies

Abstract: The prospect of increasingly autonomous military robots has raised concerns about the obfuscation of human responsibility. This papers argues that whether or not and to what extent human actors are and will be considered to be responsible for the behavior of robotic systems is and will be the outcome of ongoing negotiations between the various human actors involved. These negotiations are about what technologies should do and mean, but they are also about how responsibility should be interpreted and how it can… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Here, we perceive that the governance of emerging technologies often faces an institutional void intertwined with distributed responsibility in hybrid networks of relevant institutions (Sclove, 1995;Wetmore, 2004). Following the ongoing discussion in the domain of technology ethics related to the responsibility gap for actions of learning automata, we recognize that responsibilities are formed during, often unstructured, negotiations between different groups of actants, such as designers, legislators, and users (Felt et al, 2017;Noorman, 2014;Schulzke, 2013;van de Poel, 2011). Furthermore, with the initial premise that SDV technology is a complex artifact, we recognize a potentially wider web of governance actants, beyond the human ones.…”
Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here, we perceive that the governance of emerging technologies often faces an institutional void intertwined with distributed responsibility in hybrid networks of relevant institutions (Sclove, 1995;Wetmore, 2004). Following the ongoing discussion in the domain of technology ethics related to the responsibility gap for actions of learning automata, we recognize that responsibilities are formed during, often unstructured, negotiations between different groups of actants, such as designers, legislators, and users (Felt et al, 2017;Noorman, 2014;Schulzke, 2013;van de Poel, 2011). Furthermore, with the initial premise that SDV technology is a complex artifact, we recognize a potentially wider web of governance actants, beyond the human ones.…”
Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…He calls them ''virtual wars'', combatants are computer programmers, the nation is mobilised as a TV audience, and instead of formal declarations commencing and ceasing hostilities, there are only a start AND end of the game. Noorman (2013) addresses the issue of Unmanned Military Technologies from the perspective of the principle of responsibility. He correctly points out that at the core of most ethical and legal questions raised by Unmanned Military Technologies there is the issue of individual and collective responsibility.…”
Section: Unmanned Surveillance and Military Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of the complexities of responsibility ascription, it is useful to think about responsibility as a set of practices [22]. That is, what or who is responsible for an outcome depends on the responsibility practices in the context at issue.…”
Section: Recommendationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…New technologies, for instance, tend to change the way people do things, how they relate to each other and, thus, how responsibilities are distributed and acted on. For example, the introduction of UAVs has led to a range of new procedures and protocols in military operations [22]. Pilots had to learn new skills, commanders had to develop new strategies, and decision-making processes have undergone significant changes.…”
Section: Recommendationmentioning
confidence: 99%