Collective responsibility for the robopocalypse

Science fiction movies, such as the Terminator series, have accustomed us to images of armed, computerised robots led by leader robots fighting wars against human combatants and their human leaders. Moreover, by virtue of developments in artificial intelligence, the robots have superior calculative and memory capacity; after all, they are computers. In addition, robots are utterly fearless in battle; they do not have emotions and care nothing for life over death. Does the human race, then, face robopocalypse? The short answer is in the negative. Computers, robotic or otherwise, are not minded agents, steadfast intentional stances toward them notwithstanding (Dennett 1987). Rather these images are fanciful anthropomorphisms of machines; and the military reality is quite different. Nevertheless, the spectre of robopocalypse persists, especially in the context of new and emerging (so-called) autonomous robotic weaponry. Consider, for example, the Samsung stationary robot which functions as a sentry in the demilitarised zone between North and South Korea. Once programmed and activated, it has the capability to track, identify and fire its machine guns at human targets without the further intervention of a human operator. Predator drones are used in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan to kill suspected terrorists. While the ones currently in use are not autonomous weapons, they could be given this capability, in which case, once programmed and activated, they could track, identify and destroy human and other targets without the further intervention of a human operator. Moreover, more advanced autonomous weapons systems, including robotic ones, are in the pipeline.