Public perceptions of autonomous lethal weapons systems

Abstract

Abstract This study attempts to bridge the gap in empirical and philosophical research on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), through a survey of attitudes using experimental methods. “LAWS” refer to “fully autonomous weapons” that can set attack targets without human involvement and are lethal. Based on previous research, we conducted a randomized controlled experiment to create, present, and collect responses to scenarios describing military operations and outcomes that are likely to express awareness of the ethical issues raised by LAWS. First, our hypothesis that LAWS are less likely to be used was rejected, and the opposite trend was observed. Second, the hypothesis that civilian casualties rather than combatant casualties would influence LAWS use was strongly and significantly confirmed. Third, the hypothesis that remote weapons are more likely to be used than LAWS was rejected. Fourth, there was some support for the hypothesis that LAWS are more likely to be used in homeland defense. Fifth, the hypothesis that male and younger individuals are more willing to use LAWS was strongly and significantly confirmed for male, but not on the basis of age. This study highlights the need for further discussion based on these findings.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.