For years, we have had unconfirmed reports and rumours that AI-controlled weapons have killed soldiers on the battlefield without a human in the loop. Now, we know it has happened.

As we report here, the use of autonomous killers in a test exercise marks a watershed in warfare. But we shouldn’t be surprised. The technology has existed for some time and humans have never invented a weapon and then refrained from using it.

That doesn’t mean we can’t reverse course. The logic for a ban on autonomous weapons is simple: deploying AI without human oversight risks weapons accidentally targeting troops on the wrong side or even civilians. What’s more, ethicists say that such weapons deprive combatants of their dignity, make war too easy to wage and muddy the waters when it comes to responsibility for lethal action.

But if we are to ban these weapons, just as we have done with cluster bombs and lasers designed to blind soldiers, we should have acted before they arrived, not after. The United Nations has been in talks to ban fully autonomous weapons for over a decade, but according to the Human Rights Watch campaign group, India, Israel, Russia and the US have vetoed the discussions.

The framework to ban autonomous weapons already exists – they could easily be added to the list of excessively injurious or indiscriminate arms proscribed by the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. More difficult to reckon with is the fact that these drones can be made with inexpensive parts ordered online and some open-source software. Any
tech-literate teenager could do it.

As we explore here, the war in Ukraine has made it clear that robots will dominate future battlefields. The question the world must now answer is whether a human should always be involved, ultimately responsible for the decision to pull the trigger, or whether machines can be allowed to act alone. Whichever we choose, a decision must be made before the technology proliferates.