LETHAL AUTONOMOUS WEAPON SYSTEMS (LAWS). ON THE ETHICS OF AUTOMATION IN THE MILITARY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS THEORY

Abstract

The debate about weapon systems that function “autonomously” on artifi- cial intelligence is giving a new impetus to the old question about the role of auto- mation in social systems.1 This is especially true for the debate on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), i.e., autonomous systems designed to kill in the context of warlike conflicts. This article provides an insight into how artificial intelligence auto- mation can be modelled in social theory, referring in particular to Niklas Luhmann’s systems and communication theory. From this modelling, conclusions arise with regard to ethical questions in the military context. As a first step, following Elena Esposito, I examine how artificial intelligence automation participates in commu- nication processes and where its limits lie. Following that, ethical questions are dis- cussed step by step. First, the problem of violating human dignity will be considered. In the context of organisations—and especially military organisations—the question of accountability always arises. Accountability refers to social roles and their cor- responding communication processes. Machine processes, however, cannot replace accountability. Furthermore, five aspects are discussed which arise from the per- spective of the codified moral programme of Innere Führung in relation to artificial intelligence automation. These are trust in technology, time frame, standardisation of assisting information, communicative attribution as action, and building media competence, including moral routines. With recourse to Luhmann’s concept of risk, the importance of implementation processes and learning is pointed out at the end. Overall, this paper is about raising questions, i.e., about problematising. It is not about formulating definitive answers.