--- title: "World Leaders Debate Whether It’s Okay to Kill People With Terminator-Style Robots" description: "World military leaders met to establish international rules for the responsible development of AI weapons. Safe to say: the alleged rules are pretty lax." date: "2023-02-18" modified: "2023-02-18" authors: - name: "Maggie Harrison Dupré" job_title: "Senior Staff Writer" link: "https://futurism.com/authors/mharrison" url: "https://futurism.com/united-states-killer-robots-hague" categories: - "Artificial Intelligence" - "Robotics" - "Robots and Machines" tags: - "advanced weapons" - "ai" - "ai weapons" - "military" --- # World Leaders Debate Whether It’s Okay to Kill People With Terminator-Style Robots ![World military leaders met to establish international rules for the responsible development of AI weapons. Safe to say: the alleged rules are pretty lax.]() *\Image: Getty / Futurism\* It's been — presumably — a truly bizarre week at the Hague, where backdropped by the ongoing circus of Microsoft's Bing AI publicly melting down into a [monstrous](), [homewrecking](), [Pinocchio-role-playing]() chaos machine, military leaders from 50 countries gathered to discuss "[responsible]()" use of artificial intelligence in the military. The timing? Absolutely impeccable. The substance of the Dutch-hosted summit, though? Worrying. According [to *Reuters*](), leaders have certainly gathered, and they've certainly said some things. They've also reportedly signed an agreement to abide by "international legal obligations" in "a way that does not undermine international security, stability and accountability," which sounds good on the surface. But that already-modest agreement was reportedly non-binding, and human rights advocates, per *Reuters*, warn that it lacked any specific language regarding weaponry "like AI-guided drones, 'slaughterbots' that could kill with no human intervention, or the risk that an AI could escalate a military conflict." In other words, while the whole point of the summit has been for leaders to establish some firm ground rules, any norms that may have been established lack any firm specifics — seemingly rendering them impossible to coherently implement. Even so, the US cordially asks you to please abide by them, thank you very much! "We invite all states to join us in implementing international norms," US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Bonnie Jenkins put forth in a Feb 16 declaration, [according to *Reuters*](), "as it pertains to military development and use of AI" and autonomous weapons. "We want to emphasize," added Jenkins, "that we are open to engagement with any country that is interested in joining us." Per *Reuters*, if the US offered anything more concrete, Jenkins did say that "human accountability" and "appropriate levels of human judgment" should be leveraged in order to responsibly incorporate artificial intelligence into military operations. Which, sure, is all good. But both human accountability and human judgment are the baseline expectations for any weapon. AI systems don't get dropped off by storks on military doorsteps; at the end of the day, even if military-AI integration means that human beings won't be literally pulling as many triggers as they do today, humans are both building and unleashing the AI systems that will do the killing. Humans, no matter what, are accountable for the outcomes of AI systems, whether the machines function as planned or go [completely off the rails](). And again, without actually defining any clear rights and wrongs — especially when it comes to the use of specific and lethal AI-powered weapons — broader statements regarding sound judgment and accountability are ultimately hollow. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we're not the only ones with questions. The US statement "paves the path for states to develop AI for military purposes in any way they see fit as long as they can say it is 'responsible'," Jessica Dorsey, assistant professor of international law at Netherlands's Utrecht University, told *Reuters*, additionally calling America's declaration a "missed opportunity" for the nation to show real leadership in the AI ethics arena. "Where is the enforcement mechanism?" she asked. To be fair, the US Department of Defense does have some [written guidelines]() regarding the American military's use of AI. But countries can break and remake their own rules. *Actually* establishing strong, distinct international guardrails and expectations, as was seemingly the goal of this summit, may well be the best way of ensuring AI responsibility, especially considering how [poorly understood]() these much-hyped systems really are. Researchers have also warned that an international AI arms race could [pretty easily destroy civilization](), so there's that. (*Reuters* reports that Chinese representative Jian Tan urged that international leaders should "oppose seeking absolute military advantage and hegemony through AI," adding that the United Nations should play a big role in facilitating AI development.) In the most optimistic reading, the summit was a first step, albeit a baby one. "We are moving into a field that we do not know, for which we do not have guidelines, rules, frameworks, or agreements," Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra said ahead of the event, according to *Reuters*. "But we will need them sooner rather than later." On that note, for everyone's sake, let's hope next year's meeting has a bit — or a lot — more juice. If there's ever a time for pinky promise-level agreements, deciding how to go about building [war robots]() isn't it. **READ MORE:** [*US, China, other nations urge 'responsible' use of military AI*]() \[*Reuters*\] **More on AI:** [*Man "Sure" His AI Girlfriend Will save Him When the Robots Take Over*]() ## Author At Futurism, I've reported extensively on the rise of AI as a cultural and business force shaping the media industry, and more broadly how those dynamics are changing how we all consume and share information and relate to one another. I'm also fascinated by public health policy and ethics, the role of emerging tech in politics and governance — and the powerful people and forces at those intersections — climate change, and the environment. My investigation on Sports Illustrated's use of AI-generated authors with fictional biographies won a 2024 Mirror Award for "Best Story on Media Coverage of Artificial Intelligence in Journalism and the Media" from Syracuse University's SI Newhouse School, I contributed to Niemen Lab's 2025 Predictions for Journalism series, and I've discussed my work for Futurism during appearances on NPR, CNN, the BBC, the CBC, and more. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania and attended the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where I played Division I field hockey for the Minutewomen as a midfielder. Since then, I've lived in New Orleans, Louisiana and Manhattan, New York. I spend my free time running, reading, perusing archival fashion, and searching for the world’s best negroni. I also have a debonair tuxedo cat, Westley, who's named after "The Princess Bride." ### Author social links [Bluesky]()