By Mary L. Cummings –<\/p>\n
As the director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology\u2019s Humans and Automation Laboratory, I was asked to comment from a technologist\u2019s perspective at the recent symposium Drone Warfare: New Robotics & Targeted Killings<\/a> on the panel\u00a0 \u201cUnmanned Robotics & New Warfare.\u201d\u00a0 My perspective is unique in that not only do I conduct millions of dollars of research in the development of technologies to enable one or more humans to control unmanned vehicles (i.e., robots) more easily, but I also look at these issues from the perspective of having flown advanced fighters in the U.S. Navy, namely the F\/A-18 Hornet.<\/p>\n While there are many forms of unmanned vehicles in use in the military today (unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), underwater unmanned vehicles (UUVs), etc.), my comments will focus primarily on UAVs because they are currently used to perform targeted killings. \u00a0However, it should be noted that unmanned vehicles of all types could be expected to do the same at some point in the future.<\/p>\n The term \u201ccontrol\u201d is a misnomer when discussing UAV control because, in most settings, human operators \u201csupervise\u201d the control of a UAV as opposed to directly or manually controlling it. \u00a0The distinction between supervisory and manual UAV control is critical. \u00a0Supervisory control is intermittent human interaction with automated systems using high-level knowledge-based cognitive processes such as judgment and experience, whereas manual control occurs through human skill-based direct vehicle manipulation, e.g., a pilot flying a plane with a stick and rudder. \u00a0In supervisory control, humans are more on the loop than in the loop.<\/p>\n It is precisely this move from manual to supervisory control for UAVs that has caused and will continue to cause ripples throughout the military because the basic skills once required of manned aircraft pilots are no longer needed. \u00a0UAV control today is effectively a \u201cclick and point\u201d paradigm, so any person familiar with a basic PC or Mac\u00ae can be a UAV \u201cpilot\u201d.\u00a0 Indeed, in my laboratory, we recently conducted formal studies demonstrating that with just three minutes of training people with no experience flying UAVs can effectively use an iPhone\u00ae to control a UAV carrying a webcam. \u00a0These novices could manipulate the system with such precision that many could read the 20\/30 line of an eye chart through the UAV\u2019s webcam.<\/p>\n Automation has advanced to such a degree that pilot stick-and-rudder skills are no longer needed in UAV applications. \u00a0Due to this advancement, the U.S. Army can train UAV operators to \u201cfly\u201d a UAV in about 10 weeks. \u00a0However, in a clear attempt to uphold a pilot-centric culture, the Air Force still requires two years of pilot training to control the exact same vehicles with the exact same capabilities. \u00a0The primary difference between the two services is that Air Force pilots are allowed to \u201cfly\u201d the vehicles through joystick actions, while Army operators literally command their vehicles through point and click interactions. \u00a0Unfortunately, temporal latencies inherent in remote control of UAVs like those of U.S. Air Force Predators mean that pilots who try to manually fly UAVs introduce significantly greater risk in operations: roughly half of all Predator accidents are due to pilot error. \u00a0As a result, the Air Force has recently mandated that all take-offs and landings must be fully automated. \u00a0The Army has adhered to this policy from the beginning of its UAV operations.<\/p>\n While UAV control can be a cognitively \u201ceasy\u201d task, overall UAV operations are by no means easy. \u00a0These operations have introduced a number of complex interactions that require significantly more coordination across several agencies, including de-confliction with manned aircraft.\u00a0 In addition, the use of UAV full-motion video and other sources that provide information from both manned and unmanned vehicles in near real-time has overloaded decision makers. \u00a0The massive influx of electronic data from a wide array of sensors has literally left the U.S. military drowning in data. \u00a0How to distill the voluminous amount of information available in real-time to aid decision-makers in critical life-or-death decisions is still an open area of research and development, and the problem only promises to get worse before it gets better.<\/p>\n The possible moral, legal, and ethical implications of unmanned technologies are many, and I will discuss just a few that are specific to my area of expertise. \u00a0First, while UAVs have not really changed how warfare is conducted in terms of targeted killings (i.e., we search, then detect, then kill), the remote and nearly constant presence of UAVs has significantly shortened what is known as the \u201ckill chain\u201d. \u00a0Prior to UAVs and the electronic networks that accompany them, finding, identifying, and then authorizing the use of deadly force against a suspected enemy often took days or even weeks to accomplish. \u00a0Now, these same processes occur in a matter of minutes or maybe hours.\u00a0 Given these compressed time schedules and the well-documented ability of people to more readily engage in the use of deadly force at a distance (a phenomenon I describe as a \u201cmoral buffer\u201d), as well as the relatively ease of UAV control that I previously discussed, it is quite possible that we could engage in more deadly interactions without the necessary time to reflect that older airborne-based systems inherently provided. \u00a0However, it is also possible that the networks of information and the near real-time interconnectivity of decision-makers could allow us to engage in safer, more ethical engagements because lawyers, politicians, and military leadership can literally all see the same video feed at the same time and come to consensus about the \u201cright\u201d decision to make.<\/p>\n Lastly, while the focus of this Symposium was the use of unmanned technologies for targeted killings, one social impact rarely addressed that I feel will be much more compelling in years to come is the use of these technologies for acts beyond those of targeted killings. \u00a0Given that almost anyone can now control a UAV with their iPhone\u00ae, it does not take a MIT futurist to imagine a scenario where such technologies could be used in terrorist acts both overseas and on U.S. soil. \u00a0For example, a small UAV could easily be flown into any sports stadium loaded with a deadly biological agent. \u00a0Such technologies may also be used in many more insidious ways, such as monitoring a point or person of interest, as these platforms are effectively mobile cameras that can transmit over a network. \u00a0Privacy could be redefined dramatically given the future ability of a UAV (or a bug-sized UGV) to follow you almost anywhere and transmit your every action over the Internet.<\/p>\n Mary (Missy) Cummings is an Associate Professor in the Aeronautics & Astronautics Department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.\u00a0 She was an officer and a pilot in the U.S. Navy: one of the Navy\u2019s first female fighter pilots.\u00a0 More information about her research at HAL can be found at halab.mit.edu<\/a>.<\/cite><\/em><\/p>\n