Suchergebnisse

"Utah law providing optional plans for county government": p. 164-179. ; Mode of access: Internet.

To the extent there is any consensus among States, ban advocates, and ban skeptics regarding the regulation of autonomous weapon systems (AWS), it is grounded in the idea that all weaponry should be subject to "meaningful human control." This "intuitively appealing" principle is immensely popular, and numerous States have explicitly declared their support for it or questioned the lawfulness of weapons that operate without such control. Lack of opposition has led some to conclude that it is either a newly developed customary norm or a preexisting, recently exposed rule of customary international law, already binding on all States. But this broad support comes at a familiar legislative cost; there is no consensus as to what "meaningful human control" actually requires. State X might define meaningful human control to require informed human approval of each possible action of a given weapon system (maintaining a human being "in the loop"); State Y might understand it as the ability of a human operator to oversee and veto a weapon system's actions (having a human being "on the loop"); and State Z might view the original programming alone as providing sufficiently meaningful human control (allowing human beings to be "off the loop"). As the Czech Republic noted, in voicing its belief that "the decision to end somebody's life must remain under meaningful human control, . . . [t]he challenging part is to establish what precisely 'meaningful human control' would entail." This paper describes attempts to clarify what factors are relevant to meaningful human control, discusses benefits associated with retaining imprecision in a standard intended to regulate new technology through international consensus, and argues that the standard's vagueness should be limited by an interpretive floor. "Meaningful human control" as a regulatory concept can usefully augment existing humanitarian norms governing targeting—namely, that all attacks meet the treaty and customary international law requirements of distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions. However, it should not be interpreted to conflict with these norms nor be prioritized in a way that undermines existing humanitarian protections. [.]

Artificial intelligence's (AI) incorporation of multimodality has revolutionized education by giving college students cutting-edge resources for communication, learning, and problem-solving. Richer interactions and more individualized learning experiences are made possible by multimodal AI, which integrates many input formats like text, graphics, speech, and video. Even while there are advantages like increased accessibility, creativity, and teamwork, problems like unequal access, ethical dilemmas, and cognitive overload still exist. This study examines the benefits and drawbacks of multimodality in AI as it relates to college students, offering insights into its educational implications and the necessity of ethical, well-balanced integration.

Autonomous weapon systems are often described either as more independent versions of weapons already in use or as humanoid robotic soldiers. In many ways, these analogies are useful. Analogies and allusions to popular culture make new technologies seem accessible, identify potential dangers, and buttress desired narratives. Most importantly from a legal perspective, analogical reasoning helps stretch existing law to cover developing technologies and minimize law-free zones. But all potential analogies—weapon, combatant, child soldier, animal combatant—fail to address the legal issues raised by autonomous weapon systems, largely because they all misrepresent legally salient traits. Conceiving of autonomous weapon systems as weapons minimizes their capacity for independent and self-determined action, while the combatant, child soldier, and animal combatant comparisons overemphasize it. Furthermore, these discrete and embodied analogies limit our ability to think imaginatively about this new technology and anticipate how it might develop, thereby impeding our ability to properly regulate it. We cannot simply graft legal regimes crafted to regulate other entities onto autonomous weapon systems. Instead, as is often the case when analogical reasoning cannot justifiably stretch extant law to answer novel legal questions, new supplemental law is needed. The sooner we escape the confines of these insufficient analogies, the sooner we can create appropriate and effective regulations for autonomous weapon systems.

Despite losing nearly 100 seats, Labour managed to increase its percentage of women MPs in parliament due to the success of all women shortlists (AWS). However, 35 AWS candidates were defeated. So was Labour penalised where it stood AWS candidates or was any backlash symptomatic of Labour's electoral predicament or the result of being a new candidate in a seat? Here we examine whether AWS candidates fared worse than other Labour candidates in the 2010 general election. Our findings suggest that AWS candidates suffered from being new candidates. Both AWS and non-AWS candidates in Labour-held seats fared significantly better than AWS and new candidates in non-held seats. But there was no significant difference in support between AWS and new non-AWS candidates standing in incumbent seats or between AWS and new candidates in non-held Labour seats. Put simply, there was no anti-AWS effect, even after taking account of incumbency status, in the 2010 general election. © 2012 Political Studies Association.

Despite losing nearly 100 seats, Labour managed to increase its percentage of women MPs in parliament due to the success of all women shortlists (AWS). However, 35 AWS candidates were defeated. So was Labour penalised where it stood AWS candidates or was any backlash symptomatic of Labour's electoral predicament or the result of being a new candidate in a seat? Here we examine whether AWS candidates fared worse than other Labour candidates in the 2010 general election. Our findings suggest that AWS candidates suffered from being new candidates. Both AWS and non-AWS candidates in Labour-held seats fared significantly better than AWS and new candidates in non-held seats. But there was no significant difference in support between AWS and new non-AWS candidates standing in incumbent seats or between AWS and new candidates in non-held Labour seats. Put simply, there was no anti-AWS effect, even after taking account of incumbency status, in the 2010 general election. Adapted from the source document.

Despite losing nearly 100 seats, Labour managed to increase its percentage of women MPs in parliament due to the success of all women shortlists (AWS). However, 35 AWS candidates were defeated. So was Labour penalised where it stood AWS candidates or was any backlash symptomatic of Labour's electoral predicament or the result of being a new candidate in a seat? Here we examine whether AWS candidates fared worse than other Labour candidates in the 2010 general election. Our findings suggest that AWS candidates suffered from being new candidates. Both AWS and non-AWS candidates in Labour-held seats fared significantly better than AWS and new candidates in non-held seats. But there was no significant difference in support between AWS and new non-AWS candidates standing in incumbent seats or between AWS and new candidates in non-held Labour seats. Put simply, there was no anti-AWS effect, even after taking account of incumbency status, in the 2010 general election.

What does the Department of Defense hope to gain from the use of autonomous weapon systems (AWS)? This Letort Paper explores a diverse set of complex issues related to the developmental, operational, legal, and ethical aspects of AWS. It explores the recent history of the development and integration of autonomous and semi-autonomous systems into traditional military operations. It examines anticipated expansion of these roles in the near future as well as outlines international efforts to provide a context for the use of the systems by the United States. As these topics are well-documented in many sources, this Paper serves as a primer for current and future AWS operations to provide senior policymakers, decisionmakers, military leaders, and their respective staffs an overall appreciation of existing capabilities and the challenges, opportunities, and risks associated with the use of AWS across the range of military operations. Emphasis is added to missions and systems that include the use of deadly force. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1303/thumbnail.jpg

Would it be ethical to deploy autonomous weapon systems (AWS) if they were unable to reliably recognize when enemy forces had surrendered? I suggest that an inability to reliably recognize surrender would not prohibit the ethical deployment of AWS where there was a limited window of opportunity for targets to surrender between the launch of the AWS and its impact. However, the operations of AWS with a high degree of autonomy and/or long periods of time between release and impact are likely to remain controversial until they have the capacity to reliably recognize surrender.

Robert Sparrow recently argued in this journal that several initially plausible arguments in favor of the deployment of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) in warfare are in fact flawed, and that the deployment of AWS faces a serious moral objection. Sparrow's argument against AWS relies on the claim that they are distinct from accepted weapons of war in that they either fail to transmit an attitude of respect for enemy combatants or, worse, they transmit an attitude of disrespect. In this reply we argue that this distinction between AWS and widely accepted weapons is illusory, and therefore cannot ground a moral difference between AWS and existing methods of waging war. We also suggest that if deploying conventional soldiers in a given situation would be permissible, but we could expect to cause fewer civilian casualties by instead deploying AWS, then it would be consistent with an intuitive understanding of respect to deploy AWS in this situation.

Labour's All-Women Shortlists (AWS), an example of an equality guarantee, have proved they can deliver. Labour's 98 women constitute 77 percent of all the women MPs in the House of Commons and 27.5 percent of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Moreover, half of all Labour's women MPs currently sitting in the House of Commons were selected on AWS, either in 1997 or 2005. Yet, rather than the success of AWS being a key story of the 2005 general election, it was the defeat of the AWS candidate, Maggie Jones, in the ultra-safe Labour seat of Blaenau Gwent that dominated media coverage. `This is what happens when you don't listen' said the successful, ex-Labour candidate, the late Peter Law: AWS lose votes. This article shows, however, that, Blaenau Gwent aside, there was no significant anti-AWS effect at the 2005 general election. AWS candidates largely suffered from being new candidates. Also, even though we cannot differentiate between an AWS effect and a differential sex effect for new and incumbent candidates, we find that neither is significant.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) is currently the largest cloud computing service provider and appears to have established an effective dominance, which together with its main market participant Microsoft Azure, amounts to more than half of the global market. With the introduction of additional services, namely blockchain-as-a-service (BaaS) including Amazon Managed Blockchain (AMB) and its centralised quantum ledger database (QLDB), AWS aims at integrating different distributed ledger technology (DLT) -based network infrastructures into its platform. Here, AWS utilises predominantly open source technologies such as Corda, Hyperledger Fabric and Ethereum. BaaS is expected to experience accelerated growth, in particular in the light of the current crisis and governmental policies stimulating businesses to be run online.