The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots
Abstract
Expounding on the results of the author's work with the US Army Research Office, DARPA, the Office of Naval Research, and various defense industry contractors, Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots explores how to produce an "artificial conscience" in a new class of robots, humane-oids, which are robots that can potentially perform more et
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Meaningful Human Control over Autonomous Systems: A Philosophical Account
Santoni de Sio, F., & van den Hoven, J. (2018) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00015 · Cited by 566
“15 For suggestions in this direction, see Arkin (2009) and Kasher (2016).”
BackgroundAsaro, P. (2012) · International Review of the Red Cross · doi:10.1017/s1816383112000768 · Cited by 385
Ethical Decision Making during Automated Vehicle Crashes
Goodall, N. J. (2014) · Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board · doi:10.3141/2424-07 · Cited by 292
Critiquing the Reasons for Making Artificial Moral Agents
van Wynsberghe, A., & Robbins, S. (2019) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-018-0030-8 · Cited by 161
“…researchers this would include contexts such as healthcare, elder care, childcare, sex, and or the military—where life and death decisions are being made on a daily (or hourly) basis (Arkin 2009; Lokhorst and van den Hoven 2011; Sharkey 2016; Sharkey 2008; Sharkey and Sharkey 2011; Sharkey et al.”
BackgroundMind the gap: responsible robotics and the problem of responsibility
Gunkel, D. J. (2020) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-017-9428-2 · Cited by 174
Artificial Moral Agents: A Survey of the Current Status
Cervantes, J.-A., López, S., Rodríguez, L.-F., Cervantes, S., Cervantes, F., & Ramos, F. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00151-x · Cited by 151
Rashid, A. B., Kausik, A. K., Al Hassan Sunny, A., & Bappy, M. H. (2023) · International Journal of Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1155/2023/8676366 · Cited by 143
Steps Toward Robust Artificial Intelligence
Dietterich, T. G. (2017) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2756 · Cited by 139
Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Forlizzi, J., & Voiklis, J. (2016) · 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1109/hri.2016.7451743 · Cited by 107
Impacts of Artificial Intelligence on Public Administration: A Systematic Literature Review
Reis, J., Santo, P. E., & Melao, N. (2019) · 2019 14th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) · doi:10.23919/cisti.2019.8760893 · Cited by 93
Ethical Decision Making in Autonomous Vehicles: The AV Ethics Project
Evans, K., de Moura, N., Chauvier, S., Chatila, R., & Dogan, E. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00272-8 · Cited by 82
Ethical Reflections on Artificial Intelligence
Green, B. P. (2018) · Scientia et Fides · doi:10.12775/setf.2018.015 · Cited by 68
Simpson, T. W., & Müller, V. C. (2016) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.1093/pq/pqv075 · Cited by 65
Drones and Support for the Use of Force
Walsh, J., & Schulzke, M. (2018) · doi:10.3998/mpub.9946611 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Arkin, R.
- Venue
- Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks
- Publisher
- Chapman and Hall/CRC
- Published
- 2009-05-27
- OpenAlex
- W4300459321
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.72
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
