The Use of AI and Robotics in Armed Conflicts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic literature review (SLR) explores existing and newly emergent ethical and legal challenges associated with the use of AI and robotics in armed conflicts. We conducted an extensive review of relevant scholarly publications associated with (lethal) autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). Besides the ethical and legal principles, we also explore emergent technical applications associated with these technologies in armed conflict(s). Our particular focus is to compare literature from the last 12 years with publications since the outbreaks of recent armed conflicts from the perspective of LAWS. We engage in exploring and identifying the shifts in ethical arguments and discourse, as well as shifts in policy subject themes, and standards setting around the use of emergent technology in relation with AI and robotics. Our contribution analyses emergent socio-technical themes and arguments relevant for engineers, policy-makers, and other interdisciplinary scholars across a variety of disciplines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it