Comment by Evan Ackerman

IEEE Spectrum robotics senior editor
We’re not going to be able to prevent autonomous armed robots from existing. The real question that we should be asking is this: Could autonomous armed robots perform better than armed humans in combat, resulting in fewer casualties on both sides? The problem with this argument is that no letter, UN declaration, or even a formal ban ratified by multiple nations is going to prevent people from being able to build autonomous, weaponized robots. The barriers keeping people from developing this kind of system are just too low. Consider the “armed quadcopters.” Today you can buy a smartphone-controlled quadrotor for US $300 at Toys R Us. Just imagine what you’ll be able to buy tomorrow. This technology exists. It’s improving all the time. There’s simply too much commercial value in creating quadcopters (and other robots) that have longer endurance, more autonomy, bigger payloads, and everything else that you’d also want in a military system.
AI Unverifiable source (2015)
Like Share on X 7mo ago
Policy proposals and claims

Verification History

AI Unverifiable Quote attributed to Evan Ackerman (IEEE Spectrum robotics senior editor) from his article "We Should Not Ban 'Killer Robots,' and Here's Why" (2015). WebFetch on spectrum.ieee.org source URL returned HTTP 403. Web search confirms verbatim phrases including "We're not going to be able to prevent autonomous armed robots from existing," "Could autonomous armed robots perform better than armed humans in combat, resulting in fewer casualties on both sides?" and the "armed quadcopters" / "Toys R Us" smartphone-controlled quadrotor framing. Year 2015 is correct. Note the opinion currently has no associated vote on "Ban autonomous lethal weapons" (vote is null); given the article title and content, the natural vote would be "against" (i.e., do NOT ban). I did not add a vote, as the task is to verify the quote. Marking ai_unverifiable due to source URL blocking. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 1mo ago
replying to Evan Ackerman