More than a hundred global technology leaders have signed an open letter demanding action.
It comes as a major artificial-intelligence conference gets underway in Melbourne.
It is a grim picture painted, of future wars where robots can wipe out thousands of people with the flick of a switch.
But this is no fictional movie.
And those who know the technology well are warning urgent action is needed to stop the development of lethal, autonomous technology that could wreak havoc.
Computer scientist Stuart Russell, who founded the United States technology company Bayesian Logic, says it could render humans essentially defenceless.
"Five guys in a truck could wipe out everybody in Melbourne. It's just as if we were proposing to sell nuclear weapons on the black market. It would be a really bad idea to do that, and it's a really bad idea to develop autonomous weapons that people will be able to buy in the arms trade and use to cause mass destruction."
More than a hundred technology leaders, including the high-profile founder of the Tesla company, Elon Musk, have signed an open letter to the United Nations calling for action.
Professor Toby Walsh, an artificial-intelligence expert at the University of New South Wales, says such robotic weapons have the potential to completely destabilise the world order.
"It will industrialise war. It will change completely the nature of warfare. It's been called the third revolution of warfare, after the invention of nuclear bombs and, before that, the invention of gunpowder. It will completely change the speed and efficiency with which armies can kill the other side. And there will be weapons of terror, weapons that get used by rogue nations and terrorists against civilian populations."
They have released their open letter at a gathering of artificial-intelligence leaders in Melbourne.
It follows a similar plea to the United Nations two years ago.
Stuart Russell, the Bayesian Logic founder, says steps have been taken there to establish a treaty on the use of killer robots.
But he says progress has stalled, with discussions delayed until another meeting in November.
"What we're really trying to do is to remind people that this is urgent. This is not just a bunch of peaceniks who just don't like weapons of any kind and they're going to protest any sort of weapons system. We are the professionals, the companies, the academic researchers who are providing the underlying technology, and we're saying that using this technology to kill people is going to be, strategically, a terrible idea -- for everybody in the world."
And Australia has come under criticism from Professor Walsh, at the University of New South Wales, for failing to join the 19 of the 123 UN member countries pushing for an outright ban.
"Australia has not only not been one of those 19 nations, it's also been rather unhelpful in the discussions so far around autonomus weapons. It's a great disappointment, because Australia has often led the way in nuanced discussion, in nuclear non-proliferation treaties, in a number of weapons bans, and, yet, in this time, we seem to be more careful just to follow the US lead."
But Australian Strategic Policy Institute defence analyst Malcolm Davis defends Australia's stance.
He questions how any ban could be enforced effectively.
"I don't see how it's possible. You're not going to get countries like China and Russia surrendering a significant military advantage, because they can develop these weapons and, basically, not give access to inspection authorities. And, certainly, you're not going to get countries like North Korea or Iran signing up to these bans. And, finally, I'd add, you're not going to get non-state groups like Islamic State, for example, agreeing to any of this. So we may work assiduously to uphold legal, ethical and moral values on this issue, but our opponents won't. And that's the problem."
Share
