Good afternoon, everybody.
I'm Doug Chilcott from TED.

Welcome to TED Global
here in the Open Translation lounge.

Today we have Daniel Suarez who just
left the stage moments ago

with a talk that was pretty alarming
and left a lot of people shivering,

and I have a lot of questions.

So we'll get to you in a moment.

Also joining us on stage
here are Irteza from Pakistan,

Hugo from France,

Els from Belgium,

and Krystian from Poland.

And joining us via Skype,
at all hours of the night and day,

we have Lazaros from Greece,

Anja from Slovenia,

Alberto from Italy,

and Yasushi, in Japan,
where it's actually midnight.

Thank you for joining us.

I'm just actually
going to throw it out to you.

Krystian, you had a question
about the use of fiction.

- Yeah.

I was wondering if,
because your talk is a cautionary tale,

but your novel was probably
not meant as one.

But did this angle that we have to be
careful about this

grow out of your research,

or was your novel also
meant as something to [caution]?

- I really do cautionary tales.

I'll tell you, some people think
thriller writers like to be doomsayers.

But that's not it, actually.
I love technology.

I spent nearly 20 years
designing software.

I try to think of it as spotting
icebergs as opposed to be a doomsayer.

That doesn't mean
you're not going to go anywhere,

it means you might have to turn right
or left occasionally to avoid obstacles.

I think there is
a way we can navigate past these

and get to even a better place
than where we are now.

We just have to be aware of the terrain,
that's all.

That's really what I try to do.

A cautionary tale is probably
a perfect description for it.

- Irteza from Pakistan,
we were talking earlier about drones

being part of the last political campaign
in Pakistan.

Could you talk about the reality
of drones in your country?

- The second highest party which just
won in our recent elections,

their campaign used drones over there.

A lot of incidents over there

were that they just targeted
the wrong guy.

And they killed them.

So it's really a bad thing over there.

- For every person you harm,
100 might be angry

and then you create a bigger problem,
and you hit the wrong people.

It's not an effective way to do things.

Even if you agree with it as a technology,
it just is not effective.

I think especially what will change
America's viewpoint on that is,

as this technology spreads,
the temptation to use it

when you're the only one who has it
is very strong,

but we are rapidly getting to the point

where we're going to see
70 nations developing their own.

I think that will help to finally get this
into some situation where we can

get a legal framework

because it's not in anyone's interest
to continue where we're going.

It's not just a free for all.

- Do you have ideas about
this legal framework?

What does it look like?

Just saying "you can't do it"
is not enough.

- No, no. Here's the thing, though.
we've done this with all sorts of things.

Laser blinding weapons is a great example.

We cannot sit here and think
of all the horrible incidents

with laser blinding weapons
because people sat down and said, yeah,

it's very easy to blind people,
let's not do that.

And, sure enough, there are all these
international controls.

So, drones are a little different because
they actually have some civilian uses.

So, you will have instances
where individuals or small groups

are putting weapons on drones,

and that's why I was thinking
of having an immune system,

this idea we would create, you know,
drones that would look for other drones.

And then bring them
to the attentions of humans.

They wouldn't shoot them out of the sky.

But there is no way
you're going to stop everything.

But you don't want to militarise
your entire society

to defend it against robots.

- Actually, let's use
one of the benefits of technology.

I'm going to bring
some of the Skype people in.

A non-threatening technology.

- I don't think that technology

is going to be available
in a couple of years

because I found some sites that cite
that you can actually build

the majority of parts for drones
with a 3D printer.

So, the drones are around the corner
for small groups,

not just for terrorist organisations
and countries.

So, I don't think that a convention
that you spoke about in your TED talk

is going to do it.

I think we need a broader perspective,
more Internet-based.

I don't know if you have any suggestions
I think we would all appreciate?

- Well, I am curious
when you said a broader solution,

do you have any idea what that might be?

- No, I was hoping you would have it!

(Laughter)

- Let me say, when I say
international legal framework,

that's really just the beginning.

Again, it's to try to change
the psychology of people

to say more than just, look at this
cool stuff we can do with these weapons.

It's the next step.

It's an appreciation for how
it would erode democracy,

this idea of popular government,
making that connection,

more than these are dangerous weapons.

Individually, they could hurt people.

They can hurt our whole society.

So, I take your point,
you're right, in a way,

but it's the best I can come up with

and, you know, I guess I have a devious
mind which is why I write these things,

but even with a devious mind,

I can't come up with
the perfect solution for it.

- Hugo, do you have a comment?

- Yeah, when we look back
at our current technologies,

the most efficient ones, like GPS,
the Internet,

or the radar,

those are technologies
that we get from the military, right?

So, my question for you is
how is it different with drones now?

- I don't think it is.

- I don't think so.

- GPS is used by all of us, really.
Think how great it is.

I am rather optimistic about human nature.

I try to view it as a bell curve.

On either extreme, you have people
doing extreme things,

but most people want to get through
their life and do good things

and be with their families.

So they'll take those technologies,

whether developed by the military or not,

and they'll do cool,
peaceful things with those.

Logistics, environmental monitoring,
search and rescue,

aerial photography.

And, then, yes, you'll have
these people who will arm them

and then they'll have one attack,
and hopefully it'll make them a pariah.

What would change a lot of Americans'
point of views about it

is if America was being
attacked like this,

it would be a page one issue
we have to deal with.

I'm not saying I want that to happen,
but this is where that goes.

If you look a few years down the line,
given the price point

and the accessibility of the technology,
as you pointed out,

every country will have these
and be tempted to use them

to solve intractable problems
or problems nobody wants to deal with.

Again, it's that anonymity thing.

That's why we have to get ahead of it,
and at least declare

that's a very bad way to go

because it will destabilise
geopolitics as we know it.

And that would be very bad.

- Anja?

- I just had a question.

Are you alone in your fight
against drones?

Like, are you alone in pursuing
the convention, or do you have any,

like, I don't know,
associations or NGOs helping you?

- Again, I was saying that I've talked
to people at Human Rights Watch,

I think they're dealing with a group
called Article 36.

There's the International
Committee on Robotics Arms Control.

These are all good organisations.

I am not directly affiliated with them.

But I strongly sympathise
with what they're trying to do.

Am I alone? Definitely not.

There's a lot of people
who are very concerned about this.

Both autonomous drones
as well as remotely piloted drones

that are being used for
extrajudicial assassinations, essentially,

and I think a lot of people
are really upset

that they want to prevent
this from happening.

So, no, I don't think I'm alone.

- I wanted to bring you
into the conversation,

if you have any additional
questions for Daniel or comments?

- I was thinking, OK,
it sounds inevitable,

it's going to happen,

we're going to have killer robots
in a few years.

So, should we focus on defence

and maybe push the research
towards open research

instead of branding it,

and making sure that defence systems
can be as good as the bad guys'?

- That's interesting.

I think I started from that viewpoint,

that idea that it would be important
for democracies not just to have

robotic drones in defence
but the best robotic drones in defence.

I've really come around to the idea
that's a bad way to go.

I really do think
that it shifts the balance

so much towards offence
that defence is really untenable.

The best defence
is to not to build the damn things.

That said, I think we can have
very advanced systems

that are busy snaring
or detecting other drones

to give humans the head up
so that they can say,

yeah, that's them again.

And then have a human make
a lethal decision to, let's say,

destroy that drones.

But I don't think having killer robots
running around overhead,

that's just going to get ugly real fast.

- Again, it's going to be
robots against robots, the good ones.

- Exactly!

Except, this is interesting,
because I hear this a lot:

what's wrong with bloodless war?

And, I don't know,
I feel like telling these people,

didn't you see Terminator, dammit?!

It's the difference between humans
fighting in a war or being the targets

because, let's face it,
the weak point there would be,

we've got to get around their drones

so we hit the leadership
and the citizens, and make them pay.

And humans will be
the targets at that point.

It'll be each side's robots
killing humans.

The point is that I don't think
we should build them at all,

and I think we should make sure
they don't have weapons on them.

- OK, I think we've actually
run out of time.

I want everyone to get back
into the theatre on time,

so, Daniel, thank you so much
for joining us.

You've given us a lot to think about.

Thank you for joining us
from Skype around the world.

And, everyone, we're here
at every break during the week,

with speakers, all week.

So, looking forward to seeing you then.

Goodbye.

(Applause)