In recent years, many sectors have experienced significant progress in automation, associated with the growing advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. There are already automated robotic weapons, which are able to evaluate and engage with targets on their own, and there are already autonomous vehicles that do not need a human driver. It is argued that the use of increasingly autonomous systems (AS) should be guided by the policy of human control, according to which humans should execute a certain significant level of judgment over AS. While in the military sector there is a fear that AS could mean that humans lose control over life and death decisions, in the transportation domain, on the contrary, there is a strongly held view that autonomy could bring significant operational benefits by removing the need for a human driver. This article explores the notion of human control in the United States in the two domains of defense and transportation. The operationalization of emerging policies of human control results in the typology of direct and indirect human controls exercised over the use of AS. The typology helps to steer the debate away from the linguistic complexities of the term “autonomy.” It identifies instead where human factors are undergoing important changes and ultimately informs about more detailed rules and standards formulation, which differ across domains, applications, and sectors.

中文翻译：

---

调节人类对自主系统的控制

近年来，随着人工智能和机器学习的不断进步，许多行业在自动化方面取得了重大进展。已经有自动化机器人武器，它们能够自行评估目标并与之交战，并且已经有不需要人类驾驶员的自动驾驶汽车。有人认为，越来越多的自治系统 (AS) 的使用应以人类控制政策为指导，根据该政策，人类应对 AS 执行一定程度的判断。虽然在军事领域有人担心 AS 可能意味着人类失去对生死决定的控制，但在运输领域，相反，有一种强烈的观点认为，自治可以通过消除对自动化的需求来带来显着的运营效益。人类司机。本文探讨了美国在国防和运输两个领域中的人类控制概念。人类控制的新兴政策的实施导致对 AS 的使用进行直接和间接人类控制的类型。类型学有助于将辩论从“自治”一词的语言复杂性引开。相反，它识别人为因素正在发生重要变化的地方，并最终告知更详细的规则和标准制定，这些规则和标准制定因领域、应用和部门而异。类型学有助于将辩论从“自治”一词的语言复杂性引开。相反，它识别人为因素正在发生重要变化的地方，并最终告知更详细的规则和标准制定，这些规则和标准制定因领域、应用和部门而异。类型学有助于将辩论从“自治”一词的语言复杂性引开。相反，它识别人为因素正在发生重要变化的地方，并最终告知更详细的规则和标准制定，这些规则和标准制定因领域、应用和部门而异。