been reported so far now rescue teams expect the death all to rise after a fire tall through a hotel in cambodia on thursday. at least 26 people have been confirmed dead so far . it happened in the town of boy, back on the ty, border provincial governess as the east 57 injured people were found in the wreckage of the building. that was after a relentless, 39 hours of search operations. official suspended the search at night with the building, a risk of collapse ah, joy remind you of the main stories of following this hour and democrats in the ice congress of finally released 6 years of donald trump's tax returns, showing he paid no income tax in 2020 his last full year as you as president. despite promising on several occasions, teresa himself trump man sued the house of representative ways and means committee

to keep the records private. but in november, the supreme court ruled the documents could be made public. mike, hannah has more from washington experts insist that the iris a missed several red flags that a should have investigated way back from when these reports start, which is 2015. in particular, the experts point to the fact that numerous business enterprises that had no earnings at all, but only expenses. the documents show that in $22017.00, for example, a donald trump paid $750.00 in tax that year. and he claimed expenses in excess of $280000000.00. al brazil is declared 3 days of warning off the death of football legend pele had been tributes across the country in rio de janeiro. the famous choirs the redeem. a statue was illuminated in yellow and green in his honor . and a landmark building in south palo was lit up with

a huge image of the football style. china state media is rallied against a growing number of foreign governments imposing the tests on people traveling from the country to abandoning the 0 cove. it policy has been a surge of cases across the country raging. and this is being transparent with the data that south korea, france, and spain of joined a growing list of countries announcing restrictions on travelers from china and me and mazda posed leader unsung suit. she has been found guilty of 5 counts of corruption incentives to another 70 years in jail. since the military sees power last year, the nobel peace prize laureate has been convicted on a range of offensive faces. a total of 33 years in prison, said she hadn't caught, denied all the charges. me bringing more in everything in the new zone that's coming up a bit later on at 2100 gmc lc for up front. is the program coming up next?

ah. artificial intelligence is the future of war. tech giants and governments are already partnering to produce lethal autonomous weapons. but will these so called killer robots unleash a new kinds of danger? okay, they make war safer. as supporters claim that conversation is coming up. but 1st, with recent world events, the danger of nuclear war has spite nuclear weapons are the most dangerous munitions on earth with the potential to kill millions, to level cities and destroy the natural environment for generations to come. yet even with this knowledge, we are no closer to achieving total nuclear non proliferation. in fact,

the topic continues to be debated. why is that? we'll ask this. we've had lighter beatrice, fit executive director of the 2017 nobel peace prize recipients. the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. ah, beatrice fin, executive director of the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. i can thank you so much for joining us on up front. i can, was a driving force behind the 2017 treaty own the prohibition of nuclear weapons to outlaw nuclear weapons entirely for which your organization was awarded a nobel peace prize. $122.00 countryside onto the treaty. but none of the nuclear powers did. nor did any of the nato countries. and since then we've seen russian nuclear forces on a high alert level in the u. s. withdrawal from the ran deal increases in india in pakistan's nuclear warhead stockpiles. and a bunch of other recent developments which are the main countries in the world

right now preventing the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. well, thank you very much for having me and i can. yeah, i mean, the treaty was a great accomplishment, but of course the big elephant in the room, of course, is that the 9 yukon states and the other countries that are participating in exercising and practicing and hosting new come up as of the territory have not get during the treaty, and this was really the reason why we pushed for this to to happen because we saw that things were getting worse. with huge monetization programs from the nuclear. i'm states, all of them are upgrading and increasing the nuclear arsenals and much more a nationalistic tendency. they are threatening each other much more, and that's kind of arms face that is happening right now. and of course, now we see how russia is basically threatening the world to use nuclear weapon if anyone interferes with its invasion of ukraine. so this is really a very serious moment,

but it's also exactly why we push for this treaty or having these weapons forever. we will see them being used eventually we see a very dangerous situation right now. the risk of nuclear produce has increased. i'm not saying that it's likely to be used, but i think we have to be aware that we are pushing closer and closer to that point where it's been actually going to be used. and we have to drastically change. and it is the nuclear on states, and it's the nuclear allied states and nato, for example, that really have to lead this charge because we cannot be this vulnerable for one person in the world anymore. well, let's talk about one of those nuclear arms states. russian president vladimir putin actually ordered nuclear forces to be put on a high alert level. ok, what in your estimation is the likelihood of nuclear war? i wouldn't say that it's likely i still hope that the threshold for using nuclear weapons remains very, very high for all countries. but the more i see, of course, the war developing in ukraine and seeing the threats doesn't paint the great

picture for what we could imagine happening in ukraine as well. and also sort of that a very irrational leader under a lot of pressure feeling like there's no way out for him. i'm very worried about this. i'm also very worried about accidents. mistakes, things that we didn't expect could happen. we just saw a few weeks ago in the a mistakenly launch a missile on pakistan by accident. and having these situations happening right now under these tension. if that would happen between say, a u. s. base and, and russia person, i mean, the consequence, it could be absolutely catastrophic. we could stumble into nuclear war. and of course, we see the situations like north korea testing missiles. i, to be honest, again, south korea saying that it wants nuclear weapons. we've seen bello roo, say that they could station russian nuclear up on the territory. we've seen poland say a we could stash station american to come up as an us. there is so many variables

here and so many uncertain situation. and we have just being so vulnerable for just relying on these people, mainly men to always get it back to never make a mistake to always behave rationally and basically putting the faith of our entire humanity in the hands of someone like boots. and i just hope for the best, it's absolutely unsustainable. escalation has been happening for a while now in 2019 president, trump also withdrew the u. s. from the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty or the i n f, which mark the 1st time the both the u. s and russia had agreed to actually reduce their nuclear arsenals. in fact, when this happened, you stated a quote, trump has fired the starting pistol on cold war 2. so to what extent that is moved by the us undermine nuclear disarmament. and in perhaps even compromised, global nuclear security. me we've seen, and this has been a trend over the last 10 years. we've seen a dismantling of international legal instruments. we've seen violation of

international instrument on one side, but from many different sites we saw tom withdrew from the i n f treaty. and from the randy, i would see him. russia violates a lot of these kind of instruments. we've seen them and violet, the chemical weapons convention as well as we've seen a really negative 10. and then you add this very kind of trend of nationalistic sort of match. so leaders are threatening sort of rhetoric here and arm strace, massive investments in nuclear weapons. and you get that kind of tension, and i think that this is exactly what we want about, you know, if we continue down this path, we are on very dangerous territory. and i think that it's not just one decision here. and there that you know, makes it so dangerous, many different over time, a complete deportation and d, preauthorization of disarmament, diplomacy of multilateralism, working together and seeing actually reduction of nuclear arsenals as increasing global security. and in the meantime,

you have the rest of the world without nuclear weapons feeling at hostages in this kind of situation. i think that there's a lot of countries around the world now looking at the situations like today, just decide over the fate of my country to do we have a say in this, and that's exactly what the treated, the prohibition on nuclear weapons. it's about taking control for other countries to say actually we have to get to disarmament. we have to ban and eliminate these weapons. let's talk a little bit about the iran deal because talks have resumed to implement. the randi, also known as the j. c, p. o, r, when trump withdrew from the deal in 262018, excuse me, you called it disastrous. and you said it was essentially a pretext for the us to wage war on iran. do you anticipate a return to the iran deal and from a global security standpoint? what, what's at stake if the neil fails? well, when the trump administration withdrew from the treaty, it had a very sort of, i think so malicious intent with that it was

a functioning deal. it really had strict verification and sure that iran was not developing nuclear weapons. and the u. s. just intentionally sabotaged that, but this standard that was in the round, it was the highest that we've ever seen. an international agreement with verification on nuclear energy facilities. and the i e a verify that iran was implementing it. they are not developing nuclear plants. we know what they're doing . so i think that was just intentionally trying to portray the treaty as bad when it was actually a very high standard treaty. i was really a huge diplomatic achievement to get it. so when it was broken, of course it's really hard to put these things back together and you have undermined trust from iran, from all the other countries that were part of this treaty. so i think it's a, it's a real, it's a really good sign that these countries are still trying very hard to get it back together to get a treaty back together. and i think that it shows a commitment from all sides. and i really hope that they will,

but will succeed. now, proponents of deterrence, they argue that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to build a nuclear arsenal on both sides of a conflict. so that their use would lead to the mutually assured destruction of every one of the language it's always being used. you only other hand argue that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to make sure that there are no such weapons to begin with. how is nuclear deterrence theory flawed? and how can we approach disarmament in a way that makes the world safer? i mean, new to deterrence theory is, is so strange, right? because it's like it's requires all of these before assumptions that we do. first, it requires that everyone with nuclear weapons forever is always rational and always takes by division. but it also requires a certain level of irrationality because when would it be, when would it be rational to start nuclear war and nuclear war,

full scale war could and might be, as we know, i mean there will be survivors, but like the world that we know it will be gone. would it ever be rational to do that? i mean that's collected suicide. would a person like bite and ever feel like that's the right decision to make? probably not, so you would have to in order for the chance to even work, you have to be irrational. and then you have this idea that the opponent would also make the buy to some soon about to base. would it be irrational to about obviously defending nuclear war here, but would it be irrational to large a nuclear weapon if the other side didn't have one? well that, i mean if you want a mass murder law civilians like sure. and i think that that's also where this, this theory kind of fails. and we see it now is happening in ukraine food and isn't using his nuclear arsenal to protect russia. he's using it to be able to invade a country without nuclear weapons and saying if anyone tries to help, if anyone tries to interfere with my invasion, i will use nuclear weapons. so basically,

and countryside united states are limited in an option where they can do to, to help craniums because it has nuclear weapons. so here is actually a disadvantage. and when you're having this kind of stand up between 22 nuclear on states, for example, like put in and by done, who would be the most reckless like would, would biden ever convincingly threatened to murder more civilians than put it would, would we believe that would put him, believe that and can we guarantee with all of our, like all the countries in the world rely on someone i put in accumulation, was she or whoever to always get it right to never cross that line. but still, in order for the test work, you have to be prepared to cross that line. so it's a complete contradiction note to deterrence, and they can never guarantee that they won't. it won't happen. so this all these kind of weird assumptions and that we're making and at the end of the day, mistakes happen and people act irrationally. people act unpredictably and we can't

guarantee that it won't happen. and i think that the consequences are so massive that we just have to eliminate them. is that before you go there, many of us who are persuaded by your argument for a nuclear disarmament. but some people would say that, given the history of settler colonialism, imperialism, ah, mass genocide, et cetera, that we have no reason to believe that powerful people, powerful nations, whatever, i concede their weaponry, their nuclear arsenals in particular. and that while the idea is good, will never get there what gives you a hope that we can actually have a world without nuclear weapons. what gives me hope is really though we have made a lot of progress internationally in the world when it comes to international law when it comes to human bites. when it comes to rules and how we supposed to behave and it doesn't feel like that in particular, not when you open your twitter account, you get overwhelmed with all the awful things that are happening right now. but you

know, things like you and charter as things like that, you know, the geneva conventions be so you know, not just been off the floor. that's awesome, preventing russia from doing all these things right out. but we are opposing the invasion because they're bul saying that you can read and country and without filters. if we never developed the tools, it would just fair game for everyone to just do whatever. and the biggest countries would, would, would win all those things. and they would do whatever they want, but they can't be me, always do whatever they want. and i think the things like the colonization, for example, seeing how all these countries who were colonized by the, by these type of major powerful countries have become free today. and all their own countries, and that's, you know, they did that despite these countries having weapons, i think that is a way and the powerful have always lost their power when the majority has risen up and stood against that. that that's when you can really make change happen. so the treaty, prohibition on the us is really all way of creating a high pollution on,

in the nuclear structure that we created like no longer can these 5 countries and the other 4 that has them as well, like just dictate the terms and said this is fine, because we have them and you can't have them now where we're changing the game, we're creating new laws and new rules and we're going to demand a different system. better spend, thank you so much for joining me on upfront the our killer robots, the future of war, more technically known as lethal autonomous weapon systems or laws. these robots can operate independently and attack targets without human control. artificial intelligence weapons already been deployed in military conflict, but some warn the war and ukraine could see both sides using autonomous weapons in an unprecedented way. despite un let attempt to curb development and established international regulation of laws. countries including the u. s. and russia are continuing their unchecked development of the technology. human rights

organizations are campaigning against killer robots. while some military experts argue that they'll make more safer and more efficient. are they right? and are we witnessing the dawn of a new arms race? joining me to discuss this, our, lar nolan, a former google employee in software engineer with the international committee for robot, arms control and matt, matt moody and artificial intelligence researcher with amnesty international. good to see both of you. thank you for joining me. a lore i'm going to start with you. the evolution of killer robots has been described as a, quote, potentially seismic event in warfare akin to the invention of gun powder and nuclear bombs. that's a rather, a staggering characterization is the one you'd agree with. it absolutely is not, i mean, the invention of gunpowder is something that is actually pretty much forms that the whole, the whole nature of the patient state and the whole way that we live. i don't think the weapons are likely to be about seismic. i mean,

i think looking at the current context, we live in it. we're living in a world where people are building is complex and weapons which are unproven, and their, their utility and their efficacy is completely on proven. i do think that almost weapons are likely to post danger both to yeah, but the soldiers themselves, i think there's a very high risk of friendly fire incidents. i think there's a high risk of civilian harm. i think there's a very high risk of potentially sparking off the conflict in an unintentional kind of way met. i want to give it to you for a 2nd in terms of the technology of war. are we now going to see a race to who can to see who can build a, the biggest and most efficient and more just most destructive killer robot? i do think it's important to note that states are course in competition with each other around latin systems. i mean, in january 2021 along we've seen any vision, raphael baset their past systems building and showcasing commercial jones and robot dog capable official recognition. we've seen in libby on march 2020. the use of

various cargo drawings, which has been developed by turkey mc number of cases in which technologies that are atomic weapon system by definition are being used. however, we said the form of the art arms race might look quite different to what we're expecting. a lot of the technologies that autonomy, about the systems are built on our technologies that are being used in everyday context. in the leasing context. for example, facial recognition for math surveillance, emotion recognition, gate recognition, predictive analytics. these are all tools that we know are being used against, for example, life matter for testers, and have been known to time and time again fail and to augment racially discriminatory policing, and our defacto against international human rights law. so if we're looking for that one terminator to show up at our door, we're maybe looking in the wrong place. and that argue that what we're actually needing to, to keep an eye out,

or are these more on sort of the ways in which these technologies are starting to play a role in our everyday lives and govern how we live. and it seems to me that a big part of that is the growing partnerships between these tech companies and governments. laura, you worked as an engineer for google before residing in 2018 out of protest after you were assigned to work on project maven, which seeks to advanced drone technology for the u. s. military. in recent years, amazon, microsoft and google have us on contracts with the pentagon, while others, including elan, must have pledge not to develop lethal autonomous weapons. how dangerous are these partnerships? particularly in light of the fact that these companies have the personal information of more than a 1000000000 people around the world. i think i don't like to underline what might just said, which is that and these are not only military technologies. and there are huge implications here for civil liberties for privacy and for you know, how,

how we live our lives. i've cyber warfare context as well. so fundamentally, when you're talking about autonomous weapons, if you want to blow up a bridge, you don't really need not on the weapon out on those weapons are fundamentally about targets that are mobile and not, not for talking military bases and offer, talking to columns, thereby people there about people and vehicles that have people in them. and therefore in these kinds of weapons, they're very intimately backed up in surveillance technologies because you need to, to have a lot on this weapon. you need to have a technology to know where people are, where people are moving around to understand their behavior. and so we're big tech comes into this is if you think about cloud computing technology, you have a companies like amazon, microsoft, google, they're making a lot of money out of selling commodity cloud computing technology. now surveillance technology is hugely compute intensive. so quite simply, it takes

a lot of c, p u cycles, a lot of memory, a lot of expensive computing and infrastructure to run this kind of technology. so there is a huge business opportunity here to build surveillance systems. and i think we can see that for, and i was in the fact that all of the major cloud companies have built a pi for recognizing objects for recognizing people. and this is them, as i say, this is very much dual use technology between military and civilian obligations. man, let me ask you a question about precision here. us air strikes are notoriously imprecise. they've killed thousands of civilians. for example, there was the groceries in rural yemen in 2013 that killed at least a dozen people at a wedding procession all civilians. according to human rights groups, a 2016 u. s. air strike in northern syria killed at least 120 civilians could a, our technology, at least reduce deadly incidents like this. absolutely not. humans are not just numbers. and i think the systems do process human beings as if they were,

we know from research that joy will and we intend to get routed a while ago that in many cases, facial recognition systems are incapable of identifying especially black women with a rate of anywhere between $60.00 to $70.00, to sometimes 90 percent, depending on the study that you're looking at. now, even if you were to make those systems 99 percent accurate, let's say that you could, you're still dealing with systems that are inherently existing in a context of discrimination. institutional racism, massage any etc. and so i think it's important that we learn let, how would that be different than the current systems of policing or surveillance, or education or anything else we have. so it would double down in a meant those existing crises and also existing forms of discrimination. so we don't want to have a system in which say you have these discriminatory practices and put them on steroids. that's exactly the opposite of what we want to do. and so what we need is

in fact a legally binding instrument, which is what the stock killer robot campaign is calling or, and what we need is also a global ban on remote biometric surveillance technologies. which figure in to these autonomous weapon systems. i did want to make a quick gun point regarding what matt said before that and about the dangers of back accountability regulation and why it makes a difference that we might take an imperfect process that is executed by human beings and automated. so one of the great problems that we have, i guess, with both preserving our civil rights in a free society and also with overseeing and international humanitarian law and ensuring that the, the international both of warfare are respected. it is, but we have a lack of transparency. and one of the things that we see is when we automate a process, we as much as we make it less flexible. and we also tend to make it much less transparent. if we start taking the logic of what we're doing in warfare or am in

our society, i'm starting coaching it in, in, in processing algorithms on prophecies that are very inscrutable that can be inspected by few people. and that are controlled by a few people than we we do. we do risk things spinning out of control and ways that we do not want laura. there's also an argument to be made that it's too late, right? the most powerful nations are supporting this stuff. the technologies are already in use u. s. national security commission, co chair, robber work said a, a i in warfare is already happening. so if it's already happening and again, the most powerful people are behind it. what do we do is too late? i think that that is a very, very yeah, minimalistic kind of approach to, to take too much to look at do for weapons. they were used in watching 45 and they haven't been used since. so it's possible to reframe from the use of certain

weapons, drug development. there's also been very, very strong norm for merged against chemical weapons and also biological weapons. front of course, does a very, very strong emerging norm against the use of landlines because of the, the hard but they do civilians. so i think it's, i don't think it's correct to say that there's no hope. the weapons never beat up weapons are never bound or the state never refrained from using particular types of buttons that it's never to. but we have to put human beings and not data points ahead of the agenda. as we've seen climate time again with even issues of check as soon as enough people are aware of the kind of harm the systems are causing, they will inevitably move the needle on what is seen as permissible. and what we need to do in this particular moment is move the needle on how permissible we are finding thomas weapons system. and you know, from where we're standing. absolutely acceptable. laura math, thank you so much for joining me on upfront. all right,

that is our show upfront. we'll be back next week, the ah and across the glue ecosystems, under immense stretch this glacier started moving back, it started melting off. there is something deeply warm in this drawing stuff, and we cannot create a thrice explores how the law is beginning to hold multinational to account. we are all connected neighbor by you though with a mission and how the idea of giving nature legal rights is altering our

relationship with the planet. this is what it is all about. it's about ensuring that life when i can continue planetary justice on al jazeera, on counting the cost. what can we expect in 20? 23 is a global recession, inevitable. china newfound is 0. call it policy with the world's 2nd largest economy. bounce back and turbulent times. ahead for latin america and african countries to find out why counting the cost on al jazeera, we are all principals. even people far away are so helping with the environment problems in the amazon because their consumers. i teach kids about what our options are facing today. i've been working in earnest, trying to find ways to get this language up to them. kids want to wait, do as the ocean. why and what are you going to do to keep out of the sort of language that keeps the red blood women right. but they have want to circle back over their fight for a while. if you got married,

i was told the thing that was texting, women were made a challenge in the region. i will not start being grow like i want to sleep. we don't have read them in this pony. these are about 2 weeks now, 3 days. journey to a show club. you're wasting your grade. so one destroys our country and someone needs to rebuild the hello, maryanne demising and london and main stories were following. now us house democrats have finally released 60 years of don't.