states presents itself as the country of compassion and civilization to peace. bopper stock seemed like something from the middle ages would be to create a collection of 50 paintings that he says came from his heart. is that correct? in columbia? violence is a totally different phenomena. it's robin the result of age. no one's at the lack of education. the culture carried out by the wealthiest possibly the most civilized country in the world is definitely not the same thing. what they did was 91 years old when he died. in columbia, the president said he was a painter of the country's virtues and its arrows. what data is called, the tools and paintings are located in different cities around the world. a reminder of an artist who dared show the world in his own unique way. the so i just see that the differences out is there. these are your top stories. the humans emergency relief

coordinators has access to the libyans that you have done is still challenging. following last weekends, devastating flounce international committee of the red cross. as an urgent medical supplies and body bags thousands have died out as there is time that will. smarty reports from 10 in colorado. what you had left did with every passing day, the number of search and rescue teams is rising and then making their way into debt . and we spoke to city officials who said the 1st 3 days were the most difficult. with searching rescue operations were carried out by local teams only now crews from all over the world, helping them. yeah. on thursday, for example, the crew arrived from jordan followed by another from egypt, and it said something is yeah. before them there was a turkish team. the old joint forces to remove the debris. the local authorities say the skate of a catastrophe cannot be matched by all those teams. and they are calling for more crews with sufficient and proper equipment. official reports because the 10000

missing people as a friday. but that's a middle initial estimation. since many dead bodies are still washing up on the shows every day give you an estimate smaller than 300000 people have been effective in the rocker. following last fridays, the quake areas of hire cash and the high atlas mountains are long, the hardest hits any 3000 people has died. so the 6 people have died in northern. so you don't know. the days of torrential rains triggered flashed flooding. thousands of homes in the white nile and the north quarter phone states have been destroyed. hundreds of people displaced millions already affected by the fighting between the army and the power men at g wrap and support forces. us president joe biden is by hand, which i work is with demanding high wages saying profits should be shed fairly 3 major comic is have been hit with simultaneous lookouts for the 1st time and us history. okay. there's a headlines upfront is next. a sense of belonging to the success

ethan? it's been my success. and the every day he wrote, keeping communities together. a team do this for 10 am for incidentals. my phone, which is 0. visits for kenyan town of peter that produces some of the worlds fastest runners. and where a terrible crime has led to a reckoning with gender based silence. a sense of community on a jersey to the artificial intelligence is the future of war. tech giants and governments are already partnering to produce lethal autonomous weapons of all these so called killer robots, unleashed a new kinds of danger. ok, they make weren't 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 the, for the potential to kill millions to level cities and destroy the natural environment for generations to come. get 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. what is headliner, beatrice? that executive director of the 2017 nobel peace prize recipients, the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, the beatrice, ben, executive director of the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. i can thank you so much for joining us on upfront. i can, was a driving force behind the 2017 treaty and the prohibition of nuclear weapons to outlaw nuclear weapons entirely for which your organization was awarded the 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 us withdraw from the ran due increases in india in pakistan's nuclear warhead, started piles, and

a bunch of other recent developments which are the main countries in the world right now preventing the complete abolition of nuclear weapons as well. thank you very much for having me and mark. um, yeah, i mean the tv was a great accomplishment, but of course the, the big elephant in the room, of course, is that the 9 neutrons states and the other countries that are participating in exercising and practicing and hosting new to us of the territory have not get during the treaty and this was one of the reasons why we pushed this tv to happen because we saw that things were getting worse with huge quantization programs from the new chrome states. all of them are upgrading and increasing the new arsenals. a much more national mistakes tendency, they are dressed, meeting each other, much more of this kind of arms for a start is happening right now. and of course, now we see how russia is basically threatening the voltage using dropping. if anyone interferes with its invasion of ukraine. so this is really

a very serious moment, but it's, it's also exactly why we pushed for this treaty, having these weapons wherever we will see them being used. eventually we see a very dangerous situation right now. the risk of nuclear use 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 the point where we essentially going to be used and we have to drastically change. and it is the nuclear on states, and it's the nuclear allied states in nato, for example, they really have to be discharged 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 order nuclear forces to be put on a high alert level. 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 usually nuclear weapons remains very, very high for oil countries. but the more i see, of course, the war developing in ukraine and seeing the threats doesn't paint the great

picture for it for what we could imagine happening in ukraine as well. and also sort of like 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 mistaken me launch a miss on own own practice done by accident. and having these situations happening right now on the beach tension. if that would have happened between say, a us, a base and rush of course, i mean because because it could be opposite that this will be we could stumble into nuclear war. and of course, we see through situations like north korea, testing myself. i used to be and again, south korea saying that he wants nuclear weapons, we've seen bela roo, say that they could station russian new clubs on the territory. we've seen poland say a week. it's the station american to come up with an us. there's so many variables

here and so many on certain situations, and we have a just being sold, 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 afraid of our entire humanity in the hands of someone like put in and just hope for the best. it's absolutely unsustainable. escalation has been happening for a while now. in 2019 president, trump also withdrew the us from the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty or the i n f, which mark the 1st time that both the us and russia had agreed to actually reduce their nuclear arsenals. in fact, when this happened, you've stated a quote, trump has fired the starting pistol on cold war 2. so to what extent does move by the us undermine nuclear disarmament? and perhaps even compromise global nuclear security. i mean, we've seen this has been a trend over the last 10 years. we've seen the dismantling of international legal

instruments we've seen by nation. i'm in special in smith both on one side, but for many different sides. we saw trump withdrawal from the iron s t b a from the around deal, which the investor violates a lot of these kind of instruments. and we've seen the bar let the chemical weapons convention as well. we, we've seen a really negative turn and then you add this very kind of trend of national mistake sort of match. so leaders a threatening sort of rest of a get an arms race must sit investments in, in, in nuclear weapons. and you get that kind of tension and i think that this is exactly what we want to, but if we continued on 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 overtime. a complete the prior to some of the pre authorization of the salma 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. and this kind of situation, i think that there's a lot of the countries around the world now looking at the situations like today, just decide over the fate of my country. do we have a sam? this 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 the band and eliminate these weapons. let's talk a little bit about the iran deal because talks have resumed to implement the around the also known as the jcp away. 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, what was security standpoint? what's at stake if the deal fails as well when the trump administration withdrew

from the treaty it had a very sort of i think some of this just intent with that it was a functioning deal. it really had strict verification ensure that yvonne was not developing the weapons of the us, just intentionally sabotage that. but the standard that was in the run the it was the highest that we've ever seen that international agreement with verification of nuclear energy facilities. and i a, a verified that they run with implementing it. they are not develop new prep as we know what they're doing. so i think that was just intentionally trying to portray the treaty as by when it was actually a very high standard treaty. and it was really a he, a huge diplomatic achievement to get it. so when it was broken, of course is really hard to put these things back together. and you have undermining trust from iran, from all the, all the congress that were part of this treaty. so i think it's a, it's a view, it's a really good sign, but these countries are still trying very hard to get it back together to get a treaty back together. i think that it shows

a commitment from all sides. and i really hope that they will but will succeed. now proponents of the terrance they are getting the best way to prevent nuclear war is to build a nuclear arsenal on both sides of a conflict. so that they are useful. lead to the mutually assured destruction of everyone. that's the language it's always being used. you want the 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 lot, and how can we approach this argument in a way that makes the world safer? i mean new to the terrace theory is it is so strange, right? because it's like it is it because all of these bizarre assumptions that we do 1st it requires, but every one with neutral offense forever is always motional and always takes the bi position. but it also requires a certain level of irrationality because when would it be, when would it be rational to start nuclear war, a nuclear war,

full scale and if the war could end commodity as we know what i mean, that will be survivors. but like the world that we know what that that would be gone. would it ever be rational to do that? i mean that's collective suicide. would a person like by didn't ever feel like that's the right decision to make? probably not, so you would have to, in order to test or even work, you have to be rational. and then you have this idea that the opponent would also make the bite assumption about 2 measures. would it be irrational to obviously defending if there were here, but wouldn't be a rational to, to launch the nuclear weapon. if the other side didn't have one to well then i mean if you want to mass motor low civilians like sure. and i think that that's also where this there, this very kind of fails and we see it now is happening a new cream of food and isn't using his nuclear arsenal to protect russia. he's using it to be able to invade a country without their 2 effects. and saying if anyone tries to help, if anyone tries to interfere with my invitation,

i will use nuclear weapons. so basically, contest i do not, the states are limited and is option where they can do to, to help your premiums because it has to be processed. so here is actually a disadvantage, and when you're having this kind of stand up between 22 nuclear states, for example, like put in and by then who would be the most reckless like would, would by, than ever convincing me threatened to murder more. so i believe and then to do, would we believe that we put them to the bed and can we guarantee with all of our, like all the countries in the world rely on someone like put in or human or she or whoever, to always get it back to medical stuff 9, but still in order for the test work, you have to be prepared across that line. so it's a complete contradiction, no to the parents, and they can never guarantee that they won't. it won't happen. so it does all these kind of weird assumptions that we're making. and at the end of the day, mistakes happen, people act irrational, me,

people act unpredictably and we can't guarantee that it won't happen. and i think that the consequences are so massive, but 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, mass, genocide, etc, that we have no reason to believe that powerful people, powerful nations, whatever, 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 that we have made a lot of progress internationally in the world when it comes to international law when it comes to human bards, when it comes to goals and how we supposed to be having it doesn't feel like that in particular, not when you opened your twitter account and you get overwhelmed with all the awful

things that are happening right now. but, you know, things like the un charter of things like that. you know, the geneva conventions besides, you know, not just the golf flo, let's assume preventing russia from doing all these things right out. but we are posting, being based on because they're both saying that you can read another country. and without those who, as if we never developed those tools, it will just fair game for everyone to just do whatever. and the biggest countries would, would, would been all those things and they would do whatever they want. but they can't really, always do whatever they want. and i think the things like the color station, for example, seeing how all these countries who were colonized by the, by the side 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 breakfast, i think that is a way and, and the powerful have always lost their power when the majority has risen up and stood against that. and that's when you can really make change happen. so the,

treating, the prohibition to go up as is really all way of creating a high pollution on this nuclear structure that we create as i no longer can these 5 countries and the other 4 that has them as well, like just dictate the terms and say this is fine because we have them and you can have them now where we're changing the game. we create a new law. so new rules and we're going to demand a different system very interested in thank you so much for joining me on the killer robots. the future of war, more technically known as leaf autonomous weapon systems or laws. these robots can operate independently and attack targets without human control. artificial intelligence weapons of already been deployed in military conflict. but some warren, the war and ukraine could see both sides using autonomous weapons in an unprecedented way. despite you wouldn't let attempt to curb development and establish international regulation of loss. countries including the us and russia,

are continuing their uncheck 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 are lower nolan, a former google employee in software engineer with the international committee for robot, arms control. and matt, and moody and artificial intelligence research or with amnesty international. the see both of you. thank you for joining me. a laura, i'm going to start with you on 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 essential competitor is alta, that is actually pretty much forms the, the whole, the whole nature of the nation states and the whole way that we live. i don't think the tailor what things are likely to be about that size make. 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 improving and their, their utility on their advocacy is complete. the improvement. i do think that on those weapons are likely to post danger both to the soldiers themselves. i think there's a very high risk of, frankly, far as like incidence. i think there's a high risk of civilian talking. i think there's a very high risk of potentially sparking off the conflict and, and i'm an intentional kind of way, man, i want to give it to you for a 2nd. but 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 what is most destructive killer robot? i just think it's important to note that states are coursing competition with each other around upon us weapons systems. i mean, in january 2021 alone we've seen and it was in rafael bass of the past systems building and showcase and commercial drones and robot doc capable of facial

recognition. we've seen in libya and march 2020 the use of various cargo drones, which has been developed by true teams. the number of cases in which the technologies that are upon was that one systems by definition or being used. however, we said the form of the art entrees might look quite different. what we're expecting a lot of the technologies that upon themselves, the systems are built on our technologies that are being used in every day concerts in the policing complex, for example, facial recognition for mass surveillance in motion recognition, gate recognition, pretty nevada linux. these are all tools that we know are being used against, for example, life's not are for testers and have been known to time and time again. fail into arguments, racially discriminatory policing, and r b facto against international rascal. so we're looking for one terminator to show up at our door. we're maybe looking in the wrong place and argue that, that what we're actually needing to,

to so keep an eye out for are these more on sort of one of the ways in which these technologies are starting to play a role in our everyday lives. and gar, how we live in it seems to me that a big part of that is the growing of 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 all signed 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. or i think i would like like to underline what i'm not just said, which is that these are not only mostly technologies i'm of there are huge

implications here for civil liberties for courtesy and for you know, how, how we live our lives. i'd cyber warfare context as well. so fundamentally, when you're talking about, or talking about the weapons, if you want to build a bridge, you don't really need much on this weapon out on those weapons are fundamentally but targets that are mobile. they're not, not for talking military base has been offered talking to columns that are by people there, but people on vehicles that help people and therefore these kinds of weapons. they're very intimately by don't in surveillance technologies because you need to have a homeless weapon. you needs to have the technology to know where people are, where people are moving or, and just to understand their behavior. so we're big tech comes into this is if you think about cloud computing technology, you have big companies like amazon, microsoft, google, they're making a lot of money out of selling and wants to cloud computing technology. now surveillance technology is a huge the compute intensive. so quite simply, it takes

a lot of c p u cycles, a lot of memory, a lot of expensive computing infrastructure to run this kind of technology. so there's a huge business opportunity here to build surveillance systems. and i think we can see that for, and i have in the fact that all of the major class companies built a price for recognizing objects for recognizing people. so this is, as i said, this is very much do we use technology between military and civilian applications? man, let me ask you a question about precision here. us air strikes are notoriously emphasized. they've killed thousands of civilians. for example, there was a drone striking grow a young man in 2013 that killed at least a dozen people at a wedding procession all civilians. according to human rights groups, a 2016 us airstrike 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 these systems do process human beings as if they were, you know, from research that joint blown median 10 you get routed awhile ago. that in many cases, facial recognition systems are capable of identifying especially black women with the 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 the context of discrimination, institutional racism, massage any etc. and so i think it's important that we looked at how would that be different than the current systems of policing or surveillance, or education or anything else we have. and so it would double down in a match those existing crisis, even though success, existing forms of discrimination. so we don't want to have a system in which say you have to 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 robots campaign has been calling for. and what we need is also a global ban on remote biometric surveillance technologies, which you're new to these assignments, weapon systems. i just want to make a quick points regarding what might said before about about the dangers of back comfortability or regulation and why it makes a difference that we might take unimed perfect and process that is executed by human beings underwater maters. so one of the great problems that we have, i guess we both preserving our civil rights and our free society and also with overseeing international humanitarian law. i'm showing that the, the, the international votes of warfare are respected. it is, but we have a lack of transparency. one of the things that we see is when we also made a process, we as much as we make a less flexible. and we also tends to make it much less transparent. if we start

taking the logic of what we're doing more fair or you know, society, i'm start encouraging it in an impression algorithms on prophecies that are free and switchable that's can be inspected by few people that are controlled by a few people that we we didn't do we do risk things spinning out of control of ways that we don't want? laura is also an argument to be made that it's too late, right? the most powerful nations are supporting this stuff. the technology is already in use. us national security commission, co chair. uh robert work said uh a uh in warfare is already happening. so if it's already happening and to begin the most part so people are behind it. what do we do? is it too late? i think that that is a very, very yeah, that listed kind of approach to, to take to us people can do for weapons. they were used in watching 45 and they

haven't been you since. so it's possible to refrain from the use all sorts of weapons as across development. and there's also been a very, very strong norm has emerged against chemical weapons and also biological weapons. and of course, there's a very, very strong emerging norm against the use of landlines because of the, the heart that they do civilians. so i think it's, i don't, i don't think it's correct to say that there's no hope that the weapons never beat the weapons. are never bound, or those states temper refrain from using particular types of buttons. matt, it's never too, for me to put human beings and not data points ahead of the agenda. anatomy seems higher time again with even issues of check. as soon as enough people are aware of the kinds of forms 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 1st of all we're finding thomas weapons system. and as you know from where we're standing, absolutely acceptable. laura mac,

thank you so much for joining me on upfront. all right, that is our show upfront. we'll be back next week the on the to the team. there is no channel that covers world news like we do,

we revisit places the state houses are really invest in that. and that's a privilege. as a journalist, found you staples, control information, controlling the narrative to dominating the media. how does the narrative improve public opinion and enormous fight? it might not be the most important story about china of today, but that's what the big piece attention to. how is citizen, jim listened, replacing the story, the listening post. i fixed the media. we don't cover the news. we cover the way the news is covered. a just to put out a nother fire that had been a rather large across the country for jay yesterday for another business. good. my entire life, fire fighters. they're saying that there's very little they can do with these extremely heavy wind. while the world has been focusing a lot on the tourist,

the local real desperation here about how much they've loved. 35 square kilometer as of last greenforest of woodland has been burned, really does resemble, and i'm a get in landscape. the . the urgent medical supplies, including body bags arriving olivia's plugged, is off the zone as cruise continued to a couple of buddies, the coming round calling themselves their life. and also coming up the daunting task of declaring that every the 1st step in morocco is a long road to recovery from last week's devastating of.