libya they also called for an end to the ongoing us economic embargo against cuba. there was also a call in the final document for medium and large economies to do more to bridge the digital gap. the declaration of come down of the book of 77 underscored obstacles faced by developing nations and called for the establishment of the new world economic order. many, in fact, compared it to the titanic saying that we are all on the same ship. and that if it's 6, everyone will perish together. you see, and you've been out to 0, have that the, there's always there. and these are the top stories. international aid has a started to arriving flood, hit a libya from the united nations, europe, russia, and the middle eastern countries. the un humanitarian affairs of his as long as the po for $71000000.00. libyan will load fully if i hafta who backs the government and

the east visited done on friday, his forces. i'm now allowed entry to aid convoys dispatched by the arrival of government. do you estimate that more than 300000 people have been effected in morocco? off of the for a week ago? people in the high atlas mountains are among the hardest hit. any 3000 people have died. the european commission present as live on the land is due to visit land produce. and if the on sunday the island has seen an unprecedented number of refugees, migrants arriving from africa. united nations says 8500 people arrived earlier this week. the toes between striking us a little, somebody say block isn't companies. all right, a critical phase according to hold somebody gets the lunch is maybe 13000 work is affiliated with the united auto workers union of state of what from friday. union ones that phone keeps an eye hide. the call company site. this is too much. she

have for tennessee has more negotiations did reconvene on saturday morning 33, recall makers now offering 20 percent raises over 4 years. b, u, a w. us with a 36 percent exclusive like 60 some compromise on wages in the offering, but this is about mold in wages as well. sir, about this, how to say about this country and benefits. it's about the cost of living increases as inflation continues to rise. and it's also about the future of the car industry in the us. and it's hot in minutes, which it has come across while taking part in the next size, killing a 5 year old girl and the car on the ground. it happened that made cheering apples in the notes of the company. those are that lines use continues on that which is 0 away from home, these ukrainians and bodies celebrate division, mountain and national holiday designed to uphold the traditions of ukraine's national clothing with looks lot like a russian. so we have separated language and we have national clause,

nearly $60000.00 russians arrived in body last year, making them the 2nd largest group of tourists. the number of ukrainians arriving is also increased for the number of tens of russian arrivals. the 2 countries are to the thousands of the citizens living on the side of each other on this intrusion. i alena too is had a bakery and keep. for now she says she'll remain here the dreams of the day when she can return home. 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 war safer. as supporters claim that conversation is coming up with 1st with recent world events, the danger of nuclear war has spike nuclear weapons, are the most dangerous munitions on earth, 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 nonproliferation. in fact, the topic continues to be debated. why is that? we'll ask this, what is headliner? beatrice fit 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. our 10 was a driving force behind a 2017 treaty and the prohibition of nuclear weapons to outlaw nuclear weapons entirely for which your organization was awarded the nobel peace prize. 122 countries signed 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 to 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 treaty was a great accomplishment. but of course, the, the big elephant in the room, of course, is that the 9 neutrons dates 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 nationalistic tendency. they are trust me 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 world to using throughout them. if anyone interferes with its invasion of ukraine. so this is really

a very serious moment, but it's, it's almost 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 newport disease 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 as 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. 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 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, 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 i mistaken me launch a miss on own own practice done by accident. and having these situations happening right now on the beast 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 the situations like north korea testing miss. also i to be honest, again south korea saying that he wants nuclear weapons. we've seen bela roo, say that they could station russian new to us on the territory. we've seen poland say, or we could flash station american to come up with an us. there's so many variables

here and so many on certain situations, and we have 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 feet 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 of 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 ed in sped vaults on one side, but for many different sides. we saw trump withdrawal from the i, n s t b a from the van deal, which the investor violates a lot of these kind of instruments. and we've seen them a barn at the chemical weapons convention as well. we've seen a really negative turn and then you add this very kind of trend of national mistake . sort of might show leaders a threatening sort of breast. we 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 about like 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 overtime. a complete the prior to some of the pre authorization 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. 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 to do. we have a sam this and that's exactly what the treated, the prohibition on the floor plans. 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 the 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? uh, 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 so this just intent with that it was a functioning deal. it really had strict verification ensure the yvonne was not developing their weapons and the us just intentionally sabotage that. but the standard that was in the run there was the highest that we've ever seen that international. we met with educational newport 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. i was really a he a huge to promote a cheap month to get it. so when it was broken, of course it's really hard to put these things back together. and you have undermining trust from iran, from all the, all the countries 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 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 they are useful, lead to the mutually assured destruction of everyone. that's the language. it's always being used. you, on 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 there. it's so strange, right? because it's like it is because all of these bizarre assumptions that we do. first, it requires that everyone with nuclear weapons forever is always rational and always takes the bi position. but it also requires a certain level of irrationality because when would it be, were 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 that that will 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 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, depending if there were here, but wouldn't be a rational to, to launch the nuclear weapon if the other side didn't have one as well that, i mean, if you want to mass motor low civilians like sure. and i think that that's also where this, the, 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 no to offense and saying if anyone tries to help, if anyone tries to interfere with my invitation,

i will use nuclear weapons. so basically, countryside united states are limited and is option what they can do to, to help your premiums because it has to go up. 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 then who would be the most reckless like would, would by then ever convincing me threatened to murder more. so i billy and then to do would, would we believe that we put them to be better? and can we guarantee with all of our, like all the countries in the world rely on someone like putting okey men or she or whoever, to always get a bike to medical stuff 9. but still, in order for the types of work you have to be prepared across the line. so it's a complete contradiction. no to determines, and they can never guarantee, but 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 are 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, et cetera, that we have no reason to believe the 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 rules and how we supposed to be having, it doesn't feel like that in particular, not when you open 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 be so you know, not just big off floor. let's assume preventing pressure from doing all these things right out. but we are posting being patient because they're both saying that you can read another country. and without those rules, if we never develop those tools, it will just fair game for everyone to just do whatever. and the biggest countries would, would, would, when 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 sort 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 the powerful have always lost their power with the majority has risen up and stood against that. and that's when you can really make change happen. so the,

treating, the prohibition on the go up as is really a way of creating a hard pollution on, in 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 loss, a new rules, and we're going to demand a distant system, beta span. 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 attacked targets without human control. artificial intelligence weapons of already been deployed in military conflict, but some warrant to warn you crane 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, our lar nolan, a former google employee and software engineer with the international committee for robot, arms control. and matt and moody and artificial intelligence research or with amnesty international bid to see both of you. thank you for joining me. laura. i'm gonna start with you. uh, 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, but it's actually pretty much for the whole, the whole nature of the nation states and the whole way that we live. i don't think the weapons are likely to be about thought 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 on proven and their, their utility and their advocacy is completely on proven. i do think that on those weapons are likely to post danger both to both 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 civility and harm. 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 big in terms of the technology of war. are we now want to see a racist who can to see who can build the, the biggest and most efficient and what is the 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 bassett, the past systems building and showcasing commercial drones and robot doc capable

official 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 technologies that are upon what's happening systems by definition are being used. however, we set the form of the art armstrong is, might look quite different to what we're expecting. a lot of the technologies that upon, on the side, the systems are built on our technologies that are being used in everyday concerts in the policing complex. for example, based on one condition for mass surveillance, emotional 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 fact go against international rascal. so 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, that what we're actually needing to, to, to keep an eye out for,

or these more on sort of the ways in which these technologies are starting to play a role in our everyday lives and daughter, 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 advance 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. i think i would like like to underline what might just said, which is that these are not only mostly technologies i'm of there are huge

implications here for civil liberties for privacy, 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 with weapons, if you want to go for bridge, you don't really need not on this weapon out. all those weapons are fundamentally but targets that are mobile. they're not, not protecting military bases and offer tracking type columns that are by people there, but people on vehicles that help people and therefore these kinds of weapons temporary intimately by don't in surveillance. technology is because you need to have a homeless weapon. you needs to have the technology to know where people are, where people are moving around 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 extensive 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 a night in the facts that all of the major credit companies have built a price for recognizing objects for recognizing people. and this has, as i said, this is very much the only use technology between military and civilian applications. 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 a drone, striking rule human and 2013 that killed at least a dozen people at a wedding procession all civilians. according to human rights groups, a 2016 us air strike in northern syria, killed at least 120 civilians. could a 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 joingotomeeting intended to get through to 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 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 enough to 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 did want to make a quick points regarding what might said before about about the dangers of comfortability or regulation and why it makes the difference that we might take in perfect process that is executed by human beings and automated. 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 it less flexible and we also tends to make it much less

transparent. if we start taking the logic of what we're doing warfare or, you know, society, i'm start encouraging it in an impressive algorithms. prophecies that are free and switchable that's can be inspected by few people that are controlled by a few people that we we do. we do risk things spinning out of control away, so 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 guy in warfare is already happening. so if it's already happening and to begin the most part, when people are behind it, what do we do? is it too late? i think that that is a very, very yeah, net listed kind of approach to, to take to us and people can do for weapons. they were used in watching 45 and they

haven't been use since. so it's possible to refrain from the use all sorts of weapons as across development. and there's also been 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 landmines because of the, the harm to the duties of aliens. 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 therapy weapons are never bound toward the states that will refrain from using particular types of buttons that it's never to like me to put human beings and not data points to head up the agenda and as we seem to find time again with even issues of check as soon as enough people are aware of the kinds of harms the systems are causing, the 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 weapon 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 the the, what's most important to me is talking to people, understanding what they're going through here. it just here to we believe everyone has a story we're hearing facing down predators. breaking new ground, there's a museum american and the living pick metal. i felt like this is my opportunity to

dispel a lot of stereotypes that people have about some of them community meet a to hodge mohammed, i'm african american. i choose to work a job. i'm not only an athlete, i'm like, literally the best of my sport. i'm one of the best in the world and i'm going to show you exactly what most women can do is for generations, food on our g 0 is this time for the west to we think the best option for the ukraine. much of war and what, what those options look like. what is us strategy when it comes to iran for almost 200 years, americans have generally been stuck with 2 political choices, but cannot ever change the quizzical look at us politics. the bottom line with global leaders gathering in new york, the ongoing war and ukraine is likely to dominate to events. but is the international community able to unite this thing without. is there a comprehensive coverage of the un general assembly?

the foreigner begins to arrive the in the flood, hit libya was the red cross of loans about the dangers of unexploded land mines in denver. the name wrong homicides their life from the also coming up helicopters, spring relief supplies are making out of the mountain villages of morocco rub off to the like last week it leon.