Rate this essayAI is not eligible for making lethal decisions, therefore, we should prohibit autonomous weapon systems.To begin with, AI technology is not capable of considering various aspects and subtle differences when facing ambiguous situations and replacing human beings to make the decision. It is undeniable to state that the technology has progressed rapidly in especially the past decades, nevertheless, development of technology has only reached to the point of weak AI which is referred to as artificial intelligence can only master and solve problems in the specific domain. For example, AlphaGo might be able to beat humans on board games, however, it does not have the capacity to compete with humans in any other aspects. This same issue would be also unavoidable in terms of programming autonomous weapon systems. According to Asaro, the autonomous weapon system would not only require to properly respond to unexpected incidents like environmental hazards, cyber attacks and malfunctions under the war setting; but also need to take the holistic contextual information and common sense into account (2012). Only if the system can qualify in all these aspects, in order to perform like a real human being to make the legitimate decision. Nevertheless, weak AI does not have the ability to master all these aspects when facing ambiguous situations in a real war setting. Therefore, the autonomous weapon system is not eligible to replace human beings in the process of making lethal decisions.Moreover, there is an inevitable ethical issue in terms of autonomous weapon systems. As proven by history, warfare would always accompany the death and wound of countless human lives. As for the events of atrocity and tragedy during the war, the commander would usually have to take the responsibility for committing the war crime. However, the essential issue is who should be accounted to take the responsibility if the autonomous weapon system makes an unintended decision resulting in the death of numerous people. As the question raised by the US office of the Secretary of Defense, the most essential challenge is to develop an autonomous weapon that fails safely. If the accountability of conduct by the autonomous weapon can not be explicitly defined, it may increase the likelihood of misusing of autonomous weapons due to the lack of perceived statutory consequences. Therefore, it is not legitimate to count on AI to make lethal decisions. On the other hand, the autonomous weapon system should not be completely banned since it would help to alleviate the guilt of the commanders and soldiers. According to prior warfare experience, a majority of people who had participated in the war in some way would experience mental suffering in general. This is even more the case when it comes to soldiers and commanders who had directly conducted this bloody tragedy. As a result, they had to undergo long-term guilt and moral condemnation, some of them even suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for the rest of their lives. Autonomous weapon system would likely help to alleviate these mental burdens of soldiers and commanders, since the perceived responsibility of making the conducts has been shifted to the AI system instead of individual person. More specifically, commanders would be more detached from the process of making lethal decisions, soldiers would also be able to justify their merciless behaviors of killing others by interpreting that they are merely following the order from the system instead of for their own seek. Therefore, it is plausible to argue that the autonomous weapon system would help to relieve soldiers and commanders from the trauma of the war.