Draft:Jai Galliott

  • Comment: I agree that the subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC (and for what it's worth I am Australian, so hopefully that addresses the accusation that North Americans are unfairly discriminating against Australia here). There is pretty clear consensus at AfD that fellowship of the Royal Society of Arts is not sufficient to meet WP:NPROF#C3. Looking at fellows of the Royal Society of New South Wales, I agree that it is also insufficiently selective to meet that criteria. Fermiboson is correct that the year a society was founded and who gave royal assent is irrelevant to this question. Providing expert quotes to the media is routine for an academic, and I don't see any evidence of the kind of substantial impact outside academia that is required to satisfy WP:NPROF#C7. MCE89 (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Fair-minded reviewer" isn't a good look and sounds WP:BATTLEGROUND. I strongly suggest you cease implying any reviewer declining is biased against one form of academia or another (notwithstanding, Australia, really? You're suggesting that Australia is being discriminated against by Americans?)
    Leaving behavourial issues aside, every single argument about the alumni and year of founding and whichever monarch gave royal assent are entirely irrelevant as to the prestigiousness of an award or qualification. Looking at the 2024 gazetted RSNSW fellows list, I randomly sampled 3 academics to take a look. Prof Christopher Armstrong is so non-notable that even when googling his name with "Prof" in front, multiple other Christopher Armstrongs show up before him. I was unable to find a single secondary source that mentioned Prof Eric Chow. Prof Victoria Haskins was slightly better in that her book had a review and an interview but that's it. Shall I go on? 30k/whatever is not "selective". By that criteria, would every Rhodes scholar be notable? I certainly hope not.
    As for criterion 7, firstly, the criteria may be satisfied if the professor is quoted in interviews. The criteria itself is still that the professor has made a significant impact outside of academia, which I don't see evidence of here; I see evidence of words being said and no action being taken, not even evidence that it has informed any serious debate significantly. Many RS randomly interview academics especially on such hot topics as this.
    Do you have a COI? If so, you are required to disclose it.
    In the future, if you want to increase the chance of the article being accepted, may I suggest not first exhausting the reviewer's patience with a bunch of soapboxing. Fermiboson (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article needs to be reviewed conscious of North-American refusal bias. WP:ACADEMIC has been met, most notably by Criteria 3 in that the subject is a member of both the Royal Society of New South Wales AND The Royal Society of Arts. The former society was established in 1821 and granted Royal Assent in 1866 by no less than Queen Victoria. The latter, the Royal Society of Arts, was established in 1754 and was granted a Royal Charter in 1847, and the right to use the term 'Royal' in its name by no less than King Edward VII in 1908. The age of the institutions is important as the specific criteria notes state that their age is relevant and it doesn't get much older than - indeed the latter is literally older than the United States itself. Its membership base is highly selective, with past and present members including such notable persons as Charles Dickens, Benjamin Franklin, Stephen Hawking, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Marie Curie, Nelson Mandela, David Attenborough & Judi Dench. Contrary to ChrysGalley (talk), who selectively omitted any reference to this society, these societies are direct associates to the Royal Society, which is listed as an example in the WP:ACADEMIC criteria, especially noting that the Royal Society for Arts has a lower number of members on a per-country basis than the Royal Society (which recruits principally from the UK, whereas the former recruits from over 80 countries). Size is again a relevant factor in determining notability, because specific criteria note 3 within the academic notability guidelines state that 'minor' societies are insufficient whereas a 'major scholarly society' is sufficient. Moreover, in circumstances where the Royal Society for Arts has a fellowship base of 30,000 members, with a population base of 8 billion people, with 1% estimated to have PhDs (ie. 80 million people), and perhaps 10% of those being the Arts, I would suggest that 30,000/8,000,000 is highly selective.
    WP:ACADEMIC requires that only 1 criteria be met to meet notability guidelines and a proper assessment of the above combination of society memberships is sufficient. Nevertheless, Criteria 7, including Specific Criteria Note 7(a), which states that 'Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark' is also relevant with this subject. This is namely because the subject has made noted contributions to non-academic discussions including at the United Nations, a global international organisation representing perhaps the most significant indicator of global reach and is noted as being cited over a period of many years by worldwide media, including major news outlets in the UK, USA and Australia (including major outlets like CNN). Together, this arguably satisfies Criteria 7.
    As to ChrysGalley (talk)'s comment that 'The wording also looks LLM generated, with words like "triggering", "situates", and even the ultimate LLM word, "intersection"', perhaps this has been confused with more formal academic language used by the subject. It appears the word 'intersection' for, example, has been directly derived from online biographies of the subject and his writings as an interdisciplinary scholar. Regardless, the article has been significantly edited by others since its inception and appears ready for publication.
    Noting that Criteria 1 & 7 have arguably met, and supported by appropriate sources (leaving Reddit aside, which aren't connected to the claims under these criteria), I suggest acceptance is in order with the fair-minded reviewer.
  • Comment: I don't agree that WP:ACADEMIC has been met. Most academics will not get through the criteria. The Royal Society of NSW is a notable institution but it's not on the same level as the examples given in the criteria wording. The number of people selected in that year alone, and the way they are chosen, does not give the impression of being "highly selective". For criteria 1 and 7, this is pitched at those who are typically close to becoming tenured professors in terms of academic cites, see the Specific Criteria Notes. Criteria 2 - again a fellowship is creditable, but it's way short of the SCN, which discussed Nobel and Pulitzer prizes.
    The wording also looks LLM generated, with words like "triggering", "situates", and even the ultimate LLM word, "intersection".
    Reddit rows aren't encyclopedic here (and it's easy to do...).
    Overall the impression is of a promotional piece, with little neutrality in wording, rather than a crisp encyclopedic summary.
    If the subject is notable, which is certainly open to challenge, it may be better to consider the WP:BASIC criteria, which requires ideally 3 feature length profiles of the subject's life in independent newspapers (or similar). Truly notable figures are able to meet this criteria. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article meets WP Academic Notability Guidelines. Per Guideline 3, the subject is an elected member of the Royal Society of New South Wales and a Life Fellow of the Royal Society for Arts. Per Guideline 2, the subject has received a prestigious award, the Spitfire Memorial Defence Fellowship, awarded by the subject nation's highest office holder, the Governor General. Per 8, the subject is editor of a significant book series in his field. Per 1 & 7, the subject's work has had a substantial scholarly and international impact, up to and including United Nations level impact.
  • Comment: The Reddit debates about Galliott are unreliable - unacceptable user-generated sources per WP:UGC. Paul W (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is this AI-generated? The mangled link markup makes me suspicious —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)


Jai Galliott is an Australian academic, former military officer, and defence analyst recognized as an expert on the ethical, legal, and social implications of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons systems, drones, cyber warfare, human enhancement, and space exploration.[1][2][3] He is known for his contributions to just war theory, including the concept of jus ad vim (force short of war), and has authored or edited numerous books on the moral, legal, and political challenges posed by military and civilian applications of advanced technologies.[4] Galliott has held positions at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and has led major defence-related research projects funded by the Australian government.[5]

Early life and education

Galliott worked as a part-time firefighter in a rural area while pursuing higher education, facing challenges due to his location but utilizing online study options through Open Universities Australia.[6]

He earned a Bachelor of Arts (BA) from Macquarie University, a Bachelor of Arts with Honours (BA Hons) from Charles Sturt University, and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in military ethics from Macquarie University.[7] He also holds an Executive Certificate in Public Leadership from Harvard University.[7]

Career

Galliott began his career in the military, serving as a Royal Australian Navy officer and later as an Australian Army Research Fellow.[1] He transitioned to academia, focusing on the intersection of philosophy, technology, and defence studies, with a broad emphasis on the ethical, legal, and social implications of emerging technologies across military and civilian domains.[1] He has held various roles at UNSW, including Research Fellow and Director (or Group Leader) of the Values in Defence & Security Technology Group at the Australian Defence Force Academy.[1] As of 2025, he is an Honorary Associate Professor in the Faculty of Business and Law at UNSW Canberra.[7]

Galliott has been affiliated with international institutions, serving as a Non-Residential Fellow at the Modern War Institute at the United States Military Academy (West Point) and a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Technology and Global Affairs in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Oxford.[2][8] He is also Co-Lead for the Ethics and Law of Trusted Autonomous Systems Activity at the Trusted Autonomous Systems Defence Cooperative Research Centre (TASDCRC).[3]

In 2019, Galliott led a major research project funded by the Australian Defence Force with over $5 million over six years, described as the largest ever investment in AI ethics by UNSW Canberra, to develop ethical AI weaponry and embed ethics in autonomous weapons systems, in collaboration with the University of Queensland.[9][10] The project aimed to investigate values of future decision-makers, guide the military on ethical and legal use of killer AI, enhance compliance with social values, understand public perceptions, and ensure human involvement in decisions.[9] Galliott emphasized potential for AI to make war more ethical by programming systems to avoid targeting protected symbols or children and preventing collateral damage.[9]

Galliott's views on autonomous weapons have evolved over time, triggering a feature article in ComputerWorld; initially supporting a ban as part of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, he later advocated for embedding ethics in their design rather than prohibition, arguing that bans could hinder humanitarian benefits and technological progress.[11] This shift has drawn criticism, including from AI Professor Toby Walsh of UNSW, who was "severely disappointed."[12] Galliott has provided submissions to parliamentary inquiries, including on the Joint Strike Fighter program in Australia and remote-controlled weapons systems in the UK.[13][14]

He has contributed to public discourse on topics like "killer robots," Havana syndrome, nuclear submarines, and cyber missile defence, appearing in media outlets such as CNN, ABC News, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Age.[15][16][17][18][19]

Research and publications on emerging technology

Galliott's research explores the moral, legal, and political challenges of emerging military and civilian technologies, including lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs), unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), soldier enhancement, cyber warfare, and space exploration.[20] He has discussed concepts like the "responsibility gap" in AI-driven warfare and the need for "minimally-just" autonomy in weapons systems.[21] His work often draws on just war theory and social contract views, advocating for nuanced approaches to technology regulation.[21]

In a 2021 philosophical debate published in The Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence, Galliott engaged with philosopher John Forge on the ethics of developing AI for lethal autonomous weapons.[22] Galliott argued against a blanket prohibition, emphasizing distinctions between harmful and beneficial applications, the potential for AI to prevent harm (e.g., identifying protected sites), and a positive duty for designers to embed ethical standards through forward-looking responsibility and regulatory frameworks like enhanced Article 36 reviews.[22] Forge countered that designers should abstain from weapons research entirely, as providing means to harm is morally wrong without justification, and that all such research risks unforeseeable wrongful uses, dismissing nuanced approaches.[22]

Galliott's stance on not banning autonomous weapons has also been critiqued by Toby Walsh, who in a 2015 UNSW article, refuted four of Galliott's arguments against bans.[12] Walsh emphasized the disastrous potential of an AI arms race and the need for a ban supported by experts.[12]

Work on "the Unabomber"

In his 2017 Oxford University Press chapter “The Unabomber on Robots”, Galliott draws on direct prison correspondence and interviews with Ted Kaczynski (the “Unabomber”) to explore and critique the broader implications of automation and robotics for human autonomy. The chapter situates Kaczynski’s philosophy of technology in relation to contemporary developments in robotics and artificial intelligence, arguing for a philosophy of technology geared toward human ends.[23]

United Nations Advocacy

Galliott has provided expert advice to the United Nations meetings of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects at the Palace of Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, addressing participating nations on the value of employing autonomous systems[24]

Book series

Galliott is Editor of Routledge's Emerging Techologies, Ethics & International Affairs book series, publishing work at the intersection of moral issues in research, engineering and design, and ethical, legal and political/policy issues in the use and regulation of technology.[25]

Books

  • Military Robots: Mapping the Moral Landscape (Routledge, 2016).[26]
  • Super Soldiers: The Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (co-edited with Mianna Lotz; Routledge, 2015).[27]
  • Ethics and the Future of Spying (co-edited with Warren Reed; Routledge, 2016).[28]
  • Commercial Space Exploration: Ethics, Policy and Governance (Routledge, 2015).[29]
  • Big Data and Democracy (with Kevin Macnish; Edinburgh University Press, 2020).[30]
  • Lethal Autonomous Weapons (with Duncan MacIntosh and Jens David Ohlin; Oxford University Press, 2021).[31]

Articles and Chapters

  • "Closing with Completeness: The Asymmetric Drone Warfare Debate" (2012)
  • "The Unabomber on Robots: The Need for a Philosophy of Technology Geared Toward Human Ends" (2017)[32]
  • "Artificial Intelligence in Weapons: The Moral Imperative for Minimally-Just Autonomy" (2018/2019, with Jason Scholz)[21]
  • "A Taste of Armageddon: A Virtue Ethics Perspective on Autonomous Weapons and Moral Injury" (2022)

Awards and honours

Galliott received the Spitfire Memorial Defence Fellowship in 2018 for his project on military officer attitudes toward unmanned aerial vehicles, presented by General Sir Peter Cosgrove at Government House. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of New South Wales (FRSN) in 2021.[7] He is also a Justice of the Peace (JP) and holds the designation LFRSA (Life Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts).[7]

References

  1. ^ a b c d "Jai Galliott". Australian Army Research Centre. Retrieved July 22, 2025.
  2. ^ a b "Jai Galliott - Modern War Institute". Modern War Institute. Archived from the original on June 21, 2025. Retrieved July 22, 2025.
  3. ^ a b Kate Devitt, Michael Gan, Jason Scholz, Robert Bolia (January 2021). "A Method for Ethical AI in Defence" (PDF). Defence Science and Technology Group. Retrieved July 22, 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Jai Galliott (2019). Force Short of War in Modern Conflict: Jus ad Vim. Edinburgh University Press. Retrieved July 22, 2025.
  5. ^ "Australian Defence Force invests $5 million in 'killer robots' research". ABC News. 2019-03-01. Retrieved July 22, 2025.
  6. ^ "Feature on Open Universities Australia" (PDF). The West Australian. 2013-02-02. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  7. ^ a b c d e "Fellows - The Royal Society of NSW". Royal Society of NSW. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  8. ^ Jai Galliott. "Artificial Intelligence in Weapons". Centre for Technology and Global Affairs, University of Oxford. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  9. ^ a b c "Australian Defence Force invests $5 million in 'killer robots' research". ABC News. 2019-03-01. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  10. ^ "'Killer robots' to be taught ethics in world-topping Australian research project". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2019-02-28. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  11. ^ George Nott (2019-03-11). "Killer robot campaign defector to 'embed ethics' in autonomous weapons". Computerworld. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  12. ^ a b c Toby Walsh. "We should not dismiss the dangers of 'killer robots' so quickly". UNSW Sydney. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  13. ^ Jai Galliott. Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Joint Strike Fighter (PDF) (Report). Australian Parliament. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  14. ^ "Defence Committee Written evidence". UK Parliament. 2013. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  15. ^ "US warships sent to Korea: What to know". CNN. 2017-04-18. Retrieved 22 July 2025.
  16. ^ Jai Galliott (2018-08-31). "Elon Musk wants to ban 'killer robots'. Here's why it's a bad idea". ABC News. Retrieved 22 July 2025.
  17. ^ Jai Galliott (2016-04-15). "We must prepare for the advent of killer robots". The Age. Retrieved 22 July 2025.
  18. ^ "Is Havana syndrome a new method of covert sabotage – or all in our heads?". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2021-08-25. Retrieved 22 July 2025.
  19. ^ "What is a nuclear submarine and why would you want one?". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2021-09-16. Retrieved 22 July 2025.
  20. ^ "Jai Galliott - Google Scholar". Google Scholar. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  21. ^ a b c Jai Galliott. "Artificial Intelligence in Weapons". US Air Force Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  22. ^ a b c Jai Galliott; John Forge (2021). "Debate on the Ethics of Developing AI for Lethal Autonomous Weapons" (PDF). The Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence. Trivent Publishing. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  23. ^ "The Unabomber on Robots". TheTedKArchive. Retrieved 2025-11-14.
  24. ^ "Document Viewer". Retrieved 2025-11-14.
  25. ^ "Emerging Technologies, Ethics and International Affairs: Emerging Technologies, Ethics and International Affairs - Book Series - Routledge & CRC Press". Routledge. Retrieved 2025-11-14.
  26. ^ Jai Galliott (2016). Military Robots: Mapping the Moral Landscape. Routledge. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  27. ^ Jai Galliott; Mianna Lotz, eds. (2015). Super Soldiers: The Ethical, Legal and Social Implications. Routledge. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  28. ^ Jai Galliott; Warren Reed, eds. (2016). Ethics and the Future of Spying. Routledge. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  29. ^ Jai Galliott (2015). Commercial Space Exploration: Ethics, Policy and Governance. Routledge. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  30. ^ Jai Galliott; Kevin Macnish (2020). Big Data and Democracy. Edinburgh University Press. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  31. ^ Jai Galliott; Duncan MacIntosh; Jens David Ohlin, eds. (2021). Lethal Autonomous Weapons. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2025-07-22.
  32. ^ Jai Galliott (2017). "The Unabomber on Robots". The TEDK Archive. Retrieved 2025-07-22.

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.