Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Input: The United Nation’s Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), also known as the Inhumane Weapons Convention, is about to take the first small step toward an international ban on killer robots. 
  
 Activists have been agitating for years for a preliminary ban on fully autonomous lethal weapons, which the US Defense Department defines as weapons that "once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator." That includes, say, drones that drop bombs automatically when they reach their targets. 
  
 Experts will discuss the issue for four days 
  
 That example is hypothetical, of course — no known military lets drones decide when to kill. The US military has even declared that robotic weapons must always have a human "in the loop," at least for now. But the technology for killer robots arguably already exists. The Israeli military employs missile-defense systems that fire automatically, the South Korean military owns sentry robots that can be set to fire if a person fails to provide the right password, and drones could theoretically be programmed to drop bombs based on geolocation. 
  
 The CCW has convened a four-day informal meeting of experts in Geneva to discuss how much autonomy is conscionable in robots that have the capacity to kill humans. The meeting agenda includes presentations on the definition of autonomy, existing robotic weapons, and the challenge of accountability when a robot exercises lethal force, among other topics. There will also be breakout discussions on international humanitarian law, the ethical implications of killer robots, and more. 
  
 After the meeting CCW chair, Ambassador Jean-Hugues Simon-Michel of France, will prepare a summary for the convention’s next gathering in November. At that time, the convention may choose to continue exploring the proposal of a ban or escalate to the next phase of an international arms agreement. 
  
 It's the first small step in the process toward an international ban 
  
 Military tools like lethal drones and underwater robotic weapons are proliferating, and they require increasingly less human supervision. The UN is taking this threat seriously; last year the Human Rights Council recommended that countries suspend development of killer robots until an "internationally agreed upon framework" is established. 
  
 The meeting will also include a debate between Ronald Arkin, a roboticist and ethicist at the Georgia Institute of Technology who has collaborated with the Pentagon on various robotics systems, and Professor Noel Sharkey, a professor at the University of Sheffield and a co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC). 
  
 "Autonomous weapons present a new danger to humanity that needs to be stopped before states become too invested in the technology," Sharkey writes in an email to The Verge. "We are hoping that this week at the CCW will begin a process towards a legally binding agreement to ban weapons that once activated, select their own targets and attack them without human intervention." 
  
 On the other side, Arkin believes using robots in war can reduce human casualties by keeping humans out of battle and making lethal force more precise. He hopes to raise awareness of how technology can reduce civilian suffering in modern warfare. 
  
 "This is an informal meeting so I don’t expect anything concrete to result," Arkin tells The Verge in an email. "I have also often said that the discussion my research engenders is as important if not more important that the research itself. That goal seems already accomplished based on the fact that this meeting is even being held." ||||| Geneva (AFP) - Armies of Terminator-like warriors fan out across the battlefield, destroying everything in their path, as swarms of fellow robots rain fire from the skies. 
  
 That dark vision could all too easily shift from science fiction to fact with disastrous consequences for the human race, unless such weapons are banned before they leap from the drawing board to the arsenal, campaigners warn. 
  
 Starting Tuesday, governments are holding the first-ever talks focussed exclusively on so-called "lethal autonomous robots". 
  
 The four-day session of the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons in Geneva could chart the path towards preventing the nightmare scenario evoked by opponents, ahead of a fresh session in November. 
  
 "Killer robots would threaten the most fundamental of rights and principles in international law," warned Steve Goose, arms division director at Human Rights Watch. 
  
 "We don't see how these inanimate machines could understand or respect the value of life, yet they would have the power to determine when to take it away," he told reporters on the eve of the talks. 
  
 "The only answer is a preemptive ban on fully autonomous weapons," he added. 
  
 Goose's organisation came together with a host of others to form the Campaign To Stop Killer Robots in April 2013, prodding nations into action. 
  
 Robot weapons are already deployed around the globe. 
  
 The best-known are drones, unmanned aircraft whose human controllers push the trigger from a far-distant base. Controversy rages, especially over the civilian collateral damage caused when the United States strikes alleged Islamist militants. 
  
 Perhaps closest to the Terminator-type killing machine portrayed in Arnold Schwarzenegger's action films is a Samsung sentry robot used in South Korea, with the ability to spot unusual activity, talk to intruders and, when authorised by a human controller, shoot them. 
  
 Then there is the Phalanx gun system, deployed on US Navy ships, which can search for enemy fire and destroy incoming projectiles all by itself, or the X47B, a plane-sized drone able to take off and land on aircraft carriers without a pilot and even refuel in the air. 
  
 Other countries on the cutting edge include Britain, Israel, China, Russia and Taiwan. 
  
 But it's the next step, the power to kill without a human handler, that rattles opponents of lethal autonomous robots the most. 
  
 "Checking the legitimacy of targets and determining proportional response requires deliberative reasoning," said Noel Sharkey, emeritus professor of robotics and artificial intelligence at Britain's University of Sheffield. 
  
 Experts predict that military research could produce such killers within 20 years, leaving current systems looking as obsolete as steam engines. 
  
 - Power of life and death - 
  
 Supporters of robot weapons say they offer life-saving potential in warfare, being able to get closer than troops to assess a threat properly, without tiring, becoming frightened or letting emotion cloud their decision-making. 
  
 But that is precisely what worries their critics. 
  
 "It's totally unconscionable that human beings think that it's OK to cede the of power and life over other humans to machinery," said Jody Williams, who won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her campaign for a land-mine ban treaty. 
  
 "If we don't inject a moral and ethical discussion into this, we won't control warfare," she said. 
  
 In November 2012, Washington imposed a 10-year human-control requirement for robot weapons, welcomed by campaigners as a first step. 
  
 Britain has said that existing arms control rules are sufficient to stem the risks. 
  
 But opponents say a specific treaty is essential because unclear ground rules could leave dangerous loopholes, not only for their use in warfare but also in policing. 
  
 "We would like this week to begin to build a consensus around the concept that there must always be meaningful human control over targeting and kill decisions, on the battlefield and in law enforcement situations," said Goose. 
  
 "Trying to rely on existing international humanitarian or human rights law and perhaps some concept of best principles simply will not suffice to ensure that these weapons are never developed, never produced, never used," he said. 
  
 With robotics research also being deployed for fire-fighting and bomb disposal, Sharkey underlined that the objection is not to autonomy per se. 
  
 "I have a robot vacuum cleaner at home, it's fully autonomous and I do not want it stopped," he said. 
  
 "There is just one thing that we don't want, and that's what we call the kill function." 
  
 Related video: |||||
Output:
It sounds like a panel discussion worthy of Comic Con, but this four-day summit on "lethal autonomous robots" is instead taking place under the auspices of the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons in Geneva, reports AFP. The premise is simple enough: Groups such as Human Rights Watch are worried that nations will begin deploying killer robots in the not-too-distant future to indiscriminately kill humans, and they want to get moratoriums in place to stop their development, reports al-Jazeera America. "We don't see how these inanimate machines could understand or respect the value of life, yet they would have the power to determine when to take it away," says one arms expert for Human Rights Watch. "The only answer is a preemptive ban on fully autonomous weapons." Early versions of such machines are already surfacing. Drones are close, but humans still decide when and where they kill, notes the Verge. Critics are worried that drones or similar machines of the future wouldn't have such restrictions. The story points out that South Korea already uses sentry robots that can be programmed to shoot intruders who don't know the right password. The summit that begins today is seen as the first step toward a international rules.