Slashdot Log In
Wall-E Lookalike Wins British War Robot Showdown
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Aug 21, 2008 01:58 AM
from the let-the-robot-wars-begin dept.
from the let-the-robot-wars-begin dept.
longacre writes "Following in the footsteps of DARPA's Urban Challenge, in which robotic vehicles had to navigate a complex obstacle course without human intervention, the UK upped the ante with its own Ministry of Defence Grand Challenge: within a mock enemy village, robots were instructed to find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops, roadside bombs and snipers. The winning entry, Team Stellar's SATURN system, actually consists of three vehicles: a low level drone and a tracked ground vehicle transmit reconnaissance data to a high-altitude robotic relay aircraft, which proceeds to phone that data home to a central processing center. Upon announcing the winner yesterday, MoD said they are 'carefully considering if technologies demonstrated in the final can be incorporated into future frontline kit for the Armed Forces. It is possible that the winning team will have invented a product that can be developed rapidly for the front line.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Inside the DARPA-esque Singapore Military Bot Contest 45 comments
mattnyc99 writes "Earlier this summer we followed a war robot contest in England. But now, after the Russian onslaught in Georgia, this weekend's TechX Challenge in Singapore takes on a bigger meaning: can small countries keep up with military superpowers by upmodding existing robots for their own needs and then arming them? Researchers in the Far East seem to be struggling with their A.I. research right now, but this could just be the beginning of the 'little guys' fighting back. From the article: 'Chan says the agency wants to use more locally developed robots to help in homeland security and counterterrorist operations. The DSTA's goal is to improve robotic artificial intelligence so it can build machines to perform dangerous tasks — reconnaissance, surveillance and the handling of hazardous materials — that American robots already can. ... Back at Nanyang Technological University, Michael Lau acknowledges the urgency of the research but says the AI for urban warfare just isn't ready. "We don't really believe fully autonomous robots are possible yet," says the Evolution team supervisor. "How does a robot differentiate between friend and foe?"'"
We've discussed similar projects from DARPA in the past. Reader coondoggie notes that enthusiasts will be able to participate in the lighter side of robot warfare next month in Texas.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hrmm (Score:3, Funny)
Just what the world needs, a robotic killing machine that likes to hold hands.
Re:Hrmm (Score:4, Funny)
Do not run, tasty humans!
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's all fun and games until it gets confused and kills all the innocents while leaving the aggressors.
Re:Hrmm (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all fun and games until it gets confused and kills all the innocents while leaving the aggressors.
Well, I'm sure the aggressors will claim their innocence and compliment the good robot.
Though there may be some bitching and whining about being unable to join in on the carnage.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently [afcea.org], all it has to do is "protect British troops". So all you NATO Johnny-foreigner chaps better watch out.
Presumably, the objective is to bring our friendly-fire statistics into line with our American allies.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just what the world needs, a robotic killing machine that likes to hold hands.
Especially when the hands are no longer attached to anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great. One step closer to wealthy nations having access to risk-free warfare.
There's no way this could be a horrible thing in the wrong hands. No way at all.
What I like (Score:5, Insightful)
What I like is this:
Would it not, perhaps, be better to invest time and energy into robots which "make distinctions" between armed troops and unarmed civilians?
Re:What I like (Score:4, Funny)
But... but... But it's an enemy village! And that would be HARD! =P
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See, that's the thing: I don't think systems like this are for use against the "enemy" at all. At least not our enemies.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC.
Obligatory dig at the snail munchers (Score:4, Funny)
Or French.
Or lazy and French.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, whatever you decided to do you just screwed up by posting :P.
Re:What I like (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC.
VC ... Venture Capitalist? So, we're talking about a war with venture capitalists?
I like it!
Parent
Re:What I like (Score:4, Funny)
But how will we fund it?! Damn!
Parent
Re:What I like (Score:5, Interesting)
Might I suggest you do so first? Show your superior human intellect in figuring out if that guy not wearing a uniform and showing no visible weapon is "armed troops or unarmed civilians".
No matter which you decide and by whatever criteria, you will be wrong a good percentage of the time.
Parent
Re:What I like (Score:4, Interesting)
Fuck it, just program the robot to kill anyone carrying a weapon. Then make millions of them and airdrop them into war-torn areas.
Now, that's what I call a peace keeper.
Hopefully we can program the robots to not shoot anyone who uses a broom to sweep the weapons off the streets.
Parent
Re:What I like (Score:5, Funny)
So if i drop them in texas, no one will be left?
Would also be a nice drop-in (ehhrm) for terrorist HQs like the Mugabe HQ, Cheney HQ, Ahmadinedschad HQ, and so on... O:-)
I, for one welcome... No, for real... I welcome them. :)
</funny>
Parent
Re:What I like (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, no uniform makes him a civilian, and no visible weapons makes him unarmed. As soon as he shows a weapon, he becomes an armed civilian, potential guerrilla member.
That does kind of suck, but I, as a civilian, prefer an innocent soldier's death to an innocent civilian's. And way too many civilians were killed in the recent wars in Croatia and Bosnia due to the hype about "Serbian grandmothers hiding AK-47s under their skirts".
If you don't see a weapon, they are unarmed. You can presume all you want, but until you see a weapon, they are unarmed. And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair — soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side. When an armed soldier kills an unarmed civilian, that's just despicable.
Parent
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Insightful)
well put. and note, if we're talking about armed battlefield robots, targetting the opposition with lethal force, false positives should NOT be acceptable.
Parent
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
well put. and note, if we're talking about armed battlefield robots, targetting the opposition with lethal force, false positives should NOT be acceptable.
Ah, well... human life is cheap. Armed battlefield robots cost millions.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, well... poor human life is cheap. Armed battlefield robots cost millions.
There fixed that for you.
We would be in far fewer wars if the children of our leaders (president,supreme court,congress, etc..) were required to be the first there and on the front line in FRONT of everyone else. Let the rich people put up their children and grandchildren to die for their war first.
Holy random capitalization, Batman! (Score:3, Interesting)
I must say, mentioning distinction and honor when your armed forces are viewed as an aggressor in the large part of the rest of the world sounds rather... hollow.
I also won't take your claims at face value; they sound like way too much propaganda. Well, you sound like propaganda, to be more accurate.
Random capitalization doesn't help, either.
Re:What I like (Score:5, Insightful)
And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair
Oh c'mon, when did "fair" become applicable to war again? When you crash into some backwater country that has 40 year old tanks and 15 year old soldiers and you field more firepower than half the globe combined, is that fair or something?
There is no fairness in a war. Every side will use whatever advantage it has to gain or retain the upper hand, of if this is impossible, inflict as much damage as entirely possible. Period.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can we design a robot to seek out and neutralize the "trigger-happy morons"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, no uniform makes him a civilian
Your criteria has failed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side.
Firepower, yes. Numbers? No. You'd have to have some nutty situation like the entire PLA of China invading Luxembourg to have soldiers outnumber civilians.
It doesn't excuse the slaughter of unarmed civilians, but it does give a greater insight as to why guerilla forces who can blend in with unarmed civilians are so powerful and cause so much paranoia.
Re:What I like (Score:5, Insightful)
When a civilian kills an armed soldier, that it unfair on the other civilians. A major reason for the rules about combatants wearing recognisable uniforms is to protect civilians. If the solders know that only other uniformed solders will shoot at them, then they have no reason to attack civilians. If the civilians decide to join in the fight, then they're not civilians any more; they're soldiers illegally out of uniform.
Depends on the situation, sure. But if the civilians break the rules intended to protect them, they can't complain if they're no longer protected by those rules.
Parent
Well said (Score:3)
Hence the clauses in the Geneva convention referring to carrying arms openly, and distinctive badges and insignia.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Colonies vs Britian - your "unarmed civilians" won because they were "unarmed civilians" until they were close enough to pull the trigger.
Vietnam - your "unarmed civilians" used babies as explosive devices
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a vague suspicion that a robot would get fewer false positives; humans are paranoid and value their own skins highly. As long as we don't add those survival values to robots they might do better. However, that would depend on making them very cheap.
Re:What I like (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We can make a machine that spins at 50,000 rpm. Can you do that? I can make a machine that lifts 2,000 kg.
I'd say we can already create machines that can do what humans can't.
Short Circuit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give that baby some arms, put a laser on top and hit it with lightning. I'll buy one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Designed for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Quote:
within a mock enemy village, robots were instructed to find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops
This is obviously designed for use in "the war on terror" where most of the fighting is against mock enemies....
American robot. (Score:4, Funny)
British? (Score:3, Funny)
What, no Daleks? (Score:3, Funny)
You would think in a UK competition there would be at least one of those remote control Daleks running around hollering "EXTERMINATE!!!"
Re:I knew it! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
The trash is people.
Funny, that. I sometimes think people are trash.
Re:No. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, there are notable similarities.
For example, it has tank treads, just like WALL-E. Also, it has binocular-type eyes, similar to WALL-E.
However, the same could be said of an AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter sitting on top of an M1A1 Abrams tank. :)
Parent
Re:No. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:No. (Score:5, Funny)
Why uncomfortable, did it touch you..? ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
But the hands.. where are the hands? If it can't grasp Eve's hand in the galactic loneliness of deep space, then it is nothing like Waaaaall-EEEE.
PS: shouldn't robots on a battlefield all have arms, to move crap out of the way..etc?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Two dis-similarities..
The cardboard last minute visor over the boom camera. The last minute sandwich box with a fan in it on the deck top.
also the plastic tarp over what looks like a Canon S2 digital camera also mounted on the deck top.
I love these competitions, the projects come out to compete and every one of them looks like it was just snagged off the bench with a sigh of "I hope this works"...
Re:Morality of developing military hardware (Score:5, Interesting)
Just about any technology can be used to kill. At least with military hardware, the best weapon is one that never needs to be used.
Also, is there something intrinsically better about being mauled by an old fashioned cannonbal than a grenade? Or a crossbow bold instead of a sniper bullet? Ideally, if you could develop and maintain a sufficiently large enough technology gap you woulnd't need to fight. Military development is as much about saving lives through conflict deterrence as it is about winning wars by killing people.
Bottom line, guns don't kill people, people do. All I know is that I'd rather bring a gun to a knife fight than a knife to a gun fight. I'd also rather be the one wearing a bulletproof vest in a gunfight, and the one with the armour peircing bullets etc.
Parent