Slashdot Log In
U.S. Army Robots Break Asimov's First Law
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:49 AM
from the fourth-law-is-don't-look-at-me-i'm-hideous dept.
from the fourth-law-is-don't-look-at-me-i'm-hideous dept.
buanzo writes "The US Army is deploying armed robots in Iraq that are capable of breaking Asmov's first law that they should not harm a human.
SWORDS (Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems) robots are equipped with either the M249, machine gun which fires 5.56-millimeter rounds at 750 rounds per minute or the M240, which fires 7.62-millimeter rounds at up to 1,000 per minute.
" update this story refers to this article from 2005. But com'on, robots with machine guns! I don't get to think about that most days!
This discussion has been archived.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.
Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are still connected by radio to a human operator who verifies that a suitable target is within sight and orders it to fire.
While they are harming a human, it's ultimately a human that makes the decision to fire. And who cares about fictional "laws", anyway?
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's this point that is the most salient. Asimov's laws are interesting, and make for good "debate over your adult beverage of choice" fodder, but they are just one persons take on a single use case for a particular technology. Those laws might make sense for industrial and domestic helper robots, but wouldn't apply for military (obviously) or law enforcement roles. Certainly a law enforcement robot could be trained to limit the amount of harm it inflicts on a perp to neutralize him, but some amount of harm may be necessary.
Bottom line is that as robots actually do start entering more into our mainstream lives, some "real" thought needs to be given to how to make them as non harming to humans as possible. These laws, while laudible, can't be "programmed" as is, making the task much more complex.
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, Just like Guantanamo Bay (Score:5, Funny)
Robotics, Identity, and Universes (Score:5, Interesting)
Many researchers are spending lots of time researching AI, and the problems for which the Laws of Robotics are a an attempted solution; Namely how do you keep the robotis from taking over and/or indiscriminately killing mere humans, as seen in so many hollywood movies. So fictional laws are important as experiments in looking at potential solutions to a real problem.
As I see it, the main problem consists of two factors. One factor develops as a result of the first.
The first factor is consciousness, also known as self awareness. The second factor sounds like it is the first, but it includes other areas.
The second factor is Identity. Identity is not restricted to Self Awareness, but also includes group awareness, etc in expanding circles to include universes, subjective and otherwise. When someone else is considered part of a group identity, as "one of us", then you tend not to act against yourself. When the other person is seen as being "one of the Not Us but Them" then you tend to get an opposition, etc.
In wars, it is more a universe thing, the Hitler Universe vs the Churchill Universe, for example. Or Religious Figure One (tm) vs Religious Figure Two (tm). Or a religious universe vs a scientific universe.
Part of the problem of psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. is that they tend to group their victims into the "One of the Not Us/Not Me" category. No sense of being or identity is allowed or granted to the other person, and so, to one degree or another, this rationalizes pigeon-holing people into things that can be abused one way or another. Or else the identity given is some other alteration of reality that legitimizes criminal activity.
This is difficult enough to deal with in humans. Psychologists and psychiatrists have no cure for psychopaths, since it is seen as being in the genes. You can't make a pill for it, and no psychopath would take it as they do not have the luxury of seeing that anything is wrong with themselves.
Now we try to apply this to Robotics. Probably the only real solution for the problem is to redefine Human as self aware creatures from earth, and incorporate this awareness somehow into robots, to some slight degree, so that Robots see Humans as "One of Us".
It is a little touchy on how you would do this. It exposes some of the potential hypocrisy of humans in actions towards other potentially self aware creatures on earth, as well as each other. A self aware robot could see the hypocrisy without the emotional justification people exhibit. At this point, we could be in trouble.
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, you just put "rm -rf
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry folks there ain't no draft and it isn't a mystery that the US war machine is a "tad" corrupt. you sign up for the military because you want to profit from the misery of others. That is unless you sign up for the military to do something outside of being a grunt [e.g. doctor, engineer, etc]. Then you're ok.
These people you so casually dismiss as "robots" sign up, generally speaking, when they're eighteen or nineteen years old; they believe, almost without exception, that they are doing so to serve their country, to protect the Constitution and the flag and Mom and apple pie. And you know what? At most times throughout our country's history, they've been right.
Just a few years later, if they're unlucky enough to have enlisted at a time like the current one, they're old men, scarred by things no human being should ever have to see. That's what war (any war, including the "good" ones) does to people. That doesn't happen to robots.
I started out as one of those nineteen-year-old grunts; a couple of years later, dimly sensing what was coming down the pike, I cross-trained as a medic, in which capacity I served in Desert Storm. I had no desire whatsoever to "profit from the misery of others" -- I wanted to serve, and I was, relatively speaking, one of the lucky ones. I don't have anyone's death on my conscience. I do have memories of things that will give me nightmares and flashbacks for the rest of my life
They're not robots. They're your son, your niece, your little brother, caught up in a horrible situation not of their own making. Don't take your anger out on them. Save it for the evil old men who never exposed themselves to that kind of horror, who would never allow their own children to go through it, who casually, thoughtlessly, cheerfully send other people's kids off to hell.
Phalanx... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Phalanx... (Score:5, Informative)
Fluff Piece (Score:5, Informative)
These are actually robots, but they're not the fully-autonomous solutions that Asimov was suggesting that mankind needed protection from. Thus the "laws" of robotics don't apply here, because it's still a human who's doing the thinking for the machine.
In effect, this is a safe way for ground troops to line up a kill zone, then cause lots 'o bad guys to get torn to shreds. Prior to this, troops needed to use a vehicle-mounted machine gun to get this sort of rate of fire. This was extremely limited in close quarters, where a Humvee or Tank might not fit. While it was theoretically possible to carry a machine gun to the combat zone, such weapons are difficult to transport, setup, and use in close quarters.
Asmov's (sic) first "law"... (Score:5, Funny)
If the submitter wants to troll about the military, the least he could do is spell Asimov's name correctly.
What makes a "robot"? Progressively more complex machinery has been able to inflict bodily harm, and kill, for quite some time.
A few things: (Score:5, Funny)
THE US Army is deploying armed robots in Iraq that are capable of breaking Asmov's first law that they should not harm a human.
Sorry to break it to the folks over at the Inquirer, but Asimov's Laws do not actually exist....any more than his 'positronic brain' does. It's fiction.
Next week on the Inquirer: Computers Built That Break The Orange Catholic Bible's Commandment of 'Thou shalt not make a machine in the likenes of a human mind'.
Sheesh.
They are still connected by radio to a human operator who verifies that a suitable target is within sight and orders it to fire.
OK....so the're not even robots, then. They're telepresence devices.
Then the robot has the job of making sure lots of bullets are sent towards the target.
Statement from the Iraqi forces regarding the use of these 'robots':
Nice to know we can take what we've learned in FPSs and apply them to the real world.
Later the US plans to replace the control system of the bots with a "Gameboy" type of controller hooked up to virtual reality goggles.
Yes! Finally, all my training has paid off! I can be a soldier from the comfort of my basement! Where do I sign?
Not to worry (Score:5, Funny)
The enemy must merely send wave after wave of men until that limit is reached and they will shut down.
Not a robot (Score:5, Informative)
Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)
Robots fighting our wars for us (Score:5, Funny)
'Honey, pass me a beer, the robot wars are on.'
Ridiculous Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
1. What hurting means
is it pain? death? financial impact? what about indirect effects? If I help human 1 build a better mousetrap, I am indirectly harming some other human's way of life.
2. What people are
3. Where they are
These are highly non trivial problems. In fact, they're unsolvable to any degree of certainty. They only make sense in a *science fiction* book in which a highly talented author is telling you a story. In the real world, they are meaningless because of their computational intractibility.
In the real world, we use codes of ethics and/or morality. Such codes recognize the fact that there are no absolutes and sometimes making a decision that will ultimately cause harm to someone is inevitable.
So can we please stop with these damned laws already?
gameboy wars (Score:5, Funny)
Re:gameboy wars (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you being serious?
The "government" has had weapons that the "citizens" cannot (easily) gain access to for more than a century. How is this different?
Or is this just a pulpit for you since you caught the article early?
(The "government" will ALWAYS have more sophisticated weaponry, because it is pooling the resources of the citizenry to design, develop, build, and purchase such weaponry. Your discussion is interesting for a philosophical debate; nothing more.)
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, have to differ with you there. I don't want a tac nuke in private hands, because I don't believe you're capable of only hitting those who are actually posing a threat to you personally. I also wouldn't let you have land mines, pursuant to the common law principle of prohibiting reckless endangerment.
-jcr
The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
End of story.
I'd rather return to the "No Standing Army" policy of individual state militias that can be called up to defend our borders in the event of a real declared war.
The beauty of modern warfare is very few people die relative to former wars. We've only lost around 2,000 men and women in Iraq so far and although it is a trajedy (not the war, but the loss) it is far less than wars of the same scale in years prior. Technology makes the difference.
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not exactly. As it happens, there just hasn't been a war as large-scale as some of the past wars have been. Lots of people died in WW1 and WW2. WW2 killed more than WW1, partly due to more advanced methods of killing. But since WW2 we have just had relatively minor wars. Iraq War is pretty small potatoes, and even it resulted in something like 100.000 deaths. Vietnam (a lot smaller than either World Wars) caused over 2 million deaths. Korean Wars caused millions of casualties as well, but I don't know the number of deaths. So the amount of casualties have been relatively high, even though the wars have been very limited in length and/or scope when compared to the World Wars.
Conveniently forgetting all those dead Iraqis (civilian and others alike) eh?