Packs of Robots Will Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans 395
Ostracus writes "The latest request from the Pentagon jars the senses. At least, it did mine. They are looking for contractors to 'develop a software/hardware suite that would enable a multi-robot team, together with a human operator, to search for and detect a non-cooperative human subject. The main research task will involve determining the movements of the robot team through the environment to maximize the opportunity to find the subject ... Typical robots for this type of activity are expected to weigh less than 100 Kg and the team would have three to five robots.'"
To be fair, they plan to use the Multi-Robot Pursuit System for less nefarious-sounding purposes as well. They note that the robots would "have potential commercialization within search and rescue, fire fighting, reconnaissance, and automated biological, chemical and radiation sensing with mobile platforms."
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Informative)
Those laws never worked though. All of his stories were about how they failed in spectacular ways and the process of finding out why they went wrong.
Those laws also require an AI that doesn't exist. Maybe never will.
Re:Oblig. Robocop Quote (Score:3, Informative)
Not really a quote so much as most of the dialogue from the "Robocop" screenplay.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:3, Informative)
This is why I have many guns.
"Non-cooperative" is a technical term (Score:5, Informative)
In my experience, "non-cooperative" is simply used to describe "a person who doesn't want to be found". It is a technical term used to distinguish "search and rescue" scenarios (where the subject of the search is cooperative and will be lighting flares and such) from "search and destroy" or "search and intercept" scenarios. Different search patterns would be used in the different scenarios.
It probably does NOT mean "hunting down a person who didn't answer a (police|military) officer's question". It is simply a technical term used in the research community to distinguish robotic search scenarios.
Re:VERY stupid. It's your tax money. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why do I keep hearing... (Score:3, Informative)
I dunno, since Daleks are not robots.
Hans
Re:crocodile dundee (Score:5, Informative)
I would REALLY love to see what study you found that supports that claim.............
I've been looking for years to find one, still haven't ;)
Before you jump to prove me wrong, only peer-reviewed papers count, I hold everything to the same rigor that I hold science.
The studies that I have found, however, and the numbers at that show no problems with gun ownership. Take for instance our current crime rate. It's on a low plateau, crime has been staying at a pretty constant low for years now. Gun ownership, on the other hand, has been increasing significantly. The FBI Crime Statistics Report (2006, still waiting on the next one as they're done bi-annually) showed that for every single state that enacted a Shall-Issue Concealed Carry statute, crime rates have dropped. Every single one, no fliers, no flukes, every single one. I do believe the number is 31 states that have enacted one so far. For a great majority of those states, you can observe the drop starting in the year that the statute took effect. Think like a criminal for a second. You don't care what the law says. You're gonna find a gun one way or another. Now you want money. In California, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, D.C., or Michigan, you're in heaven. You can walk up to someone, pull out your gun, and feel safe in the fact that the people you're robbing are law abiding citizens, and that it is illegal for them to use force against you. It's a win-win situation for criminals. They have no intent on abiding the law, and everyone with wallets to snatch are mandated to sit there and be good little victims.
Places like Dallas, or Pensacola, Denver, Missoula, Kansas City, or even Miami are quite a bit different. In states and cities that support CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permits, now the criminal has some math to do. Now that well off looking guy walking with his girlfriend down the street isn't so appealing. He might have a gun, too. Criminals are predators, predators don't oft go after prey that could easily kill them unless they're completely desperate. The math changes quite a bit when pointing a gun at someone could get you killed. Most of them start second guessing their decision, and a fair number decide that maybe it's not a good idea after all. Having a weapon that makes you a badass in front of the girls and gives you a sense of entitlement doesn't do that as much when everyone else has one too. To quote a wiser man than me: "An armed society is a polite one."
As a gun proponent, I rebuff, I say show me the numbers. Put up or shut up. Prove with credible stats and studies (I.E. anything that can actually stand up to peer review, Daily Kos, bloggers, and the stupid shit you read on the lib pamphlets don't count), and I'll cede the point.
Re:Could this be the disconnect? (Score:3, Informative)
The Milgram experiment [wikipedia.org] would tend to lend credence to this assertion.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:3, Informative)
I mean, you give a robot a rule they ALWAYS have to follow but which has various examples where it can't... That's called bad programming.
Actually, that's called impossible programming. Except for a few academic-use-only languages, programming doesn't involve giving a computer rules, but giving it instructions. If you told a robot to map out the possible search space of actions and choose one that doesn't violate some rules, then not only would its actions be random, but it would be really, really slow.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:3, Informative)
>>It's nice to know we'd win all our wars with few, if any, American casualties,
Geez, there's so much to consider here:
Whose wars?
What about the people being killed by the bots, or is this just a higher-stakes battlebots game?
American casualties are not the only consideration, but thought must be paid to all people involved and to the big picture.
Of course there is a need to be effective when combat becomes inevitable. That should be much more infrequent that has come to pass lately. Fighting wars by mechanical proxy is one more way to remove ourselves from the consequences and the reality of the deed, after removing reporters or negative comments from the battle zone. Not that it shouldn't ever be done, but don't forget what we probably become when we do it.