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."
Oblig. Robocop Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
ED-209: [menacingly] Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
Dick Jones: I think you better do as he says, Mr. Kinney.
[Mr. Kinney drops the pistol on the floor]
Dick Jones: [ED-209 advances, growling]
ED-209: You now have 15 seconds to comply.
[Mr. Kinney turns to Dick Jones, who looks nervous]
ED-209: You are in direct violation of Penal Code 1.13, Section 9.
[Entire room of people in full panic trying to stay out of the line of fire, especially Mr. Kinney]
ED-209: You have 5 seconds to comply.
Kinney: Help me!
ED-209: Four... three... two... one... I am now authorized to use physical force!
[ED-209 opens fire and shreds Mr. Kinney]
Uncooperative subjects (Score:4, Insightful)
Having robots deal with uncooperative subjects could ultimately help keep police safer, but unfortunately it creates a major imbalance of power. The use of robots in this manner could become a real problem in the hands of governments that wish to strike down on protestors and others who engage in peaceful civil disobedience. The prospects are truly frightening, although I suppose in the end protestors will figure out a way to build an army of unarmed, uncooperative robots to take the place of unarmed, uncooperative citizens.
Three Laws of Robotics (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we really need these now:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
— I. Asimov
Re:Required for Liberal control of populace (Score:3, Insightful)
Please let me know who the "socialist/communist" candidate is in this election so that I can be sure to vote against him or her. Thanks. Oh yes and I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:Because it's FINALLY appropriate. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not quite sure they'd be "overlords" as such. They'd be more like disgruntled, unpaid footmen who answer to a group of meatbag overlords. The meatbag overlords probably wouldn't even know how to use their stereo, let alone a law enforcement robot.
Could this be the disconnect? (Score:4, Insightful)
So often I have heard the internet meme that American soldiers (or soldiers of a western "civilized" country would not turn their weapons on their own people. Indeed, it is hard enough for them to do so to an Iraqi whom they still perceive as "human". However through indoctrination, and a process of dehumanizing the enemy, many Iraqis have died. Well, what happens if the next stage in de-humanizing comes not from propaghanda (which is not infalliable) but from a physical disconnect from targets.
Think about it... It is much easier for a sharp shooter to take out a target at a thousand yards then it is for someone to execute someone at point-blank. It is much easier for a remote drone to drop a bomb than a fighter-pilot to do so.
It is much easier for a robot controlled by a human operator to fire on civilians than an armed soldier, even if the civilian is a thousand yards away....
I think I see a flaw in their plans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uncooperative subjects (Score:4, Insightful)
The technology trend is for government to afford it and then within 10 years typically upper class citizens can afford it, and then within 20 years middle class citizens can afford it. This means soon we will have wealthy people or well funded criminals battling these robots with their own robot armys. This is going to get crazy.
Will countermeasures become illegal? Can I EMP these suckers?
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
How are these laws being violated?
If we wait until the ARE violated even once, IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR HUMANITY!!!
Re:Required for Liberal control of populace (Score:1, Insightful)
Okie dokie. On the 2008 election there are two communist/socialist candidates: Barack Obama and John McCain.
Hope that helps! ;)
Less nefarious purposes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, please.
My daughter was just a few minutes ago telling me about a friends husband. He had signed on to the Army as a photographer AND as a conscientious objector. After being sent to Iraq a couple weeks ago, he is a mess. He is now a guard in a military prison, I suspect, with orders that do not sit well with him. The military knows nothing of "intended purpose". If it can be used to kill, it will be.
Maybe the military understands that if they can take the PERSONAL out of killing, it will be easier for people like the man I just described to go out and KILL.
And before you say it, I realize the man had unrealistic expectations. Ahh, the folly of youth. Isn't it a wonderful thing?
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope you're planning on giving up the death penalty, inaction during genocide, cigarettes, alcohol, and cars when the robots obey rule 1 by acting like a babysitter and taking away all the guns, lethal injection equipment, tobacco plants, hops, and cars to keep us from harm.
Well damn, that was a poorly thought out rule...
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I think the first major problem was that law 1 is provably contradictable. That's no good... 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.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:2, Insightful)
Hahahaha!
While you nerds are arguing about Asimov the military is putting this into place. When the shooting starts nobody's going to come to you for help; you'd only start posting to slashdot about whether or not you could charge a robot with murder. Meanwhile the real bodies are piling up.
How do you code that? (Score:1, Insightful)
So are you going to write the AI code that implements those laws? Because I'm pretty sure they can't be coded very easily. (And they can be subverted, if you look at the later books...)
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to wonder if whoever marked our posts "insighful" was maybe a robot/cyborg trying to warn us. Possibly from the future.
Not sure if I hope this gets modded insightful. On the one hand, I am a whore for the mod points. On the other, it would confirm my darkest fears.
And then ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Packs of Robots Will Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans
Packs of uncooperative humans will hunt down robots and steal their batteries.
Re:Could this be the disconnect? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that hard to get soldiers to turn on their own populace. Remember Kent State?
The National Guard isn't even full time army, and they've killed unarmed citizens.
You don't even need to dehumanize the enemy. You simply have to remove the responsibility of the individual and you'll find enough soldiers willing to put bullets in whomever you choose.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
SWORDS [discovery.com], and Gladiator [discovery.com].
One is already in the field, the other will be coming in 2009.
SWORDS apparently isn't autonomous at all, so maybe it doesn't count (depends on your definition of "robot"). Gladiator is. Of course, neither will fire unless instructed to do so (a Marine pushes the big red button).
But that still breaks law one and is the only exception to law two.
Personally, I don't think the three laws will ever be widely accepted. Robots are seen as tools, and tools are expected to do as commanded, not say "no, that violates the first law."
Then again, maybe you won't be physically human by 3rd quarter 2009?
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
Off topic.
I used to feel the exact same way about shooting a human or an animal. I don't need to hunt to eat and I have no desire to take a human life. I shoot competitively, but that's always for a score against paper targets. I figure if I own a gun I should be good with it. A competent user is a safe user and all that...
But then I had an interesting event happen - I got charged by a boar.
I occasionally go hunting with my father in law to take photographs. I always figured "hey I'm learning how to hunt if I ever need it, I just don't have to shoot anything." Quite often my father in law would stalk a deer and let it go, he got off on just doing it. Plus, he ate everything he ever did shoot. He's old school southern ex-military.
After one evening of watching an inactive plot, we called no joy and decided to head back to camp. After about five minutes of walking this boar comes crashing out of some brush right at us. I just drew and discharged my whole magazine. I was scared absolutely shitless. All the competition training and practice went out the fucking window. I'm surprised I even managed to draw. Hell, I'm not sure I'm the one who even killed it.
After I quit crying, and trust me I did, my father in law laughed and said "well, you may not be a hunter, but you're definitely no pacifist." He bundled up the boar and we continued to camp.
I agonized over this event for weeks. I had taken life (or so I assumed) and was none to happy about it, yet I didn't feel it was unjustified - just horrible. I kept running through thought experiments concerning the difference between the ideal I tried to hold myself to and the actions I had taken in light of a real world scenario. Was I a hypocrite? Was it my fault for being there? If I didn't actually own a weapon would these feeling even exist?
Maybe it is just a cop out, but I eventually came to the conclusion that my actions were justified. I also became acutely aware that I had a very different attitude towards having to use my weapon for self defense. Before I never kept it loaded in the gun safe. Now I have a touch sensitive gun case next to the bed, and the gun is loaded.
I also purchased a second weapon, realizing the limitations of the one I had when it came to home defense.
I'm not saying that everyone should own a gun, or that others wouldn't stick to their guns (pun intended) and not use such a tool against an animal or human. I'm just saying that never is a tricky word.
Re:crocodile dundee (Score:4, Insightful)
Well since my gun safe next to my bed responds to fingerprints I guess we can ignore half your argument as it pertains to me.
The other arguments regarding domestic violence fall under the auspice of "best weapon available", we going to get rid of chef knives too?
for every scenario where they are used on an intruder successfully, there are 10 other scenarios where they are used on the house occupants: self-inflicted in a moment of despondency, self-inflicted by a child, used on an inhabitant in the dark sneaking in the window because they forgot their keys, used on a wife in the heat of a giant flare up, used on someone while drunk or high
Statistical link or shut the fuck up. Feelings aren't facts.
But lets take this argument along the allegory line you have established.
I have been to 15 competitions where there were over 400 fully armed people competing with each other in their skill at shooting. In a situation where we are all competing, filled with hypothetical testosterone and obviously laying out our manhood against each other, you would think that you could find at least one instance of one competitor shooting another. You can't. In fact, you can't even find an instance of an accidental shooting injury at a match.
Go ahead and try. Use google - I'll wait.
The situations you allude to all have to do with the ignorant doing ignorant things to each other.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:2, Insightful)
prelim linky: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4425689.stm [bbc.co.uk]
googly: http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=south+korea+border+robots [google.com]
asimov is WAY too late. 3 laws implies that there is some kind of global robot treaty. imho, the only way this will happen is that there's a war fought along the lines of wwi with robots. an extreme strain on resources and a fight characterized by, or aiming for, the total destruction of another nations resources, economy, and, upon that, man-power. only once a major war has had two equally 'superior' opponents pinned against each other, both realizing, that chucking money and steel at one another isn't going to change anything, some such treaty can be created.
I believe asimov didn't realize the future of warfare. the bigger and specialized stick has been a doctrine since wwii - but armies of the world have only just begun to implement this. while I know the british army has always relied on superior training and experience (possibly matched only by the israelis - probably trained by the brits, as are they all..), the american army does anything and everything it can, especially since the iraq war (upon the commanders-in-chief understood what a media war actually is), to be as technologically advanced as possible. I remember reading research papers back in '97-'99 that were talking about computer-driven apcs and smart tanks. the americans have even developed the mini-comm-tank. it's used for field-ops communication. it's a mini-tank, like 7 inch by 5 inch, has tracks, a big battery, an antennae and functions as a relay. it helps communication in caves or heavily built up areas with high interference.
I seem to have rambled on a tad; my point is we are at the very beginning of warfare including robots and AI. unmanned drones, being flown by an RAF pilot 100 miles away in iraq (and since the new skynet satellite is up, even further, maybe even from england), is just the very beginning.
imagine how a program feeds you a grayed out menu function - that's your first law.
proprietary programs always fulfill the needs of their creator first.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:3, Insightful)
I would never use a gun to shoot an animal or human for any reason.
That state of mind is what makes people easy victims.
I don't respect too much people that don't consider themselves worthy of using force to preserve their life or liberty.
Re:Oblig. Robocop Quote (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it interesting though that the world has never seen a modern communist society... I wonder if one could actually work? People said a democracy would never work when the United States started and now most of it's residents would consider that statement to be false.
1. USSR, China, Cuba, etc.
2. Institutionalized communism will not work as it inherently requires large sums of wealth to be centralized into the hands of the people with the ruthless sociopathic zeal that would let them win out over all the other people that were pursuing the same wealth.
3. The U.S. is not, nor has it ever been, nor was it ever intended to be a democracy. It is a Representative Republic (Albeit an old and failing one.)
4. Most people I know in the U.S. are highly dissatisfied with the current state of government. A quick scan of newspaper headlines for the last 200+ years indicates that this has been true from the get go(to varying degrees.)So even if this were a democracy what in the world makes you say it works?(I'll concede it works in the same way a 70 old car with bare bones maintenance and way too many custom modifications works.)
Re:Since they're not people... (Score:3, Insightful)
In California, you also get a felony rap for defending yourself against that police dog (the law reads something like "for injuring it, attempting to injure it, or interfering with it in the pursuit of its duty"), even if you did absolutely NOTHING else wrong and there is absolutely NO evidence that you did. This law isn't about protecting police dogs; it's about making sure anyone can be converted into a perp, just by siccing the dog on the desired person, and waiting for the victim to hit the dog ("attempting to injure it") while trying to keep from getting mauled. Great for when you have no other evidence of a crime!
I'm sure police-handled robots will get covered by the same law in due course.
Re:crocodile dundee (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Here's a study [upi.com] based on CDC statistics that essentially confirms what everyone should know intuitively - states with more gun owners have more gun related deaths.
Now you want money. In California, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, D.C., or Michigan, you're in heaven.
Depends upon where you are where you are. Trying to lump "California" or "New York" into one unit regarding crime statistics is disingenuous. Hawaii has a lower per-capita violent crime rate than even Massachusetts, People's Republic Of.
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.
The major cities you listed have violent crime rates per capita significantly higher than the national average. Dallas and Miami are your examples of cities that prove the crime-reduction ability of concealed carry laws? Good grief.
To quote a wiser man than me: "An armed society is a polite one."
An armed society is a polite society during the periods that nobody is shooting. One can easily think of any number of societies on the globe that are well-armed that are by no means "polite."
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.
The easiest statistical correlations to draw regarding violent crime is that it moves in lockstep with both poverty levels and the number of Hispanic and African-American residents in a certain area. With regard to current ideals in social discourse it is of course racist to say this, though the FBI statistics show exactly that - but it's in the form of graphs and charts and nobody actually comes out and says it in a straightforward manner.
Re:i'm a fucking idiot apparently (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you are so convinced that you will never need to defend yourself, or that the police will always be there in time to save you, or that weakness is a virtue, et cetera, doesn't mean that no responsible individual has a right to defend themselves, or even enjoy a harmless sport.
Honestly your attitude towards guns being evil useless deathtraps reminds me of senior citizens who think computers are magical satanic apocalypse-engines.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying this scenario is likely to happen. But if it does happen, we're TSOL.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
50 thousand more United States troops were deployed to Iran this month, bringing the total to 210 thousand. Heavy fighting continues in the streets of Tehran, with U.S. casualties reaching 112 for the month. The president's approval rating on the handling of the war remains steady at 47 percent.
vs.
50 thousand more United States ACLUs (Autonomous Combat and Logistical Units) were deployed to Iran this month, bringing the total to 210 thousand. Heavy fighting continues in the streets of Tehran, but the Pentagon states that fewer than 200 military robots have been disabled this month. The president's approval rating on the handling of the war remains steady at 87 percent.
It's nice to know we'd win all our wars with few, if any, American casualties, but I shudder to think of the chaos that Bush and Cheney would have unleashed on the world if they had one million autonomous combat robots at their disposal.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:2, Insightful)
The most significant implication of autonomous combat robots is guerrilla warfare. This is the only remaining area where an insurgency would have an advantage, especially in an urban setting. But if you're using robots for all your search-and-destroy missions, and you're really not that concerned about robot casualties, the effectiveness of an enemy insurgency is greatly diminished. Imagine a war of 100,000 robots against the Mahdi army in Iraq. The U.S would lose a few thousand robots, and the Mahdi army would probably be completely decimated. If the army could get the price per robot below one million dollars each, 1000 robots would be acceptable losses in a month of war, and would have a negligible effect on U.S. public opinion.
I do think it's good news for the people of the U.S. Army, as they won't be killed or subjected to PTSD. But the implications for the rest of the world are pretty grim. If the U.S. was a constant source of goodwill, it would be fine. But it's not. U.S. military actions are always done in self-interest, and always in conflict with someone else's best interests. Unchecked American military supremacy is a scary thing, even for Americans. I'm sure the military is aware of how much of a game-changer robotic warriors are. That's why these projects are heavily funded, and why you keep seeing new and more sophisticated battle robots.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:3, Insightful)
> I do think it's good news for the people of the U.S. Army, as they won't be killed or subjected to PTSD.
One of the natural checks on large scale war, is the horror and trauma of the generation that has lived through it, especially the soldiers that fought. Removing that check brings us one step closer to recreating large-scale horrors the likes of which we haven't seen for a long time.
> Unchecked American military supremacy is a scary thing
Unchecked military supremacy is a scary thing