Not Quite a T-1000, But On the Right Track 159
Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
from the dancing-robot-death-machines dept.
from the dancing-robot-death-machines dept.
New submitter misanthropic.mofo writes with a look at the the emerging field of robtic warfare. Adding, "Leaping from drones, to recon 'turtlebots', humanity is making its way toward robo-combat. I for one think it would make it interesting to pit legions of robot warriors against each other and let people purchase time on them. Of course there are people that are for and against such technology. Development of ethical robotic systems seems like it would take some of the fun out of things, there's also the question of who gets to decide on the ethics."
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that has changes is more penetration of robots into our militaries and more awareness of some of the ethical considerations of automated weapons. Don't forget - the machine gun and landmine have killed far more people than drones likely ever will. They kill mindlessly so long as the trigger was pulled or they are stepped on. And yet, their ethical considerations were long debated. It's just that "omg a robot!" is headline magic.
(To whit - the author of this article must not know that much about robotics if they're claiming "The turtlebot could reconnoitre a battlesite". No it can't - it's a glorified vacuum cleaner. I just kicked the one in my lab. It can barely get over a bump in the carpet.)
Let's focus on the real ethics of robotic warfare: how our leaders choose to use the tools we have made.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing that has changes is more penetration of robots into our militaries and more awareness of some of the ethical considerations of automated weapons. Don't forget - the machine gun and landmine have killed far more people than drones likely ever will. They kill mindlessly so long as the trigger was pulled or they are stepped on. And yet, their ethical considerations were long debated. It's just that "omg a robot!" is headline magic.
Both machine guns and landmines are pretty easy to avoid: Go where they are not.
The game changes when the killing device can move itself around and decides (by itself) if it wants to kill you.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Both machine guns and landmines are pretty easy to avoid: Go where they are not.
Like a movie theatre [wikipedia.org] for instance? a School [wikipedia.org] maybe? What about summer camp? [wikipedia.org] Or the humble old supermarket? [wikipedia.org]
The irony of military robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net] ... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
There are only so many hours in the day. If we put those hours into finding new ways to kill other people and win conflicts, we will not be putting those hours into finding new ways to heal people and resolve conflicts. Langdon Winner talks about this topic in his writings when he explores the notion of whether artifacts have politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdon_Winner [wikipedia.org]
Albert Einstein wrote, after the first use of atomic weapons, that everything had changed but our way of thinking. You make some good points about us long having cruise missiles, but on "forces of good", here is something written decades ago by then retired Marine Major General Smedley Butler: ..."
http://www.warisaracket.com/ [warisaracket.com]
"WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Just because it was "hot" before, with cruise missiles and nukes and poison gases, does not mean we will be better off when our society reaches a boiling point -- with robotic soldiers and military AIs and speedier plagues and so on. Eventually quantitative changes (like lowering prices per unit) become qualitative changes. Every year our planet is in conflict is a year of risk of that conflict escalating into global disaster. So, the question is, do our individual actions add to that risk or take away from it?
I'm impressed with what some UAVs can do in terms of construction vs. destruction, so obviously there is a lot of different possibilities in that field.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/107217-real-life-constructicon-quadcopter-robots-being-developed [extremetech.com]
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Both machine guns and landmines are pretty easy to avoid: Go where they are not.
Landmines have an annoying habit of being buried where you can't see them. This makes it difficult to ensure that you are going where they are not.
Re:Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)
The other obvious issue is the "arms race" aspect to this discussion. If it is mandated that all robots are designed not to kill humans, you can guarantee that someone will make one that doesn't comply, or complies conditionally.
Something about genies and bottles.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Landmines have an annoying habit of being buried where you can't see them.
Plus they have the nasty habit of remaining active long after the conflict has ceased.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between being killed by an semi-automatic rifle and being killed by a machinegun (sub or otherwise) is lost on me.
If someone is specifically talking about the risk of being killed by one or the other it becomes relevant, otherwise not so much.
The average person probably thinks the categories are: pistol, shotgun, rifle, machinegun and thats pretty much it.
I aspire to more intelligent discussion than the average person I suppose. I don't see how this is possible unless words are used correctly.
When people with a political agenda of banning guns use incorrect terminology that confuses semi-auto with full auto weapons it seems like they are deliberately obfuscating the issue to exploit the average persons ignorance. That requires correction, unless you're in favor of deceiving people to sway their political opinion. I know that's a popular tactic to the point of being near universal but I always live in hope of conversing with people who prioritize truth over their own opinion.