Wall-E Lookalike Wins British War Robot Showdown 155
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.'"
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!
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I hear news about automation of warfare I cannot avoid impression that I heard or read it somewhere before, long long time ago. I guess that is because I got pleasure to read some works of great SF(?) writer Stanislaw Lem. I wonder only when washing machines will take the shape envisioned by him in 'Washing Machine Tragedy'.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm waiting for his nanobots to bring Peace on Earth.
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:2)
It's all fun and games until it gets confused and kills all the innocents while leaving the aggressors.
You mean when it switches to US military mode?
I kid, I kid ;)
Re: (Score:2)
or maybe it will be like a Twilight Zone twist ending where we drop it in to kill the aggressors and it kills us, the real aggressors.
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
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)
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.
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!
Re: (Score:2)
A war on venture capitalism, no less.
Re:What I like (Score:4, Funny)
But how will we fund it?! Damn!
Re: (Score:2)
Here you are, just a few seconds away from the best line in the entire movie (and that's really saying something):
"How do you shoot women and children?"
"Easy! You just don't lead'em so much!"
Re: (Score:2)
Ack! I borked the line. It's not "How DO you shoot..." it's "How CAN you shoot..." Not that anyone cares, we're pretty far OT by now.
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.
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.
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>
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
agreed, i'd like a bunch of those roaming the streets too. it can't be programmed to recognize any kind of martial arts weapon as an actual weapon, since all of them are based on tools or other readily available stuff. the kind of stuff that's within "reasonable doubt", the do-not-kill kind of thing. especially staves and similar weaponry.
that'd mean i get to roam around with my weapon of choice, and those silly police and military folks who happen to be near one are limited to the same! :D
srsly, i welcome
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately then they would have to also get rid ob themselves....
*i know* *i know*...
The answer is...
ROBOTWAAARSSS! :D
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The robot's only weakness would be Chuck Norris.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the West Side of Chicago?
Maybe they'll upgrade them to be able to tell who's got an NRA membership card and who does not. Or who's a liberal and who's not.
Re: (Score:2, 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.
Please put down your weapon.
You have 20 seconds to comply.
You have 15 seconds to comply.
You are in direct violation of penal code 1-13, section 9.
You have five seconds to comply.
Four, three, two, one.
I am now authorized to use physical force.
blam blam blam blam
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what country you are from, or how things work there, but here in the U.S. our troops are among the best educated in the world. And I don't just mean in combat tactics and preparedness. Although that too.
Compared against the general population of America, America's troops have a higher level of education, score higher on standardized tests, and have a higher average IQ. They also, on average, come from families with a higher mean income. This is among standard enlisted men and women, not cou
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm not deluding myself that fairness really comes into the picture at all. I have seen the war, I have seen its consequences, and I have seen too much for my taste, yet a lot less than some.
However, every side does not use whatever advantage they have; otherwise Americans would have nuked both Afghanistan and Iraq long ago. Which, given the trigger-happy moron in charge, I'm pleasantly surprised didn't actually happen.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can we design a robot to seek out and neutralize the "trigger-happy morons"?
Re: (Score:2)
However, every side does not use whatever advantage they have; otherwise Americans would have nuked both Afghanistan and Iraq long ago. Which, given the trigger-happy moron in charge, I'm pleasantly surprised didn't actually happen.
Look at this report concerning the Korean war and nukes [pbs.org]. Atomic bombs have been seriously considered but diplomatically speaking it would have seriously impaired the US position (see the British reaction) and stratigically speaking there were strong doubts that it would help to win the war....And even if you wiped the ennemy out of a region...Well what did you gain? The "freed" area will be a no man zone. A position lost depending on your strategy. It would even make your troops movement more complex and h
Re: (Score:2)
Nuking is no option. For a couple reasons.
First, international reaction. People kinda don't like countries that use nukes.
Second, you want the resources. At least in Iraq.
And finally, do you think it's a coincidence that Iraq is right west and Afghanistan is right east of Iran? I mean, what good is a base when it's more likely to kill your people than the enemy?
Re: (Score:2)
Except this isn't true at all. US forces restrict themselves all the time, and they're not allowed to do anything they want to. If you want utterly immoral and completely unrestricted warfare then go to Africa or something.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, no uniform makes him a civilian
Your criteria has failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no uniform makes him a civilian
Your criteria has failed.
Criterion.
There is only one, you see.
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.
Well said (Score:3)
Hence the clauses in the Geneva convention referring to carrying arms openly, and distinctive badges and insignia.
Re: (Score:2)
But if the civilians break the rules intended to protect them, they can't complain if they're no longer protected by those rules.
That's a little simplistic though. Just because my neighbour breaks those rules doesn't mean I can't complain when I am considered a target. Similarly, if a soldier breaks those rules, the civilians have every right to be upset.
As you say, it depends on the situation. I have the luxury of not having to make that sort of decision under battlefield or similar conditions. I don't env
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Saying "well, all civilians could be armed, so they'll all be treated as such" is not OK, no matter how you define what OK is, as it means innocent civilians, who never even thought of picking up arms, are being punished for the actions of others, by being endangered. Collective punishment, which this is eerily similar to, is illegal under the geneva conventions. Easy != OK.
Also, when warfare is so ridiclously asymmetric as we're seeing, expecting people to play by the rules is ridiculous, as someo
Re: (Score:2)
But the more civilians participate in combat, the more difficult it becomes for soldiers to distinguish between real civilians an
Re: (Score:2)
But if the civilians break the rules intended to protect them, they can't complain if they're no longer protected by those rules.
You're putting every civilian into the same category as an enemy combatant. Civilians far outnumber soldiers, as everyone who isn't fighting is essentially a civilian. They can't be held responsible for the actions of a small section of soldiers that are disguised as civilians to trick the enemy, and thus they can't take the blame for "breaking the rules intended to protect them."
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
"inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who take up arms openly to resist the invading forces" are entitled to POW protection. Looks like a uniform is not necessarily required.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm#P41_7391 [hrw.org]
http://www.superpatriots.us/aboutthecase/genevaconvention.htm#Article_4 [superpatriots.us]
"4.1.6 Inhabitants of a no
Re: (Score:2)
The causes, reasons, and methods of groups that hide in the civilian populace are completely tangent to the fact that civilians get killed because of it. Arguably it is worth it in some cases. It still drags innocent civilians into the fight, and the notion that "unarmed civilians" can be judged as "unarmed civilians" because they have no uniform and n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have never said it didn't take some pretty despicable shit to win a war, in fact I would suggest it is probably pretty necessary. That is one of the reasons I think the concept of the rules of war stuf
Re: (Score:2)
When an armed civilian kills an armed soldier, they become an illegal combatant and war criminal under the Geneva Convention for the very simple reason that it places other civilians at risk. That is a deliberate act and grossly more dispicable than a solider (or robot) accidentally killing a civilian.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sorry, was I mentioning soldiers accidentally killing civilians?
Re: (Score:2)
I have lived through a war. I was too young to fight; now I am too smart to fight.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Also it would be cheaper if we just eliminated world hunger, brought every country up to 1st world standards and discovered an eternal energy source. Then later on we could all have some tea together and admire the rainbow.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the difference between an armed troop and a sniper, anyway? I'm pretty sure one is a proper subset of the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it not, perhaps, be better to invest time and energy into getting the quote right, which was picking out an array of potential targets--including uniformed troops, armed snipers perched in windows and roadside bombs instead of twisting it to meet your agenda.
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:2)
Give that baby some arms, put a laser on top and hit it with lightning. I'll buy one.
You'll need a fair bit of money. Johnny 5 was worth over $11 million, and that was 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes [benedettelli.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ok that one is COOL :D
Re: (Score:2)
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....
Killbot kill limit (Score:2, Funny)
American robot. (Score:4, Funny)
Not much of a look alike. (Score:2)
Yes it has binocular eyes and tracks but that is about it. I would say it would look more like Johny Five from "Short Circuit". As Johny Five had binocular eyes, tracks, and was silver and designed for warfare.
British? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And if it was made in America, it would need to have a hatchet, a horse, and look like Mel Gibson.
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!!!"
Find and identify (Score:2)
Tap, tap. "Excuse me, are you an armed troop?"
Pun: 'Waste' of cash (Score:2)
Why couldn't they just build a real one like this one they used on the publicity tour? [youtube.com]
Re:I knew it! (Score:5, Funny)
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. :)
Re:No. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No. (Score:5, Funny)
Why uncomfortable, did it touch you..? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it just ex-TER-minated him.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see it now... (Score:2)
"I'm Wall-E"
"and I'm a PC"
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:2)
Wow, a Manfred Man lyric reference.
But rockets and guns are 'arms' too :-).
The bit of blue tarp was a nice touch. (Score:2)
With the possible side benefit of clearing the area of horses...
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So we just rely on the huge military power to be benevolent?
Unchecked power is a pretty bad thing.
So maybe a few lives are saved, but are those lives worth living if they are lived in subjugation?