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."
robots.txt (Score:5, Funny)
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
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: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: (Score:2)
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.
Well, that's all the empirical proof I need.
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: (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:4, Interesting)
That's not true. Rule-based programming is widely used in practice. The canonical example is automated credit rating scoring.
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_rule_system [wikipedia.org]
And incremental rule-based processing can be done very efficiently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rete_algorithm [wikipedia.org]
Of course, current rule-based systems are NOWHERE complicated enough to understand concepts like 'harm'.
Re: (Score:3, 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: (Score:2)
I'm not sure a robot would evaluate a gun as a threat if it is in a dormant state. There are also situations where taking a weapon away from a human would be in direct violation of rule 1.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is why I have many guns.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Funny)
I would never use a gun to shoot an animal or human for any reason.
But a robot-- there is no hesitation if it came to that. Indeed, one good potshot at an Intel robot deserves a full clip. AMD, I'm not so sure.
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:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:4, Funny)
I also purchased a second weapon, realizing the limitations of the one I had when it came to home defense.
Yeah, man. When those wild boars start coming down the chimney you gotta be ready.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless you're a vegetarian, it's a complete cop-out not to be able to kill an animal.
I mean, I couldn't kill a cat or a dog, and I might kill a person who killed a cat or a dog, but I wouldn't lose sleep over killing anything I ate.
The only thing I still hunt is dove. I don't particularly like deer, or squirrel, and people get pissed when you shoot their hogs.
If on the other hand you ARE a vegetarian, I may eat you myself.
I realize that I'm not particularly eloquent, but Anthony Bourdain has covered this subject much better than I could on his show 'No Reservations' a few times.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a fucked up experience when I ate it.
I was racked with guilt at the time. Everyone, excluding my father in law, told me I should get over it (me and him actually bonded in a weird way because of this). He has never antagonized me about it, and any time the subject is brought up in conversation he hasn't been the one to initiate it - and he never says anything critical.
In a culinary sense, it was good. In an existential sense, it was probably the most meaningful meal I have ever had.
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: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: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: (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:crocodile dundee (Score:4, Interesting)
What I wish to say is that if the definition one has of eliminating poverty is the "American Dream" of everyone owning an 11,000 square foot home, 2 luxury cars in the driveway, and 2.5 kids going to the best universities, forget it. It can't be done! Attempting to bring the whole planet up to what is considered an American middle class standard of living will burn through what resources remain on this planet like flash paper.
I feel the reason "poverty" exists as it is defined in the United States is finally because the resources that do exist are ultimately advertised, marketed, and distributed to the "poor" in a way that leaves them physically, emotionally, and spiritually unsatisfied - to keep people always grasping for more - and this is done intentionally by the industries involved to make sure wealth continues to always flow upward. If you can trick people into believing that just that little extra effort, that next little purchase will somehow lead to true satisfaction, you can always make them believe that it's just around the corner. It's just a con-game to make what resources are left bubble to the top.
Finally it all comes down to breeding rights and reproduction. That's what life is here for, it's what the specialized organ at the center of our bodies is there for. Perhaps the final reason for the existence of every concept of wealth, prosperity, and economic success is that it's the current measure by which one's fitness for breeding is judged. And if the current gold standard of breeding fitness is the American way of life - then by God those who have it are going to use every trick in the book to squeeze those who don't by the balls to give them the illusion of getting there when they're really not. The worst thing that could ever happen for their breeding prospects is for the masses to wake up and realize it's all a fucking lie - the closest the U.S. ever came to that stage was the late 1960s - and such deviance was eventually sublimated by consumer culture into the packaged deviance of basically body piercing and ass tattoos.
If all that's not worth a -1 Offtopic I don't know what is.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
When Jack Williamson wrote "With Folded Hands", his 'humanoids' took away all freedom to do anything risky. supposedly for people's own good. Try to go mountain climbing, and they make you stay inside, but offer a nice game of chess. A little observation of what the humanoids say shows they were trying to implement Asimov's laws, and the whole story is about just the point you raise. It's a pity that not nearly as many people have read Williamson as Asimov.
Re: (Score:2)
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:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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)
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: (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
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, capturing the human to help put them in jail would break law 1. Law 1 is actually provably contradictable. It's logically impossible to be performed in all cases.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Interesting)
Asimov would have written a short story where a Positronic Robot series had just been developed to the point where it could decide imprisonment counted as harm, and a human had directed it that it was acceptable as it offered a chance for the human to reform and become a better person. Susan would get involved over something, like the robot breaking the prisoner out when it became apparent the prisoner wasn't going to reform, or that he already had so the rest of his sentence was superfluous and so counted as harm.
Either way, putting someone in jail only automatically counts as harm at some particular level of mentation. Below that, the robot would assume that if the human got three squares and a cot, and better medical care than being on the run, there was no harm. Above that level, the robot would have to balance issues of human freedom with the harm a human might do to others exercising it. At still higher levels of understanding, the robot would have to consider how the human might harm himself exercising freedom. It's only an automatic violation of law 1 to a robot between the really dumb and the moderately smart levels, not to other robots.
Returning to the thread, the robots described are in the real world = really, really dumb category, too dumb to even apply the first law at all. That means a human would actually be fully responsible for any mistakes the robots made, but tools such as this let that human pretend not to be responsible for mistakes - that's what's really a 'bad thing' (tm) here.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:4, Funny)
> It may be that the purpose for biological intelligence is to create machine intelligence.
On what evidence do you base this statement? Please convince me, I'd love to have a purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
User-agent: * /robots.txt
Disallow:
the self-fulfilling contradiction!
I, For One (Score:2, Funny)
welcome our new, robot hunting packs.
I bet this is.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really a quote so much as most of the dialogue from the "Robocop" screenplay.
Re: (Score:2)
He threw down his gun instead of dropping it. ED-209 got confused. ED-209 should have been programmed to notice the gun is no longer in the suspect's hand and is on the ground.
But if someone was controlling ED-209 via a video game interface it would be a different story. Also ED-209 should have used rubber bullets instead of real bullets to take in the suspect alive instead of dead.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Though the last 10 years seem to be disproving that... just saying.
Mechanical Hound (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mechanical Hound (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That thing is susceptible to the oldest traps on the planet, hole covered by leaves and counter weighted net covered by leaves.
Nifty yeah, but not very scary.
Since they're not people... (Score:3, Interesting)
.... can I just shoot them if they try to hunt me down? What about a nice EMP blast? And will they be armed? Or will they behave more like searchers from the Chronicles of Riddick?
I'm really not sure if I'm looking forward to that. Either they won't be armed, and they'll be easily disabled, or they will be, and then.... Meh.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
.... can I just shoot them if they try to hunt me down? What about a nice EMP blast? And will they be armed? Or will they behave more like searchers from the Chronicles of Riddick?
I'm really not sure if I'm looking forward to that. Either they won't be armed, and they'll be easily disabled, or they will be, and then.... Meh.
The fun thing about EMP blasts are that, you know, the easiest way to make them is by detonating a nuclear weapon in the air [fas.org]. If you consider that "easily disabled", remind me to not get on your shitlist :)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you can just use this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KcD3KQ38CM. Not quite as mindblowing, but a bit more targeted. :)
Re:Since they're not people... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have it on the authority of a friend that when a police dog comes out of nowhere and leaps on you and you instinctively knock it away, it PISSES THE COPS OFF and the tend to beat the crap out of you. I'm pretty sure you would get a similar reaction from them if you scratch their shiny new toy. Remember, most law enforcement considers this a battle between US and THEM, and they will include these robots in their definition of US.
Re:Since they're not people... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can attest to that myself.
It DOES piss them off (especially if your knocking it away with Vibram-soled, steel toe boots), but they don't necessarily beat the crap out of you. They just let the now-very-pissed-off dog chew on you for awhile. That way there are no marks from THEM to indicate excessive force.
The problem here is that the DOG does NOT have to announce himself as a police officer (like I'm gunna see a badge, on the collar, in the dark). That allows the officer to apply force without clearly announcing that you are dealing with someone that your not allowed to DEFEND yourself from. When it happened to me, I had already kicked the dog 4-5 times and been chewed on for 10-15 seconds by the time I had ANY idea there was a cop in the area.
Personally, I think robots would just remove the normal hesitation that most people experience when confronted with the decision of killing someone else. In other words, get rid of that pesky conscience.
Re:Since they're not people... (Score:5, Interesting)
Crazy, killing a police dog is a felony, but a police office killing someone else's dog is ... part of the job?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 ("attemp
Re: (Score:2)
You could shoot or EMP them, but you'll be brought up for a DMCA violation, and that calls out the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm really not sure if I'm looking forward to that. Either they won't be armed, and they'll be easily disabled, or they will be, and then.... Meh."
Armament and resistance to damage are completely different qualities.
"What about a nice EMP blast?"
What about automobile airbag charges propelling water-based paint?
Blind the optics and the machine is useless. In situations such as protests the action would be non-violent and not ruin the spendy machine at possible great cost to those caught disabling it.
Airbag
Because it's FINALLY appropriate. (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, Welcome our new Robotic Overlords.
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.
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.
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: (Score:3)
This is not a zero-sum game. Only large organized crime syndicates would have the ability to do as you say.
Ordinary citizens would not have the ability to defend themselves against this if the government began using them for suppression of free speech.
These robots should not be developed. And if they must be developed they should be illegal t
Re: (Score:2)
I have to disagree with you a bit on the ability for humans to defend themselves against robots of this type. Building a robot that could deal with stairs, leaps across large gaps, and still be able to maintain pursuit speeds would probably be weak against simple things like judo.
Airborne robots would probably run out of steam after they exhausted their disabling payloads.
Track using robots aren't very good at detaining a human, but they excel at recon.
The human form allows us to overcome these limitations
Re: (Score:2)
Would damaging a police robot count as assaulting a police officer, or damaging government property?
Wasn't this on TV some time ago? (Score:2)
Wasn't something like this on TV some time ago. They had several bomb disposal robots chassis reconfigured with several different sets of cameras (infra-red, wide-angle, zoom lens, rear-view), and a mounting point for a rifle with zoom optics.
Previous slashdotters had suggested that the best defence would be to tip the robots over, build some ground-traps or hide in a river.
I have to say it.... (Score:5, Funny)
Note to self: (Score:4, Funny)
- toothpaste
- beer
- cereal
- aluminum foil (for tin hat)
Once home:
- google "conspiracy theories"
- google "howto electromagnetic pulse"
- google "group robot porn"
Re: (Score:2)
Google: group robot porn
Returns:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/418760979_1bafe68c02_b_d.jpg [flickr.com]
Cake!
Re: (Score:2)
And if you add some numbers and letters, it becomes a quiz to match them up correctly:
Re: (Score:2)
- google "group robot porn"
Another robosexual out of the closet.
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....
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
The Milgram experiment [wikipedia.org] would tend to lend credence to this assertion.
I think I see a flaw in their plans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you call Tom Selleck? [wikipedia.org]
what's this plan missing? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, right. Could they manage to fuel the robots off of metabolized human flesh? Oh, and make their heads look like skulls.
Why do I keep hearing... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I dunno, since Daleks are not robots.
Hans
compliance (Score:2, Funny)
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?
human quarry in britain (Score:2)
I wish I had a scanner so I could post the print photo. It's a runner in modern gear spr
So this is where Skynet started at (Score:2)
So this is where Skynet started at
Ho Ho No (Score:2)
Hey, I remember seeing these robots in Deus Ex! (Score:2)
It is not nefarious (Score:2)
Everybody is so busy hating on their big-brother government that they can't possibly see any legitimate use for a group of robots that would hunt down a human.
What, then, I might ask, is the purpose of a SWAT team? And why must SWAT officers die saving innocent hostages, thwarting bank robberies, and so forth, when we could use robots instead?
"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: (Score:2)
Packs of Robots Will Hunt Down Uncooperative Human (Score:2)
Let's build them as bipedals with a lightweight frame, like a bird. And on the end of each foot will be an eight inch curved steel claw.
So they run on petrol, not beefsteak (Score:2)
I once saw a documentary on how clever hunting spiders were. Given the small brain size, they might be a useful model. You
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.
missing tag (Score:2)
I see that it has the "skynet" tag...but what about the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag?
nevermind...looks like someone added.
strange thing too...I was watching T3 (bluray) just a few hours ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you didn't read the subject of the comment you were replying to?
Re: (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: (Score:2)
So now you can vote the way the TV/Radio/Movies/College Profs want you to vote, or you can vote for freedom.
"But a TV professor just told me to vote for freedom... error... error... -explodes-"
It worked! We destroyed those packs of conservative-hunting robots with sheer dislogic! America is once again saved!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those projects never produce anything but expensive trash.
Yeah, but the ones that do make something usefull often balance out the cost. Example: the thing you're using right now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)