Robotics Prof Fears Rise of Military Robots 258
An anonymous reader writes "Interesting video interview on silicon.com with Sheffield University's Noel Sharkey, professor of AI & robotics. The white-haired prof talks state-of-the-robot-nation — discussing the most impressive robots currently clanking about on two-legs (hello Asimo) and who's doing the most interesting things in UK robotics research (something involving crickets apparently). He also voices concerns about military use of robots — suggesting it won't be long before armies are sending out fully autonomous killing machines."
skynet (Score:5, Funny)
okay, where's the tag?
I already bought my copy (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I'm only a fan of the book. Quite funny. I'm not affiliated with the author in any way shape or form.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A novel by Edmund Cooper
Quote: "He was an anachronism... He was a twentieth century man who, by a freak of chance, survived to see an age in which working had become a social disgrace; an age in which culture and the arts reigned supreme; an age of mannered ladies and gentlemen, perfectly waited on and cared for by androids - the man-like creations of their own genius. The higher grade androids were doctors, engineers, politicians and personal "companions" to
Re:I already bought my copy (Score:4, Insightful)
'EXCEPT... When perfect machines, with perfect performance, are made to perfectly resemble man - who needs man?"'
To define meaning and purpose where there are none and to set goals to fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I always wondered how you are supposed to drive your car when holding the brake down keeps it from moving...
Ok, that was a really bad analogy, but I would think the ability to, on short notice, sacrifice the ability to see to gain the ability to not be blinded by robot lasers would be invaluable -- no one is forcing you to run around blind. You get to decide when the tradeoff is worth it.
(Haven't read the book, in all honesty; this just struck me as odd)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you not heard of Automatic Welding Helmets [automaticw...elmets.com]? I have had one for years, they don't have a fixed shade as you can see through the screen just fine before and after the arc starts.. (the helmet part itself is more for general splatter protection, molte
Re: (Score:2)
I am too busy doing R&D of my time machine.
And (Score:3, Insightful)
Mechanized soldiers can be dangerous, too.
Consider the following scenario.
In the early morning of December 7, 2041, one million mechanized soldiers arise from the receding tide and onto the shores of China. The robots march relentlessly westward, killing all Chinese soldiers in their path. The final destination is Tibet.
Fortunately, the Chinese have had state sponsored hackers for decades now. [slashdot.org] It was a simple matter for these hardened pros to return the bots to their creators, with orders to kill.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
What Chinese soldiers? China is a superpower now, still rising, and an offshoring target of more and more manufacturing; do you think that they wouldn't have their own Terminator army to sent to the fray?
And why would anyone send a million-machine army to Tibet?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this essentially War Games all over again with robots instead of nukes? Is there any recorded evidence of taking over a significant piece of military firepower by hacking? Even if you could just fake the orders to a nuclear sub, you could do pretty damn much damage already...
"Friendly AI" (Score:5, Interesting)
If half the effort spent on "friendly AI" were spent on examining the ownership of AI's, there might be some hope.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
* er, Xe Services LLC. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How 'bout "biological intelligence" instead?
And if the US military is involved, is there any hope?
Re:"Friendly AI" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the things that makes me think the concern about "friendly AI" is blown out of proportion. The problem isn't making sure teh AI's are "friendly" -- its making sure the NI (natural intelligence) owners of the AI's are "friendly".
If half the effort spent on "friendly AI" were spent on examining the ownership of AI's, there might be some hope.
That's just it -- human nature never changes. The general can order genocide but it's up to the soldiers to carry it out. The My Lai Massacre was stopped by a helicopter pilot who put his bird between the civilians and "told his crew that if the U.S. soldiers shot at the Vietnamese while he was trying to get them out of the bunker that they were to open fire at these soldiers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre [wikipedia.org]
Robots aren't really the issue -- distancing humans from killing is the problem. Not many of us could kill another human being with our bare hands. A knife might make the task easier in the doing but does nothing to ease the psychological horror of it. Guns let you do it at a distance. You don't even have to touch the guy. And buttons make it easier still. It's like you're not even responsible. You could convince young men to fly bombers over enemy cities and rain down incendiaries but I don't think you could convince many of them to kill even one of those civilians with a gun, let alone a knife.
This is the strange distinction we make where we find one form of killing a horrible thing, a war crime, terrorism, and another form of killing is a regrettable accident but there's really no blame to be assigned. A suicide bomber walks into a pizzeria and blows himself up, we lose our minds. An Air Force bomber drops an LGB in a bunker filled with civilians instead of top brass, shit happens. We honestly believe there's a distinction between the two. "Americans didn't set out to kill civilians" war hawks will huff. Yes, but they're still dead, aren't they?
Combat robots are simply continuing this process. Right now there is still a man in the loop to order the attack. Hamas kills Israeli targets with suicide bombs, Israelis deliver high explosives via missile into apartment blocks filled with civilians. They're using American-manufactured anti-tank missiles. I think they're still using TOW. Predator drones use hellfires and their operators are sitting in the continental US while Israeli pilots are a few miles away from the target inside their choppers but really, what's the difference? And what happens when drones are given the authority to engage targets on their own? A soldier with a gun can at least see what he's shooting at. Those in the artillery corps are firing their shells off into the unseen distance and have no idea who they're killing. Not that much different from laying land mines, indiscriminate killing. Psychologically no different from what it would be to set a robot on patrol mode, fire-at-will.
If one extrapolates a little further, the problem of the droid army is similar to that of the tradition of unpopular leaders using corps of foreign mercenaries to protect them from the wrath of the people. The mercenaries did not speak the language, did not know the customs, and were counted as immune to palace intrigues. They could be used against the people for they would not the sympathy for fellow countrymen that a native force might feel. What are droids being used for? Only the people operating them could say for sure. Welcome to the age of the push-button assassination.
Re:"Friendly AI" (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, for thousands of years of recorded history, people did kill each other en masse at arm's length. Alexander's soldiers may have been more honest about what they were doing than somebody today sitting in a bunker pressing a button and killing people on the other side of the globe, but they were no less bloodthirsty. So I don't think you can blame the modern willingness to kill on the impartiality created by modern military technology, because the modern willingness to kill looks remarkably like the ancient willingness to kill, just with different tools.
OTOH, I agree with you completely about the absurdity of calling some methods of killing heroic and others evil. Dead is dead.
Re:"Friendly AI" (Score:4, Insightful)
Heck, for thousands of years people have been killing each other with autonomous -- although not intelligent -- devices. The projectile from a trebuchet or ballista can't be recalled or turned off once it's on its way. And the destructive force of long range munitions has only gotten greater since.
To the extent that battlefield robots can do a better job of telling the combatants from the non-combatants than can lobbed rocks or bombs, then all the better.
Just so long as somebody has an "off" switch.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly-- during those times that killing is necessary, then those who enjoy and are skillful at it, will excel.
I had a rat problem once.
First I took them away.
Didn't help.
Finally, I took a stick and went to killing them.
At first it was a bit tramatic.
Very quickly it became enjoyable and cat/mouse hunterly like.
It was ineffective tho, so I went to poison. That stopped the problem.
Animals enjoy playing with and killing other animals. Humans are animals.
In the face of massive propaganda that life is sacred
Re:"Friendly AI" (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, for thousands of years of recorded history, people did kill each other en masse at arm's length. Alexander's soldiers may have been more honest about what they were doing than somebody today sitting in a bunker pressing a button and killing people on the other side of the globe, but they were no less bloodthirsty. So I don't think you can blame the modern willingness to kill on the impartiality created by modern military technology, because the modern willingness to kill looks remarkably like the ancient willingness to kill, just with different tools.
Part of it is cultural conditioning. People who grow up in times of war like that are more willing to do the whole rape and pillage thing. But just look at the problem modern armies have had conditioning soldiers to shoot to kill. The statistics come from WWI, II, Korea, and Vietnam. Something like one in ten soldiers were shooting for effect when their lives weren't immediately in danger. Not sure exactly how this was determined but the whole kill drill done in boot camp is about breaking that resistance until shooting becomes automatic. The studies said it became 100% by Vietnam.
There's a desensitization that comes with all of this, of course. Take a normal, sane, caring 18-yr old and put him in a fucked situation like Iraq. The first month in, he's not wanting to hurt civilians. After he loses his best friend to a car bomb driven by what looked like "civilians" he's willing to kill all the motherfucking motherfuckers and doesn't care about arguments of guilt or innocence. They're local, they're all guilty. Of course, there's also the guys who shoot up a car they think is running the blockade only to find out it was just a confused father with his family and here's the kids dripping life into the street. That's gonna stick with those guys for the rest of their lives. Might even cause them to eat a bullet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't this story have an "ED-209" tag?
I agree with you that distancing humans from killing is big a problem. We have that problem now with cruise missiles, cluster bombs, nuke-from-orbit, etc.
But accidental death from robots run amok is not a pleasant thought either. The whole point of an AUTOMATED system is that it runs without a human driving it. This leads to a potential -- however slim -- that the system starts killing people without permission.
It sucks that we kill each other deliberately. Let'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We honestly believe there's a distinction between the two. "Americans didn't set out to kill civilians" war hawks will huff. Yes, but they're still dead, aren't they?
Are you serious? So to take a personal example, say somebody murdered your mother. How would you want that person punished? Many people would call for the death penalty. Now what if someone killed your mother completely by accident... say your mom ran a red light and got hit by someone. She's still dead, isn't she?
Re:"Friendly AI" (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, suppose your Mom was at a restaurant having dinner, and it got blown up, killing her and most of the rest of the clientele, and you learned that the restaurant was bombed without warning because a "high value target" was supposed to have been there, but wasn't. (This has happened, and it was no accident.) I assume, based on the above, you would feel that "them's the breaks," but I can assure you that many people would conclude that the people dropping the bombs don't really care much as to whether civilians were killed or not, and you don't have to dig very deep to learn that in reality many of the people at the receiving end of such incidents do indeed feel that the people behind the bombs deserve punishment.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, suppose your Mom was at a restaurant having dinner, and it got blown up, killing her and most of the rest of the clientele, and you learned that the restaurant was bombed without warning because a "high value target" was supposed to have been there, but wasn't. (This has happened, and it was no accident.) I assume, based on the above, you would feel that "them's the breaks," but I can assure you that many people would conclude that the people dropping the bombs don't really care much as to whether civilians were killed or not, and you don't have to dig very deep to learn that in reality many of the people at the receiving end of such incidents do indeed feel that the people behind the bombs deserve punishment.
Just because you are upset and may want retribution, you are still going to see the distinction between this and someone intentionally killing your mother.
No one said that accidental deaths are meaningless. But jollyreaper was claiming that there is no distinction between the intentional murder and accidental deaths (or even collateral damage). I think stdarg's example was spot on.
Re:"Friendly AI" (Score:5, Interesting)
As dark as the potential for drones can be, I think it actually has the chance to make war a far less indiscriminate and bloody thing.
Right now, if a square of Marines gets fired on, they can return fire. A square of marines has the firepower to flatten a village. Give them access to artillery or air support, and they can literally level a city. In other words, whenever you have a squad of supported marines fight, you are having a group of kids (and they are just kids) holding their finger over enough firepower to take out a small army. Their job is to use as little as that firepower as humanly possible. You might be able to level every building in a half mile radius, but you are not supposed to. When it comes to a firefight though, especially a desperate firefight where soldiers have their lives on the line, they, like most humans, choose life over death, and if that means flattening an entire apartment building to get at one sniper, they do it and hope that no one else was inside. Generally speaking, unless a soldier walks up to a civilian and splatters their brains on the floor, they are let off free. It is war, your life is on the line, you take your risks and respond in the best way possible. If a civilian gets accidentally whacked, that is sad but acceptable. Most soldiers develop a pretty thick "us vs them" mentality that see civilians if not the enemy, as hostile terrain, especially in a guerrilla war.
Drones offer up another possibility. It is true, you can order a drone army to go out and kill civilians and it is probably easier to get a soldier to do it. That said, if you policy is civilian murdering, a nation like the US doesn't need to use drones. You can handily exterminate all life through impersonally aerial bombing. What drones offer is more control over the rules of war. Rules mean little when you are surrounded by gunfire. You do what you have to do to survive. On the other hand, when you are sitting in the US with a military lawyer over one shoulder, a commander over the other, and and every single second and action you take is getting recorded, rules are a lot more enforceable. If the rules call on you to die before you level an apartment complex just to get at one sniper, a drone can simply die. A soldier generally wont.
With drones, you have complete accountability for your actions. You can always go to command before doing something. You never need to make snap judgments. Hell, you can call a damned military lawyer over and get his take on the rules of engagement. Further, every bloody thing you do is being recorded, so if you decide to start murdering civilians you will be caught and tried.
On the balance, I think drones are going to lessen the lives lost. The few potential abuses are pointless to worry about. If someone wants to exterminate another people indiscriminately, you can do it the cheap old fashion way of aerial bombardment. On the other hand, if you are an army that wants to enforce ironclad rules of engagement, drones ensure there is never an excuse for fucking up, and that fuckups get caught.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a lot will depend on the extent to which the robot operator is held responsible for the semi-autonomous robot's actions. If the human is completely responsible, it might make ware less deadly. If the human can use the excuse "well the automatic targeting system mistakenly identified the 5 year old with a tricycle as an enemy robot - its a terrible shame, we need to update the recognition system" - then you have problems.
There is a tendency for large organizations to avoid placing blame on a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Its true that military robots & technology are trying to be used to make warfare more "clean", so that the desired targets can be bombed with the least damage to civilians. That is good, atleast in theory, BUT at the end of the day, it is still all going to be controlled by the military leaders that don't necessarily know who are the civilians and who are the targets.
I have actually worked on a military robot for intended deployment in Iraq, and our military officer explained that when you are in a plac
Re: (Score:2)
Another way to look at it is that if every single order has to be entered into a command terminal somewhere and the robots in the field are logging all their own "decisions" then you've got a perfect information situation for tribunals.
"An atrocity occurred and we have the logs to prove it!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. Suffering own losses is pretty much the only thing that in practice limits the willingness of some leaders to wage war. It doesn't limit it all that much either, truth be told. But the endless rows of young american men coming home horisontally, DID play a major role in turning opinion in cases like the Vietnam War, and I think it'll do the same in Afghanistan and Iraq. The american public tire of sacrificing an endless row of their young, for issues and countries they don't really care -that- much
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. On the other hand, the reason that My Lai happened in the first place is that people had been under constant stress and simply
Re: (Score:2)
Good news... If you're prepared to wait a million years.
Re:"Friendly AI" (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not really worried. I'm sure we'll hear about some 'bot wiping out it's own platoon in the next decade, and that will be the end of semi-autonomous killbots.
In fact, I'd be very surprised if this didn't happen in the next ten years. Armed robots are a great idea in that they'd cost less than a fully trained human and are more easily repairable. It's a natural way to go for the military. I also know enough about software development to see that a catastrophic failure is fairly likely, and that the idiot-proof failsafe they'll set up will turn out not to be and won't, respectively.
Re:"Friendly AI" (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it will happen. No, it won't stop development. Depending what you mean by autonomous, it may have already happened [wired.com].
Re: (Score:2)
"In fact, I'd be very surprised if this didn't happen in the next ten years. Armed robots are a great idea in that they'd cost less than a fully trained human and are more easily repairable. It's a natural way to go for the military. I also know enough about software development to see that a catastrophic failure is fairly likely, and that the idiot-proof failsafe they'll set up will turn out not to be and won't, respectively."
Many people also had doubts the atom bomb would work but who had to eat crow?
Huma
Life imitating art... (Score:2)
Terminator, to start with. Is anyone surprised?
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, The Simpsons is correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_War_of_Lisa_Simpson [wikipedia.org]
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
Look on the bright side (Score:2)
"He also voices concerns about military use of robots — suggesting it won't be long before armies are sending out fully autonomous killing machines."
This Gloomy Gus overlooks the obvious. These "fully autonomous killin machines" - let's call them, oh I don't know, "killbots" - will almost certainly have a preset kill limit. So right there we'll have an easy way to stop them!
Look on the torch side (Score:2)
Hell yeah! The next time we need our military to go blow the shit out of a little nation of brown people that is no threat to us and has no WMDs, at least we don't have to put our own troops into harm's way.
Well some will never let the memory of GWB die. But I think if you ask the Kurds (Don't gas me, bro!) aka "brown people" getting rid of Saddam was a good thing even if the war was started under false pretenses. Not to mention the Kuwaitis and the "scorched earth" policy of a retreating Saddam.
Also the Iranians (who had a war with Iraq, remember) aren't above using the Iraqi people in a move reminiscent of the Soviets and Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Well some will never let the memory of GWB die.
As long as there are people like you around who persist in defending his grotesque legacy, it's important for others to keep reminding people just how bad the last eight years really were.
But I think if you ask the Kurds (Don't gas me, bro!) aka "brown people" getting rid of Saddam was a good thing even if the war was started under false pretenses. Not to mention the Kuwaitis and the "scorched earth" policy of a retreating Saddam.
Yes, yes, Saddam Hussein was a
Re: (Score:2)
"As long as there are people like you around who persist in defending his grotesque legacy"
You have a curious notion of what "defending" consists of. Win many arguments, do you?
"If you think this has been an improvement, you're insane."
Only for those who take an overly simplistic view of the world. Like I said for some the deposition of Saddam was a good thing. For others a bad thing. You want a black and white world were the bad guys are the US and the good guys are "brown people"? Then lets hope the mods
Re: (Score:2)
You can't use a crime we were an accomplice to 20 years ago to justify another crime we committed 8 years ago, especially when said Kurds had already gained their independence.
If You Watch the Whole Video (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll say it's disconcerting. It means he's the First Variety.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If You Watch the Whole Video (Score:5, Funny)
Disconcerting indeed since they apperently don't see the need for more than 99,999 humans worldwide. Presumably they want to keep a few of us alive to do the jobs which no self-respecting robot would ever want to do.
Re: (Score:2)
That **whooshing** sound you hear is the spinning knife-blade hands of the robot army coming for you. Better hurry and put your affairs in ord - wait... what...?
Ok, never mind. It was just the sound of the joke going over your humor-devoid cranium ;-)
I, Professor (Score:2)
Fully autonomous killing machines (Score:2)
Autonomous untill they run out of power or ammo.
Its all about the AI, humans can learn and adapt to machine behavior faster than robots can adapt to human behavior.
Humans will always be better than machines at killing humans (unfortunately), machines can only simulate our thinking...
If robots ever get an AI superior to human intelligence, then yes we are redundant on the battlefield and everywhere else.
Re:Fully autonomous killing machines (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. What robots lack up for in creativity they make up for in the ability to withstand orders of magnitude more damage than humans. I mean, blow a robot's leg clean off and its weapon systems still work. It doesn't pass out from blood loss or pain. Put a few bullets though it and chances are it's still going to be up and running. No human can do that.
They won't be creative, but everything is going to be directed by human commanders located in a semi-remote facility, so it's a non-issue. Any new threat will be adapted to by the humans controlling the robots.
Furthermore, humans need to be creative to avoid getting killed. That really isn't an issue with robots. One dead soldier is a very bad thing, 50 dead robots isn't good but no one is going to lose any sleep over it. If you kill half of a human squad, they're probably not going to advance any further. Wipe out half a fleet of robotic killing machines and they'll keep marching right on in.
Re: (Score:2)
everything is going to be directed by human commanders
If its directed by human commanders its not fully autonomous.
autonomous /tnms/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [aw-ton-uh-muhs] Show IPA
-adjective
1. Government.
a. self-governing; independent; subject to its own laws only.
b. pertaining to an autonomy.
2. having autonomy; not subject to control from outside; independent: a subsidiary that functioned as an autonomous unit.
3. Biology.
a. existing and functioning as an independent organism.
b.
Re: (Score:2)
If you find the weakness to kill one robot it will work on everyone of them.
What use is a robot if you shoot one in the camera with a paintball ?
And how can a fully autonomous killing machine discriminate between soldiers and civilians.
A weapon is only as good as the intelligence controlling it, thats how armies are run, accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does this come up in every fucking robotics discussion? Yes, it's hard to tell the difference NOW. Give it 10 years and image processing an AI will have evolved to such a level that it may be possible.
Obviously there are some technical hurdles. If there weren't then we'd have the technology NOW.
Re: (Score:2)
"Autonomous untill they run out of power or ammo."
As long as you've got the ammo, you've got the power.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Autonomous untill they run out of power or ammo.
Humans run out of power and ammo, too. Humans, however, can only eat food.
Humans will always be better than machines at killing humans (unfortunately), machines can only simulate our thinking...
They could simulate yours fairly trivially. You don't need anything as smart as a human to kill humans. It only has to be able to move and kill, it doesn't need to be able to change a diaper or cook spaghetti.
Re: (Score:2)
if it were armed with a railgun, it could scavenge (non-ferous) metal to use as ammunition, too.
Career (Score:2)
Good Idea (Score:4, Funny)
Automating the death panel process is a good way to save taxpayers money.
Also since robots eat old people's medicine for food, they will basically be self-powered.
Re: (Score:2)
Building artificially intelligent killing machines (Score:5, Funny)
A note of realism... (Score:2)
The whole Skynet metaphor is becoming part of the problem. Real robotics is nowhere near Terminators, but it doesn't need to be. Fears of creating unstoppable battledroids are eclipsing the more real fears of simply adding another destabilizing system to the warfare environment. Many battlefield robotics implementations well within the current state of the art look like they will become another scourge like landmines. Not an unstoppable threat, not even all that influential in combat against decently traine
Re: (Score:2)
That seems unlikely. They are more expensive than land mines and shouldn't try to kill people their own side. So they are easier to recover and worth recovering.
They are also unlikely to be implemented as "suicide bombers" so they'll run out of ammo/power anyway.
And given keeping your tech out of the hands of enemies is a normal military goal you aren't going to just leave high tech robots around waiting to be studied by others (though that is an argument for including a suicide bomber feature).
Re: (Score:2)
No country with the ability to produce combat robots in their right mind would ever leave combat robots lying around. That would be handing enemies our technology on a silver platter to reverse engineer and turn against us. Same thing with things like attack helicopters. If one goes down then they fly some mechanics out to fix it. If they can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Electromagnetic Pulse, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
What kind of expense would be required to effectively shield these armies of robots from strong EMP? Or would an EMP be impractical or ineffective? Inquiring minds want to know.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are lobbing EMP weapons at each other, you are already fucked and fighting WW3. Duck and cover. Emp blasts have very small rangers. With the amount of effort it takes to make a pulse big enough to fry a robot, you might as well just drop a normal bomb on their head and do it the old fashion way. The only time this isn't true is if you start lobbing neutron bombs and nukes. Those are probably worth the price... but if you are lobbing around nukes, you are already completely fucked and fighting th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A focussed EM beam would work well though - eg a high gain microwave or radio waveguide could cause serious disruption.
I worry less ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What has happened to Slashdot? (Score:2)
No "Skynet" tag on this story? Unthinkable!
Of course he's scared (Score:2)
Who do you think will be first against the wall when our new robotic overlords take control?
Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
This isn't a hopeful future (Score:4, Interesting)
Recognize a human being by IR? No problem. Aim a weapon at the head? No problem. Bang, one shot and one kill. Repeat times N where N is the size of the machine's ammo supply or the number of targets (whichever is less). The whole cycle would take a fraction of a second and if you were one of the targets you'd probably be dead before you discovered your peril. The fact that such machines are well within our capability to mass produce right now isn't what scares me - it's the sad fact that there are people in high places that think that doing this would be a good idea.
There are unwritten rules to wars - the general concept is duke it out until one side or the other gives up or can't continue. This "agreement" would break down when the killbots started mowing down the enemy and things would get very ugly in a hurry. Do you think nukes are the "big scary?" Wait until you see what's coming if we head down this path.
Dystopia is coming (Score:2, Interesting)
Military robots are the future of war. We will see robot armies fighting each other. Consider what kind of surveillance state you can create by millions of robotic insects, using swarm intelligence / smart dust to report on everyone.
Maybe mankind ends up like in matrix, but with opposing robot armies trying to kill the last survivors from the superpowers, who are hiding deep down underground, kept alive by
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Running spider mines (Score:5, Informative)
Imagine them communicating with each other in pack and relaying GPS location data. If one finds a target, they start to zero in on the victim.
Reality: DARPA funded work on that in 1997. Sandia made it work. [sandia.gov] The Sandia concept turned out not to be too useful militarily, but paved the way for the Precision Urban Hopper. [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Something involving crickets - or krikkits? (Score:4, Funny)
This must be a typo - I'm sure UK robotic scientists are investigating krikkits and their imminent return to collect the ashes.
What do they call this type of robot? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A remotely operated robot is called a waldo.
3rd Armored Corps commander wants killbots (Score:5, Informative)
The US military wants robots. More robots. Robots that kill. Now.
Read Failure To Field The Right Robots Costs Lives, General Says [nationalde...gazine.org]. Lt. General Rick Lynch, commander of the U.S. Army's 3rd Armored Corps, wants autonomous killbots. His corps lost 155 soldiers in Iraq, and he claims that 80% of them would have been saved if the right kind of robots were deployed. On watching "hotspots" for enemy activity: "Robots can take the soldiers' places. They can continuously keep watch on an area, and if nefarious activity is spotted, we can take appropriate action. ... We can kill those bastards before they plant the IEDs"
This is a combat general in charge of a major Army command making it happen.
What? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have doubts (Score:2, Interesting)
They don't need two legged "robots" to do that (Score:2)
They don't need humanoid robots to make fully autonomous killing machines. They already have RPVs with weapons mounted (eg, Predator), and they have autonomous weapons systems (eg, mines).
Re: (Score:2)
"(Disclaimer: I'm not a conspiracy theorist nut.)"
Thats good, otherwise the Government would already be deconstructing your Blogosphere presence.
I think we should all be posting with such a disclaimer.
Re:Terminator LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, the future is either going to be biologically engineered disaster of zombies, or robots that get programmed for peace keeping by killing all humans.
Why the false dichotomy? It could just as likely be zombie robots, or robot zombies.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No it means less dead soldiers on our side and hence less public pressure against whatever the war is.
Which means more wars and more money for the military and their contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
I would prefer carpet bombing in fact, since that results in less deaths to our side (assuming we are doing the side doing the bombing).
And where did did you pull the ridiculous conclusion that I like Obama or think that all wars (or even any wars) are bad from?
I just don't see it reducing costs. I see it increasing military spending because it removes one of the two big restrictions on military action: dealing with dead American soldiers and the people not liking that. Leaving just the one: war costs money
Re: (Score:2)
Avoiding violence towards civilians is nice and all, but if Baghdad was carpet bombed the current occupation would have seen a lot fewer American deaths.
What was anti-war propaganda? That the people don't like seeing dead soldiers or that given less public pressure against using force we would likely use more? Both claims don't seem to be either pro or anti war to me...
Take Dresden as an example, the allies dropped about 4000 tons of bombs. Now they sued incendiaries as well as high explosives for that fire
Re: (Score:2)
As it is, the ratio of Iraqis vs. Americans killed is around 1000:1 If you still want to improve on that, you're a genocidal maniac with an extremely provincial outlook in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
Straight out of Ice Pirates.
Re: (Score:2)
I like Mr. Gutsy's lines a bit better than Liberty Prime's
I called it SoftWar® (Score:3, Interesting)