They're Putting Guns on Robot Dogs Now (theverge.com) 197
Quadrupedal robots are one of the most interesting developments in robotics in recent years. They're small, nimble, and able to traverse environments that frustrate wheeled machines. So, of course, it was only a matter of time until someone put a gun on one. From a report: The image in the linked story shows a quadrupedal robot -- a Vision 60 unit built by US firm Ghost Robotics -- that's been equipped with a custom gun by small-arms specialists Sword International. It seems the gun itself (dubbed the SPUR or "special purpose unmanned rifle") is designed to be fitted onto a variety of robotic platforms. It has a 30x optical zoom, thermal camera for targeting in the dark, and an effective range of 1,200 meters. What's not clear is whether or not Sword International or Ghost Robotics are currently selling this combination of gun and robot. But if they're not, it seems they will be soon. As the marketing copy on Sword's website boasts: "The SWORD Defense Systems SPUR is the future of unmanned weapon systems, and that future is now."
Not automated... (Score:4, Insightful)
But not automated.
I keep flashing back on RoboCop with the robot stuck with "show me your credentials" or something like that and then blowing a bunch of humans away.
Haven't we imagined the bad things that can happen like this through movies with sky net, and other dystopian stories?
We're not far from that, let's nip this in the bud.
Re:Not automated... (Score:4, Funny)
Show me your NHS pass... :-D
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting how some works of fiction readily convince people that robot dogs with guns should be banned, but actual people getting shot is acceptable loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you know how it is. The only thing that can stop a bad ED-209 with three autocannons and a rocket launcher is a good ED-209 with three autocannons and a rocket launcher. That or an OCP Crime Prevention Unit 001 with a Cobra assault cannon.
Re: (Score:2)
You bet. The solution is to start selling these things in Walmart. No reasonable person should be on the street without their trusty sidekick.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because some people deserve to get shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, how about some FBI figures. 2020 FBI Crime Tables [amazonaws.com].
I'm looking right now specifically at Expanded Data Table 14, Justificable Homicide by Law Enforcement (Killing of felon in line of duty). Total for 2020 = 303
Now looking at Expanded Data Table 15, Justifiable Homicide by Private Citizen (killing of a felon in commission of a felony by private citizen). for 2020 = 305.
So, looking for 2020, MORE
Re:Not automated... (Score:5, Insightful)
Police departments shootings are reported to the FBI on a voluntary basis and most police departments declined to participate [washingtonpost.com]. Since only 27% of police departments shared data, that 303 figure can be extrapolated to about 1,122 for all police departments. That's considerably more than 305.
And that's 1,427 dead people who could not defend themselves and were presumed to be bad guys without a trial. George Floyd was accused of passing a counterfeit bill (which is a felony) and was murdered (it was found to be a homicide) by police officers on camera. so he was one of those supposed 'bad guys' that you're saying deserved to be killed.
Your willful distortion of the facts and support for people murdering others for assumed crimes is repugnant.
Re: (Score:2)
The civilian ones are questionable too. In states with "stand your ground" laws homicides sometimes get put down to self defense, since the bar is set so low. The shooter basically just has to say they feared for their safety.
There was an episode of Last Week Tonight about it a while back. Some of the stories were pretty shocking.
Re: Not automated... (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, professional clowns with an agenda to push will tend to cherrypick the most egregious cases and present then as representing the average.
In Liberal Massachusetts, there is no stand your ground law, but there is a castle doctrine. If there is an intruder in your home, you are permitted to use deadly force against him. It happens once or twice a year, and sometimes it doesn't happen for a few years at all. Home invasions are infrequent around here.
Police killing suspects also happens with roughly the sam
Re:Not automated... (Score:4, Informative)
"More Than Half of Police Killings Are Mislabeled":
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm looking right now specifically at Expanded Data Table 14, Justificable Homicide by Law Enforcement (Killing of felon in line of duty). Total for 2020 = 303 Now looking at Expanded Data Table 15, Justifiable Homicide by Private Citizen (killing of a felon in commission of a felony by private citizen). for 2020 = 305.
That's fine, but it is a small percentage of people shot each year. One building block to the question I asked.
Re: (Score:2)
And who determines who deserves to be shot?
Re: (Score:3)
The victims.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Like going outside? Shootings are rare here but those shot are often bystanders or there is a case of mistaken identity.
Re: (Score:3)
And who determines who deserves to be shot?
Excellent question. For me (and probably just me), that would only be people who were an immediate threat to others, but others may have much more loose definitions.
So, first we have to decide on suicide. Do they deserve to be shot? I support medically assisted dying in my country, so it's hard to complain when people take it into their own hands. I don't equate that to necessarily deserving though, so maybe lets set them aside for another discussion now.
Other categories would be children and gene
Re: (Score:2)
If you take a look at my post slightly above this one of yours, I posted some links to stats from FBI for justifiable homicides, both from law enforcement and civilian.
In 2020, there were at least 708 of them where civilian and law enforcement shot AND killed criminals in the act of a felony justifiably.
That average total seems to go back for the past 4-5 years.
Interestingly enough, civilians legally dispatched felons in greater numbers than law enforcement for
Re: (Score:2)
I really do not trust self reports on the use of violence. And you haven't really answered the question. Sure, you imply that every time someone shoots a person who was engaged in a felony, that shooting was justified. But is that really the case? I mean, I don't see many laws on the books where the punishment for a felony is "get shot without a trial, LOL!"
So maybe it would be more helpful if you explained the circumstances where you think someone should be shot without a trial. If the answer is "when that
Re: (Score:2)
If you take a look at my post slightly above this one of yours, I posted some links to stats from FBI for justifiable homicides, both from law enforcement and civilian. In 2020, there were at least 708 of them where civilian and law enforcement shot AND killed criminals in the act of a felony justifiably.
That is out of what? >30,000/yr.? Obviously not where we need to be looking for the answer to my initial query.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing the same people who decide who deserves to be shot now. Yeah, them.
I'm also going to guess that the first deployment of them will be to quell civil unrest.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you following this thread or just replying to my comment without understanding the context in which I asked the question? I was not asking "who will authorize the use of force with this robot?" because we were talking about guns, in general.
Let me bring you up to speed: Cayenne8 stated that they support 2A right to arms, but not the right to arm robots. Ceoyoyo asked why robots are a concern, when they haven't actually shot anyone yet but actual guns have. Cayenne8 then responded by stating that "some p
Re: (Score:3)
Because some people deserve to get shot.
This is America damn it, everyone deserves to get shot but we got about 1/3 refusing it out of fear and misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
Because some people deserve to get shot.
I'm OK letting the bot decide then.
Re:Not automated... (Score:4, Informative)
I actually went to the contractor's page.
It doesn't look like it's autonomous, looks like it's a remote weapon system, similar to an armed drone (but on the ground).
Re: (Score:2)
I've read that it has the capability of autonomy, just not implemented in the first version...
Re: (Score:2)
I've read that it has the capability of autonomy, just not implemented in the first version...
My porch security light is autonomous, capable of autonomy doesn't mean anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Addressing GP's "Robocop gone amok" concern.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that armed robots might be better than armed cops. The cops have a nasty habit of feeling that they are in danger and shooting people. With a robot there are no excuses, worst outcome is they get hit with a repair bill.
Somehow I have a feeling it won't work out that way.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12... [cnn.com]
It was an active shooter from behind cover. So after a few hours of that, they rolled in robot carrying a bomb and blew up the guy.
That is absolutely not any better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that it's not the robodog deciding to shoot someone. It will be a human being. The OP was worried about a Robocop gone amok scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I feed my goose gun a load of 1-1/2 oz of steel BB at 1400fps, I wonder how it would react to that....
What a strange remark.
This is a thread in which people are debating the potential negative consequences of arming robots with weapons.
And your contribution to the discussion is to say "I have a really powerful gun, and I bet I could take down this robot in combat?"
Re: (Score:2)
If I was seriously concerned about becoming a victim here, I'll probably start out by trying to outlaw robot dogs with guns... instead of leaping straight to the question of "I wonder what kind of ammunition would work against this robot dog with a gun".
I mean, seems like no matter how good you are with firearms, you're at a tactical disadvantage once you allow robots with guns. If the robot hits you, you're injured or dead. If you hit the robot, they'll send another robot or three. (And now they know wh
Re: (Score:2)
I keep flashing back on RoboCop
Did you ever learn that it was a movie?
What if it's not actually that autonomous?
What if they don't even want something that autonomous, because it can't obey orders well?
What if they actually already care about being able to follow the orders of a screaming CO?
Robots are better not worse, movies aren't real (Score:2)
Robots don't get angry like degenerate humans.
They don't get adrenaline rushes during pursuit.
They aren't afraid and distancing their operators helps remove meatbags from fearful situations.
They can be expended where useful without the loss of more expensive meatbags.
They do not tire (fatigue fucks hard with meat troops).
Humans are evil degenerate weaklings on a good day. Robots are already superior for many tasks and the fewer humans in stressful situations the better. Ideally humanity would replace itself
Re: (Score:2)
Don't cut yourself on that edge, kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Robots don't get angry like degenerate humans.
They don't get adrenaline rushes during pursuit.
They aren't afraid and distancing their operators helps remove meatbags from fearful situations.
They can be expended where useful without the loss of more expensive meatbags.
They do not tire (fatigue fucks hard with meat troops).
Humans are evil degenerate weaklings on a good day. Robots are already superior for many tasks and the fewer humans in stressful situations the better. Ideally humanity would replace itself with something vastly more intelligent and free of emotions, but we're not there yet. Meantime a robot dog with a firearm can be used where sending humans is stupid.
Dystopian fappery plays to the traditional meatbag desire for emotional morality plays yet we live more safely and comfortably than any previous generations.
BTW firearms are a precise but inefficient way to kill. PGMs and IEDs work much better to those killing to intimidate.
a gun wielding robot dog sent into an armed stand off for example could depending on reaction times and threat detection and low false positive error rates be more effective. the problem is getting a computer to tell hostages form captors with a low false positive when both are wearing t-shirt and jeans
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Same here, I believe in the Constitution. You get one (1) muzzle loading firearm and you get to fire it when on duty with the local militia, which these days means your state's National Guard. And no naughty popping it off to show how big your dick is in your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the way to look at it is...that they wrote it to have citizens of the day have weapons in the same class as the military / law enforcement.
Back then everyone had muskets.
Weapons for military and law enforcement have progressed, and so to keep things equal, the ones for civilian ownership and use have progressed equally.
And as far as being militia, the old standards basically meant if you are a US citizen you are pa
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons for military and law enforcement have progressed, and so to keep things equal, the ones for civilian ownership and use have progressed equally.
I don't think I'd say it's exactly equal. Although civilian firearms have improved considerably, I don't many private citizens with rocket launchers and tanks. The improvement in arms technology advantaged the authorities a lot more than the citizenry.
Re: (Score:2)
And as far as being militia, the old standards basically meant if you are a US citizen you are part of the public militia....so, welcome to 2A rights my friend.
And guess what being a member of the militia entailed. Registering with the government you had a servicable weapon.
Also, for those unaware, the entire point of the militia was not to be some massive fighting force but rather, a quick hit group to slow an invading force until the real army showed up. And we saw how well that worked out in 1812 - 181
Re: (Score:2)
Back in ye olden days of "whoopsie we overthrew the king" there weren't really any standing armies. Militias *were* the real army. The militia guys would practice once in a while, like reservists or US national guards do today, so when you needed to raise an army there were some people around who hopefully kind of knew what they were doing. Then you'd recruit some "volunteers" from the local degenerates, have some fun in the summer, then everyone would go home.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, excellent. As soon as the government removes the restrictions on buying and selling high FPS thermal imagers and plutonium I will be able to complete my next project. I'll put the build on YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here, I believe in the Constitution. You get one (1) muzzle loading firearm and you get to fire it when on duty with the local militia, which these days means your state's National Guard.
I’m sorry, you may have missed it when the constitution was rewritten [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Biggest problem is liability and accountability.
As corporations get a pass for killing thousands, I don't think you have the legal structure for essentially giving them 2A rights without a body count and slap on the wrist fines to follow..
I could see something like this being very useful, but in this current environment? No fucking way.
Military not police (Score:2)
1) This is clearly a military weapon, not intended for police work. Being concerned about this being used by police is kind of like being concerned about police being issued land mines, machine guns, tanks, grenade launchers. Totally insane thing to do, even if police keep asking for (and getting) weakened version of those devices.
2) This is clearly a drone, not an AI. In other words, it is still a human controlling the weapon, that human's life is merely not at personal risk. An AI controlled weapon,
Re: Military not police (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of SWAT?
Yes, yes I have [youtube.com].
Re:Not automated... (Score:5, Informative)
Haven't we imagined the bad things that can happen like this through movies with sky net, and other dystopian stories?
Black Mirror: Metalhead.
One of the most harrowing, and unfortunately increasingly more plausible episodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Too late. You ought to know. If it can be built, it will. And if it gets built, it'll get used.
So if you're a member of the ruling class (Score:2)
This opens up a whole new world to the folks at the top. Have you ever seen how well we treat ex-military and been a little jealous? But it's okay because we support our troops. That's not because we give a rat's ass about the
Simple solution: make owner fully liable (Score:2)
However, IMO, the solution is to make the owner FULLY liable for whatever the robot does and since this is designed for killing, you are on trial and extremely likely to be convicted of murder if this kills someone. When some douchbag buys one of these, and you know someone will....and you know it will be in Florida.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics or not, someone is going to make it. An autonomous dog, or maybe even a horse which can carry more ammo could do a lot of anti-tank fighting on the battlefield if, for some reason, drones don't cut it. Plus, make these in swarms, and they would buzzsaw through enemy infantry in no time and then can take a position and hold it if they have some autonomy.
It is only a matter of time before we deal with this on the battlefield or elsewhere, and better we have them than the enemy.
yup we cant sadly not build them. It would be best for everyone if no one built them, but not doing so is a unstable nash equilibrium as the first person to break with the agreement not to has a significant advantage over everyone else, where if everyone builds them no one is at a disadvantage. the ideal world sadly isn't the most stable world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We kinda saw .. (Score:4, Insightful)
.. this coming? I think it is obvious that those dancing robots are meant for military as much as any. It's not a stretch of the imagination by any means.
Exactly. The military applications for those dogs and dancing robots are obvious.
I wouldn't be surprised if Boston Dynamics received a lot of funding directly or indirectly from the military
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. The military applications for those dogs and dancing robots are obvious.
I wouldn't be surprised if Boston Dynamics received a lot of funding directly or indirectly from the military
Yes, DARPA was a major part of their funding but apparently they have tried somewhat to distance themselves from the military in recent years.
Re:We kinda saw .. (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a Boston Dynamics robot, because Boston Dynamics has a strict "Don't mount weapons on our robots" policy. https://www.bostondynamics.com... [bostondynamics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a Boston Dynamics robot, because Boston Dynamics has a strict "Don't mount weapons on our robots" policy. https://www.bostondynamics.com... [bostondynamics.com]
Oh, well then for sure no one will do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read their statement on the issue? Sure, anyone can mount a weapon on the bot but BD will never partner with a company who puts weapons on their bots and resells them. They imply they'd sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read their statement on the issue? Sure, anyone can mount a weapon on the bot but BD will never partner with a company who puts weapons on their bots and resells them. They imply they'd sue.
It doesn't matter if BD makes them or not. Their technology will be duplicated and weaponized.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, how prescient of you! How could you ever deduce that someone would make a four legged robot that looks like the one from Boston Dynamics, and mount a weapon on it? Sheer genius! /eyeroll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... Good question. I would assume the parent company counts as a partner and therefore the answer is "no," but really? Who knows?
Re: (Score:2)
A parent company isnt a partner. They own you. They can fire all the employees of the subsidiary, dissolve it, and take the IP and do whatever they want with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Or course it's for the military (Score:2)
.. this coming? I think it is obvious that those dancing robots are meant for military as much as any. It's not a stretch of the imagination by any means.
Exactly. The military applications for those dogs and dancing robots are obvious. I wouldn't be surprised if Boston Dynamics received a lot of funding directly or indirectly from the military
Isn't the military like 90% logistics and 10% killing, even during times of war? If we want to kill someone, we have plenty of great ways beyond guns mounted on robot dogs, which, lets be honest...will be quickly stolen by adversaries. The real value, IMO, is patrol and delivery scenarios. While I am not active duty, I would imagine the extra pair of eyes easily beats an extra gun. Spot the enemy and send coordinates to a drone for an aerial strike.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh absolutely. When a robotic break dance starts happening. Watch out!
distractions (Score:2)
You distract the ROG, I'll jump on its back on cover the camera with putty.
Facial Recognition (Score:2)
All this is missing is a little facial recognition and you have an assassin drone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. This is a drone, not an AI. They just slapped the gun on the robot that was controlled by a human. They have not built software to kill yet. That is a very different task, involving a lot of subroutines that are not that easy to do.
The most important one is of course the IFF system (ID friend vs foe), which would most likely be converted from the air-force system to something smaller with tiny power requirements. After all, you do not want that thing to lose power.
Re: (Score:2)
What subroutines? IFF? You're over complicating.
If face match then aim at face and fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the technology to do this is already in hand. Here is a short film dramatizing this:. [youtube.com]
Much easier than software that recognizes specific faces is software that recognizes faces/heads of anyone, like every digital camera on the market these days. That turns a robot mounted gun from being an assassin-bot to a true slaughterbot, that wipes out whole crowds of people. An auto-loading gun with a 500 round magazine, and you could kill a few hundred people in a few minutes - with the robot taking a headshot a
Is he still a good boy? (Score:2)
Or not?
Re: (Score:2)
A Deagle for your Beagle
A Mauser for your Schnauzer.
They had one job ...
If I had a lot of land, and hunted (Score:2)
and if the Robot Dog could bring back things it killed, I'd probably get one of these. (Would it need a hunting license?)
Yes, I am lazy.
Bonus points if the Robot Dog could retrieve beers from the fridge for me and my friends.
Is it really accurate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are human sharp shooters that can hit targets up to a mile away. And they were doing that in WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they mean, if the bullet should hit the target at that range, it would be still be effective but if it's another 300 yards, not so much.
why not "baby's first mortar" instead? (Score:2)
Re: Is it really accurate (Score:2)
Zoom doesn't mean shit if the alignment between the targetting camera and the barrel shifts between shots.
Usually not a problem with lightweight optics on a relatively well-balanced rifle, but a nontrivial piece of work with a rifle that can shoot that far and has the recoil to show for it.
For reference, a 5.56 round out of a normal rifle like an AR15 or a Ruger will slow down to nothing in about 800 m. Plus or minus depending on barometric pressure and the particulars of the round.
Re: (Score:2)
For reference, a 5.56 round out of a normal rifle like an AR15 or a Ruger will slow down to nothing in about 800 m. Plus or minus depending on barometric pressure and the particulars of the round.
Re: (Score:2)
For reference, a 5.56 round out of a normal rifle like an AR15 or a Ruger will slow down to nothing in about 800 m.
For reference the SS109 5.56 mm round has an average velocity of 315 m/s (+/- 3 m/s) at 800 m, for a kinetic energy of 200 J, or 150 ft-lb. This is the muzzle energy of a 38 Long Colt, or 75% of the muzzle energy of an 38 Special. While not the most lethal of rounds, I would not consider being hit by that "nothing". For evaluating munitions the US Army set the effective wounding energy threshold at 89 J.
I sometimes wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe for other folks a job is just a job, without any particular introspection about the value of what they're doing. I recognize not everyone has as much choice in their job/career as I have. Still, I have to wonder about the people that produced this prototype. What is going through their heads that has them think "Yes, this is definitely a good idea. What I am doing really matters. The potential benefits of this tech (to me, my company, our customers, and society at large) outweigh the obvious risks."
Do other people make such a calculus?
Re: (Score:2)
People can rationalize almost anything. There's a famous quote that goes something like "It's hard to get people to understand something when their livelihood depends on them not understanding it."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably focus on the lives they could be saving by keeping a soldier back further from the enemy. Rather than thinking of the lives it will be taking.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume the same thing that people who optimise web sites to be addictive, who build pay to win games, who create dark patterns, who make ink cartridges say they are empty after X prints regardless of the amount of ink left...
There are apparently lots of engineers who either don't consider ethics or who can live with it.
Yawn... (Score:2)
Old news (Score:2)
China is on their third generation of small armed drones, recently capable of automated swarm attacks [globaltimes.cn]. They export that stuff too. Turkey has developed their own [youtube.com] as well. But this is a US company so I guess its time for this to be a problem and lose our collective shit over it. Maybe do some blathering about capitalism and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree completely. The sooner the US gets down there in the sewer with real hard core totalitarian regimes the better!
Some confusion. (Score:2)
Metalhead (Score:2)
It's horrifying that the new "Simpsons did it" is "Black Mirror did it," and that it's a comparison to reality and not South Park.
Totally missing the point (Score:2)