Boston Dynamics Pledges Not To Weaponize Its Robots (axios.com) 89
Several robotics companies, including Boston Dynamics, are pledging not to support the weaponization of their products and are calling for others in the industry to do the same, according to a letter shared first with Axios. From the report: The open letter highlights the erosion of consumer trust in robots as among the reasons not to allow them to be used as weapons. "We believe that adding weapons to robots that are remotely or autonomously operated, widely available to the public, and capable of navigating to previously inaccessible locations where people live and work, raises new risks of harm and serious ethical issues," the companies said in the letter. The companies pledged not to add weapons technology themselves or to support others doing so. And "when possible" they said they will review customers' plans in hopes of avoiding those who would turn the robots into weapons, in addition to exploring technical features that could prevent such use. In addition to Boston Dynamics, five other firms signed on to the commitment: Agility Robotics, ANYbotics, Clearpath Robotics, Open Robotics and Unitree Robotics.
What they want is irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with corporations is there not immoral they're amoral. The way corporations are structured no one person ever decides to do evil instead it's a collective of people all doing what's right for the company at that time and when the sum is totaled up you're left with evil.. the correct way to deal with this is a whole hell of a lot of government regulation and a whole hell of a lot of education and critical thinking training. This is also why you will always find fascists attacking critical thinking... The kind of banal evil that fascists specializing can't survive critical thinking and a well-educated populace
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
It's just like how Twitter started out as a "free speech" platform and was slowly weaponized to the benefit of a single political party.
"It's a private corporation they can do what they want" was the claim modded +5 by the fascists, who love the idea of giant corporations acting as gatekeepers to information, and providing real-time censorship for hundreds of millions of people.
Of course it is exactly that kind of critical thinking that gets attacked around here, so fire up the sock puppets.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also "pledge" = "worthless". This is just for the public, not an actual commitment.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just for the public
Nope. The public doesn't care. Neither do customers. Investors likely see the pledge as a negative.
This is for the employees. In the struggle for talent, BD hopes this pledge will help with recruitment and retention.
Machete photosynthesizes (Score:2)
We're making good progress on giving weapons to plants [dwbowen.com]."
-- Better Off Ted S1E7
Re: (Score:2)
So like Google's former "Don't be evil!" pretense? Makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Engineers are not amoral though.
We hold more power than many people think. Corporations come to rely on us, and even today the kinds of people working on those robots can find another job if they need to quit. In fact competitors are probably watching their LinkedIn pages for any signs of discontent already.
Re: (Score:1)
Immoral Engineers exist. The minute you quit for moral objection, someone will come along and do what you refused to. It's good for your conscience, but the end result is somewhat similar.
They receive DARPA funding. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They won't have to. In a few weeks Elon Musk will announce that his Optimus humaniod robot will come with an optional battery-powered rail gun and ship in Q1 2023. A $100 deposit will secure your order.
The robot and gun will travel from the factory to a central point using the HyperLoop and then they will shift to self-driving Cybertrucks for delivery to your home. This will all be done by Q2 2023 so get your order in now!
It's simple really :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up and take my money!
Re: (Score:2)
Even better, just mount the railgun on the Cybertruck, and traffic will be a thing of the past!
Cut me off, I dare ya!
Re: (Score:3)
They lie in this letter because they cooperate with DARPA.
As is slashdot tradition, most are mistaking the clickbait for the story.
They're pledging not to weaponize their commercial model robots. They won't sell the retail robots to the military with weapons added. They will still design completely different models with weapons for the military.
Key phrase in the summary: "widely available to the public"
Re: They receive DARPA funding. (Score:2)
I agree that seems like some wordsmithing there to avoid such a detail.
I think there is some weird middle ground as well. DARPA doesn't just fund things that kill, they fund other stuff that is useful to the military, like robots that can disarm bombs, or enter burning buildings, or go where soldiers can't (without a weapon). So there are lots of applications where robots benefit the military (and prevents soldiers from dying so they can keep battling), but aren't weaponized.
A real commitment would be for t
Pffft (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone could strap their own weapons on. If you'd like to live in some kind of awful dystopia then this is an after-market busines opportunity.
Re:Pffft (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, let's fess up to reality: if you've been paying any attention at all since 2020, it's pretty evident we already live in some sort of awful dystopia.
It's somewhere near the convergence of Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and Snowcrash... with a healthy dose of Animal Farm.
Re:Pffft (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, the kids don't recognize most of those references. Do you have anything from tiktok you could use instead?
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, the kids don't recognize most of those references. Do you have anything from tiktok you could use instead?
isn't tiktok a dystopian reference all of itself?
Re: (Score:2)
Cyberpunk 2077?
Re:Pffft (Score:4, Funny)
since 2020, it's pretty evident we already live in some sort of awful dystopia.
So everything was good until 2020, and THAT's when the dystopia started?
Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but Agenda 2030, covid hysteria, global lockdowns, and dystopian tyrannical governments kind of cemented the ideas in 2020.
Re: Pffft (Score:2)
I was hoping for a bit more 12 monkeys, maybe some Snowpiercer, and a dash of Cat's Cradle. Can we arrange that?
Seriously though, if we're going to try to map 2020 onto post-apocalyptic references, we need some that involve wearing a mask. Silo anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Metro? Lots of mask wearing in that, just for radiological reasons rather than biological.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's really not an awful dystopia though. First, I think you're forgetting that crises have been happening all the time, forever. Someone living through WW1, WW2, the launch of sputnik, the Cuban missile crisis, the civil rights movement, the Vietnam war, etc., would all have thought they were living in a dystopia. I grew up in the 80's under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, or at least an ozone hole getting bigger and bigger. In 2001 there was a rather large crisis which captured as much at
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to go read some of the books I mentioned - Brave New World and Animal Farm, specifically. It's a truly terrifying dystopia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed - but you have to admit that shutting the entire world economy and pivoting to centrally-pushed DEI-agendas (with strings attached, of course) is somewhat of a bigger thing than anything that's come prior. More of the same, none the less.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone could strap their own weapons on.
While generally true, if the commercial models have a military version with weapons than any nutcase who wants to do something awful can 3d print a mount that copies the military mount.
This will make it much harder for the average idiot, and there are so many idiots in the world that they're the most dangerous cohort. Idiots are also less likely than average to have coping skills, and so are more likely to resort to violence when in an emotionally excited state.
So this is good. Even if they're just doing it
Someone will buy Boston Dynamics and... (Score:4, Insightful)
... that pledge will be forgotten.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say that.
If there's anything we've learned from basically every company that grew too big, was that the starting promises always vanish in favor of wealth and power.
They grow on peoples trust, and when they are big enough then they can do what they want.
Politicians have done the same thing for centuries. Vote for me - I'm for the little people, the people without a voice. Once popular or big enough - will be in the pockets of those with the money.
Re: (Score:2)
You might just have mentioned Google with it's "Don't be evil" start - it's gone missing, as I understand.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to buy.
Just license the technology.
Re: (Score:2)
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
not sure what Hyundai has pledged
Re: (Score:1)
They won't do it? (Score:1)
born to be wild (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: born to be wild (Score:2)
How about humans?
A lot of their investment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Naa, the military knows this is meaningless statement and just PR.
Re: (Score:2)
Why has no one mentioned the Three Laws? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt!
Well here you go. No robot can even pass the first law test, depending on how you define "harm."
A robot shall not harm a human, or by inaction allow a human to come to harm
If "harm" is defined as putting a person out of work, we've got a big problem!
Re: (Score:2)
And in certain circles, some types of humans are not even considered humans.
Define humans first, before you even talk about Asimov's laws.
Re:Why has no one mentioned the Three Laws? (Score:4, Informative)
Asimov's Three Laws [wikipedia.org] were a fictional device that didn't work even in fiction.
Re: Why has no one mentioned the Three Laws? (Score:2)
I'll believe it after it happens.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Robot weapons (Score:2)
Re:Robot weapons (Score:4)
Have always been around.
Not always.
A robot has actuators and sensors. The first device that qualifies is perhaps the proximity fuse, first deployed in 1942.
The proximity/VT fuse is widely seen as one of the key technologies that led to the rapid Allied victory in WW2.
Just one more drink, I swear!! (Score:2)
Not good enough. (Score:4, Funny)
This is HORSESHIT. No, it's worse, the person that made this "pledge" should be hit repeatedly by a robot to ground and keep doing so until they stop twitching because they KNOW everything they have told us is a total lie.
This announcement is as binding as a "pinky swear" which means they will not hesitate to weaponize their robots if they are given the financial incentive.
I hope someone runs a bunch of stupid-ass drones into these people for making such and absurd bald-face lie.
Re: (Score:2)
This is HORSESHIT. No, it's worse, the person that made this "pledge" should be hit repeatedly by a robot to ground and keep doing so until they stop twitching because they KNOW everything they have told us is a total lie.
This announcement is as binding as a "pinky swear" which means they will not hesitate to weaponize their robots if they are given the financial incentive.
I hope someone runs a bunch of stupid-ass drones into these people for making such and absurd bald-face lie.
It's not a binding promise for sure, though I don't know how you'd even make a binding promise.
Lets assume the corporation could sign a binding contract with.... someone... that banned it from weaponization. They'd either be leaving massive obvious loopholes or accidentally banning themselves from making a cooking robot because handling a knife meant it was weaponized via the terms of the contract.
So, given they can't make a binding promise isn't this more or less the best they can do? Sure, it's easily bre
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a binding promise for sure, though I don't know how you'd even make a binding promise.
You can. Basically you put it into the company statutes and create an oversight body with the mandate and power to enforce it. Can still be corrupted but it takes real work.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically you put it into the company statutes
and create an incorruptable oversight body
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
And if they break their promise in the future they've at least set themselves up to pay a price w.r.t. reputation and a backlash from their employees.
And not even that. Did google's reputation suffer (apart on Slashdot), or did they endure any backlash from their employees?
Re: (Score:2)
This is HORSESHIT. No, it's worse, the person that made this "pledge" should be hit repeatedly by a robot
This is a good example of why this is a good idea.
Here is some idiot, who doesn't even read the summary, doesn't spend the time to rub two brain cells together, and is already proposing to solve their (entirely imagined) problem with violence.
This is exactly the type of person who might get mad, build a mount that copies the military mount for the same model robot, and use it to attack somebody.
Spoiler: they're not promising not to build weaponized robots. They're promising not to weaponize the retail model
Re: (Score:2)
proposing to solve their (entirely imagined) problem with violence.
If you think autonomous killing machines are an "entirely imaged problem" then you have not been paying attention. Also, I think all evil bastards deserve an ironic death.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand. This is a statement to keep the general public complacent. Cannot have actual laws put into place about this, now can we? They would mean something, quite unlike this "pledge" that has less meaning than a teenager "pledging" abstinence.
Re: (Score:2)
Now this is an explanation that makes sense. I still want them to be hit repeatedly by a robot.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, they will not hesitate to weaponize their robots if "those other guys do it first".
We cannot allow a robot gap!
They already are (Score:1)
War Of The Worlds (TV Series) (Score:2)
don't be evil (Score:3)
Toyota don't weaponise their pickups (Score:2)
So many loopholes (Score:2)
So let's say Boston Dynamics really decides to stick to this "pledge." The sheer amount of money that can be made from weaponizing these things will practically force the company to find a way to keep their pledge, while not keeping it. For example, spin off a subsidiary that handles the weaponized versions. Or work with a partner company. Or who even needs Boston Dynamics to build weapons from the things. Some unrelated company could buy the robots outright and add their own modifications. The "pledge" is
Re: So many loopholes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I want to laugh at that (Score:3)
As much as I want to see Boston robots doing super cool stuff, their massive dog robot is probably out-performed by a middle-aged donkey, and the humanoid robot is probably outperformed in the field by an average high-school dropout with 6 months of military training. The robot needs to be recharged every 2 miles. The soldier can run 5 miles, eat a candy bar, and run another 5.
Sigh. Gonna have to wait another few decades for cyberpunk.
Re: (Score:2)
I came to make the Google "do no evil" joke (check) but this is brilliant.
May I respectfully point out the possibility that DoD deliberately gave their approval to get that weaponization off US soil? IIRC, there was a SoKo company demonstrating an automated machine gun not too long ago. Not merely remote-controlled, but also self-controlled. I am not apologizing for them wanting automated weapons or even a fire-on-warning retaliation system, the NorK's are tough neighbors and both countries are in an upw
Loosing ground ... (Score:2)
Hopefully, that changes when CHina starts doing it (Score:2)
Kitchen staff for the Pentagon cafeteria. (Score:2)
Worthless promise. (Score:2)
This is a worthless promise.
There's so many ways around it, including just doing it and balls'ing out the backlash.
Well, this one is easy... (Score:1)
Funjy (Score:2)
Where there's a will, there's a way (Score:2)
This is as pointless as Ford and GM saying that they will never build Somalia Technicals. Of course not. That doesn't mean that some hardware hacker somewhere being paid by some wealthy dictator isn't going to find a way to add weaponry to the thing. I'm sure the companies that made either the components for the hobby drones or the finished product being used by Ukraine to drop bombs on Russian tanks didn't want their product being used as a weapon.
Standard platform mounting system? (Score:2)
If so, then I don't see how they can stop it. At the very least some other company can buy the robots and do the "militarization upgrade" and sell to the military.
Any advance that is good for a civilian robot is going to be good for a military robot, so even all their R&D is essentially militarized.
Now if all they are saying is that *they* won't be experimenting with blowing stuff up with their platforms, well that's well and good but won't do anything to stop these from being used by the military, po
Wrong move (Score:2)
Using them as weapons is EXACTLY what we need. The US can no longer recruit enough soldiers because the population is too dumb and fat. Robot soldiers are our only hope of staying free, and I am deadly serious.
Furthermore, our enemies, like China, are not going to hold back. More delusional thinking, trying to assuage children who don't understand how the world really works.
No need to support it (Score:2)