Korea To Build Front-line Combat Robot

christchurch wrote to mention the story of a plucky Korean robot that has been built for combat. From the article: "According to design blueprints released during a meeting of science-related ministers, the robot will have six or eight extendable legs with wheels allowing it to move like an insect over uneven terrain. The robot will be armed with various weapons and will operate both by remote control and its own artificial intelligence system"

Comments

has to be said.

[indy_Muad'Dib]

may i be the first to welcome out 8 leggeded robotic overlords.

Re:has to be said.

[Andy Gardner]

and, may I be the first to welcome in 8 leggeded robotic overlords!

Re:has to be said.

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase someone: Just because you can say a thing, it doesn't necessarily follow that you must.

Re:has to be said.

[BottleCup]

yes and after the AI in the robots decide they dont need humans anymore and take over administration, I can just see the headlines now:

Combat Robots Got Seoul!

Re:has to be said.

[Joe Random]

may i be the first to welcome out 8 leggeded robotic overlords.

Only old Koreans welcome their 8-legged robotic overlords.

Re:has to be said.

[Silverlancer]

I, for one, prefer the four-legged kind.

Re:has to be said.

[double-oh three]

Perhaps it has to be said, but I wish it had to be said grammatically.

Re:has to be said.

[Drooling Iguana]

Were they cured by gypsies or did they travel to Africa and pass a series of trials?

Re:has to be said.

[PlacidPundit]

No, it doesn't.

Re:has to be said.

[Sugar Moose]

I've noticed a lot of people welcoming pretty much anything as an overlord. In fact, there's so many, it's as if they're taking over Slashdot.

And may I be the first to welcome our new "welcomes everything as a new overlord" overlords. May your reign be long and prosper--aw, crap, it's over.

They already welcomed someone else as our new overlords.

Re:has to be said.

[grogdamighty]

The robots in Buffy have two legs. ;)

Re:has to be said.

[NanoGator]

"has to be said."

Why? Does the one millionth copycat get a free iPod or something?

Re:has to be said.

[Rick and Roll]

Actually it's even funnier because he screwed it up. It's the Koreans we're talking about here. Not sure whether the grandparent learned English as a second (or later) language or if (s)he's just a hick, but it sounds like Ingrish to me.

Re:has to be said.

[zephc]

Or in 20 years it will run for Governor of California.

Re:has to be said.

[WindBourne]

Of course, I was thinking of Bruce Schneier's infamous quote: It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state. I suspect that when you or your children are on the receiving end of them, Then you will not be welcoming them. If nothing else, think kent state in vietnam era.

Re:has to be said.

[ozmanjusri]

Give it the electronic nose from the previous article and you might have to welcome them. Not every tool developed for war ends up being used on foreigners.

The mechanical Hound slept but did not sleep, lived but did not live in its gently humming, gently vibrating, softly illuminated kennel back in a dark corner of the fire house. The dim light of one in the morning, the moonlight from the open sky framed through the great window, touched here and there on the brass and copper and the steel of the faintly trembling beast. Light flickered on bits of ruby glass and on sensitive capillary hairs in the nylon-brushed nostrils of the creature that quivered gently, its eight legs spidered under it on rubber padded paws.

Nights when things got dull, which was every night, the men slid down the brass poles, and set the ticking combinations of the olfactory system of the hound and let loose rats in the fire house areaway. Three seconds later the game was done, the rat caught half across the areaway, gripped in gentle paws while a four-inch hollow steel needle plunged down from the proboscis of the hound to inject massive jolts of morphine or procaine. (From Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury.)

I'm off to start memorising "The Origin of the Species"

Re:has to be said.

[stuntpope]

Sorry, too late. Being first on the /. dupe doesn't count.

Re:has to be said.

[Liam Slider]

I like this literary quote...

"They sent a slamhound on Turner's trail in New Delhi, slotted it to his pheromones and the color of his hair. It caught up with him on a street called Chandni Chauk and came scrambling for his rented BMW through a forest of bare brown legs and pedicab tires. Its core was a kilogram of recrystallized hexogene and flaked TNT.

He didn't see it coming. The last he saw of India was the pink stucco facade of a place called the Khush-Oil Hotel." Count Zero, by William Gibson

Re:has to be said.

[indy_Muad'Dib]

A. it was 12:30am my time.

B. i usually use Dvorak but i was on this piece of shit qwerty at my GFs house.

C. because of said piece of shit qwerty i accidently hit "t" instead of "r".

D. next time ill remember to preview.

E. Plain Old Text should be DEFAULT!

Re:has to be said.

[PakProtector]

Yeah... I, for one, would love to have my own Sarah Michelle Gellar-bot.

Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[aussie_a]

We're constantly hearing about combat robots, but are any in use? The only ones I know of being in use are reconnaisance robots (of numerous types) and bomb-defusing robots.

Are there any bots out there that are designed to shoot people? I'm constantly hearing about designs for them, but I've never heard of them being put to use.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[slashdotnickname]

Are there any bots out there that are designed to shoot people?
Yes, my aimbot is capable of clearing out a room of them.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[jkuff]

There are many Military Robots that have been actively used in the past. Most of them are drones for mapping or reconnaissance. Note that the Ottawa Treaty of 1999 forbids the production of armed autonomous robots, but South Korea obviously refused to sign the treaty (as did China, Russia, the US, and about 40 others).

The US has used the PackBot in combat situations, but I believe it has never had munitions mounted on it. It looks like iRobot's vacuum cleaning and navigation technology in the Roomba can be reused to "sweep" for land mines in a minefield.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[globalar]

Well, we can certainly mount guns on things and shoot remotely. The current, long-developing trend in military warfare is towards smaller, versatile units that are hard to pin down but are extremely coordinated. Hive-like would be a wet-dream, but I'm sure beaurocrat is having such a dream as we speak. Bottom line, robots don't yet play into this dream. They are really only good as disposable long-range swiss-army knives. This will improve over time, of course. And as you read, the border patrol part is a focus as well.

This particular focus from SK seems to be a politically-pushed idea. Perhaps similar to the U.S. Star Wars idea in the 1980's (i.e. makes people happy, makes some contractors rich). North Korea weighs heavily on SK citizen's minds, partly because they hear so much crazy, horrible stuff about what happens in the country. Remember there is a huge infrantry deployment (for U.S. particularly) along the North Korean border, so any press about being able to one day replace these forces with robots is good press (who will hopefully just be sentrys really, because no one south of the meridian wants war).

Also, the South Koreans are fairly keen on technology in general, similar to the Japanese. Like all of us, they love to find excuses to play with robots and grant government contracts. The SK government has invested heavily in certain industries in the past and now the market seems to be sensing the technological shift. Yesterday (way back) the hot things were conventional transport like shipbuilding. Today its robots. So the story goes, if you can get a copy of the student roster at MIT, you can find out just what the South Koreans want to become leaders in. Though, I would add a few Japanese and Chinese schools to the list now as well.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[craXORjack]

Are there any bots out there that are designed to shoot people? I'm constantly hearing about designs for them, but I've never heard of them being put to use.

Well, there was Boilerplate

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[LnxAddct]

The U.S. already uses several robots in battle with them, mostly drones for mapping things. Some drones have missiles. There is also a smaller land robot that infantry can carry with them to inspect suspicious areas. There are easily about 500 other forms of robots on the drawing boards among various defense contractors. The idea is that robots can be made in any number and are dispensable, so eventually a soldier should be replaced by a robot. The robots we know exist are most likley nothing compared to what is behind closed doors. We often don't hear about the really good stuff until its about 50 to 75 years passed. With something like a robot that can fight as a soldier can, the U.S. probably would keep that under tight secrecy until the public needed to know(i.e. because we needed to use them for a large scale war). Something like that is not something you want your enemies to know about. As it is right now, if we ever had to battle a country like China where the government literally controls how many think and act and at the drop of a dime could send billions of people to war, we would need to scale up our forces, robots are the answer. One popular robot idea in the early research phase is obviously autonomous vehicles, as is shown by DARPA's annual grand challenge.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[kangman]

Isn't the Predator drone a remote controlled bot that shots missle projectiles at targets? As well as reconnisance?

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[CAIMLAS]

It is morally repugnant to an honorable person (a 'warrior') to have machines fighting wars for you.

There is something to be said for efficient tools to reduce the causalties within your military forces (tanks, air support, artillery, small arms, body armor, etc.), but it comes down to this crucial point: if you remove all disinsentive for engaging in conflict with an enemy, a people will have little protest against wanton wars.

That said, there's no substitute for troops on the ground. You can hide your peoople in a bunker which control your robots, or you can hide away the servers running the AI coordination for the robots, but if that facility is breached, any robot killing machine (which isn't a "combatant", as only a sentient can be a combatant) that is not autonomous is functionally useless and might even be used against you.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[grogdamighty]

It is morally repugnant to an honorable person (a 'warrior') to have machines fighting wars for you.

There is very little honorable about fighting wars in general. And there is very little more honorable than saving a life - or preventing the loss of one.

As for your other comments, economics is the answer. If nations are willing to fight a war for economic incentives, nations should be just as willing to view the loss of million-dollar-robots as a disincentive.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any bots out there that are designed to shoot people? I'm constantly hearing about designs for them, but I've never heard of them being put to use.

You haven't been pulled over in the 'States recently, have you?

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[TitanBL]

There are a few in use currently in Iraq. There is the Talon which can fire many different weapons (M249, .50 cal, M4A1, M24, etc). They are very accurate, more accurate than any soldier. Every EOD team seems to have one of these which they use to detonate IEDs.

UAVs are everywhere and are common place in almost all operations. There is the Predator, which when armed with the hellfire missile system can be very leathal and the little Raven which can be utilized at the squad level. The new Viper Strike bombs, which are starting to be depoyed on UAVs, are very usefull in urban situations where you need to take out the enemy without harming innocents in say, the next room. This is a big development because the "insurgents" like to take shelter in mosques, schools, and hospitals, etc. The new Hardstop bombs help in this situation as well (but I do not think they are carried by UAVs). Anyways, here is an exellent video/story which mixes captured enemy video with the video from the UAV which nails them. I love UAVs.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[Lord Kano]

Are there any bots out there that are designed to shoot people?

Yes.

I'm constantly hearing about designs for them, but I've never heard of them being put to use.

Then just look.

Long story short. The feds sent a robot with a telephone on it, there was also a 12 guage shotgun aimed at the phone. Pick up the phone and lose your arm.

LK

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[h0tr0d]

Many law enforcement agencies across the U.S. have the capability to remotely blast a person to another hemisphere should they choose. However, due to laws and policies on use of force these robots are used only to deploy less than lethal munitions as there can be no perceived threat of loss of life against the robot (an inanimate object). This technology has been in the hands of law enforcement since the mid '90's but for the lack of the need to remotely obilterate a human being the technology goes untested in the field.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[geminidomino]

but South Korea obviously refused to sign the treaty (as did China, Russia, the US, and about 40 others)

So just about everyone capable of making them refused, except Japan.

Doesn't that just suck?

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[ramblin billy]

"Hive-like would be a wet-dream"

Depending on your definition of robot, we may already have a "hive mind" controlled robot in operational use. The AEGIS Combat System is a combat control system that integrates a wide variety of sensors and weapon platforms into a single, computer controlled system. The central control computer receives data from linked sources such as radar arrays, satellites and aircraft located anywhere in the battle space. Using various algorithms, the system can track over 100 separate targets, assign priorities, choose the appropriate weapon from any of the assets under its command and target and fire the weapon remotely. An entire fleet of ships can thus act as one in presenting an integrated defense. Once the system is enabled the computer makes the individual decisions without human interaction. The humans just sit back and watch it go. That's pretty close to a hive mind. AEGIS has been around for about thirty years.

There are also examples of "fire and forget" weapons that may be classified as robots, although not in the traditional sense. Sea mines exist that can hover, scan the area with passive sonar and deploy only when certain conditions are met. These conditions can include the detection of the acoustic signature of a single ship or group of ships. Missiles and torpedoes can lock on to a target and independently proceed to an intercept, dealing with evasive behavior and counter-measures. Some munitions, upon losing target lock, can throttle down and cruise in search patterns in the attempt to reacquire the original target or aquire a new target of opportunity. Once any of these weapons is fired, they proceed without further human input.

The reason any of these weapons can be safely (well, safely in a battlefield sense) used is that they are confined to limited areas that are designated "free-fire zones" or are capable of differentiating between targets. That's fairly easy for ships and planes, not so easy for troops on the ground. It's easy to see how robot controlled guns could be used to repulse waves of attackers advancing through no-man's land. It's less clear how they would tell the difference between probing enemy scouts and a lost squad of their own men. Initial deployment might be on the basis of "go over HERE and let me know when you get there or detect anything on the way". Options might include "laser illuminate THIS target until follow-on munitions arrive then return to base" or "let me know if THIS target proceeds in THIS direction". It should also be remembered that acceptable levels of safety are quite different in times of war and on the battlefield. "Let loose the bots" may become the last ditch effort of desperate men.

billy - AEGIS is currently being migrated to Open Software...could it be...Linux?

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

Heh, I read that as "Isn't the President drone..." etc.

I need more sleep.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> It is morally repugnant to an honorable person (a 'warrior') to have machines fighting wars for you.

We will shed tears of oil for you on your grave, and kneel to your lost honor.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[Martin Spamer]

We're constantly hearing about combat robots, but are any in use?

The RQ-1 Predator is being actively used in a combat role.

While at the moment they are used via remote control for combat (perhaps for political reasons) a single pilot/operator can use several at the same time because they have an autonomous flight capability. How long do you think it would be in a war of survival before pilots controlled many multiples of drones. And how little time before those drones took on more and more automation ? There have been fire and forget missiles around for decades. It's simply degrees of autonomy and disposability.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[kesuki]

Note that the Ottawa Treaty of 1999 forbids the production of armed autonomous robots

um no it doesn't http://www.icbl.org/treaty/text

Mines are defined as 'concealed' devices All you need to do it paint the robots a nice bright neon color and you can programe it to kill exclusively humans without violating the ottowa treaty.

Further more Mixed Devices are perfectly legal, All you do is Arm the Robot with an RPG and program it to blow up tanks and humvees. then it can also be programmed to slaughter milions of innocent souls and not be in violation of the ottowa treaty even if it's got a digital invisibility cloak*

remember the first rule. Never trust wiki.

*= a fancy device designed to take pictures of the environment around it, and make a 'camoflauge' image around the person, machine etc. using various existing technology. it's actually quite priimative, and guille suits are prefered, as they work better at close range, and at night.. seriously, the millitary has tried (and failed) to make a useful digital invisibility cloak. ideally it would use some kind of image display that worked in day tiem or night time, could match both thermal as well as visual image, and ideally you wouldn't know they were there til you ran into the device. fortunately the devices they built only worked at >= 100 yards away and only in daylight. we just don't have that kind of thermal and visual display technology to match at that high a resolution. and luckily the romulans wouldn't give us there version of the technology that was based on highly modified force shield technology**, to bend the light around the object.

**= luckily our own force shield technology is entirely based on rubbing two very large pieces of plastic together to generate a solid wall of ionized air.. rather than than some artificially created wall of ionically charged particles thyat can be manipulated by a device.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[FhnuZoag]

Old news.

The Nazis had remote controlled robots that exploded under tanks.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[cojsl]

Does a GPS guided cruise missile qualify? Here's an article about a predator UAV equipped with a hellfire missile killing 5 in Yemen: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N54/long4-54.54w.html

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[necro81]

It is true that we keep hearing about combat robots, but the simple truth is that it is incredible difficult to reproduce what boots on the ground can do. Let's face it, even when stumbling drunk, human beings are better at negotiating difficult terrain (such as a combat zone) than even the most sophistocated robots. Just consider the amount of brainpower and resources are being poured into the DARPA Grand Challenge. How many years, millions of dollars, and engineers has Honda spent just to get the Asimo to walk around on its own, on a perfectly flat floor or up a preprogrammed flight of stairs? The difficulties of over-land mobility in robotics are just too great to think that $32 million in development funds (as mentioned in the article) will be able to develop a robot that is even half as capable, or intelligent, as a grunt that spent a few months in basic. This is why the greatest advances in military robotics have come in aircraft - the mobility issues are much simpler. It is a lot easier to program an autopilot for a drone than it is to program an autodrive for an off-road Humvee (which, incidentally, they haven't yet been able to do, hence the Grand Challenge). I'll call it vaporware.

Re:Constantly hearing about combat-bots

[kesuki]

There are many robots programmed to slaughter millions, they are known as ICBMs.

were formerly programed to slaughter millions. they've all been repointed to the 'oceans.' The time it would take to revert them all to there original targets? 10 seconds...

But in one were accidently fired off millions of people would not be killed, just a few thousand fish would be flash broiled... and ready for glow in the dark dipping. thankfully water is a radiation shield.

I'll be baac

[AdityaG]

Now we just wait for the naked guys to drop outta the sky...

Re:I'll be baac

[Punboy]

Wrong movie. That was Dogma.

Re:I'll be baac

[Liam Slider]

Naked, big titted women don't just fall out of the sky you know!

It was only a matter of time

[Rod76]

The machines becames selfaware at 09:00 May 2007 Ok not the best Terminator line, but I tried...

Re:It was only a matter of time

[simba22]

no...not from where i am sitting i'd say you didn't try hard enough... you are dismissed now.

Re:It was only a matter of time

[Inaffect]

Judgement Day is inevitable! Cyberdyne was simply outsourced to Korea 5 years ago!

Minor clarification

[dtfinch]

South Korea To Build Front-line Combat Robot.

Some people think "North" when they hear about Korean military stuff.

Re:Minor clarification

[mwilli]

Well, good. Now I can get some sleep tonight. You would think that would have been caught by an editor...Oh wait, it's Zonk. Nevermind.

Re:Minor clarification

[Kafka_Canada]

Yes, but North Korea can't even afford to eat all the time. It was clear from the context which Korea was meant.

Re:Minor clarification

[richdun]

Some people think "North" when they hear about Korean military stuff.

Of course, if the past Olympics, Asian Games, and other efforts are any indication, many Koreans are trying to disregard the directions altogether - most refer to the country as "Korea," no bloody North, South, C, or D.

Re:Minor clarification

[Guppy06]

Of course it's ROK. DRPK couldn't afford the electricity to charge the batteries on one of these death machines.

Re:Minor clarification

[a.different.perspect]

That's because they spend so much money on their military, which numbers more than a million active service troops. It wasn't clear.

Re:Minor clarification

[rm999]

From what I can tell, most people in the west (at least the US and europe) assume Korea means South Korea. I guess that is the western anti-communist bias.

Re:Minor clarification

[Kafka_Canada]

Yes, but their military is basically a million idiot conscripts. It's not like they have an economy, an advanced technological society, or, as I said above, even enough food for themselves. S. Korea builds modern cars, electronics, etc., and of the two only they could conceivably build an advanced mega-killer robot. It was most certainly clear.

Re:Minor clarification

[hunterx11]

Give him a break, it can be confusing. After all the ROK is worried about what the DPRK will do, and even the PRC doesn't want them to do something stupid, all while threatening to ROC. You'd think these Asian countries learned English from AOL.

Re:Minor clarification

[Professor_UNIX]

Of course, if the past Olympics, Asian Games, and other efforts are any indication, many Koreans are trying to disregard the directions altogether - most refer to the country as "Korea," no bloody North, South, C, or D.

That's a bit confusing when there are two distinct countries there with entirely different systems of government. How about we call the one to the north "North Korea" and the one to the south "South Korea". That way we can more easily tell them apart.

Re:Minor clarification

[immerrath]

As opposed to the USA?

Re:Minor clarification

[ben0207]

ROFL.

Re:Minor clarification

[Guppy06]

Oh noes! A typo! And because my right hand was faster than my left for an instant, transposing two near-identical letters, that means I don't know how to spell the acronym for Democratic People'a Republic of Korea! Thanks for saving me from my ignorance!

</sarcasm>

Re:Minor clarification

[coaxial]

Of course, if the past Olympics, Asian Games, and other efforts are any indication, many Koreans are trying to disregard the directions altogether - most refer to the country as "Korea," no bloody North, South, C, or D.

Well that's because in the past Olympics and Asian Games the North and South Koreans fielded a unified team. Before you can give any insights, you have to understand the basic facts.

Unfortunately...

[Tyrdium]

Unfortunately, Korea will also give them the ability to replicate.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Liam Slider]

But will they look good in hotpants?

http://animeart.com/p/gallery?j/a/armitage

I will just sit here

[Bananatree3]

at my computer, waiting for that inevitable day when, some time in the near or distant future, this things' great-great-great-great grandson will come into my office and shoot me, on its war for earth. Until then, I'll just sit here with my fantasies about a world without such robots...

Re:I will just sit here

[Pichu0102]

Luckily no such thing would happen unless they designed to have human-level learning capabilities, and with everyone tossing lawsuits over property, I'd say we'll never get to human-level artificial intelligence.

South Korea

[ZeroPost]

I think that the article summary should mention that this is being developed by _South_ Korea. The article just mentioned 'Korea', but since there are two Koreas, I wasn't sure which one they were talking about.

Re:South Korea

[Godwin O'Hitler]

To be fair "design blueprints released during a meeting of science-related ministers" doesn't sound very much like a North Korean thing, does it?

"blueprints"

[Capt'n Hector]

haha those "blueprints" are from lightwave, aren't they? In that case, I have blueprints for several deep-space capital ships, a few space fighters, and a couple of plasma guns.

Huge waste of 33 billion?

[mrtroy]

Would a small number of humans not be able to take these out from a distance using existing technology, such as an EMP or directed microwave?

Also, what happens if someone hacks the controlling mechanism and turns them against the Koreans?

I dont think our existing technology is going to be powerful enough for something this complex.

What if u dig a trench all the way across the North/South Korea border? Will these become useless in an invasion?

Re:Huge waste of 33 billion?

[HermanAB]

No, not with EMP or microwave, but a RPG or artilery will do the trick...

Re:Huge waste of 33 billion?

[DoubleRing]

Would a small number of humans not be able to take these out from a distance using existing technology, such as an EMP or directed microwave?

I hate whenever someone mentions this. Both of these weapons (at this time) are impossible to properly implement. The concept of the EMP is popularized by movies and the like, but is not really acheivable with anything short of an enormous explosion (such as a nuclear bomb). If you set up giant electro-magnet, hooked directly up to a..let's say a fusion reactor (which has yet to be invented), then you could have a viable reusable device that could incapacitate a city. For smaller areas, you could use a device similar to an MRI, which would have an extremely small effective radius (if you can get that close, might as well use more conventional methods), plus you'd have to remember that fields aren't directional. Any devices you were using (gps, radios) would all have to be magnetically sheilded. Then, of course, you could magnetically sheild the robot.

Directed microwaves are EXTREMELY impractical. The only reason why your microwave at home can heat things up is because the wave is reflected back and forth thousands of times, increasing the amount of molecules that one wave will excite. Even then, it takes minutes to do what you want. In a combat situation, that is out of the question.

Also, what happens if someone hacks the controlling mechanism and turns them against the Koreans? I dont think our existing technology is going to be powerful enough for something this complex.

Darth Vader:I find your lack of faith...disturbing.

What if u dig a trench all the way across the North/South Korea border? Will these become useless in an invasion?

I don't really understand what you're saying, but isn't that what the DMZ is for?

Re:Huge waste of 33 billion?

[bombadier_beetle]

The concept of the EMP is popularized by movies and the like, but is not really acheivable with anything short of an enormous explosion (such as a nuclear bomb).

False.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_compression_gene rator

Re:Huge waste of 33 billion?

[thebdj]

Your only source of information is wikipedia? Didn't your mother teach you to not believe everything you read on the web? Half the other websites I found relating to similar devices, well they are all run by those conspiracy theorist nutcases who cannot accept facts like, Oswald killed Kennedy.

Re:Huge waste of 33 billion?

[ScrewMaster]

"flux compression generator", eh? Looks like a prototype version of the well-known "flux capacitor", which I understand has yet to find direct military application. Although, if you did have a time-travelling DeLorean it might be interesting to go back and shoot Kim il Jong's grandmother.

Yes

[Solr_Flare]

Yes, the USA, if I recall properly, has variations of their spy drone planes that are equipped with missle launchers. Likewise, there was an article a few months back about the US getting ready to deploy a heavily armed remote control tank-bot for "testing" in Iraq.

But, to date we have not yet equipped, to public knowledge, a robot with weaponry that is not purely remote controlled. Armed AI robots make people nervous, and for a variety of good reasons given our state of "AI".

Of course, we aren't talking a Skynet situation here(although some day that will likely be technically possible). Its more like not wanting a blue screen of death to literally kill you.

Re:Yes

[TykeClone]

The drones are expensive remote controlled airplanes - they don't really qualify as a robot.

Re:Yes

[ergo98]

The drones are expensive remote controlled airplanes - they don't really qualify as a robot.

Why not? While one traditional definition is, err, "human like", another is quite simply a remote controlled or autonomous mechanical device. A remote controlled jet qualifies. Indeed last I heard some of those jets fly autonomous routes, triggering alerts for suspect objects, but it would just be a software change for it to start (Crazily) shooting stuff itself.

If equipped with an autoloader, I would imagine that equipping an M1A2 with remote control would be very much achievable as well. Surprized that hasn't been done already.

Re:Yes

[saskboy]

A robot doesn't have to have legs, or lack wings. Saying a robot can't have wings is robot discrimination, and is a violation of the Robot-Human treaty of 2001. Prepare to have your service line discontinued, to be in compliance.

Re:Yes

[TykeClone]

If it's remote controlled, it's not autonomous - and wouldn't really qualify as a robot. Just as a real expensive gunsight.

Re:Yes

[kesuki]

If it's remote controlled, it's not autonomous - and wouldn't really qualify as a robot. Just as a real expensive gunsight.

Some clarification is clearly needed. first off we need to understand the root of the word.

Automatons are mechanical devices or robots designed to follow pre-programed instructions.

Robots are mechanical devices or programs designed to perform a task normally done by a human. There is no implication of autonamy in robotics. Robotic arms have been following simple automaton style press button execute program y logic for Decades now. however the program can well be autonmous. but it is not a requirement.

Androids are robots that have been Designed specifically to resemble a human, while performing tasks conventionally performed by humans.

An automobile is an automaton. press gas == go, press brake == stop, turn wheel == steer. I say it is an automaton because the task it performs is normally done by equines. However, a vehicle which has autonomous programming to 'drive' itself becoms a robot. Even if the 'device' that drives the car is a pair of electronically controlled hydraulics controlled by a small 'box' with an electronic brain followiong simple pre-programmed algoyrthms. (AI is not autonmous, as it is not a 'thinking' or self-programming machine current AI is at conventional Robot level, not fully autonmous)

so you see, even if the device has a 'robot' that takes visual input, and decides to fire based on that data, and decides where to go based on paramters it had been pre-programmed with, ie: fully AI controlled, it is not truly an autonmous machine until it can stop and decide to 'rewrite' it's internal programming to say, turn around and shoot all the people it was programmed to protect. Frankly, Nobody wants an autonmous war bot. AI programming to make it easier to 'remote' control is fine. since that programming does not 'rewrite' itself as long as you design and test it properly there should be no issues.

Virus vs Robots (vs Man)

[timeToy]

If they use Windows embedded as OS, I can't wait (actually I can wait, I rather never have to see them) for the Star Wars moment where they all stop at once because of a worm like infection ! I guess the market value of Virus and Worm writer skillz just get a notch higher.

Re:Virus vs Robots (vs Man)

[Stormwatch]

Star Wars? No, you're thinking of Independence Day.

Re:Virus vs Robots (vs Man)

[Sinryc]

Or a poorly written Open Source OS so that someone can just edit some simple stuff. Oh wait, did I just say that something Open Source could get messed up?! OH NOES! I AM TEH EVIL!!! I HATE FREEDOM! I LOVE BILL GATES AND WORSHIP SATAN. Heh, I love slashdot.

Re:Virus vs Robots (vs Man)

[raodin]

He's talking about the scene in episode one where all the combat droids stop fighting because their command ship has been destroyed. Different cause, same result.

Fragging nerds

[aussie_a]

You put a gun in an overweight nerds hand and shove him onto the battlefield and he's going to get killed very quickly. You put him behind the remote controls for one of these babies, and you'll have a lean-mean killing machine. Will nerds be the nest people to be drafted by the government? After all, all of those years training in Quake and Doom should make them experts wielding these babies.

I can see it now, Korea is at war with someone else using these on the battlefield. Kim and his friends want a LAN party, so they PAY the military to for an hours worth of time renting out 5 of these. They get behind their computers, and are suddenly transported to a battlefield and they go for it. Just make sure it's programmed so that the thing can't shoot allies (perhaps the allies emit a beacon) and the kids can go for their life, trying to frag as many people as they can. It'll be all the rage!

Re:Fragging nerds

[Solr_Flare]

Actually, the scary thing is that this scenario is likely to become a reality. At least "nerds" being the future generation of soldiers. Maybe not for another generation or two of course. But, the whole idea in warfare is to limit the human casualties on your side. This makes remote controlled weaponry ideal. And, given the skills and coordination developed from years of gaming, video gamers would make the ideal drone controllers.

The real long term concern is that if warfare ends up becoming a battle between robots and remote drones, will people finally realize that war has no point anymore? Or, instead, as fictional as *that* version is, will you end up with something like that episode of the original star trek where we vaporize our own people when a computer simulation decides a kill has been made?

Re:Fragging nerds

[Solidsnot]

In other words you mean Ender's Game.

Re:Fragging nerds

[Solr_Flare]

Actually, that is the fundimental point of warfare. To limit the casualties on your side while destroying your opponent's ability to make war. You "win" when your force is able to accomplish their goal.

If you take casualties on *your side* your enemy is reducing your ability to make war, thus your enemy is winning. This was actually the whole reason the cold war happened. The USA and USSR both began building up weapons for a potential war between them.

Eventually both sides reached a point where a war would result in so many casualties on both sides, that neither side would win. Instead it would be a war of mutual extermination. So, if the war happened, both sides would lose. But, if either country backed down, the other would gain superiority and win. So, it was a stalemate. Both sides could only continue preparing for a war that neither could win, in order to *not lose*. In the end, economic instabilities as well as a number of political manuevers caused the USSR to falter and fall apart.

Re:Fragging nerds

[PlacidPundit]

The real long term concern is that if warfare ends up becoming a battle between robots and remote drones, will people finally realize that war has no point anymore?

As long as evil human nature persists, there will be war and death. So no, I wouldn't count on it.

Re:Fragging nerds

[iceanfire]

One flaw in your plan :

"you n00b, stop team killing"

Re:Fragging nerds

[tmortn]

"Both sides could only continue preparing for a war that neither could win, in order to *not lose*."

This is only true if the country that didn't back down makes good on its advantage.

Re:Fragging nerds

[Alystair]

Hopefully we can move them from the RPGs to play some WC3: DotA. Hello Fellow Torontonian! :D

Re:Fragging nerds

[a.d.trick]

What happends when a country runs out robots. Do you think they will passively stand by and get taken over! I don't see how robots could bee a good thing in war and they will probably just lead to more collatoral damages.

Re:Fragging nerds

[Heliode]

My God man! Think about what you're saying! We're talking about Korean nerds here! It'll be a black day for humanity when one of those things goes "Kekeke Zergrush ^_^".

Re:Fragging nerds

[Geshem]

The only problem here is, these things can't respawn..

Re:Fragging nerds

[FhnuZoag]

Welcome to KillBot v1.2324b

Intialising.... System ready. Readings normal.

Please enter your command:

> IDDQD

Invalid

> IDKFA

Invalid

> GOD

Invalid

> IMPULSE 9

Invalid

> THIS GAME SUCKS

Re:Fragging nerds

[focitrixilous P]

It's possible. However, the nerds may be at risk for couter-attack when they pause the game to go to the devloper forums whining that 'this game doesn't keep score, i wanna know my stats to show people how much i r0x0rz terrorists' and 'OMFG IEDs are sooo cheap they ruin the game couldn't you make them easier to see?'

The AI must be really good.

[chub_mackerel]

I'm sure it'll be even better than human soldiers at making judgment calls like "threat or civilian?"

Or, at least... I'm sure it will be more efficient at making these judgment calls...

Re:The AI must be really good.

[aussie_a]

Does the Korean government even care about determining whether people they shoot are civilians or not?

Re:The AI must be really good.

[chub_mackerel]

Well, for that matter, distinguishing between SK troops and others is... MILDLY important, as well.

Re:The AI must be really good.

[russianspy]

I doubt it is going to be THAT sophisticated. People running this way (and shouting are OK), people running the other way (either attacking troops OR your own defecting troops) are to be shot. Easy, eh?

Re:The AI must be really good.

[Aquila Deus]

How does it know you're attacking him? I doubt if it can identify someone pretending to be an ammo supplier puts a bomb in his back ;-)

Re:The AI must be really good.

[h4rm0ny]

Pretty simple. You declare a zone as "militarily active", or some other such pentagon-speak. In go the troops and the robots, and anything moving in there that doesn't carry a friendly radio tag gets shot at. If a "civilian" goes outside or rises off the floor or refuses to have radio-emitting "security restraining devices" hurriedly slapped on him by the soldiers, then he is "resisting" and will become a "active target".

Sorry for all the " ". That tends to happen when a politician is trying not to say they've just commisioned a machine to kill people.

Re:The AI must be really good.

[Garion Maki]

and this movie would probably be the next step.
a whole moon filled with heartbeat seeking robots that don't atack you if you carry the 'good guy' tag.
untill the robots decide that the 'good guy' tag isn't enough to stop them from atacking ofcourse... :)

Re:The AI must be really good.

[magarity]

So running parallel to the line of engagement will put the thing into reset mode?

What about the Asimov rules?

[Bananatree3]

Is it just me, or is the world forgetting Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics?:

Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" asimov

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 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.

It seems to me that this is a casebook example of such discrase for these laws. We have forgotten what these rules, layed down by father of robotics over half a decade ago. It is sad to see how we have used something like the robot to simply continue the cycle of ever-more expensive and bloody cycle of militery technology, and now with AI to go with it

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[timeOday]

Forget Asimov, how about Jesus? (Or is that automatically flaimbait?)

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[encopitt]

You can start bringing up Jesus when Christians start living by his example, not what the Almighty TV (and fucking FOX news) tells them.

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, we ordinary Christians get really annoyed when the term "Christian" is misused instead of "fundy morons." We still pray for their misguided souls, and at the same time, we pray for the day that their bullshit stops bringing heat down on the rest of us.

To the fundies all up in the hizzy: God created us to be thinking and rational beings, in His image. You narrow-minded, intolerant bastards do not fit the image of my God.

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[CAIMLAS]

Asimov was a pacifistic dreamer. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you, but this is reality. Not everyone is pacifistic, and there are most certainly segments of people in our world who would not hesitate to kill if it meant an increase in social status for themselves.

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[Manchot]

Three things: First of all, Asimov lived half a century ago, not half a decade ago. Secondly, he can hardly be called "the father of robotics." He neither conceived the idea of a robot nor built any. Since none of the technology came about as a direct result of him, saying that he is the father of the field does a disservice to those who actually pioneered it. Finally, the three rules of robotics were never meant to be guidelines for people to follow. They are essentially MacGuffins, used only to advance the plot of the stories.

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[ishnaf]

For those of you interested - Asimov's three laws don't quite work.

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[SkyFire360]

He neither conceived the idea of a robot nor built any.

False. From UTexas RRR (and many of the "forward" parts of his books):

The word 'robotics' was first used in Runaround, a short story published in 1942, by Isaac Asimov (born Jan. 2, 1920, died Apr. 6, 1992). I, Robot, a collection of several of these stories, was published in 1950.

...

In 1942, John P. Eckert, John W. Mauchly (left), and their associates at the Moore school of Electrical Engineering of University of Pennsylvania decided to build a high - speed electronic computer to do the job. This machine became known as ENIAC (Electrical Numerical Integrator And Calculator)
Courtesy http://www.softlord.com/comp/

He was a visionary, seeing events that would come about nearly half a century later. Computers were in their infancy; nothing more than a novelty that would barely fir into a room, much less a human-sized head... Building one was quite out of the question.

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[Tadu]

They are essentially MacGuffins, used only to advance the plot of the stories.

Not at all (unless you talk about the "I, robot" movie that has nothing in common with Asimov's story). They're the central part of Asimov's stories, namely that these laws may lead to quite unexpected results that are not explainable on first sight, but become obvious after a closer look.

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[pipingguy]

That's why "robots" and "remotely-controlled devices" are different (contrary to what others have posted here).

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[FhnuZoag]

Misses the point though. Asimov's laws were never a prepackaged guide to AI design, but instead an idealistic philosophy for creation of a robot-based utopia.

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[blincoln]

False. From UTexas RRR (and many of the "forward" parts of his books):


The word 'robotics' was first used in Runaround, a short story published in 1942, by Isaac Asimov (born Jan. 2, 1920, died Apr. 6, 1992). I, Robot, a collection of several of these stories, was published in 1950.


Informative? Dear moderators: stop modding things "informative" just because someone linked to a website that you're too lazy to read.

From the very page you linked to:

"The acclaimed Czech playwright Karel Capek (1890-1938) made the first use of the word 'robot', from the Czech word for forced labor or serf. Capek was reportedly several times a candidate for the Nobel prize for his works and very influential and prolific as a writer and playwright.

The use of the word Robot was introduced into his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) which opened in Prague in January 1921."

Asimov being the first guy to stick "ics" on the end may make him the "father of the word 'robotics,'" but not the field. Even if we're talking about fictional visions of robots as intelligent mechanisms, Metropolis came out a lot earlier than 1942.

Computers were in their infancy; nothing more than a novelty that would barely fir into a room, much less a human-sized head.

Wow, he predicted that a particular technology would get smaller over time. Is he also the "father of nuclear reactors" because someone in the Foundation novels has one the size of an acorn?

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[coaxial]

He neither conceived the idea of a robot nor built any.

False. From UTexas RRR (and many of the "forward" parts of his books):

The word 'robotics' was first used in Runaround, a short story published in 1942, by Isaac Asimov (born Jan. 2, 1920, died Apr. 6, 1992). I, Robot, a collection of several of these stories, was published in 1950.

Uh... True. And your quote doesn't support your statement.

He didn't conceive of the idea of a robot. The idea of mechanized labor has been around for centuries in one form or another. He didn't even come up with the name 'robot.' All he did was take Karel Capek's word, "robot" and added the greek suffix '-ics' to it invent a word that means "the science of robots." He could have just as easily invented "robotology." The reason he didn't use "robotology" is because it sounds stupid, and he had an ear for the English language. Also the fact that the robots were made of "electronics" should not be forgotten.

Simply creating a word for something is not the same as inventing it. No more than simply intoning "perpetual motion machine" revokes the second law of thermodynamics, or "hyperspace jump" allows one to travel faster than the speed of light.

He was a visionary, seeing events that would come about nearly half a century later.

He wrote stories that a lot of people that went on to do actual science liked. Maybe he inspired some of them, but he didn't forsee events. His stories reflect the naivete of the day. Giant computers that solve the world's problems on 30 rolls of punch tape. Atomic power flying cars. Robot waiters. Statistical mathematics that accurately predicted the future. Azimov forsaw the glorious-far-off-year-of-2002 that the Jetsons live in. Not the world of today, or even 30 years ago.

Computers were in their infancy; nothing more than a novelty that would barely fir into a room, much less a human-sized head... Building one was quite out of the question.

Also, he was chemist, not an electrical engineer or mathemetician, but more than anything he was a science fiction writer. No more. No less.

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[PermanentMarker]

They don't aply until someone can convert them to C# By the time we can do such things the azimov project will lack funding. As it will reduce the price of a unit, if it can be build without it. suddenly i hear some metalic sounding footsteps behind the door. ohnoo it's a late cheap dirty model QRX01D.. .. ..

Re:What about the Asimov rules?

[Crayon Kid]

We have forgotten what these rules, layed down by father of robotics over half a decade ago.

Why is Asimov dubbed "the father of robotics" anyway? He was a biochemist who wrote stories about robots. SciFi, granted, but still.

Call me...

[st0rmshad0w]

... when I can get a spider-tank a la Ghost in the Shell.

Yes, but the most important question of all

[aussie_a]

Will these things be able to climb stairs?


HA! And you thought I was going to ask if it ran on Linux.

Plucky?

[femto]

Hardly the word I would use to describe a killing machine which is incapable of emotion or courage.

How about lethal, deadly, death-bringing, slaughterous, death-dealing, cruel, ...

(Thanks to Mr Roget)

Re:Plucky?

[Kadin2048]

So ... basically ... like this guy?

Re:Plucky?

[raodin]

So if I said, "Canada's Prime Minister signed a trade agreement today," you'd think I was talking about the head of the official Canadian church?

Re:Plucky?

[St. Arbirix]

Only if the sentence before it was about transsexuals receiving donated genitalia from members of Canada's Catholic clergy.

If they want quality, killing robots

[Odocoileus]

They should consult with the battlebots crowd. Then we could have robots with giant machetes rolling around, and some robots with one of those little arms that flips you up into the air. The latter could be called nut crackers. Oh, and then the other side could get with the robot wars people...

Re:If they want quality, killing robots

[DDLKermit007]

Yeah and the way battlebots are built they'd never actually be able to harm anyone unless they were on a hardened flat surface that had sawblades coming out of the floor randomly. Oh and lets not forget over 50% of them wont work past and at least one will be a bright pink dome of doom.

Ethics and such...

[banzaimonkey]

The robot will be armed with various weapons and will operate both by remote control and its own artificial intelligence system.

Yes, this does raise some rather dire ethical concerns. Who's to be reponsible if one of these malfunctions and kills a bus full of school children? The programmer? The tech operating it? The government? The manufaturer? The military? Noone?

Re:Ethics and such...

[Samedi1971]

Who's to be reponsible if one of these malfunctions and kills a bus full of school children? The programmer? The tech operating it? The government? The manufaturer? The military? Noone?

The scapegoat, of course.

Re:Ethics and such...

[izomiac]

Wait a second, why would "who's responsible" matter? Nobody is trying to gun down school buses, and if one did then it would be a tragic accident that people should take measures to prevent from reoccuring, not punish someone over (unless it was caused by some huge fault of theirs). Of course, I'd hope that the AI would be smarter than that (or shut down in the event of a malfunction), or that they keep loaded school buses out of war zones where these things would be deployed. Preferably both.

Re:Ethics and such...

[danharan]

It seems that when an embassy, hospital, pharmaceutical plant or other facility protected under the Geneva conventions gets bombed, so few people care that no one has to pay any consequences.

Why should it matter if it's a "smart robot" instead of a "smart bomb"?

Re:Ethics and such...

[meringuoid]

Yes, this does raise some rather dire ethical concerns. Who's to be reponsible if one of these malfunctions and kills a bus full of school children? The programmer? The tech operating it? The government? The manufaturer? The military? Noone?

The terrorists, of course.

Or, depending upon the hate-figure of the day, the liberals, the Opposition Party, the paedophiles, the hackers, the French, or the Jews. Or, for that matter, fifth-columnists working for the traitor Snowball.

It's really not that difficult once you get the hang of it.

Plucky?

[St. Arbirix]

I read that this robot will be plucky and I can't believe my eyes. I check it again a couple times to make sure there's no way I could have read that wrong.

Then I see a couple lines down that "science-related ministers" were involved. WTF? Is this some plucky, morale boosting robot expected to save the day and make soldier feel good?

I'm at this point imagining something like the Terminator, except on Prozac and "fired up about the Holy Spirit!"

Depends on your definition of robot

[Solr_Flare]

Most people call various expensive remote controlled devices "robots". If I make remote controlled spider vehicle is that any more a robot than a remote controlled plane? Does it have to walk on the ground to be a robot?

Or, is a robot defined by it's AI? If so, how much control does the AI need to have to make it a robot? How sophisticated does it need to be? Depending on how loosely you define AI, you could call some modern cars robots.

Then, after you define "robot" the next question is does the article writer using the same definition as you when they say robot?

It's not that I'm arguing with you so much as I'm just saying the term robot is very "fuzzy" these days, especially in the military arena.

Re:Depends on your definition of robot

[xiando]

This is also subject to debate, but there are good reasons to view a human being who is driving a car a kind of cyborg. It's not living tissue over metal skeleton, it's a metal skeleton with living tissue inside it, controlling it, but if you view the car moving along as a single entity and want to call that something then "cyborg" is among the words who come to mind as pretty fitting.

Re:Depends on your definition of robot

[HiThere]

The word I learned was telefactor. Perhaps no one term came to dominate? And into the confusion stepped a reporter, who found it easier to misuse a familiar word, robot, than to select one of the words that was unfamiliar?

I generally see the term "robot" used to mean a mobile machine, at least as humanoid as R2D2*, which CAN control it's actions via on-board intelligence. (Nothing saying that remote control isn't also possible...in fact it's generally presumed that someone is, somehow, giving the robot orders at a high level of abstraction [e.g. "Go get me a glass of water."])

So since this one has "on-board intelligence" that can handle its motion and actions at least some of the time, it would probably qualify as a robot spider...even though it can also be operated as a telefactor.

* If it's less humanoid than that, you need to use robot as an adjectival, as in your example "robot tank".

Anyone remember how...

[FooAtWFU]

... in the Age of Empires II (Age of Kings) expansion pack (The Conquerors), I seem to recall there being a Korean civilization. Their primary 'unique unit' of interest was this War Wagon, a siege weapon of some potency. I suppose this is just a beefed-up version. :)

Now, how about those turtle boats?

Re:Anyone remember how...

[zanderredux]

You meant this, certainly. It was impenetrable at its time and it had a reinforced structure so the ship could just ram over its enemies, cutting them into half.

In other news, the Swedish Navy came up with this. Its probably a very bad idea to try to cut enemy vessels nowadays, but you get the idea....

Re:Dont Worry Yet

[korea]

They also build Samsung and LG products. Besides, I'm sure not everything your that your country builds is top-shelf. Unless you're Swedish, in which case, it might actually be the top shelf.

You kids will cry about anything. You'd think this was super cool if it was 3 college kids and a self-employed high school drop-out tooling this in some wisconsin basement.

Seeking vict-- Volunteers

[banzaimonkey]

Are there any bots out there that are designed to shoot people? I'm constantly hearing about designs for them, but I've never heard of them being put to use.

Yes, yes there are. They're just looking for volunteers to test them.

Welcome to 21st century

[ingo23]

It's all much simpler.

1. A robot must bring profit.

Re:Welcome to 21st century

[LifesABeach]

What if Robotics Engineers looked at other remote controlled solutions, like harvesting crops. I think that if you want to scare pants off of a competitor, then start fully automating the ability to bring food to a consumer. Likewise, if you want to totally distrupt the flow of goods and services of a fellow competitor, then fully automate services, and the building of products.

Re:Science Vessel .. .

[HermanAB]

If the robot is realy designed by a military electronics company, then it will be quite immune to EMP and radiation. There are many robots in use in the military and there are sentries armed with shotguns in Iraq even. See this: http://www.spawar.navy.mil/robots/land/robart/hist ory.html

China's robot

[gad_zuki!]

Don't forget China's sword wielding robot. Imagine that running at you.

Re:China's robot

[deaddrunk]

It's not impressive until it's 50 foot tall and the sword is made of pure energy.

Several models are in combat use

[HermanAB]

See this for example http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/gro und/fcs-arv.htm

Maybe NASA could use one?

[earthforce_1]

We could send it to mars, and instead of just taking pictures, it could blow things up. You know, in case they do actually discover life and it turns out to be hostile...

Besides, who needs a rock abrasion tool (RAT) when you have a 120mm cannon to crack open any interesting formations!

Re:Maybe NASA could use one?

[Jack Earl]

That'd be rather genius. We could send something to a peaceful planet, blow their shit up, and see if they get pissed off. Again, a commendable, well thought out plan.

In Other News

[hobotron]

Korean Old Glory Insurance premiums have just soared overnight

When they say...

[cshank4]

...Advanced AI... they mean these ones will actually hide behind walls when getting shot at, right? I'd hate to see some crappy, re-hashed tactics that anyone who's played Goldeneye will figure out...

Anime

[Mancat]

The robot will also only be pilotable by spiky-haired prepubescent boys.

path finding better be good

[charlesesl]

I love fighting bots. Just hide behind a rock and they will get stuck.

Is this a Bolo Mk. I?

[MsWillow]

Having read many (all?) of Laumer's sf stories of AI-based tanks (called Bolos), reading about this real thing makes me smile. I'd like to nominate these to the Dinochrome Brigade as the first real members.

Still, cool as these are, I really want a Bolo Mk. XXVI. Those puppies are downright nasty :)

You'd think...

[Auraiken]

that with something that anime has taken the reigns of for so much time... that they could at least come up with something that looks relatively nice. The inspiration is there. To me, this looks like a centipede Aibo with a gun attached to a random position.

Interesting choice of words

[cyranoVR]

Why is it a "plucky" robot? I think a better adjective might be "disturbing" or perhaps "horrifying."

New ways to kill large quantities of human beings, horray!

Existing combat robots

[postalrat]

The united states and other counties have been using combat robots for some time. The sad thing is they often manage to kill or maim civilians. I am sure you've heard of them. They are called landmines.

Re:Existing combat robots

[Mechcozmo]

The U.S. has a system to remotely clear landmines after a battle so that civilians do not get killed. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, a number of African countries, etc. all end up killing more that the United States.

I think I would mod you an Insightful Troll. Very good comment but marred by the jab at the U.S.

Perhaps I missed it...

[Starker_Kull]

...but nobody really seems to be nervous or afraid of this development. I think the only thing that has kept mankind from wiping itself out to date is a) Lack of suitable weaponry and b) Some widespread, if inconsistent sense of empathy toward other humans.

We solved a) in 1945 at Los Alamos, and this development might take care of b). Put them together....

Perhaps I should order a tinfoil hat, but to me, this is one of the scarier ideas coming to life.

OT: Keith Laumer's "Bolo"

[Kadin2048]

Just out of curiosity, how many of those books are there, actually written by Laumer? I've only ever seen the 'Annals' one in stores, and those were all used copies. I just ran a quick search and it seems there are other books in the same series but written by other authors. I thought 'Annals' was pretty good (I hope that's the right name, it's a series of short stories), but I've never wanted to get any of the other authors' stuff without knowing if they're just rip-offs that the publisher had done later on or something.

Since you're the first person I've come across who's mentioned the book(s), care to make a recommendation?

Re:OT: Keith Laumer's "Bolo"

[MsWillow]

There was a bunch written by Laumer, and then he died on 22 January 1993. Since then, Baen Books has the rights, and bunches more authors have written Bolo stories.

My first Bolo story, as a kid, was wen I read The Last Command. Riveting, frightening (to a pre-teen), very emotion-laden. Great story. Unit LNE of the line really grabbed me. I read every Bolo story I found after that.

Any of the stories by Laumer will be good, guaranteed. Baen has them all, I think. The new stories are generally ok. Try anything by Ringo, or Weber, they both write great military sf stories.

This is actually the future of combat

[melted]

This is actually the future of combat. Not this particular robot of course, but over time I think these things have great battlefield potential. They just need to become completely autonomous and vastly exceed mobility capabilities of a trained human. Move three times faster, aim better, carry heavier ammunition, see better in the dark or through fog/smoke, use multi-spectral imaging to see humans in IR, or if they can't be seen in IR, see them despite their camouflage in UV spectrum. They could also stay closer to the ground.

Plucky, as in...?

[grikdog]

Plucky comic relief? So much for the Three Laws of Robotics!

A good idea but...

[JediLow]

Robots won't be able to take any major role in ground combat - we're too far from getting an AI that is intelligent enough. Combat has too many variables and without some sort of intuitive AI we'll never get to the place where using just a drone is a viable option. The real next step as far as military technology will be when they manage to have some sort of viable battle armor/exoskeleton for soldiers. Heinlein hit the nail on the head in Starship Troopers (the book, not the horrible movie(s)) with his mobile infantry.

Tachikoma

[jtcm]

Hmmm...a "plucky" robot for combat with extendable legs with wheels allowing it to move like an insect.

Now where have I seen one of those before?

Not to worry...

[20th Century Boy]

As North Korea already has their own robotic countermeasures.

If the worm is spread

[Matarick]

(Somewhere in the streets of Seoul)
Hologram projection of Emperor Gates: Execute Order 0028:C0011E36
Robot: Yes milord. I shall hunt down the engineers.
Emperor Gates: Gooood.

A U2 plane over 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, California
(Hologram Projection inside the cockpit)Gates: Execute Order 0028:C0011E36
(bombs are dropped)

I'm find this absolutely terrifying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not because these things might go haywire. Quite simply, because they will *obey any order given to them.* You can order them to overthrow the government, or massacre civilians. A real soldier may not comply with such an order - these robots always will.

Security Code: "taxpayer"

Re:I'm find this absolutely terrifying.

[FhnuZoag]

Don't be silly.

A real soldier would comply with such an order. They did comply with such orders. They complied in Germany, in the Congo, in Russia, China, Vietnam, Haiti, France, America... And often with an uniquely human sense of relish, with the human emotions of hatred and cruelty.

Humanity is the flaw here. Perhaps, with robots, we may be able to hard-code in a sense of morality. But for that, we will still have to rely on our fallible human designers.

One step closer

[MacFury]

Commander: Solider! Kill that mother and small child!
Solider: No sir! I will not kill an innocent civilian
Commander: KillBot5000! Kill that mother and small child!
KillBot5000 Would you like me to toture them first?

I certainly can't wait!

It sounded interesting...

[thrill12]

...until the last words: "its own artificial intelligence system".

Why do images of such renowned movies and series such as Colossus, Westworld, Terminator and Dr.Who pop up in my head suddenly ?

Those things have heads!

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Why would they build a battle robot with a head? To make it look more intimidating?

Why not fit a tail too. Is there any reason a robot should be directional at all?

The idea of armies of battle robots fighting each other all seems a bit burlesque to me. Can you imagine Robots vs Robots in a "take that hill" scenario. Who's going to surrender if there are only robots out there - and surrender what? Their sensors?

Re:Those things have heads!

[Shoggoth of Maul]

Adding a head does make sense. You can cut down on the number of expensive video and audio devices you have to use if you only have an articulated platform for them, that can be reoriented without moving the robot itself (sort of like tanks vs. mobile guns; the latter must turn, the former only moves its turret). Also, if it is a remote robot designed to be operated by only one person, having more than one camera would be sort of hard to manage. It's probably more power efficient too.

Come to think of it, most robots we see in service today have a sort of stalk or crane with a camera mounted on it.

Also, there's the argument that giving the robots anthropomorphic features can be helpful in relating to humans through the robot. Police controlled bots when negotiating with a hostage taker or armed drunk & disorderly would be easier for a negotiator operating through a humanlike avatar, as the suspect would likely make "eye contact" out of instinct, thus allowing the negotiator to read his facial expressions and body language.

It might also facilitate understanding it when learning its operation (although obfuscated robot design might be useful to prevent sabotage in combat situations), and designing weapons specifically for it. This last is popular among mecha-anime enthusiasts, who argue that scaling up human-designed weapons for use by anthropomorphic robots is the least problematic approach, much like France's standardization of nuclear energy plants, making workers interchangeable between (gotta love it when your job skills are portable).

There are some robots which are adirectional on their z-axis (vertically, that is; they flip like pancakes). In fact many of these things have shown up on robot melee shows like BattleBots and Robot Wars, not to mention in the market for RC cars, which has been dominated by gimmicks rather than performance (righting mechanisms, unconventional steering schema, et cetera).

Wars would be pointless without people, and except in specific instances (robots running interdiction?) these seem to be designed to attack humans. It's entirely possible that, like some commando units in WWII, meetings between robots will follow a skirmish, break-contact-and-continue-mission pattern.

Re:Those things have heads!

[khallow]

Wars would be pointless without people, and except in specific instances (robots running interdiction?) these seem to be designed to attack humans. It's entirely possible that, like some commando units in WWII, meetings between robots will follow a skirmish, break-contact-and-continue-mission pattern.

I don't see why people are necessary here. Are you claiming that intelligent robots would never have disagreements over resources that would trigger any sort of armed conflict?

you mean...

[schmu_20mol]

... a Tachikoma?

Re:you mean...

[Silverlancer]

Yes, he means one of these.

Re:you mean...

[st0rmshad0w]

More like this: http://www.yamatotoysusa.com/YUS%20Web/Page%20Elem ents/Ghost%20in%20the%20Shell/GitS%20Movie%20Versi on%20Minis/Product%20Images/YHK333284%20Tank.jpg

Nearly pissed myself laughing

[Rogerborg]

Wars haven't been honourable since 1485. Look it up.

Catchy!

[Rogerborg]

But how about we call the Southern part of the peninsula "Korea", and the other part "Batshitzania"?

HELLO? Nukular reactors

[Rogerborg]

I know that's 60 year old technology, but we could have build robot soldiers back in 1945 as well, if we didn't really give a damn who they shot.

I'm just waiting for the first virus/worm to hit

[xiando]

Building weapons like this is a bad idea. How can they ensure that the enemy, who ever they are, does not get access to the robots control system and thus turn them? By software, I assume. Software can have bugs. Bugs, on any kind of armed robot, can have disastrous effects. What if an enemy attempt at taking over the robots makes it lock it's control system from external access so even their owners can't control it anymore? What if the attack software bugs and starts viewing any biological life-form as hostile? Is it just me who gets way too many questions like that when I read about such robots? Am I the only one who gets a huge fear that the schedule for the inevitable Terminator-movies Judgment Day was just moved forward by a century? What if this robot, or the next generator, or the far more advanced version that will be produced in 10 years get infected with a computer virus, worm or just malfunctions because of a bug in the software?

Army of gamers

[maggern]

Ha ha, I knew all my FPS-gaming experience would come in handy some day! With all those (future) robots fighting eachothers the emphasis must be om what country that has the best l33T gamers to blow away the enemy. And as far as I can tell, South-Korea is a nation of gamers.
In the meantime, let's practice battlefield 2. ;-)

Skynet... Made in Korea?

[MatrixCubed]

So underneath every robot in the Terminator series, is a sticker labelled "made in Korea"? That explains a lot!

the robots on the pictures dont look very practica

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

They dont look very practical, and they're really ugly.. why did they try to put a "head" on it?

Give me your number...

[n54]

... if you are willing to pay a high 12-digit number of US dollars in advance.

Re:Science Vessel .. .

[Donny Smith]

I've never stopped being amazed at the fact that the U.S. military makes this information available to general public (including the enemies).
Disclosure of the features alone is totally unnecessary, not to mention giving away exact information what companies make key components of each system. That's totally insane.
Try finding similar info on Chinese Web sites.

Killer Robots?

[spike2131]

What could possibly go wrong?

Reminds me of something from WW2...

[Garwulf]

This reminds me of something I read a long time ago about an experiment by the American army in World War II (can't for the life of me track it down now, though). At one point, the Americans tried to save lives by making these little tanks, about half a foot tall or so. The idea was that the tanks would have a small, gas powered engine, would drive up to the Germans, and either explode or shoot at them with this little gun.

It didn't actually work, but I do remember vividly pictures of some very amused Germans standing beside this little tank, which they apparently thought was quite cute...

(Can anybody track this one down?)

Better link would be...

[seanvaandering]

here. Since I had no clue what it looked like and the top link was dead, and the second had no picture available.

Its C3PO!

[seanvaandering]

I'll be dammed! - do these people have any imagination at all - or maybe I have an overactive imagination!

Its looks like C3PO

Re:Science Vessel .. .

[pooh666]

This is slashdot, it is pronouced Wessel..

Am I the only one?

[interactive_civilian]

Am I the only one who thinks that it is sad that in this day and age we are still focusing new technologies on weapons of war? I would think/hope/wish that we humans(?*) would have long since realized the horror and futility of killing each other for economical and/or political gain...

I mean, seriously, I don't get it. Why, in this day and age, does any country feel the need to wage war? Especially when a considerable number of countries have the ability to wipe others (well, each other, should it come to that) off the planet...

I guess we are not quite at the point where we can "wage war" with economical pressure alone.

Seriously, when is Human-kind going to grow up?

*I use the phrase "we humans" lightly because, judging by the behavior and mindsets of those around me, I sometimes have a hard time believing that I am, in fact, human. Call me crazy if you must...

Re:Am I the only one?

[Wiseazz]

Sad... perhaps. But historically, some of our greatest scientific/technological advances have been a direct result of our need to creatively destroy each other.

It is what it is.

Lumberjackbot

[pipingguy]

It looks like John Deere has bought this Finnish company (Plustech Oy). Finding information about it at the JD site seems to be impossible.

Too much Starcraft

[sabit666]

They need robots to do stuff because of this..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1729573, 00.html

Re:Science Vessel .. .

[HermanAB]

No it's not insane. The important details are not available. Note that in a free society, even military companies need to locate each other to build stuff.

Beta test?

[robotsrule]

Who wants to be the first to beta test it?

Why?

[xv4n]

What's wrong with human soldiers?

What if there are _no_ bananas

[melted]

What if there are _no_ bananas, and your enemy can move faster, "see" better, aim more precisely, carry heavier armor, and not have to sleep or rest. Human reaction time is limited to 0.1 seconds by brain chemistry. Robost have no such limit. Humans get tired quickly. Humans are unreliable, they can't fight if you chop one of their limbs off.

Robots are not quite there now, but this doesn't mean they'll be there in, say, 15 years. I especially like the "spider" idea. That way the robot can stay close to the ground and move so fast, no sniper will be able to take it down.

Re:What if there are _no_ bananas

[Aristophrenia]

Almost like some sort of twisted Darwinism; Humans will be that which is not fit for survival and :robots: or :AI's: will continue on in an example of "Survival of the fittest". Hopefully a meld of man and machine, with each indivual man being the controling entity, will come about first.

Re:so?

[Madd Scientist]

now i understand slashdot moderation... the most logical arguement from the opposition = flamebait. once again, real smart guys.

Mechs have been around now for over 10 years...

[Wargames]

http://www.microsoft.com/games/mechwarrior4/

Microsoft is now going to where the big battle bot bucks are. Hope they protect their interests!

War facilitator

[MrSteveSD]

It's a frightening development. In a war, if too many of your troops get killed it becomes politically difficult to continue. With robots there is no problem. If a robot kills a civillian, you can just say it was malfunctioning and dismantle it.

Imagine if robots had been sent into combat in Vietnam rather than soldiers (not possible with the technology I know). It wouldn't matter if 50,000 were killed. In fact it would be great since increased orders would give the economy a boost. Even a robotic Jane Fonda peace-bot would have little effect.

Governments around the world would love to get their hands on robo-soldiers. They could even turn them on their own people if they got out of line.

fortunately for you all, I don't care

[llamaxing]

I think a lot of you are letting your imaginations run a little too far with this one.

If I'm not mistaken (since I never read the articles anyway), these are "remote controlled", meaning they're probably controlled through radio waves of some sort. With that said, similar models will probably operate through a certain range of frequencies. Likewise, different models might operate through others. Now if we have a whole bunch of these little buggers roaming about, wouldn't their incoming signals interfere with each other, making it difficult to control them remotely?

On top of that -- still going with the radio signals thing -- couldn't someone place a jammer that operates at multiple frequencies and screw them all over?

Well, of course...

[Ieshan]

If Social Science has taught us anything, it's that authority is very, very powerful. And if the last year or so has taught us anything, it's that the moral compass of those placed in high stress situations time and time again (read: soldiers) takes a severe beating. I'm not "anti soldiers" (I have friends in the forces), but I am anti-war, and war certainly seems to change the way soldiers react to things.

I realize your comment was to highlight the fact that robot soldiers will have *no* morality other than that which is assigned to them, but I question whether or not this will be a good or bad thing. If we ever get to the point where we have AI sophisticated enough to act on a commander's orders, it may well be best that the AI has it's morality hard coded by the people outside of the acute stressors of the wartime environment, because even very moral people, when put into a uniform and told to go kill to preserve their own (and their family's lives), will do so, even when the logical connection between the actual killing (killing women and children) and the result (preservation) is tenuous at best.

Look, lots of soldiers have very high moral standards and never waver on them. Too many others do. It's not a fault of the person, it's a fault of the situation. And it's sad.

Re:Evil?

[PlacidPundit]

There's no evil people in the world.

On the contrary, there are no good people in the world. Man is by nature a rebellious and wicked creature. It is only a matter of degree to which evil is made manifest visibly.

Re:Dupe....

[DupeMaster Donkey]

Right on, brutha!