Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Army Robots Break Asimov's First Law
buanzo writes "The US Army is deploying armed robots in Iraq that are capable of breaking Asmov's first law that they should not harm a human.
SWORDS (Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems) robots are equipped with either the M249, machine gun which fires 5.56-millimeter rounds at 750 rounds per minute or the M240, which fires 7.62-millimeter rounds at up to 1,000 per minute.
" update this story refers to this article from 2005. But com'on, robots with machine guns! I don't get to think about that most days!
From TFA:
They are still connected by radio to a human operator who verifies that a suitable target is within sight and orders it to fire.
While they are harming a human, it's ultimately a human that makes the decision to fire. And who cares about fictional "laws", anyway?
...who fears government having sole access to technology that its own citizens would be jailed for?
Yes, I am likely the biggest anti-State promoter on slashdot, so many will take my opinion with a grain of salt. Yet this is one of those cases where history shows that we the People need to be cautious in giving government weapons that we ourselves can not own or use. Tyrant dictators for thousands of years have used the new weapon of the day to keep not just their enemies under their thumbs, but also their own ruled citizens. From the bow to the gun to the airplane to the nuke, those that govern have always had an edge. Sure, most of us wouldn't trust some big corporate CEO in owning a robot that kills, but what protects us from a coup or a tyrant who finally has the ultimate way to control the citizens?
No tinfoil hat today, just an honest opinion (and fear) that these weapons will make us more hated in the rest of the world, as well as offering future dictators a tool to subjugate the citizens. Rather than helping spread democracy, I fear we'll see how slippery that slope gets when very powerful individuals are given even more power.
I'd rather return to the "No Standing Army" policy of individual state militias that can be called up to defend our borders in the event of a real declared war. We'd have more money to spend on our families and our communities (of people we generally agree with) rather than providing the future authoritarians a tool of continuing control over our descendents. All the tyrants we've fought in the past have been mere mosquito bites at the village pool compared to the shark attack we face today in our own backyard waters.
... You have thirty seconds to comply..."
I guess it depends what you consider to be a robot? And under what conditions it could kill another human? The Phalanx defense system, currentlly employed on U.S. Warships, would allow itself to shoot down an enemy aircraft if it were attempting to crash into the ship. The Phalanx uses radar to detect incoming missiles and shoot them out of the sky by unleashing an insane amount of bullets in direction of the target. Pictures and info here. -C
Theres lots of robots designed for this purpose.
:D
Of course, they are just toys and the big deal is this will be rolled out, but heres a couple of things I thought of:
USB Air Darts
Controllable from the computer
Automatic sentry gun
Uses a built in camera to detect and aim at moving targets.
Its all very half life ish, but plenty of fun.
liqbase
These are actually robots, but they're not the fully-autonomous solutions that Asimov was suggesting that mankind needed protection from. Thus the "laws" of robotics don't apply here, because it's still a human who's doing the thinking for the machine.
In effect, this is a safe way for ground troops to line up a kill zone, then cause lots 'o bad guys to get torn to shreds. Prior to this, troops needed to use a vehicle-mounted machine gun to get this sort of rate of fire. This was extremely limited in close quarters, where a Humvee or Tank might not fit. While it was theoretically possible to carry a machine gun to the combat zone, such weapons are difficult to transport, setup, and use in close quarters.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...is no "law" at all.
If the submitter wants to troll about the military, the least he could do is spell Asimov's name correctly.
What makes a "robot"? Progressively more complex machinery has been able to inflict bodily harm, and kill, for quite some time.
THE US Army is deploying armed robots in Iraq that are capable of breaking Asmov's first law that they should not harm a human.
Sorry to break it to the folks over at the Inquirer, but Asimov's Laws do not actually exist....any more than his 'positronic brain' does. It's fiction.
Next week on the Inquirer: Computers Built That Break The Orange Catholic Bible's Commandment of 'Thou shalt not make a machine in the likenes of a human mind'.
Sheesh.
They are still connected by radio to a human operator who verifies that a suitable target is within sight and orders it to fire.
OK....so the're not even robots, then. They're telepresence devices.
Then the robot has the job of making sure lots of bullets are sent towards the target.
Statement from the Iraqi forces regarding the use of these 'robots':
Nice to know we can take what we've learned in FPSs and apply them to the real world.
Later the US plans to replace the control system of the bots with a "Gameboy" type of controller hooked up to virtual reality goggles.
Yes! Finally, all my training has paid off! I can be a soldier from the comfort of my basement! Where do I sign?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
These robots will have a pre-set kill limit.
The enemy must merely send wave after wave of men until that limit is reached and they will shut down.
(assuming you ignore all that "except where such orders would conflict with the First Law" stuff)
This is not an autonomous robot, but a radio controlled robot. We've been using laser guided bombs since the 1970s and other robots for this purpose for years. Until they are using automatons (autonomous robots not controlled by a human operator) it is not breaking Azimovs law.
As the robot is not intelligent enough - or isn't considered as such - to make the decision of opening fire I personally don't think this breaks Asimov's law. This robots are more like 'extensions' to a soldier's body, IMHO.
I guess that if we are to consider this a violation of Asimov's laws the computers of guided missiles have been ilegally killing people for a long time.
Disclosure: I'm stupid
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh no! Robots are breaking fictitious laws!!! Someone call the Fiction Police!
This guy's the limit!
This is great, now we can sit back, watch the News and see the Robots destroying each other in real time!
'Honey, pass me a beer, the robot wars are on.'
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
. . . a place where Asimov's Laws, like the US Constitution or the Geneva conventions, don't really apply.
Or is Slashdot more stuck on Hollywood myths than anyone, convinced that robots must have anthropomorphic traits, flashing non-functional lights, and a canned monotone voice...
I suggest you read Slashdot
Now they just need to find some video game ace and tell him they want him to test out the "latest virtual reality video game". Even better if he's young and named "Ender"
The very idea of a rule against hurting humans implies that a robot knows:
1. What hurting means
is it pain? death? financial impact? what about indirect effects? If I help human 1 build a better mousetrap, I am indirectly harming some other human's way of life.
2. What people are
3. Where they are
These are highly non trivial problems. In fact, they're unsolvable to any degree of certainty. They only make sense in a *science fiction* book in which a highly talented author is telling you a story. In the real world, they are meaningless because of their computational intractibility.
In the real world, we use codes of ethics and/or morality. Such codes recognize the fact that there are no absolutes and sometimes making a decision that will ultimately cause harm to someone is inevitable.
So can we please stop with these damned laws already?
So what this really shows us is that the winner of future wars will be determined by the country who has the most skilled gamers. I think I like the direction things are headed. Let's be sure to stay friends with the Japanese tho.
Does anyone remember the movie Screamers (and the Philip K Dick book Second Variety, on which it was based) In the movie the robots that we trying to wipe out humanity were called SWORDs. Maybe Bush really wants to wipe out all those annoying voters who are messing up his approval ratings....
Post apocalyptic gaming goodness
The M-249 is a belt or cartridge fed light machine gun, also known as the SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon). It fires the same rounds as the M-16, just a bit faster. It's heavier, but very much man-portable, and is a personal weapon. The M-240 is the 7.62mm replacement for the old M-60 of the Vietnam era. It is freaking heavy, and considered a crew-served weapon, but doesn't require a vehicle to move. You CAN mount either weapon on a Humvee turret, but it's hardly required. Again, SAWs are usually considered personal weapons.
You have to convince all 200+ countries to demilitarize. Simultaneously. You won't be able to.
... because the problem with that is "individual state militias" can't afford ICBM's, helicopters, attack aircraft, missiles, etc. We now have a defenseless America, and the rest of the world is up to speed. The state of war has been beyond the militia for over 150 years now. You have to prepare for the war 20 years from now, not the war at hand.
End of story.
I'd rather return to the "No Standing Army" policy of individual state militias that can be called up to defend our borders in the event of a real declared war.
The beauty of modern warfare is very few people die relative to former wars. We've only lost around 2,000 men and women in Iraq so far and although it is a trajedy (not the war, but the loss) it is far less than wars of the same scale in years prior. Technology makes the difference.
I would argue that Cruise Missiles (US Navy's Tomahawk and USAF's ALCM and GLCM) are more robotic than this remote controlled toy...
Hey, almost any "fire and forget" missle qualifies for this distinction...
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!
If something goes wrong, they will deploy the Will Smith to take out the robot.
In my mind, a robot operates on it's own. It is a mechanical device that can be programmed to perform specific function in advance and then operates independantly.
A lot of what are called robots are just fancy remote controled cars. In this case, a fancy remote controled car with guns. Fun, but not a robot.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
a toy robot!!
(leaps through window)
BilldaCat
Many researchers are spending lots of time researching AI, and the problems for which the Laws of Robotics are a an attempted solution; Namely how do you keep the robotis from taking over and/or indiscriminately killing mere humans, as seen in so many hollywood movies. So fictional laws are important as experiments in looking at potential solutions to a real problem.
As I see it, the main problem consists of two factors. One factor develops as a result of the first.
The first factor is consciousness, also known as self awareness. The second factor sounds like it is the first, but it includes other areas.
The second factor is Identity. Identity is not restricted to Self Awareness, but also includes group awareness, etc in expanding circles to include universes, subjective and otherwise. When someone else is considered part of a group identity, as "one of us", then you tend not to act against yourself. When the other person is seen as being "one of the Not Us but Them" then you tend to get an opposition, etc.
In wars, it is more a universe thing, the Hitler Universe vs the Churchill Universe, for example. Or Religious Figure One (tm) vs Religious Figure Two (tm). Or a religious universe vs a scientific universe.
Part of the problem of psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. is that they tend to group their victims into the "One of the Not Us/Not Me" category. No sense of being or identity is allowed or granted to the other person, and so, to one degree or another, this rationalizes pigeon-holing people into things that can be abused one way or another. Or else the identity given is some other alteration of reality that legitimizes criminal activity.
This is difficult enough to deal with in humans. Psychologists and psychiatrists have no cure for psychopaths, since it is seen as being in the genes. You can't make a pill for it, and no psychopath would take it as they do not have the luxury of seeing that anything is wrong with themselves.
Now we try to apply this to Robotics. Probably the only real solution for the problem is to redefine Human as self aware creatures from earth, and incorporate this awareness somehow into robots, to some slight degree, so that Robots see Humans as "One of Us".
It is a little touchy on how you would do this. It exposes some of the potential hypocrisy of humans in actions towards other potentially self aware creatures on earth, as well as each other. A self aware robot could see the hypocrisy without the emotional justification people exhibit. At this point, we could be in trouble.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Lesson from Battletech: Don't store machine gun ammunition in the head.
Don't ask.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
What the Army is using is not a "robot" in the traditional sci-fi sense. The devices are not autonomous, and are under the control of a soldier who is the one making the decisions to pull or not pull the trigger. This is more of a "remote controlled gun platform" than a robot.
The distinction is hard to get non-geeks to make though, as all sorts of remote controlled devices are talked about as "robots." They misuse this term all the time when talking about devices to search dangerous locations for earthquake survivors, for instance. The devices are like remote controlled cars with a camera on the front (and are not wirelessly controlled--they drag a cable behind them for power and control) but they call them "robots" all the time in the news
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
First: two observations:
1) SWORD is remote controlled it is not autonomous like I always thought a true robot in the Asimovian sense had to be.
2) Since we are now including remotely operated vehicles in the definition of a true robot, SWORD is not that different from a Paveway bomb or a Hellfire missile except SWORD doesn't self destruct when it destroys the target.
This begs the question wasn't Asimov's first law broken decades ago, perhaps even by the V1 which was strictly speaking a remote operated vehicle?
Personally I won't begin to worry about Asimovs laws as long as Humans are on the other end. apons.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
You do realize that the Geneva Convention is a treaty that only applies to the treatment of soldiers of signatories to the treaty, don't you?
Wrong.
The signatories of the treaty agree to follow the rules regarding the treatment of the prisoners they take, their actions during wartime, etc.
A country that signs the treaty has to treat the prisoners of war that it captures according to the rules specified in the treaty, regardless of where those prisoners come from. That's why it's so important that the prisoners of war...excuse me, "enemy combatants" aren't officially recognized as prisoners of war... otherwise we'd have to treat them according to the rules of the treaty the US signed.
Pretty please spare everyone the bullshit until you know what the hell you're talking about.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
....sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads!
:o)
Seriously, however, this is NOT a violation of the 1st Law as the robots don't have the fire / no fire decision.
Using a human operator makes this telepresence, not autonomous killing machines gone wild. (Hey, you sexy tin can...show us your gun!)
I am my own gestalt.
Guns don't kill people, robots kill people.
I'd agree with you more if we could refine "insurgents" just a little more:
1 Iraqis trying to free their homeland
2 Foreigners trying to help Iraqis free their homeland
3 Sunni Iraqis who know that if the new government succeeds, they lose the privileges they had under Saddam.
4 Foreign Sunnis trying to help group 3.
5,6 Iraqis and foreigners who just want to try and kill Americans.
I can have respect for groups 1 and 2, but not the rest. I also realize that the line between Al Quaeda and groups 5 and 6 is pretty thin. I also lose respect for groups 1 and 2 if they're indiscriminate about innocent lives.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Geneva Convention Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Hate to interrupt your uninformed rant, but persons who violate (b), (c), and (d) don't count as "prisoners of war". It's right there in the text of the geneva convention.
HTH
HAND
It's only a Robot if it's autonomous. Otherwise, it's a Remote Device. Asimov's laws remain unbroken. For now.
Cheers, Tim -- Tim Janke Part mad scientist, part lion tamer: sr. software engineer, global team leader, project mana
Bullshit. If the US wanted oil from Iraq, they would have lifted sanctions and bought it, or they would have just abused the oil-for-food program like everyone else. The lack of logic in the blood-for-oil argument is simply astounding. A simple cost/benefit analysis of how much money has been pumped into Iraq vs how much oil has been pumped out will show anyone with more than a handful of neurons that it makes no sense whatsoever to invade for oil. Moreover, even if we accept your gormless suggestion, it still doesn't exclude the possibility of individual soldiers "defending our principles". No matter what you beleive about the US governments goals in Iraq, you'd be pretty hard pressed to show that the majority of soldiers signed on to "defend oil fields".
Where were you guys in Rwanda? Somalia? Basically anywhere in Africa where a coup is actively going on?
Actually there were US soldiers in both Rwanda and Somalia. I guess you didn't see Blackhawk Down?
Rwanda was the UN's show, and it was the UN's call to scale back the number of peacekeepers and allow the Hutus to slaughter the Tutsis. It's one of the many incidents which lead to our loss of faith in the UN, and it's part of the reason why the US was willing to go to war in Iraq without UN approval.
As for Somalia, US forces initiated operations there early on in the conflict:
Unfortiunately, the UN took over in 1993, and shortly afterwards things took a turn for the worse. US Delta and Rangers were involved in a massive confrontation in Mogadishu, and a secrtain Democrat president decided it was no longer politicaly prudent to have US forces operating in Somalia. Basicaly, he did what the dems have been advocating that we do in Iraq. Luckily this time there's a Republican in office, so Iraq hasn't yet turned into another cut-and-run campaign.
I would suggest that you pick up a history book once in a while.
Fortunately a Carnegie Mellon research scientist has written a handy guide named How to Survive a Robot Uprising. Might be a good reference.
Find coupons in Greeley
This fellow is a fine previous example of an exception to Azimov's first law.
an ill wind that blows no good
While this weapon has some "autonomous" capability, like tracking the target after the command to fire is issued, it is still no more a robot than any heat-seeking missile. In that sense any self-guided missile (SAMs or even cruise missiles) can be called "a robot that viloates the First Law". The First Law can only be applied to systems that autonomously make the critical decision "to harm ot not to harm". This system doesn't.
Indeed, it is this and other devices which Asimov employs in his fiction-based studies of human nature which make his books masterpieces in the hard-science fiction genre. He could have just as easily have written about ordinary men under regular law, during just about any era in history, but such stories wouldn't have likely had the same impact as what he ultimately wrote. His work is great social commentary and insight about the human condition wrapped in a gauze of fiction. Unfortunately, so many people seem to not realize this or choose to ignore it. So much for reading comprehension, I guess.
With that said, is it really any wonder why we would make automated war machines (especially ones which fail the "Three Laws of Robotics")? Throughout history, technology (amongst other things) has ultimately been spurred on more by violence than by any other force. Information technology and the machines which manifest themselves from it are no different (save for the other great driving force, sex, which also has proven to be a factor in the spread of information and the technology that controls it). Violence and sex - war and pornography - these are ultimately the two great driving forces of information technology in human society.
Where's my fembot, damn it?!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I work at the company that makes these although I'm not in that group. I've heard that when they were first developed the army was afraid that the controls were too complicated for the soldiers. However, because many soldiers were raised playing Nintendo controlling the robots was second nature to them. You can read more about them here, and here is their data sheet.
Are there any robots in existence that are Three Laws Safe? Are there any robots at all that have any of Asimov's laws?
We have had UAV's that can kill with bombs for YEARS, and if you know ANYTHING about the M1 Abrams tank, The Apache Longbow, or the F16 etc, you already know that robotic extensions of human capabilities have been present in warfare for decades. This particular case only seems to be a little bit scarier to some because of the semi-anthropomorphised nature of the robot itself. Remember, just because it is not in HUMAN form does not mean it is not a robot.
Clearly this hasn't been thought through, I mean, seriously, don't you think people will set up a robots.txt blocking this specific robot?
This is going to adorn pretty much every wall.
ROBOTS.TXT PLASE READ MR. ROBOT YOU CAN'T BE HERE!
User-agent: Military attack robot
Disallow: *
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
It turns out that this image of the Soviet Union as an uber-powerful country that will invade at any minute now, was in the interests of the neo-cons in power. It is known now that Congressional groups influenced by them, would go through the CIA evidence and re-interpret and mix everything with fantasy to make it sound as if the Russians have reached this unprecedented level of technological achievements and are ready to "push the button" at any minute. The media didn't know, it just regurgitated everything that the government told it to. So the minds and oppinions of ordinary Americans are controlled by this small group of people who have it as their main principle to hold the society in fear so they can control it.
Watch the "Power of Nightmares" movie. It is a British documentary, aired on BBC a while ago and now it is free for download here . It is very educational, it talks about the idiological forces behind the US neo-cons, and Islamic extremism, how it started how both clashed. There is also a Wiki page about the movie, check it out. Just search on Google for it. Warning: it is a 3 hour long thing, but I didn't regret taking that time to see it.
Both these weapons (m249 and m240g) get really hot. You have to fire them in 3 second strings and swap out the barrels every 300 rounds or so. While you're letting the barrel cool between strings or changing out the barrel... that's when the enemy attacks you.
So a common technique is "talking machine guns". You have 2 gun crews and they take turns with the firing strings, so there are always rounds going down range and the barrels stay relatively cool. Hopefully you can stagger changing out the barrels too.
So how do the robots handle this? You'd need moving parts that handle the ammo chain. Either it would have to be able to reload from standard chains by itself or troops would have to link many chains together and load them into a drum beforehand. If you've got a long chain you need an armature to twist the chain in case of a runaway gun. And then there's the barrels. You need more moving parts to change those out. And what if it drops one?
So to deal with those cooling issues with these weapons you may need 2 weapons per robot or 2 robots working in tandem.
But even that's not ideal. A minigun is a far better weapon for this kind of thing. The ones on the blackhawks would be perfect. We already can order them in bulk, the barrels stay cool and in the case of a runaway gun, you just cut power to the motor. And the moving parts are far less compicated. Much easier to maintain in the field.
The only advantage I can see to deploying the m249 or m240g is that the robot and troops could share ammo and the troops know how to service them. But the m134 minigun already uses the same ammo as the m240g and if you're going to service a robot, you probably are going to get special training anyway.
Oh, and in peacetime can they clean my carpets?
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
Of course, if you look at convention four and you realize that either you have to treat someone as a prisoner of war, a hostile civilian (saboteur, spy, ununiformed fighter, etc), or a regular civilian. There is no forth category which affords no rights what-so-ever. Everyone that falls into the control of a country which they are not a national of is protected, perioded. Now, the rights you have are different, depending on your classification, but you still have rights.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
"Yesterday we ran a 100-mile test where the lead vehicle was being driven manually and the robot was following," Jaczkowski said. "We did this successfully where the average speed was about 22 miles per hour. You may think that 22 miles per hour is not that fast when operational convoys are going 60 to 70 miles per hour. But you have to take into account that we did 68 right turns.
"You don't take right turns at 50 miles per hour, especially with a 20-ton robot."
That violent future history of robotics leading to the creation of the three laws could have made a story in and of itself, but asimove relegated it to a footnote -- because that sort of story would be something of a literary FPS... Go in, kill things get killed, clean up the mess. Not a whole lot of plot device in there.
On the other hand, the three laws -- while looking simple and 'safe' introduced all sorts of dilemas and thought experiments -- like, what do you do when people have to go into a slightly harmful area?
What happens when your choice is between one person dying and another?
Can you hurt someone to prevent him from killing someone?
Is suicide (and thus breaking the third law) better than chosing how to break the first law?
Is (secret) interference with humanity's destiny justifiable to (hopefully) minimize suffering.
None of those plotlines are possible without the 3 laws. On the other hand, any plot that requires that any of the 3 laws don't exist can be facilitated by the simple (and very believable) plot device of having a human take the 'shortcut' of removing or modifying the 3 laws so as to allow something 'important' (or just profitable) to get done.
(( ... and you realize, of course, that getting to the point where an autonomous entity could even recognize when a possible violation of the three laws was occuring would be the excuse for creating and wallowing in entire fields of artificial intlligence that have, so far, only had their surfaces scratched. ))
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Is it hard reality? No, of course not. But neither are the depictions in Frankenstein, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Jurassic Park, Gattaca, or Animal Farm or Watership Down for that matter. But clearly these are important pieces of thinking on the issues they address--issues like surveillance technology, abuse of political power, genetic manipulation, etc.
Speculative fiction is often where the implications of technological change are first addressed. The most successful practitioners are literally thought leaders, because their stories are sometimes the first to draw out concepts of the future to possible implications or conclusions. That is why science fiction authors are often sought out as consultants to private or public enterprises that push tech barriers. It's not because they are necessarily "right" about the future, but because they are thinking about the issues in unique or broader or farther-reaching ways.
For instance Asimov didn't create his laws as hard-nosed coding advice for modern programmers. They are just part of his larger consideration of a) what it would take for the public to accept sentient robots among them, and b) what are the practical and ethical implications of trying to hard-code rigid laws onto actual intelligence? You say they wouldn't work for law-enforcement robots, and you might be righter than you know...would the public even accept law enforcement robots, even with such laws in place? A question like this is where a science fiction story (and the public reaction to it) can be very illuminating.
Unless you've got some real sentient machines we can use for hard research, we're stuck with thought experiments in considering the implications of such machines. Asimov's stories involving robots are some of the most detailed and coherent examples. They serve as common ground upon which to start conversations...for example this one. They don't need to be "right" or "accurate" to serve that purpose.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
In order for a law to be broken, it has to exist first. A killing machine such as this is merely a gun with a remote control. It's not a robot in the sense that there would even be a place for such a law in its programming.
You sir are a fool.
That's the reality.
No it doesn't. The Geneva convention has a category for people who should be treated as prisoners of war (and they are protected). If there's doubt, a competent tribunal is supposed to decide. If you DON'T fit the category the Geneva convention still says that you're supposed to be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."
Nowhere does the GC say "okay, you're an illegal combatant, it's okay to torture you."
In fact, the GC doesn't contain the words illegal combatant. That's an invention by the Bush administration as a category for people they don't want to treat as prisoners of war, but also don't want to treat as criminals -- ie, they don't want any laws at all to apply to them.
Wars are about killing people that want to stop you from doing things that are against their will. Iraq is not liberated, it is occupied and on the brink of civil war. Iraq is doomed and the coalition is going to go home Vietnam-style.
Having big guns means you can beat the shit out of anyone you want, look at the blitzkrieg in 1939-40 in Europe.
Who are you defending? Who lives in the Green Zone? Are you liberating people in China? Are you liberating people in Africa? How about Pakistan, are they going to be liberated?
WWII was modern, and a lot of people got killed. Iraq is a puny little skirmish, that's why body counts are 'low', not because of 'modern warfare'.
Saying that warfare reduces body counts saves lives is pure Orwell. War is Peace.
A couple of weeks ago I tried to submit the following story to slashdot, without any luck. I think it's fairly related to the current topic, and has a rather interesting video showing the helicopter firing its rapid-fire shotgun:
A small company called Neural Robotics has produced a robotic mini-helicopter armed with a rapid-fire shotgun. Based on their off-the-shelf AutoCopter, the UAV uses neural network-based flight control algorithms to fly in either a self-stabilizing semi-autonomous mode controlled by a remote operator, or a fully-autonomous mode which can follow GPS waypoints. A video of the AutoCopter Gunship is available.
Stepping aside the ethical issues of replacing soldiers with flying shotgun-wielding robots for the moment, their "neural network-based" flight control system seemed like an interesting technical accomplishment. This PDF briefing has a few details.
Taking a look at page 14 of their PDF though, perhaps their control system is a little on the simplistic side. It seems to just update roll and pitch based on the current movement and facing of the helicopter, without making use of visual information or other sensors. I'm not too familiar with flight control, but using a neural network for that seems like overkill. When in fully-autonomous mode, I wonder if they make use of sensors for crash-avoidance at all, or if they just hope that nothing's in the way of the chosen GPS coordinates.
Assuming they haven't done so already, it would be rather neat to load some range-finding sensors on the helicopter and have it automatically avoid nearby obstacles; the basic algorithms should be fairly straightforward.
Another idea is to allow the robot to visually track a point of laser light, potentially allowing somebody to control the robot with a designated laser. The military application of this is pretty obvious: You could quickly point a laser wherever the people shooting at you are hiding, so that the robot knows what area to scope out. A laser could also be used to trace out a patrol route for the robot, so that a user doesn't have to deal with typing in cumbersome GPS coordinates.
As for civilian applications, the AutoCopter with a stabilized camera might be useful for filming video. One could imagine a system of two designated laser pointers, one for each hand. One pointer would designate a spot for the robot to hover over, while another pointer would indicate where the robot should direct its camera. Of course, one could alternatively just hire a dedicated RC operator, so perhaps this would be of limited usefulness.
I really wish people would stop referring to Asimov's Laws of Robotics as if they had any external validity. They applied to FICTIONAL robots in his stories. They have no connection to the real world and real robots, as this article (and undoubtedly endless future warbots will) demonstrates. Breaking them is unremarkable, and referring to them in news stories serves only to perpetuate the idea in the minds of the ignorant that they have significance outside the context of sci-fi.
The Three laws aren't accepted purely because everyone's a big Asimov geek, but because they make sense and they work. He doesn't need to be a robotics expert, Asimov was a very intelligent man and had some marvellous ideas. Ideas come from all kinds of places, not just white-coats. If it wasn't for Star Trek, a lot of real world advanced physics would probably be years behind what we have now.
EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!