Slashdot Mirror


Machine Gun Sentry Robot Unveiled

mpthompson writes "Samsung has partnered with a Korean university to develop a robotic sentry equipped with a 5.5mm machine gun. Meant for deployment along the DMZ between North and South Korea, the $200,000 robot employs sophisticated pattern recognition software for targeting humans. No three laws here, but the robot does include a speaker that can be used to politely issue a warning before taking the target out. The promotional video is both scary and funny at the same time."

13 of 845 comments (clear)

  1. We're Winning Again by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess after a half-century mediation by America and China, the Korean Peninsula conflict has degenerated into the Crazy Olympics.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  2. Overpriced and vulnerable by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need some improvements in pattern recognition before this is a feasible idea. There is a lot of cognitive processing that goes into seemingly simple decisions like 'Is this a person?' and 'Is this person an enemy?' and 'Is this person armed?'
    It does not appear to have the capacity to tell the difference between an unarmed intruder and a heavily armed one, so defeating it is not hard: Approach it with some kind of heavier firepower, and while it talks, you blow it away.

    And 200K? For 200 I could do the same thing: a home-depot motion sensor, a voice chip with loudspeaker, and a handful of fertilizer/oil land mines.

    1. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by NinjaFarmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.

  3. Welcome to the Free World? by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When people escaped the DDR (East Germany), specifically over the Berlin Wall - the West Germans helped them in any way possible with open arms, short of provoking war.

    Now we shoot them?

  4. Mod parent down "missing the point" by adamkennedy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a machine gun for the Korean demilitarised zone.

    There's nobody in there that isn't an enemy, and there's nobody in there that isn't armed (or at least, it doesn't matter if they are or not).

    And if it accidentally shoots the odd deer, then nobody cares.

    Further, the whole point of talking is to prevent accidents with North Korean troops seen by accident out fishing or something.

    You can bet your ass at the first sign of real trouble, they'll all be set to "kill on sight".

    Take another look at the context of where this thing will be actually used, then try commenting again.

  5. Those are the main problems you see? by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about:

    - inability of current computer vision and AI technology to make sufficiently informed decisions about threats

    - massive moral issue of allowing an autonomous device to kill humans without specific targeting by a human operator

    - probable violations of laws of war and humanitarian laws as a result of the above

    - fact that military-industrial complex can waste money on shit like this when there are people starving on the same planet

    I see these as slightly more problematic than whether it has enough frigging ammo.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
  6. Re:Interesting if used a little different... by NMerriam · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You point out something I have always found amusing. Let's say someone breaks into your home, in most states you are within your legal rights to kill them. However, in all states that I am aware of, if you setup a trap you are not only liable but criminally liable.


    Yeah, and there's nothing amusing about it. A fireman or paramedic will set off a booby trap just as readily as a burglar will. You aren't allowed to kill ANYONE who walks through your door, only those with criminal intent (and in many states, only those who present a direct physical threat). Since booby traps are incapable of making those judgments, they're illegal.
    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  7. Re:Apparently, by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You make atheists such as myself and other unbelievers look bad. But you'll grow up some day. People are not stupid for believing in one or many gods. There is no way to prove conclusively that a deity or deities exist or do not. I believe they do not; others may differ, and we cannot prove who is right. Soon enough we will know. So why fight about it? Why argue and bitch and whine? Those who attack a person's faith (or lack thereof) with such vitriol are merely insecure in their own beliefs.

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  8. Re:OMG! by SnowZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think about the alternatives... Given the 1+ million strong army north of the border, and the questionable sanity of the leader controlling it, that border must be defended. The numerical superiority means some defenses must be automated, leaving land mines as the only existing technology. This robot is far better than a land mine however; It can be switched off, can be configured to give a warning, and can be removed easily when it is no longer needed. Land mines have none of these properties.

    Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed? Of course. I'm not going to blame the South Koreans at all though, given the realities of their situation. Maybe it will even let more countries sign the land mine treaty/ban. The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.

  9. Mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed? Of course. I'm not going to blame the South Koreans at all though, given the realities of their situation. Maybe it will even let more countries sign the land mine treaty/ban. The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.


    Realistically the land mine treaty is a waste of time. Mines will not be abolished from the battlefield for the forseeable future because they are an extremely effective weapon. Here you have a simple device that can be deployed by minimally skilled troops, it is cheap to manufacture, hard to detect and neutralize and can be deployed from aircraft with great speed for rapid denial-of-terrain as the US military likes to call it. Of all the things that tank commanders fear, they fear mines the most. You can see or detect another tank or a helicopter before it strikes, you can even stand a chance to evade, detect or even destroy and LGB or a missile with a counter measures system but a mine the tank commander can't see or detect rapidly in combat. The same pretty much goes for the infantry, they fear few things as much as mines and snipers. Here is an object that costs what? $50 to manufacture that has the power to scare the shit out of the crew of an M1 Abrams tank that costs $4.3 millon to make and better yet it stands a very good chance of destroying it. You can't beat that combination in terms of value-for-money. Trying to ban mines, land or naval, will go the same way that the various attempts back in the 1930s to outlaw the areal bombing of civillians. It is deplorable, but unfortunately also true.
    1. Re:Mines by budgenator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you're losing the war, you'll do anything at all to get ahead
      Well there is the real problem, the land mine gets used by desperate armies fight there to a loss. When we use the mines, the G8 type countries, putting one out involves a shit-pile of paper work and most often keeping personel on site to physically observe the mine field. A lot of times, an area will be marked as mined, a couple hundred holes dug and then maybe 3 or 4 mines place at the edge. Then when we leave all the mines hgave to be recovered, hense the paperwork. A lot of times we see mines being used aren't in warfare but in genocide.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  10. Re:Mexican border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These people are not part of an invading army. They are not trying to kill us. They are not here to destroy our way of life. They are starving people who want to cross over to mow our lawns and take care of our children. I'm not saying that we should just let them waltz in or anything, but for crying out loud, where's your sense of compassion? You don't need guns to stop the flood of illegal immigrants, you need to put pressure on the Mexican gov to get its act together and start acting more responsible towards its people -- especially those in the lower classes. I have a couple of friends who are upper-middle class Mexicans, they speak of the lower classes with such disdain that it's no wonder they have no problem exploiting and then exporting a large part of their population to the United States. This is the real issue and we need to *shame* upper class Mexicans for what their doing to their own people. But nobody will ever talk about this -- instead we talk about stupid things like building fences. Why? Well, because rather that tackling actual problems, it's a lot easier to scare people with invasion on the right or massive deportation on the left, or to push racist buttons (on both sides). These are the sort of things that get votes.

  11. Re:You got me wrong. by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So Euler was an idiot? Pascal an idiot? Newton an idiot? Wow, you must have contributed so much to the field of scientific endeavor, because you are certainly riding one mighty high horse there. Maybe you should actually calm down and see that not everyone views the world in the same way you do, and that has no bearing on their intelligence. Or maybe just grow up and realize that you are not in fact the smartest person in the world and if you are going to claim that others are idiots, you might want to check who that group includes first.

    Funny that you mention wikipedia, have you ever looked at the articles on various religions in there(hint, they are there). Ever notice how some very well educated believers contribute material to the articles on their respective religions? Are you claiming you are in fact smarter than all those people?

    Every world religion count(s/ed) among its adherents some of the smartest people ever to walk this earth, there are some insanely smart people who believe in no religion at all. My point? Believing in a religion has no bearing on your intelligence, and you are an arrogant fool to say otherwise.