Slashdot Mirror


Killer Military Robot Arms Race Underway?

coondoggie writes to tell us NetworkWorld is reporting that one researcher seems to think that a military robot arms race may be imminent between both governments and terrorists. "We are beginning to see the first steps towards an international robot arms race and it may not be long before robots become a standard terrorist weapon to replace the suicide bomber, according to professor Noel Sharkey, from the Royal United Services Institute Department of Computer Science. [...] Currently there is always a human in the loop to decide on the use of lethal force. However, this is set to change with the US giving priority to autonomous weapons - robots that will decide on where, when and who to kill, according to the professor."

61 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. obligated by liquidmpls · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our new killer robot overlords yeah sorry, i just needed to get it out of the way to make room for the real discussion about skynet

  2. Meanwhile, in Baghdad by s20451 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Is that an aibo? Man, I haven't seen one of those since ..." BLAM!

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's funny - but it's also true. We are a long, long way out from terrorists using robots. And they don't need to go high tech like that when they can round up some local people who are mentally handicapped and rig them up. That looks to have been working pretty well for them. Why add the cost of building a robot that will be spotted right off?

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by stoolpigeon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From what I've read - and I'm no expert - they recruit heavily from many parts of the world, and I think it has been pretty well documented, that they have also used unwilling participants by either lying to them or taking advantage of people with limited mental capacity. I've seen television footage on youtube and such that seems to indicate that in places like Palestine they are doing their best to indoctrinate children in a manner that will make them more likely to be candidates when they get older.
       
      I would think that automated weaponry can only help counter-terrorism forces, unless there is some kind of huge mishap or malfunction. The terrorists depend on fighting the will of their opponent. Would so many in the US be so hot to leave Iraq if there were not so many American casualties? I personally doubt it.
       
      On a side note - I'm not interested in debating foreign policy or the situation in the middle east as far as who's at fault, right/wrong, etc. Just commenting on what I know of current conditions.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by MrSteveSD · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well the "Mentally Handicapped Suicide Bombers" story was perpetuated by the US Military. It has since turned out to be false.

    4. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by Pojut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would so many in the US be so hot to leave Iraq if there were not so many American casualties? I personally doubt it.


      I agree with this, for the most part. The only reservation that I have with it is that when you compare wars in the middle east (includes the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and Desert Storm) to wars in America's past history, hardly anyone has been killed (again, comparitively). Granted, there have been many MANY casualties on the American side, but not really all that many KIAs.
    5. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by GreyyGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Statistically, there are not very many suicide bombers. Just a few makes more than enough impact.

      As for recruiting, the USA has been demonized by terrorist groups, and unfortunately the US has given lots of recruiting ammunition with Iraq and the problems there. Combine that with a lack of communication of all sides of the issues, a large uneducated population, and a fundamentalist religious group that makes fighting and dying "holy", and there is little chance of the terrorist groups running out of recruits.

    6. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by eonlabs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think about how many emo kids there are in the US.

      Teenage angst? Mid-life crisis? Clinical Depression?

      Does anyone think that the middle east doesn't have something equivalent.

      I'm not so surprised that they have an influx of recruits regardless of what the US was doing.

      It's important to remember, suicide bombing has been going on longer than the time the US has been in the middle east.

      It will probably continue as long as someone over there is mad enough about something.

      War, politics, technology, religion, cartoons, maybe skin color. They seem to have a lot of material to go on.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    7. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >won't they eventually start running low on personnel?

      Sure, but then they'll just start strapping the explosives to random retarded/crazy people. If one RTFA, it appears that the women didn't actually have Down syndrome as originally claimed, but were possibly schizophrenic instead. Convincing these folks should be quite a bit easier than selling the 72 virgins story.

    8. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Insightful? I'm not sure the Islam-believing terrorists are fighting just to get "us" out of their land. It's a war on infidels, in their lingo, isn't it? An infidel is not one who is in their land "torturing, killing, and oppressing their family members." According to the omniscient Wikipedia: "An infidel (literally, "one without faith") is one who doubts or rejects central tenets of a religion, especially those regarding its deities"

      The lie that terrorists exist because the United States is torturing, killing, and oppressing all over the world is just that: a lie. If you're going to be critical about the US, or any country for that matter, at least do it with an understanding of both sides; maybe start with finding out what exactly the terrorists are really fighting.

    9. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by misleb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that the USA loves to criminally meddle in other states affairs is quite enough proof that US is a terrorist state.


      I think the fact that the initial campaign on Baghdad was called "Shock and Awe" was a pretty big give away. I mean, isn't that exactly what terrorism is? Shock and awe? A quick, violent, show of force with plenty of collateral damage which is intended to demoralize your opponent.

      War: Well funded acts of terrorism.
      Terrorism: Poorly funded acts of war.

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    10. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Generally speaking, you can more stupidly but effectively create a terrorist force by simply creating a high stress constant threat of life existence, complete with random humiliation and the brutal loss of family members all with no hope of a better future. Pretty much the situation that has been created in Iraq.

      Those kinds of stresses inevitably lead to the mental break down of individuals making them far more susceptible to those who would manipulate them into self destructive behaviours. Of course the worst thing about that kind of sustained flagrant abuse, is it will create a generation of people and take decades to resolve.

      The track record for creating terrorists/freedom fighters by this route of invasion and brutal occupation, is pretty much rock solid, with genocide (the substantial eradication and eviction of the indigenous population) being the only way to resolve the situation (the current choice ?), other than of course getting the fuck out, paying reparations and making sure all those who committed crimes during the occupation are caught, prosecuted and convicted (it only makes sense as you really do not want these deranged individuals back in the general population without extensive rehabilitation).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think it's easier to find an expert who can convince young people to become suicide bombers, or an expert that can make complicated robotic bombs? Depends on where you live, but if you never saw a computer growing up, it's probably easier to hire the former sort of talent locally.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by KKlaus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Go fuck yourself. The US gets its own troops killed all the time because they maintain an ROE that trades the safety of US troops for the safety of Iraqi civilians. I'd appreciate it if you didn't then compare them to people whose only purpose is wholesale slaughter of civilians. Call them immoral if you want, but don't call them terrorists.

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    13. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by krou · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'm not entirely sure that's correct at all. There's been fairly good research into this. For example, see Robert Pape's "The Logic of Suicide Terrorism" (interview here):

      The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign--over 95 percent of all the incidents--has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

      ...

      If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people--three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia--with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.

      Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.

      I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are not from some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the United States has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990.

      Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.

      That's not to say that some very vocal minority groups may be saying what you describe, but the reality seem to be very different for the majority.
      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    14. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a very fine line between "terrorist" and "people who are pissed off because their country is being occupied"

      As long as we're in Iraq (and making an absolute mess of it), we're providing impetus to breed more terrorists.

      You cannot eliminate terrorism without addressing the underlying causes. There is no vast underground terrorist network. Just a lot of very pissed-off individuals.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    15. Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad by actionjeans · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I'd rather get rid of the stupid term "terrorist" altogether because it trivializes the enemy and what they believe they are fighting for/against. I can't say that I sympathize with them, but I also can't say it doesn't make sense in a "the world is a fucked up place" kind of way. They're fighting against a huge military superpower. Going head to head with the US military just isn't an option. So we end up with so called "terrorism." But really, it is the same kind of stuff that any small group does when up against overwhelming odds. I take massive issue with just about everything you just said. Tell me, what victory is being achieved against the evil, evil United States of America, by blowing up a produce market in downtown Bahgdad? By blowing up a nightclub in Bali? It doesn't fucking "make sense", it's fucking insane. You've drank the kool-aid, my friend. These terrorist are exactly that. They hate for a living, and use any excuse to justify the means.
  3. No!! by olclops · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dammit! This robot arms race is only going to distract robot researchers from the vastly more important goal: the robot sex race.

    1. Re:No!! by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Funny

      Either way we're fucked.

  4. Humans are still in the loop by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone has to send the robot. At least until Skynet is built.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  5. A modest proposal by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 4, Funny

    If robotic innocent civilians can be manufactured to replace the humans blown up by military bots and suicide bomber bots, then no one has to die.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
    1. Re:A modest proposal by orclevegam · · Score: 3, Funny

      But won't someone please think of the robot children?

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  6. The future by Eudial · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, I look into my crystal sphere, and in it I see the future comments of this thread:

    * Yes, but do they have frickin' laser beams attached to their head?
    * In soviet Russia, Robots arm YOU!
    * I, for one, welcome our new gun-toting robot overlords (points for being uncomfortably close to the truth)
    * References to the matrix or terminator series and/or I robot.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    1. Re:The future by Wylfing · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pah! You forgot "Second Variety" by Philip K. Dick. Now that is a story about exactly what is under discussion: an escalating robot arms race that turns out quite poorly for everyone.

      --
      Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
  7. And yet, for all the warnings by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    this will continue. The advantage that countries have over terrorist is the ability to build these faster, and more, while the terrorist will have the advantage of needing just a few to hit a relatively none moving enemy. Of course, the real issue will be what happens when 2 major nations move from a cold war to a hot war. Will they use the robots and lasers? I suspect that the next "great" war will be fought in just that context.

    Now, ir we can turn these robots into good civil use, then it will help. In particular, if we really want to settle on Mars and perhaps the moon, we will need robots. They will enable us to do the building in a fraction of the time and most likely at a fraction of the costs.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:And yet, for all the warnings by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unless they are really clever and make them out of sticks and rubber bands.
      In other news, an American robot army base was struck by the hitherto unknown militant Islamic faction known as al-MacGyver.
  8. Nonsense by testostertwo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would I, a terrorist, go to all the effort of developing and building a sophisticated machine when I can can just blow stuff up?

    Blowing stuff up is:
      - Easier
      - Cheaper
      - Faster
      - Harder to detect in advance
      - Scarier

    Maybe if I could take control of robots the military creates it would be worth some effort. But why bother? They're already something we should all be scared of: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/19/sa_gun_death_probe/

    1. Re:Nonsense by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would I, a terrorist, go to all the effort of developing and building a sophisticated machine when I can can just blow stuff up?

      Well in a battle between a nation-state's military and a guerrilla force, "sophisticated" is relative and the arms race can be neck-and-neck while both sides still operate at completely different levels of sophistication.

      Look at the arms race between the IEDs used by insurgents in Iraq and our army -- they go from simple stashes of explosives buried under ground, to re-purposed mines in stacks to even shaped charges, while we go from armored Humvees to MRAPs. They're still basically using cobbled together piles of high explosives, while we're using extremely expensive vehicles, and we're trying to come from behind in this race.

      Or the terrorist equivalent of our cruise missiles -- an old station wagon stuffed with explosives and driven by a would-be martyr.

      Similarly, a "sophisticated" robot or the terrorists might be a wheeled pallet with a simple electric motor and some kind of remote control (even a thin wire based one to prevent jamming or source tracking like they do now with IEDs) that can carry a pile of explosives into the line of police recruits or next to the checkpoint. While our robot has to be something with complicated vision and maneuvering and fire control systems, and that might put the two robots on somewhat equal footing.

      Of course in the absolute sense of terrorists actually trying to match the technology we deploy, that's simply insane, just as much as it is for them to use APCs or cruise missiles when there are much simpler but from their standpoint equally effective methods. In this sense you're absolutely right.

      Also, I'm with you on having autonomous guns that make their own decisions on when to fire is a very bad idea. You can have the robot decide how to shoot, even exactly when and where. But the question of whether the robot shoots at all should be decided by a human.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  9. Obligatory by sam_paris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about Asimov's three laws of Robotics? (particularly law 1)

    A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.


    (and ps: yes I know these are just fictional but I can't pass up a chance to quote the master...hell he even invented the word Robotics!)

  10. Cats and newspapers by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Until someone can build an automatic vacuum cleaner that does not try to eat my cat, or an automated lawnmower that does not trim the newspaper, I'm not going to worry.
    Even if the tech does reach that level, building a military bot is another level beyond that. And somehow, I think that it is not going to be well understood by guys whose concept of hi-tech is a retractable box knife.
    It's gonna be a longgg time before I worry.

    1. Re:Cats and newspapers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Until someone can build an automatic vacuum cleaner that does not try to eat my cat, or an automated lawnmower that does not trim the newspaper, I'm not going to worry. I'm not quite sure I understand your reasoning. You seem to be making the following points:
      1) Current autonomous robots damage their surroundings and are hard to control.
      2) The military (and possibly terrorists) want to put really big guns on autonomous robots.
      3) Therefore you are NOT going to worry.

      Either I misinterpreted you, or you have an interesting view of what to worry about.
    2. Re:Cats and newspapers by batquux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until someone can build an automatic vacuum cleaner that does not try to eat my cat, or an automated lawnmower that does not trim the newspaper, I'm not going to worry. That is precisely why this does worry me.
  11. Probably not by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is almost assured that we will have sex robots within another 10 years. WHy? 1 word; Money. How much money is made by prostitution? Even illegal, it rivals drugs.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Probably not by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      really? you think people would switch to robots from prostitutes? I mean, isn't part of the appeal to straight men for straight sex that the other person be a female person. Would a plastic and metal animatronic doll with a vibrating functions and pelvic thrusts really satisfy that need?

      I see sex robots as appealing to people with a blow up sex doll and too much money.

      I won't be surprised to see them arrive, but I'm skeptical they are going to be received as much more than ridiculously expensive sex toys. And sure a lot of people use sex toys, but I'm skeptical how big the market for a multi-thousand dollar sex robot is really going to be.

    2. Re:Probably not by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      What was that you said about multi-thousand dollar sex dolls?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Probably not by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You are forgetting the "stepford wife" ego stroking,which will make them worth much more than a hooker. Imagine coming home from a hard day to supermodel that tells you how wonderful you are,has a hot meal(perfectly prepared) waiting for you,and afterwards rubs your belly while telling you how she just can't wait to fulfill all of your kinky fantasies,which she does while telling you what a great stud you are.Oh,Yeah,and she looks like your dreamgirl. They'll have backorders that'll make the Wii at Xmas look like an easy score.


      Hell,I'd be happy to buy one just for the hot meals and the belly rubs.Sounds like a nice way to end the day to me. And just think,she'll NEVER say things like "You aren't going out looking like THAT,are you?" or my favorite "If you don't know why I'm upset I'm certainly not going to tell YOU!".Trust me,if they make an easy payment plan there will be a hell of a lot of guys (and I'm sure girls when they come out with their "Ultra suave Antonio Banderas" model) that will be making an extra payment each month. And if they can give me one that looks like Alyson Hannigan,I'll gladly pay double for the likeness fees.But as always my02c,YHMV(your hottie may vary)

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  12. Gundam Wing talked about this. by Coraon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Long and short, when we let robots do our fighting for us, it becomes so cheep to make war that its cheaper to make war then peace. his is why I feel that people should always be required for the front line, war has to suck so it will always be a last resort.

    --
    -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
    1. Re:Gundam Wing talked about this. by thelastquestion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so since when has the fact that war sucks for the grunts ever stopped an actual war? seriously, go ahead and use robots for the frontlines, that way there aren't any poor bastards that have to die for their countries just because the people in charge don't like the other people in charge.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
  13. humans out of the loop for a while now. by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really it is just a matter of how long it is between when you pull the trigger. Land mines, Air to air missiles, surface to air missiles, Captor mines, Even some torpedoes are all killer robots and have been around for a good long time.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  14. Not to worry. by CSMatt · · Score: 4, Funny

    Killbots have a preset kill limit. Send wave after wave of your men at them until they shut down.

  15. Re:I usually frown upon this... by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was the last part that freaked me out: "robots that will decide on where, when and who to kill, according to the professor "

    I sure hope this professor is a nice person.

  16. Remote controlled? Yes. Autonomous? No. by Radon360 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This short article seems to do little more than stir the FUD pot.

    If you want to talk about having unmanned, remote control vehicles, some of which require little more than occasional supervisory control most of the time, I'm with you. We have them already, and more are in development all over the world. Expect to see lots more of them come about in the near future. As alluded to, this will be the robot arms race.

    Terrorists using remote controlled devices to deploy and detonate bombs? Sure. It's not all that hard to believe that someone with some decent technical skills can put together a remote control kit on a full-sized car, then strap explosives to it (for example).

    But c'mon. Killbots that can think and function completely on their own? ...and be effective enough in its mission to justify the costs of deploying it in lieu of something remote controlled by a human? Such a device is still a ways off for the U.S. Military, let alone some terrorist organization.

  17. Better buy them now by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Get your RC controllers and servos now before the government bans them.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  18. 3-2-1 ACTIVATE by Mushdot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think this is a natural progression for nations with an organised military. Once the basics are down machines can be churned out much quicker than we can train humans and you don't need to be as accurate and quick thinking as a human would be - sheer numbers and a shotgun approach would suffice and so who has the greatest manufacturing capacity would have the advantage.

    Looking further into the future I'm sure wars will be fought totally on a technological basis e.g. hacking networks to shut down utilities and enemy soldiers to disable them etc. Maybe even further along wars will be won and lost without loss of human life - "Ok we surrender, we have no food, water or power and our Unisols are pointing their guns at us. You can have our continent."

    I may have the wrong sci-fi series but I'm sure I remember a Star Trek episode where wars were fought by computer and afterward the required number of human casualties were euthanised to balance the books? Maybe at that point the geek shall inherit the earth and FPS skills will finally be recognised for what they are :-)

  19. Re:I usually frown upon this... by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Please don't kill me. I like machines. If you ever come across one of those killing machines, follow these steps:

    1 - Get naked.
    2 - Coat your entire body in WD-40.
    3 - Get on all fours.
    4 - Scream, at the top of your lungs, "I love robots!"
    5 - Close your eyes and brace yourself for a wild ride.
    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  20. Futurism isn't by Merovign · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Robot suicide bombers isn't exactly an ethical step down for bombers - and it lacks martyr value.

    2) I imagine fear of friendly fire will keep handlers at the controls of robots for quite some time.

    3) I think there have been a few robotic sentries made that act autonomously but constantly report and can be overridden (S. Korea, perhaps?)...

    4) Unsettling thought the implications may be, eventually I think robotic, autonomous war machines will be built - and for the builders, it will be quite a plus. Probably a bit of a downer for everyone else.

    It may be seen in retrospect as another of those "Roman Conquest" moments where a powerful, advanced culture stomps all over more primitive cultures - but the survivors end up better off, at least for a while. History, like sausages, is a process whose benefits are better (more comfortably) enjoyed than understood.

  21. I-41 by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That should be the name for this. Model I-41.

    That, or the obvious "WarCrimes Master 2020".

    Or how about just "KillJoy-3000"

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  22. Always a human in the loop by trybywrench · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There will always be a human in the loop as far as semi-autonomous weapons go. I'm surprised anyone on slashdot would think otherwise. Maybe 50 years from now an AI would have the intelligence to separate friend from foe from bystander but the tech is simply not there now.

    I imagine what we'll see is weapons deployed around the world with their controllers located somewhere else safe. That means easier/faster deployment and none of your own soldiers in harm's way. Maybe UAV's push proposed targets to commanders instead of commanders pouring over recon :shrug: i can see that but not a pure autonomous firefight. For a long time a human will be giving the final OK to fire.

    --
    I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
  23. I develop these systems, this story is 4 pageviews by Jtheletter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been watching this story slowly spread around the net today since I develop for some of the systems referred to. The whole thing is a bunch of hand-waving 'OMG teh robotz will kills us all!' page rank generating crap.
    First, very few robotic systems in the whole world right now are even weaponized, yet we're supposed to believe automated killing is "just around the corner". Second, no military anywhere has deployed fully automated (no human on trigger/joystick) weaponized systems ever, yet we're to expect legions of them very soon. Third, "terrorists" will supposedly get their hands on these systems and reverse engineer them to their advantage - do I even need to explain how improbable this is? Military and private research funded to the tune of billions haven't even been able to develop these systems yet, but we're supposed to believe some terrorist organizations with almost no funding and little access to high-level engineers will be able to understand and rework these same nonexistent systems. Is it impossible? No. I don't doubt that given enough time eventually some extremist group will have a CS PhD/MS level member who could figure something out. That still doesn't negate the fact that no groups have even captured and reverse-engineered current robotic systems, which are much less advanced than this alleged future autonomous platform would be. And finally, if one of the major world governments developed and deployed fully autonomous armed robots, does anyone really think there wouldn't be a remote shutdown/disable sequence or other back door?
    It's fun to discuss possible dystopian Terminator style futures, but it annoys me to no end when some researcher or professor says we're all imminently doomed and the net runs away with the idea. We're still very far from fully automated systems with weapons. Even US tanks, which have highly advanced target acquisition and recognition systems, aren't fired except by a human operator. You'll see fully automated targeting and firing in manned vehicles long before you see it in unmanned platforms IMHO.

    And to stem off people who point out that many UAVs fly totally unmanned, with weapons, and with no joystick control - there are multiple ground operators constantly monitoring and updating mission parameters for each of these UAVs, also all firing sequences are still human in the loop.

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  24. Re:Obligatory by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The laws in that order confuse me.

    Because some kid could walk up to a robot, and tell it to waltz off a cliff and it would do so. (in such a way as to not kill any people on the way down) I believe the second and third laws would need to be switched.

  25. Re:I develop these systems, this story is 4 pagevi by Big_Breaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are truely automonous weapons out there already: land mines

    Secondarily there are cluster munitions that do automatic target selection within the drop zone. They are perhaps part of a more broad catagory of autonomous target selecting munitions such as homing turpedos and missiles.

  26. Killer Robot Arms? by CaptCrunk · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's next? Killer robot legs? What happens when they get the whole killer robot put together? I answer: Mecha-Streisand.

    --
    âoeItâ(TM)s a funny thing about life; if you refuse to accept anything but the best, you very often get it."
  27. Re:No they won't run on Linux by rlwhite · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, it's an ARMs race because everyone knows RISC is better.

  28. Re:I develop these systems, this story is 4 pagevi by srussia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Second, no military anywhere has deployed fully automated (no human on trigger/joystick) weaponized systems ever, yet we're to expect legions of them very soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mine
    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  29. What will Nevada casinos pay? by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The reality is that casinos currently allow prostitution in, but will not trade in the flesh itself. They are afraid of the stigma. But once they can sell a sex bot for say 100/night with no fear of STDs, unions, worries about how they will be perceived, child prostitution, etc, then All of vegas will carry them. It will be followed by Nevada allowing it. And finally, EVERY state (save maybe utah), will allow these. All in all, it will allow ppl like craig, or haggard, to get their jollies and not be technically cheating. After all, it is not sex, it is masturbating with a sex toy. In fact, this will probably help prevent much of our slave trade that occurs ALL over the world, even here in the west. Probably 80-90% of all slavery is about sex.

    Imagine a means to all but stop child molesting, by allowing these perves to molest a robot child. I will say that this actually concerns me in that it might not be enough for these kind of ppl. It MAY make things worse, not better. But we probably ought to try and see.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:What will Nevada casinos pay? by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All in all, it will allow ppl like craig, or haggard, to get their jollies and not be technically cheating.

      Knowing they are really just masturbating with a sex doll that will be enough to turn most people off the whole idea. If the expense hasn't.

      Sure it might do well as a novelty in Vegas as another entertainment diversion, but as a substitution for prostitutes or even just casual promiscuity/infidelity? I'm unconvinced.

      After all, it is not sex, it is masturbating with a sex toy. In fact, this will probably help prevent much of our slave trade that occurs ALL over the world, even here in the west. Probably 80-90% of all slavery is about sex.

      Precisely, its not sex and that's how most of us will feel about it. So if we want real sex, this doesn't deliver the emotional/mental/cerebral satisfaction. Sure we might get off, but that's probably not really the issue.

      People have been able to 'pretend' they were cheating, 'pretend' they had a sex slave, 'pretend' a lot of stuff... but that hasn't diminished the demand for the 'real thing'.

      Imagine a means to all but stop child molesting, by allowing these perves to molest a robot child.

      I think this would backfire. I think even you realize that.

      Also consider this: the ability for 18 year old prostitutes to dress up and pretend to be 14 year old schoolgirls hasn't eradicated child molestation of actual 14 year old girls; so I'm skeptical that even contemplating a reduction in child molestation is warranted.

  30. Terrorists don't make 155 mm artillery shells... by jhRisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To those that challenge whether terrorists would use robots in the future, I disagree.

    Terrorists don't make 155 mm artillery shells or munitions of any type. They rig what's available and hence IED, VBIED and other such improvised weapons are based on the highly available and cheap unspent munitions. Therefore it's not inconceivable that if sufficient "modern" militaries use robots in the future terrorists will be fashioning their new weapons out of those pieces instead. It will not be as good as the original, they're not going to build them from scratch nor somehow innovate since there's no need to. Just like their current versions of improvised weapons it'll be what they can slap together to at least scare if not also do some harm. It sounds crazy but I can see militaries in the future abandoning the "robot casualties" in war before learning how they can be used against them. After all, we don't seem to learn much from history and it'll likely be much like weapons caches left behind in past wars and other mistakes from a lack of foresight on our part.

    --
    That's just my POV... no more, no less.
  31. Well, I wouldn't worry by poity · · Score: 2, Funny

    unless they're also researching legs.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  32. Re:Obligatory by Rick+Genter · · Score: 2, Informative

    In fact, I do remember a SciFi novel in which these robots got out of hand and eventually restricted our actions to the extreme, since it may cause us harm. Even eating a cheeseburger.


    "With Folded Hands" by Jack Williamson, 1947. An all-time classic, and one that still gives me the absolute creeps today.
    --
    Don't underestimate the power of The Source
  33. The final nail in the coffin for democracy by trenobus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whether there is a man in the loop or not, this is a dangerous development for the future of democracy. The ability to project force with fewer people in control means that it becomes easier to have a smaller military force of elites, who can be more easily controlled by an undemocratic government. With the U.S. government in particular, we already see in Iraq and Afghanistan a movement toward using private mercenaries. Without these mercenaries, the current level of force could not be maintained without a draft.

    Now no one wants to be drafted, but a draft does have the advantage of populating the military with a broad cross-section of society. Such a force would be much less likely to tolerate being used to suppress a popular revolution if the government which commands them should go rogue. With mercenaries, and especially with mercenaries whose force is multiplied through robotic systems, you have a force motivated by money rather than allegiance to the Constitution.

    So who wants to enlist first? Yeah, me neither. But we better vote wisely while we still can.

  34. Re:I usually frown upon this... by lendude · · Score: 2, Funny
    Absolutely no reflection intended on the parent but...Modded Informative!?????

    Who the fuck wants to be informed about that? The mind boggles...

    --
    "Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos