Slashdot Mirror


Wall-E Lookalike Wins British War Robot Showdown

longacre writes "Following in the footsteps of DARPA's Urban Challenge, in which robotic vehicles had to navigate a complex obstacle course without human intervention, the UK upped the ante with its own Ministry of Defence Grand Challenge: within a mock enemy village, robots were instructed to find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops, roadside bombs and snipers. The winning entry, Team Stellar's SATURN system, actually consists of three vehicles: a low level drone and a tracked ground vehicle transmit reconnaissance data to a high-altitude robotic relay aircraft, which proceeds to phone that data home to a central processing center. Upon announcing the winner yesterday, MoD said they are 'carefully considering if technologies demonstrated in the final can be incorporated into future frontline kit for the Armed Forces. It is possible that the winning team will have invented a product that can be developed rapidly for the front line.'"

26 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I knew it! by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The trash is people.

  2. Hrmm by acehole · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just what the world needs, a robotic killing machine that likes to hold hands.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:Hrmm by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do not run, tasty humans!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Hrmm by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's all fun and games until it gets confused and kills all the innocents while leaving the aggressors.

      Well, I'm sure the aggressors will claim their innocence and compliment the good robot.
      Though there may be some bitching and whining about being unable to join in on the carnage.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  3. What I like by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I like is this:

    within a mock enemy village, robots were instructed to find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops, roadside bombs and snipers

    Would it not, perhaps, be better to invest time and energy into robots which "make distinctions" between armed troops and unarmed civilians?

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:What I like by theM_xl · · Score: 4, Funny

      But... but... But it's an enemy village! And that would be HARD! =P

    2. Re:What I like by Bartab · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Might I suggest you do so first? Show your superior human intellect in figuring out if that guy not wearing a uniform and showing no visible weapon is "armed troops or unarmed civilians".

      No matter which you decide and by whatever criteria, you will be wrong a good percentage of the time.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    3. Re:What I like by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fuck it, just program the robot to kill anyone carrying a weapon. Then make millions of them and airdrop them into war-torn areas.

      Now, that's what I call a peace keeper.

      Hopefully we can program the robots to not shoot anyone who uses a broom to sweep the weapons off the streets.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:What I like by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, no uniform makes him a civilian, and no visible weapons makes him unarmed. As soon as he shows a weapon, he becomes an armed civilian, potential guerrilla member.

      That does kind of suck, but I, as a civilian, prefer an innocent soldier's death to an innocent civilian's. And way too many civilians were killed in the recent wars in Croatia and Bosnia due to the hype about "Serbian grandmothers hiding AK-47s under their skirts".

      If you don't see a weapon, they are unarmed. You can presume all you want, but until you see a weapon, they are unarmed. And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair — soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side. When an armed soldier kills an unarmed civilian, that's just despicable.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    5. Re:What I like by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Funny

      So if i drop them in texas, no one will be left?

      Would also be a nice drop-in (ehhrm) for terrorist HQs like the Mugabe HQ, Cheney HQ, Ahmadinedschad HQ, and so on... O:-)

      I, for one welcome... No, for real... I welcome them. :)

      </funny>

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:What I like by Pugwash69 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps it should also distinguish between friendly troops and enemy troops. It would be one-up on US military solutions.

      --
      Pro Coffee Drinker
    7. Re:What I like by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair

      Oh c'mon, when did "fair" become applicable to war again? When you crash into some backwater country that has 40 year old tanks and 15 year old soldiers and you field more firepower than half the globe combined, is that fair or something?

      There is no fairness in a war. Every side will use whatever advantage it has to gain or retain the upper hand, of if this is impossible, inflict as much damage as entirely possible. Period.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:What I like by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC.

      VC ... Venture Capitalist? So, we're talking about a war with venture capitalists?

      I like it!

    9. Re:What I like by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair -- soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side. When an armed soldier kills an unarmed civilian, that's just despicable.

      When a civilian kills an armed soldier, that it unfair on the other civilians. A major reason for the rules about combatants wearing recognisable uniforms is to protect civilians. If the solders know that only other uniformed solders will shoot at them, then they have no reason to attack civilians. If the civilians decide to join in the fight, then they're not civilians any more; they're soldiers illegally out of uniform.

      Depends on the situation, sure. But if the civilians break the rules intended to protect them, they can't complain if they're no longer protected by those rules.

    10. Re:What I like by Spatial · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Know what's even cheaper? Not going to war. Maybe governments should try that instead.

    11. Re:What I like by Anpheus · · Score: 3, Funny

      But how will we fund it?! Damn!

  4. Re:No. by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, there are notable similarities.

    For example, it has tank treads, just like WALL-E. Also, it has binocular-type eyes, similar to WALL-E.

    However, the same could be said of an AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter sitting on top of an M1A1 Abrams tank. :)

  5. Short Circuit. by ZJVavrek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did no one else see this movie? This is clearly a step towards Johnny 5, Wall-E be damned.

  6. Re:No. by gregbot9000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    OK, OK, OK, First off, That robot looked nothing like Wall-E, Second Wall-E was based on robot designs we are capable of making now, so the similarity's are not that striking. Treads: Easy to build and practical, used in most designs except Asimo and Big Dog. Stereo eyes: useful and also integrated into a lot of designs. The big center box: holds batteries and CPU's, though doesn't compact shit. Johnny-5 looked more like this robot then Wall-E, but both are based on real science, J5 was more down to earth then the cartoon who had way to many degrees of freedom without actuators to make me comfortable.

  7. Obligatory dig at the snail munchers by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anyone that runs, is a VC.

    Or French.

    Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC.

    Or lazy and French.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  8. MOD PARENT UP by scotsghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    well put. and note, if we're talking about armed battlefield robots, targetting the opposition with lethal force, false positives should NOT be acceptable.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well put. and note, if we're talking about armed battlefield robots, targetting the opposition with lethal force, false positives should NOT be acceptable.

      Ah, well... human life is cheap. Armed battlefield robots cost millions.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  9. Designed for... by clickety6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quote:

    within a mock enemy village, robots were instructed to find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops

    This is obviously designed for use in "the war on terror" where most of the fighting is against mock enemies....

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  10. Re:No. by ricebowl · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...J5 was more down to earth then the cartoon who had way to many degrees of freedom without actuators to make me comfortable.

    Why uncomfortable, did it touch you..? ;)

  11. American robot. by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 3, Funny

    DARPA and the MOD tried to have a joint challenge, however most of the British robots were shot or run over by the American robots during the exercise.

  12. Re:Morality of developing military hardware by Icarium · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just about any technology can be used to kill. At least with military hardware, the best weapon is one that never needs to be used.

    Also, is there something intrinsically better about being mauled by an old fashioned cannonbal than a grenade? Or a crossbow bold instead of a sniper bullet? Ideally, if you could develop and maintain a sufficiently large enough technology gap you woulnd't need to fight. Military development is as much about saving lives through conflict deterrence as it is about winning wars by killing people.

    Bottom line, guns don't kill people, people do. All I know is that I'd rather bring a gun to a knife fight than a knife to a gun fight. I'd also rather be the one wearing a bulletproof vest in a gunfight, and the one with the armour peircing bullets etc.