Slashdot Mirror


Packs of Robots Will Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans

Ostracus writes "The latest request from the Pentagon jars the senses. At least, it did mine. They are looking for contractors to 'develop a software/hardware suite that would enable a multi-robot team, together with a human operator, to search for and detect a non-cooperative human subject. The main research task will involve determining the movements of the robot team through the environment to maximize the opportunity to find the subject ... Typical robots for this type of activity are expected to weigh less than 100 Kg and the team would have three to five robots.'" To be fair, they plan to use the Multi-Robot Pursuit System for less nefarious-sounding purposes as well. They note that the robots would "have potential commercialization within search and rescue, fire fighting, reconnaissance, and automated biological, chemical and radiation sensing with mobile platforms."

12 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Oblig. Robocop Quote by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    [Mr. Kinney points a pistol at ED-209]
    ED-209: [menacingly] Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
    Dick Jones: I think you better do as he says, Mr. Kinney.
    [Mr. Kinney drops the pistol on the floor]
    Dick Jones: [ED-209 advances, growling]
    ED-209: You now have 15 seconds to comply.
    [Mr. Kinney turns to Dick Jones, who looks nervous]
    ED-209: You are in direct violation of Penal Code 1.13, Section 9.
    [Entire room of people in full panic trying to stay out of the line of fire, especially Mr. Kinney]
    ED-209: You have 5 seconds to comply.
    Kinney: Help me!
    ED-209: Four... three... two... one... I am now authorized to use physical force!
    [ED-209 opens fire and shreds Mr. Kinney]

  2. Three Laws of Robotics by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think we really need these now:
          1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
          2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
          3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
    — I. Asimov

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    1. Re:Three Laws of Robotics by philspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How are these laws being violated?

      If we wait until the ARE violated even once, IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR HUMANITY!!!

    2. Re:Three Laws of Robotics by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not worried. I don't plan on being physically human by that time.

    3. Re:Three Laws of Robotics by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I think the first major problem was that law 1 is provably contradictable. That's no good... I mean, you give a robot a rule they ALWAYS have to follow but which has various examples where it can't... That's called bad programming.

    4. Re:Three Laws of Robotics by philspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have to wonder if whoever marked our posts "insighful" was maybe a robot/cyborg trying to warn us. Possibly from the future.

      Not sure if I hope this gets modded insightful. On the one hand, I am a whore for the mod points. On the other, it would confirm my darkest fears.

    5. Re:Three Laws of Robotics by DarthJohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      SWORDS, and Gladiator.

      One is already in the field, the other will be coming in 2009.

      SWORDS apparently isn't autonomous at all, so maybe it doesn't count (depends on your definition of "robot"). Gladiator is. Of course, neither will fire unless instructed to do so (a Marine pushes the big red button).

      But that still breaks law one and is the only exception to law two.

      Personally, I don't think the three laws will ever be widely accepted. Robots are seen as tools, and tools are expected to do as commanded, not say "no, that violates the first law."

      Then again, maybe you won't be physically human by 3rd quarter 2009?

    6. Re:Three Laws of Robotics by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Off topic.

      I used to feel the exact same way about shooting a human or an animal. I don't need to hunt to eat and I have no desire to take a human life. I shoot competitively, but that's always for a score against paper targets. I figure if I own a gun I should be good with it. A competent user is a safe user and all that...

      But then I had an interesting event happen - I got charged by a boar.

      I occasionally go hunting with my father in law to take photographs. I always figured "hey I'm learning how to hunt if I ever need it, I just don't have to shoot anything." Quite often my father in law would stalk a deer and let it go, he got off on just doing it. Plus, he ate everything he ever did shoot. He's old school southern ex-military.

      After one evening of watching an inactive plot, we called no joy and decided to head back to camp. After about five minutes of walking this boar comes crashing out of some brush right at us. I just drew and discharged my whole magazine. I was scared absolutely shitless. All the competition training and practice went out the fucking window. I'm surprised I even managed to draw. Hell, I'm not sure I'm the one who even killed it.

      After I quit crying, and trust me I did, my father in law laughed and said "well, you may not be a hunter, but you're definitely no pacifist." He bundled up the boar and we continued to camp.

      I agonized over this event for weeks. I had taken life (or so I assumed) and was none to happy about it, yet I didn't feel it was unjustified - just horrible. I kept running through thought experiments concerning the difference between the ideal I tried to hold myself to and the actions I had taken in light of a real world scenario. Was I a hypocrite? Was it my fault for being there? If I didn't actually own a weapon would these feeling even exist?

      Maybe it is just a cop out, but I eventually came to the conclusion that my actions were justified. I also became acutely aware that I had a very different attitude towards having to use my weapon for self defense. Before I never kept it loaded in the gun safe. Now I have a touch sensitive gun case next to the bed, and the gun is loaded.

      I also purchased a second weapon, realizing the limitations of the one I had when it came to home defense.

      I'm not saying that everyone should own a gun, or that others wouldn't stick to their guns (pun intended) and not use such a tool against an animal or human. I'm just saying that never is a tricky word.

    7. Re:Three Laws of Robotics by Froboz23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And here's a follow-up thought (I'm sure it's been said before, but it doesn't hurt to repeat it.) These military robots are going to make war trivial. Consider the difference between these two headlines:

      50 thousand more United States troops were deployed to Iran this month, bringing the total to 210 thousand. Heavy fighting continues in the streets of Tehran, with U.S. casualties reaching 112 for the month. The president's approval rating on the handling of the war remains steady at 47 percent.

      vs.

      50 thousand more United States ACLUs (Autonomous Combat and Logistical Units) were deployed to Iran this month, bringing the total to 210 thousand. Heavy fighting continues in the streets of Tehran, but the Pentagon states that fewer than 200 military robots have been disabled this month. The president's approval rating on the handling of the war remains steady at 87 percent.

      It's nice to know we'd win all our wars with few, if any, American casualties, but I shudder to think of the chaos that Bush and Cheney would have unleashed on the world if they had one million autonomous combat robots at their disposal.

      --
      Take off every Sig. For great justice.
  3. I think I see a flaw in their plans... by dacut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if the uncooperative human is the one *controlling* the robots?

  4. And then ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Packs of Robots Will Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans

    Packs of uncooperative humans will hunt down robots and steal their batteries.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  5. Re:crocodile dundee by bitrex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would REALLY love to see what study you found that supports that claim.............

    I've been looking for years to find one, still haven't ;)

    Before you jump to prove me wrong, only peer-reviewed papers count, I hold everything to the same rigor that I hold science.

    The studies that I have found, however, and the numbers at that show no problems with gun ownership.

    I would REALLY love to see what study you found that supports that claim.............

    I've been looking for years to find one, still haven't ;)

    Before you jump to prove me wrong, only peer-reviewed papers count, I hold everything to the same rigor that I hold science.

    The studies that I have found, however, and the numbers at that show no problems with gun ownership.

    Here's a study based on CDC statistics that essentially confirms what everyone should know intuitively - states with more gun owners have more gun related deaths.

    Now you want money. In California, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, D.C., or Michigan, you're in heaven.

    Depends upon where you are where you are. Trying to lump "California" or "New York" into one unit regarding crime statistics is disingenuous. Hawaii has a lower per-capita violent crime rate than even Massachusetts, People's Republic Of.

    Places like Dallas, or Pensacola, Denver, Missoula, Kansas City, or even Miami are quite a bit different. In states and cities that support CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permits, now the criminal has some math to do.

    The major cities you listed have violent crime rates per capita significantly higher than the national average. Dallas and Miami are your examples of cities that prove the crime-reduction ability of concealed carry laws? Good grief.

    To quote a wiser man than me: "An armed society is a polite one."

    An armed society is a polite society during the periods that nobody is shooting. One can easily think of any number of societies on the globe that are well-armed that are by no means "polite."

    As a gun proponent, I rebuff, I say show me the numbers. Put up or shut up. Prove with credible stats and studies (I.E. anything that can actually stand up to peer review, Daily Kos, bloggers, and the stupid shit you read on the lib pamphlets don't count), and I'll cede the point.

    The easiest statistical correlations to draw regarding violent crime is that it moves in lockstep with both poverty levels and the number of Hispanic and African-American residents in a certain area. With regard to current ideals in social discourse it is of course racist to say this, though the FBI statistics show exactly that - but it's in the form of graphs and charts and nobody actually comes out and says it in a straightforward manner.