Robot Soldiers Are Already Being Deployed

destinyland writes "As a Rutgers philosopher discusses robot war scenarios, one science magazine counts the ways robots are already being used in warfare, including YouTube videos of six military robots in action. There are up to 12,000 'robotic units' on the ground in Iraq, some dismantling landmines and roadside bombs, but 'a new generation of bots are designed to be fighting machines.' One bot can operate an M-16 rifle, a machine gun, and a rocket launcher — and 250 people have already been killed by unmanned drones in Pakistan. He also tells the story of a berserk robot explosives gun that killed nine people in South Africa due to a 'software glitch.'"

Comments

You have 30 seconds to comply

[spacefiddle]

He also tells the story of a berserk robot explosives gun that killed nine people in South Africa due to a 'software glitch.'

"You call that a GLITCH?!"

Re:You have 30 seconds to comply

[MrEricSir]

The Old Man: Dick, I'm very disappointed.
Dick Jones: I'm sure it's only a glitch. A temporary setback.
The Old Man: You call this a GLITCH?
[pause]
The Old Man: We're scheduled to begin construction in 6 months. Your temporary setback could cost us 50 million dollars in interest payments alone!

(copy/pasted from IMDb)

Re:You have 30 seconds to comply

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'berserk south africn gun' incident is infamous amongst those of us in the autonomous weapons systems business - mostly due to how much of a mistatement it is and yet gets quoted in a lot of these kinds of stories. The incident in question was a relatively new AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) unit that did in fact have some automated targeting capabilities (most modern AAA systems do). However, the fact it went berserk had nothing to do with a software glitch. It was a mechanical glitch in the firing mechanism that locked the system into a 'fire' mode while the gun when the gun was being trained out. The fact it swung around was because the computer system explicitly did NOT expect to be firing, so the stabilization system wasn't fully active.

Re:For ev

[Anonymous Coward]

Topic should have read, for every new technology used in war there will be a counter weapon, but my touch pad was wonky.

Re:Definition: Robot

[Lord Ender]

Don't use the word AI unless you know what it means. "Computer control" does not mean "AI." AI is used to refer to a specific class of software problems.

I do agree that anything with a computer, a sensor, and an actuator could be called a robot, no matter how simple. However, this definition does make your cell phone a "robot" because the buttons are sensors and the display is an actuator.

Re:Still got glitches

[pig_eye_jackson]

There is a good story about the only armed ground robot ever used "in theater" being pulled from Iraq at Popular Mechanics. This robot made the cover of Popular Mechanics in March 2008. Some details about the robot, SWORDS, and other versions of military robots in production can be found at Foster-Miller's website.

Re:Waldos

[geobeck]

The US Army predator drones are able to land on their own with no operator input and as such definitely count as robots.

In that respect, every large airliner manufactured since the 767 qualifies as a robot. On an average flight, the human pilot serves two purposes: Taxi driver to drive the plane from the terminal to the runway, and second redundant backup system. The autopilot does everything else.

Of course, in non-average circumstances, the pilot is called on to make decisions too complex for the 'robot' to handle.

Re:Berserk robot explosives gun

[4D6963]

You're the one who needs to shut the fuck up. The story in TFA clearly shows that there was a dramatic lack of safety. There is such a thing as unacceptable bugs, and there are ways to make sure these don't happen.

WTF is that shit with the Star Trek analogy anyways? Do you ever go outside?

Re:Definition: Robot

[RsG]

What, specifically, does "AI" mean

Artificial Intelligence perhaps? :-P

More seriously, you're asking a question that I'm not sure anyone, including the other slashdot poster you were sparring with, is equipped to answer fully. If we don't understand intelligence in human beings, despite trying to for millennia, then how are we going to duplicate it?

Best definition I can think of for "strong" AI is: A software program that is capable of adapting and acting in a manner not specifically covered in its own programming. In other words, software that we cannot fully predict the actions of based on the inputs received (wherein this is a feature not a bug - we're excluding buggy code doing what it isn't supposed to).

Even this is incomplete, since it doesn't cover all aspects of intelligence, but it'll do for a sort of AI litmus test.

Also, I think you need to differentiate the CS term "AI" from the generalized term "AI". If you hear one whenever someone uses the other, you'll go as batty as a pedantic organic chemist in a supermarket aisle.

Re:Waldos

[jaxtherat]

Not true, landing and takeoff are done manually.

Sure, most ILS approaches are done using autopilot, but no airlines perform full autopilot landings due to safety concerns. British Airways did it at Heathrow once to prove a point but that was without passengers.