US Military Moving Closer To Automated Killing

Doofus writes "A recent article in the Washington Post, A future for drones: Automated killing, describes the steady progress the military is making toward fully autonomous networks of targeting and killing machines. Does this (concern|scare|disgust) any of you? Quoting: 'After 20 minutes, one of the aircraft, carrying a computer that processed images from an onboard camera, zeroed in on the tarp and contacted the second plane, which flew nearby and used its own sensors to examine the colorful object. Then one of the aircraft signaled to an unmanned car on the ground so it could take a final, close-up look. Target confirmed. This successful exercise in autonomous robotics could presage the future of the American way of war: a day when drones hunt, identify and kill the enemy based on calculations made by software, not decisions made by humans. Imagine aerial "Terminators," minus beefcake and time travel.' The article goes on to discuss the dangers of surrendering to fully autonomous killing, concerns about the potential for 'atrocities,' and the nature of what we call 'common sense.'"

Comments

Better computers than humans

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the amount of friendly fire deaths in recent wars it would be interesting to see if software has a better rate of IDing enemies than humans do.

Re:Better computers than humans

[erroneus]

That's all well and good, but I am more concerned about our robotic overlords commanded by the one or few who need killers without conscience and without any sense of right or wrong.

We already have a government in the US who felt it was necessary to use contractors to perform acts which exceed that which the military service members should do. But that's not good enough. They want killers who will kill, ask no questions and tell no one about it.

Re:Better computers than humans

[BlueStrat]

I don't think that having good ol' fashioned humans die in our wars is morally required of a sovereign people, rather, I question how we can truly feel ownership of our society if we do not control it, protect it, assist it and direct it.

I think there's another issue to consider before we even get near to asking questions about "societal ownership".

Automating front-line offensive & defensive forces makes it much easier for a government to use it's military might against its' own citizens, as there will be far less of a problem with human officers and front-line soldiers refusing to open fire on their fellow citizens and/or issue orders to that effect.

Somebody in the White House, Pentagon, or some military installation just types a command and pushes the "Enter" key and people are automatically hunted down and killed. A tyrant's dream.

Robots and drones are already being utilized in domestic law enforcement, so how long would it be before these fully-automated weapons systems were used domestically? You know they will be eventually if we allow it. History shows us that human nature is all too predictable when it comes to governments having immense power over relatively defenseless citizens. Governments always seek more power & control, and it never ends well once they achieve a large amount of it.

Strat

Landmines

[Anonymous Coward]

Landmines do automated killing every day!

Re:Automated job killing

[Anonymous Coward]

When these are combat ready, there will be many unemployed soldiers.

We're talking about killing human beings and you're worried about economics. Such an American thing to do. (See: our wars.) I wonder why the world hates us.

not even competent, extremely experimental

[phantomfive]

The 'automated recognition' in this case was a large orange tarp. The difficulty of creating an automated recognition algorithm for an orange object in a natural background is extremely low. Wake us up when this thing can recognize camouflaged tanks in a forest.

Re:not even competent, extremely experimental

[ceoyoyo]

Camouflaged tanks in a forest shouldn't be too hard. Telling the difference between a soldier and a civilian - now that's a challenge.

Solution

[Sasayaki]

Why don't we, instead of perfecting our killing methods, simply stop initiating economy destroying pointless wars?

I'm excited about all the trickle-down technology that'll eventually become consumer grade fare, and I appreciate the advancement in various technology that war brings, but I would much prefer it if the US stopped economically destroying itself (while giving the Middle East a "Great Satan" to fight) and instead let them get back to killing each other over tiny differences in interpretation of fundamentalist Islam.

Not even Bob the Builder can fix the Middle East at the moment. Not when you have God handing out the real estate titles and commanding the thousands of various splinter cells to annihilate everything that's not exactly identical to themselves, as trillions of dollars of oil money pour into the region to feed and fund it all.

War is power.

[xtal]

War will always be about killing people. That's what the military is for. Killing. This is not a bad thing. I want the best military in the world protecting my liberty.

All power comes from the barrel of a gun. Aimed at you - to make you comply. Willingly, or otherwise.

Read some history. The approval rule will be circumvented - it is only a matter of time. The reason why you need autonomous killing robots is that comms systems can always be jammed with relative ease. An autonomous system is not vulnerable to external jamming threats, or at least, is more easily hardened against them.

Interesting times.

Re:War is power.

[phantomfive]

All power comes from the barrel of a gun. Aimed at you - to make you comply. Willingly, or otherwise.

All power comes from being able to make someone happy. Really, think about it. A gun is no guarantee that someone will comply. If they feel certain you will shoot, then it has almost no power at all. The power of a gun comes from the fact that you MIGHT make them happy by not killing them.

If your goal is to get people to do something, you'll do much better paying them than trying to threaten them. And if you can make them happy in other ways, you may be even more powerful than merely with money.

Obama didn't obtain the most powerful office in the world by threatening to kill people (King George tried that, and got a revolution). He got votes by giving people hope for change. How much change he delivered is a different thing (certainly he delivered some), but people were happy to believe that it might be true. So they voted for him.

The reality of power is different than what a lot of people think.

What bothers me...

[Alioth]

What bothers me is these things make war easier to wage. When Americans aren't coming home in coffins, it's a lot easier for the public and politicians to accept war, therefore we're more likely to start wars.

If we're risking our own soldiers and pilots, at least we might think twice and look for other solutions before starting a war. However, once you've made war palatable to your own public, too often it becomes the first resort especially amongst the hawkish (and religious right versus non-Christian enemies)