Slashdot Mirror


DARPA Researches Avatar Surrogates

kgeiger writes "Feeling blue? DARPA is funding a program to investigate the feasibility of battlefield cyborg-surrogates: 'In its 2012 budget, DARPA has decided to pour US $7 million into the 'Avatar Project,' whose goal is the following: "develop interfaces and algorithms to enable a soldier to effectively partner with a semi-autonomous bi-pedal machine and allow it to act as the soldier's surrogate."' Power and bandwidth constraints aside, what could go wrong? Chinese hackers swooping in and commandeering one's army?"

40 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. pour US $7 million? by dj245 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The government doesn't pour $7 million. They dish it out with an eyedropper.

    Not that $7 million isn't a lot of money for you and me, but for the US government it is a rounding error.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:pour US $7 million? by slartibartfastatp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The movie "Avatar" costed half a billion dollars - 7 millions seems too low a budget to make it real.

      --
      -- --
    2. Re:pour US $7 million? by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      It's an investigation of feasibility. Not an actual development project. 7.000.000 USD is quite a lot for something like that.

    3. Re:pour US $7 million? by wed128 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why is this disparity between research and entertainment true????

      Who's money is it? that's why.

    4. Re:pour US $7 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, like all that other BS that DARPA has funded the development of. We don't need any of that shit.

      1. Internet
      2. Self Navigating Autonomous cars

    5. Re:pour US $7 million? by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      The movie "Avatar" costed half a billion dollars - 7 millions seems too low a budget to make it real.

      it would give you some change from a Lee Majors.

    6. Re:pour US $7 million? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Bullshit project? Are you trolling, on crack, or just stupid? This is the kind of research that saves soldiers' lives, plus there will certainly be non-military applications down the road.

    7. Re:pour US $7 million? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is this disparity between research and entertainment true????

      How is making a movie and R&D'ing a technology Apples to Apples enough for this to be worthy of so many question marks?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:pour US $7 million? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      I know I shouldn't respond to an AC but the wrongness was threatening to cause a singularity. For such an argument to hold you would need to show the sum total they have spent on projects and what the outcome was. Now if they have spent several billion on thousands of projects and that is the only two that came to fruition? one could easily argue that its stupid to give them more money for such a lousy ROI. BTW there was the SAGES system which was build by DOD before DARPA was ever born and one could argue that those first digital transmissions over phone lines was the actual birth of the net and what DARPA did was simply the next logical step.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:pour US $7 million? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

      No. But in this case, the difference is enough to warrant the question marks: it *should* cost a lot less to simply develop a mockup of how something should work than to actually build that tool.

      Avatar didn't even build a mockup of the technology in any meaningful sense. What it did was make a movie, part of whose premise was that the technology existed. There is no reason to expect that the cost of the cinematic production should have any relationship of any kind to the cost of the technology.

      Now, Avatar did involve developing a few new technologies for the entertainment industry, but the point stands: if Avatar cost a quarter of a billion dollars to make, actually building the technology that Avatar is describing should cost more, shouldn't it? $7 million is a teacup in the ocean.

      Avatar didn't describe a technology, it made a movie that presupposed quite a lot of technology that doesn't, in fact, exist.

      But making a movie based around the concept of a computer program I could develop in an afternoon (besides being boring) would, assume major-studio production values, cost far more than it would cost to build the program. Again, there is no reason to expect that the cost of a movie should have any relationship to the cost of technology presupposed by the movie.

      That being said, I don't think that TFA is talking about mind-machine interface, it's talking about telepresence. There's a world of difference between them, in that telepresence has already been done, and is being done on a semi-regular basis. It'll be a *lot* cheaper to build a bipedal robot that's controlled by telepresence than it would be to build one that's controlled by MMI.

      True, plus in Avatar, they weren't controlling robots by MMI but actual living organisms by mind-machine-mind interface involving interaction at a distance for one of the machine-mind links.

  2. Rick Santorvm - in MMXII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    He will set the country on the path to freedom from religious persecution and return us to our rightful place in God's plan. Eliminate the government and all those who stand in the way of worship of our rightful, true Ruler. The crimes that are performed in the name of our current governmental system, including but not limited to murder of innocent children, forcing citizens to pay for products they don't want, driving our society into unrecoverable debt that our children (if they aren't aborted) will never be able to repay, placing women in harms' way and outside of the role evolution has trained them for as mother and caregiver, stifling business under the guise and heavy hand of global warming, raising taxes on those of us who are successful, teaching our precious children ridiculous theories that men were once apes and spontaneously changed into what we are today, and attempting to diverge from the Christian principles that our forefathers observed and that this country was founded upon. We need to return to His holy way, and remove the heathens from our path, if necessary, by force. It's time to stopping giving away our children's inheritance to lazy jobless people and Godless welfare cases. It's time we took back our economy and this country.

    1. Re:Rick Santorvm - in MMXII by stungod · · Score: 2

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

      *GASP*

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      Thanks for the best laugh of the week. You should take back your meds.

    2. Re:Rick Santorvm - in MMXII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      raising taxes on those of us who are successful

      Something you'll never have to worry about from down in Mommy and Daddy's basement, eh?

    3. Re:Rick Santorvm - in MMXII by jdgeorge · · Score: 2

      Well, it's either well-thought-out satire, or... (shudder) ... not.

      Since it does a pretty thorough job of touching on all the so-called "conservative" talking points, complete with contradictory positions (hard to accomplish without a clear head and an eye on the news), I'm thinking there are no meds involved.

    4. Re:Rick Santorvm - in MMXII by lucm · · Score: 4, Funny

      He will set the country on the path to freedom from religious persecution and return us to our rightful place in God's plan. Eliminate the government and all those who stand in the way of worship of our rightful, true Ruler. The crimes that are performed in the name of our current governmental system, including but not limited to murder of innocent children, forcing citizens to pay for products they don't want, driving our society into unrecoverable debt that our children (if they aren't aborted) will never be able to repay, placing women in harms' way and outside of the role evolution has trained them for as mother and caregiver, stifling business under the guise and heavy hand of global warming, raising taxes on those of us who are successful, teaching our precious children ridiculous theories that men were once apes and spontaneously changed into what we are today, and attempting to diverge from the Christian principles that our forefathers observed and that this country was founded upon. We need to return to His holy way, and remove the heathens from our path, if necessary, by force. It's time to stopping giving away our children's inheritance to lazy jobless people and Godless welfare cases. It's time we took back our economy and this country.

      Who would have thought Noam Chomsky would one day post on Slashdot

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    5. Re:Rick Santorvm - in MMXII by Beelzebud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was on the fence about Obama, but watching the Republican side show and sealed the deal for me. You guys are fucking nuts.

    6. Re:Rick Santorvm - in MMXII by idontgno · · Score: 5, Informative

      Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.

      -- Poe's Law

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    7. Re:Rick Santorvm - in MMXII by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'll take the flawed man that is Obama, to a religious huckster like Rick Santorum any day of the week.

    8. Re:Rick Santorvm - in MMXII by Skidborg · · Score: 2

      In any other field but politics I could call that a false dichotomy. There is something horribly wrong with this democratic system.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    9. Re:Rick Santorvm - in MMXII by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I think the puppet on the left shares my beliefs, i think the puppet on the right is more to my liking...hey wait a minute there's one guy controlling BOTH puppets!" from the late great often stolen from Bill Hicks. Sad the man has been gone more than 20 years and if anything his words are MORE true than they have ever been. But if you think Nobama or Mittens or Santwhorum give a flying fuck about anybody but themselves and their corporate masters you've drank too much koolaid.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  3. Not Avatar by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Informative

    Surrogates. Bruce Willis does more than just destroy asteroids!

    Avatar had live sentient animals being grown and controlled by humans. In Surrogates, they're robots, and surrogacy starts on the battlefield.

    Good SF movie, I don't know why it's so unknown.

    1. Re:Not Avatar by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      Mod parent Informative. This is 100% accurate comparison to existing fiction, rather than grasping at blue alien sentience transference straws

    2. Re:Not Avatar by Moheeheeko · · Score: 2
    3. Re:Not Avatar by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      I was thinking of an eariler work, Surrogates; it had what I considered some useful solutions for current issues.

    4. Re:Not Avatar by Frenzied+Apathy · · Score: 2

      One of my favorite, Sci-Fi movies.

      Agreed, I'm surprised this movie isn't better known.

      --
      The cake is a lie.
  4. Jaming and lag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1. any kind of lag or areas with a poor signal may not work to well even more so if the link need to go over a few Satellites.

    2. You don't need to hack them just jam them and they can be come useless

    1. Re:Jaming and lag by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is DARPA. They don't even raise the question of "practicality" when they do projects like this, they just ask "can it be done at all?" These are the same people who build flying tanks. Is it practical? Almost certainly no. Is it cool and possibly practical in the future? Maybe, but we won't know until we try.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Jaming and lag by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      Right, they start somewhere insane and then dial it down. The applications are immediate.

      Will it be practical for combat in the next 20 years? Probably not. But it could be used in EOD (Explosives and Ordinance Disposal) where you would have the advantage of human dexterity in disabling a bomb without having to risk an actual person. (They already use small robots as is.) It could also be useful in firefighting situations - a tethered "avatar" robot could go far closer to a fire and fight it (or inside a building in danger of collapsing) than a human could. (I refrain from saying that it would do things a human is unwilling to do, because we have and have had brave men step into incredibly dangerous situations to save lives. It is an important and honorable sacrifice, but with technology it can no longer be a necessity.)

  5. Forever Peace by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 5, Informative

    And halfway in between is Joe Haldeman's Forever Peace. In the novel, soldiers use mechanical body surrogates which have the bizarre side effect of linking all senses of the team members as if it were a single organism. It's a good read. We can already see, hear and launch weapons from drone platforms and this is just the early stage of remote piloting.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  6. Not just WAR but also SPACE by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's a submission I sent a few days ago about humanoid television-robots making the first handshake in space (on the ISS).

    wisebabo writes

    "As long as we are still in debt to the Chinese and can't afford an ambitious space program, we should be developing THESE (humanoid telerobots). Just get the astronaut NEAR the Moon or Mars (or someday Titan!) and operate these without that stupid speed-of-light time delay. A huge proportion of the weight and complexity of going to these places is that last 100 miles so while times are lean this is the way to go.

    Maybe James Cameron can be persuaded to do a pre-quel of Avatar, unfortunately I don't think he'll find a planet full of sexy tele-robots!"

    Link to Original Source

  7. What can go wrong... by mark-t · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... ironically, is that soldiers will not be risking their lives in the field of combat.

    Not that I am advocating soldiers dying per se, but if a cause is not worth dying for, then why is it worth going to war for in the first place? If one is prepared to kill their fellow man for whatever cause they might believe in, however true, and however noble, and however right, but they themselves are not prepared to die in the name of that same cause, then their so-called virtuous beliefs are nothing but hollow claims.

    Nothing of any real worth or value has ever been achieved without making some sacrifice... and it is the virtue of the people who *have* made such sacrifices that gives us that much more a profound appreciation for the victory that was gained by it.

    Take that away, and war becomes just a pointless exercise in killing... without purpose, and maybe even without end.

    This is a bad idea.

    1. Re:What can go wrong... by idontgno · · Score: 2

      I suspect you're trying to make a moral point. If this is so, you're both right (or at least, I agree) and completely beside the point.

      In practice, the only cost considered in waging war is the cost to "the good guys". If you can inflict 5000 casualties on the enemy (and, maybe, some of their non-combatants as well), without suffering any casualties of your own, that's zero casualties. The other side doesn't count, except as targets. If they don't want to die, they can surrender. Maybe. Or flee. Maybe.

      Really advanced nation-states can win with almost no human cost (to themselves) and comparatively light financial costs. (Like destroying a multi-million <foreigncurrency> command post with a $125,000 cruise missile).

      Asymmetric warfare is the best kind, as long as you're on the winning end.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:What can go wrong... by thrich81 · · Score: 2

      That sort of thinking (noble combat, laying your life on the line for something you believe in) is what got hundreds of thousands of young men to go to their deaths in the trenches in WWI. War is just one extreme of the application of force to achieve your group's desires -- slaughtering of animals and unfortunate native populations which get in the way is the other extreme. We usually have called them wars when the protagonists were equally enough matched to make it risky for both sides but in the history of applied force the entire spectrum from outright slaughter to "heroic" stands against impossible odds have been seen. I guarantee you that the professional soldiers tasked with winning the wars which their societies send them to have no desire at all to put themselves at any more risk than absolutely necessary. If they could send an army of avatars to do the dangerous work they would. When the European Americans were killing off the native North Americans there was no talk of "being prepared to die for the cause", it was just a killing process -- Bison or People, it was all the same to them. All wars would be like that if the soldiers got to choose. It's not pointless -- the point is to take something away from some other group who doesn't want to give it up. In the past the best soldiers were a society's young men -- if they weren't prepared to fight then that culture didn't stay around for long. If technology allows us to send robots or avatars instead, I'm all for it. If you want to end wars, you have to make them dangerous for the folks back home, too, so they will consider other options -- that's why the US and the USSR never went directly at it -- all the warmongers at home knew that they were at the same risk of nuclear incineration as the actual combatants.

    3. Re:What can go wrong... by thesandtiger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're assuming that the nature and meaning of "war" wouldn't undergo a fundamental shift if people weren't dying during it.

      Lots of things are, essentially, "war" where people don't die. Apple and Samsung are engaged in a "war" against each other - they're both hoping to take something from the other by coercion, even if that isn't physical coercion.

      Being able to "wage war" where stuff, rather than people, die would be huge. I'd much rather throw away stuff than people any day.

      Also, I dispute entirely your belief that somehow we have a more profound appreciation for things that people have died for. In fact, I dare say that the fact that when people die in wars and other people use it for cheap political theater shows just how shallow the "appreciation" is.

      Look, for example, at the whole "support our troops" thing as it happened with Iraq and Afghanistan: Some people used the deaths of troops to support a kind of "sunk cost" fallacy about dead soldiers, other people used it to say that their political opponents were politically bankrupt, other people used it as a club to beat up those they felt weren't appropriately patriotic, others used it to profit from selling shitty yellow ribbon magnets and Chinese-made American flags, and on and on.

      Yet, when it comes to doing things that *actually* matter - taking care of injured veterans and helping their families - it's just *crickets* *crickets* when these men and women come home and need some help because of what they've left "over there." Veterans make up a disproportionate number of homeless - I dare say that if we had a "more profound appreciation" for the sacrifices made in war that wouldn't be the case because we wouldn't, as a society *let* it be the case.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  8. holy fucking crap. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 5, Funny

    with the kind of presidents the USA churns out, is "it could be hacked" *really* the first thing that comes to mind when you ponder what could go wrong? how about this, it might NOT get hacked, and offer even more potential to murder and maim even more people with even less inhibitions, politically as well as on the level of individual soldiers? we had nintendo pilots for a long time. now there'll be nintendo grunts. fucking great. and the princess is STILL in another castle.

    but oh noes, the chinese. you are so lost.

  9. Machines can be used against you by HalAtWork · · Score: 2

    It's easier to turn a machine against its original purposes by fooling it, hacking it, or other such methods. It's harder to turn entire swaths of human soldiers.

  10. bi-pedal??? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 2

    That dash in bipedal was really confusing. Made me think of a robot with two pedals. Also why have a robot with legs?? Why not treads or flight? It doesn't need to do everything a person does. It just needs to kill things.

  11. War as a video game by Whatanut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they continue down this path they will mostly just turn war into a big video game. All the real people will be locked up in a bunker somewhere controlling their avatars and such.

    So, then the question becomes this: Why not just settle disputes by actually playing video games. You lose at starcraft, you lose your country. Seems like the natural progression...

    --

    yvan eht nioj
  12. star trek tos had a episode like that that by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    star trek tos had a episode like that that with computers running a VR war with real death chambers that people just went into and they did that as it's was better then useing real weapons.