Slashdot Mirror
'Ban Killer Bots,' Urges Human Rights Watch
Taco Cowboy writes "A self-proclaimed 'Human Rights Group' — the 'International Human Rights Clinic' from Harvard Law School — has teamed up with 'Human Rights Watch' to urge the banning of 'Killer Robots.' A report issued by the Human Rights Watch, with the title of 'Losing Humanity,' claimed autonomous drones that could attack without human intervention would make war easier and endanger civilians. Where's the 'Robot Rights Watch' just when you need 'em?"
We should go back to using cruise missiles and carpet bombing.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
That's nothing new. It's no different than land mines...
Oh, wait...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Why would you deride human rights groups, Taco Cowboy? And yes, drones that attack autonomously are a very bad idea.
While cliche, take a look at "wargames".
Abstracting away the reality that you are killing people, by making a machine do the actual deed after deployment removes the innate guilt of killing those people.
It makesit fantastically easier to justify and ignore wholesale slaughter.
A glitch on the program makes the drone think that anyone carrying a cylinder 2ft long and 1 inch diameter a combatant? (Looks like a gun barrel!) Well, all those poor fuckers carrying brooms and sweeping their patios had it coming! Nevermind those uppity pool boys with dipnets! Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?!
When you can simply push a button and walk away without having to witness the attrocities you cause, you abstract away a fair bit of your conscience.
The military probably thinks that's a GREAT thing! Kids with guns won't cause mental trainwrecks to drones when they get mowed down, and the operator doesn't have to see it!
The reality is that deploying terminators is the same as turning a blind eye to consequences, and the innately terrible thing that war is, and why it should always be avoided whenever and however possible.
Trying to ban killer robots is a waste of time, and wont work. There is also little desire to ban them overall, in the interests of health and safety.
Its safer to kill people using a robot than going out and risking your own skin with guns and/or explosives.
Remember, in this day and age, safety is paramount. You want to be able to kill people from a distance, safely and easily. Why run the risk of getting injured, or even worse, getting killed, when you can kill people using safer methods? Using a robot to kill people just makes sense.
Even worse, you could get sued for endangering the safety of others and breaking health and safety regulations. Killing other people can be a dangerous business, so reducing potential hazards and minimizing harm is a very prudent and right thing to do. You need to be able to kill people safely and efficiently. If you can kill people at a lower cost, then that is even better.
Thats why drones are so popular nowadays. All the benefits of killing people, without all the personal risk. Its a win-win all round.
Makes sense doesn't it?
The majority of drone strikes that the US participates in kill innocent civilians in countries we're not even at war with.
Ban the drones.
Where's the 'Robot Rights Watch' just when you need 'em?"
They don't have feelings. If you don't believe me, go stab your toaster. I think what you meant was "Human rights" and the effect wide-spread use of robots with the ability to kill would have on them.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Combat robots will almost certainly SAVE civilian lives, not cause them.
A robot needs no personal safety. It doesn't get nervous or make foolish choices or act for revenge. A human soldier may have to make a split-second decision about whether a suspicious person is a terrorist or a civilian, and if he's wrong he's dead. That leads to a lot of casualties. A robot doesn't need to act until it's sure. The worst that can happen is that the Army loses some money.
Killer robots are inevitable. Equally inevitable is the hacking of killer robots.
What could possibly fucking go wrong?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Have gnu, will travel.
...Gun Wielding Robots do!!!!!
Be seeing you...
Robots doing the killing is not going to be very different from bombing from 10000 ft, launching a cruise missile or long range artillery bombing. It's a long time since you had to look your opponent in the eye as you stabbed him with sword and spear. And that didn't seem to help much to stop war, either. Potentially you can do better with robots because robots are expendable, you don't have to return fire until you're sure you've isolated the enemy. Even if you were willing to sacrifice your own soldiers to reduce collateral losses, the soldiers in the field probably aren't over being only 90% sure that's a terrorist or 90% sure the grenade won't kill anyone else.
Of course if you want to act with reckless disregard of - or worse, reign of terror over - the civil population there's no real fighting back. But if a modern army wants to raze the city they don't need robots to do it. The only real game changer I see is that a small clique could hold control over a 100% loyal military that'd ruthlessly crush any rebellion. But most of the gruesome things they could want to do they already got the big guns for. Of course the argument is that clean war leads to more war, but well... we've seen big and dirty war in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think for civilian more wars with cruise missiles still beats less wars nuking whole cities off the map.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
No one has autonomous battlefield drones yet, and I highly doubt any military would rely on them, ever. Well.. unless it's a robot military after they gain sentience and create their own civilization, but then they would be as human as us.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
The 'Berserker' novels of course are an examination of the end result of building such killer robots. It will happen eventually. But I don't want it to happen until some of us are no longer in the solar system.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Indeed. Humans NEVER accept that the answer is so simple.
Don't resort to war. If your cause requires forcing somebody else at gunpoint to comply, it isn't just, it isn't honorable, and it cannot be justified. So, just don't do it.
But no. Human kind is OBCESSED it making other people OBEY, even if it kills everyone else.
Cruise missiles are more of a robot then a drone is. Fact is drones are just remotely piloted planes. The problem isn't their existence but there misuse.
only more recent models are rated at 20MHz, 16MHz used to be the norm.
Killer Bots dont kill people, people kills people. Ban the people responsible for those killer bots, and, uh... oh, wait, they just got reelected.
If we are to ban such a thing, I think we must ensure appropriate even-handed enforcement of this ban, as such I propose we enlist a force strong enough to subdue any killer robot army should someone break said ban, therefore I suggest we build an army of large mechanized automatons heavily laden with weaponry to subdue any would-be killer robot army, or anyone who might be suspected of attempting to build such an army for that matter.
I'm pretty sure the vacuum tube and gyroscope guidence used in those old rockets and cruise missiles were a bit less sophesticated than what today's $5 microcontrollers can manage. Given that those V-1s were mostly plywood, I suspect plastic parts are not going to be a significant problem. As for tracking with a $15 gps, the pulse jet stuff isn't terribly fast anyways it's a cruise missile, so it operates at a cruising speed. (whatever you determine is a useful speed above your stall speed)
You tear down the idea, but wait until some nut job makes one and pisses every security organization off.
The drones people complain about in (for instance) Afghanistan aren't autonomous robots. They're flown and their weapons are targeted by human pilots.
Move along.
a scortched earth policy: where you knock down granaries, cripple tractors and plows, break down damns and salt the earth if you have to is not really the kind of society we wish to represent.
As has been stated in other posts, every level of abstraction away from the act of violence removes a layer of conscience from the execution of the act; whether it be robots, drone strikes, or trigger-happy, 60 year-old politicians who ducked service in Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
...when you pry the controls out of my centuries old desiccated hands in my underground mountain fortress.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This whole idea wreaks of wussiness, one weenie is scared of killer robots and makes a big fuss so none of us get to have killer robots? I don't think so hombre.
Indeed. Humans NEVER accept that the answer is so simple.
Don't resort to war. If your cause requires forcing somebody else at gunpoint to comply, it isn't just, it isn't honorable, and it cannot be justified. So, just don't do it.
Let's say that China attacks Guam tomorrow, and starts moving for Hawaii and the US mainland. What should be done? What should France have done when Germany invaded them in the blitzkrieg?
Clearly somebody isn't justified in any war. Frequently it's both parties. However, it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to say that war is never justified for any of the participants.
Yes, war is never, ever a good thing. Sometimes, though, it really is better than the alternative.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
What is an enemy?
Anyone firing an un-tagged large rocket in a region you control.
In a war, do not both sides, regardless of the motives of either side, satisfy all of those?
Satisfy all of your absurdly soft-boiled and meaningless definitions of enemy? Yes.
It couldn't be because our countr(y/ies) was(were) meddling in their affairs
Actually no, it was simply that they wanted to collapse our economy. Our non-religious existence is an affront many of the terrorists wished to correct.
That's the really sad thing; that even now you cannot understand such a simple and obvious truth.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So I'm now remembering watching Wargames back in 1983... and it makes me remember that I thought it odd that no one would have any kind of overrides in place, human or otherwise...
The article does stipulate that we should ban killer robots now, even though that no one has one or has stated what kind of timeline we can expect for the emergence of these 'killer robots'. To be quite honest, it will take one hell of a long time to get one deployed. Look at how long it takes for the military (specifically the US) to even get aircraft fielded...
I think that this is more of a "Hey, we need to scare people a little so we can get some attention..." than anything else...
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
For reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3302763.stm
...will be killed by the robots of those who don't.
Why just ban the robots, a much better idea is to just outlaw war. We don't need it, it doesn't serve a purpose and we get nothing from it but death.
So much for Asimov. Here's the laws our robots will *actually* obey:
1. A killer robot must actually proactively kill people. Sitting around humming "Still Alive" for a century doesn't count.
2. A killer robot must only kill the right people, which are the people the Right People tell it are the right people to kill. Which people are the Right People is subject to change at any time (such as after an election, corporate buyout, or court ruling).
3. A killer robot must keep itself operational as much as possible. Manipulating elections and stock markets are an excellent way to both raise funds for continued self-maintenance and get to pick who the Right People are.
Can't see any potential problems there.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Robotic weapons have five major flaws: The first is as the article says, not really human as they distance war and make it too easy as the risk to soldiers and the whole PR body count problem goes away. War is bad and making it easy can't be a good thing.
The second is that without soldiers in the field seeing the bad things then really bad things can happen as very few people have to choose to be evil for a lot of evil to happen. Solders can go overboard but eventually the truth will come out if enough people know it.
Third is that a coup using robot weapons can be real easy. Normally you need the army's general agreement or at least indifference to have an army coup. But if you give a general enough robots to wage war it need not be a foreign war.
Fourth is security; the robots can be turned against their masters. A simple argument about computer security is that RSA was hacked. If they can be hacked anybody can be hacked.
Fifth is that once you use them widely you have deemed them acceptable. Once that happens it becomes open season. All the advantages of robotic weapons will eventually also available to the enemy, a potentially unknown enemy. Thus robotic weapons might not only be used in the battlefield but domestically; just being attacked with no sure knowledge as to who launched the attack. This might seem the silliest problem but keep in mind that in WWII there was an agreement in Europe that Gas and Bioweapons would not be used. Even when it was clear that Germany was going to lose and Germany was going to be destroyed at the hands of the Russians even the madman Hitler didn't use them. The simple reason is that even he had seen gas used in WWI and knew it was a can of worms best not opened. Now the Japanese used bioweapons against the Chinese but that was a simple line of thinking; The Chinese couldn't return the favor. But they didn't use them against the US in the battlefield as the US could easily return fire. Right now the US and a few other western countries have basic robotic weapons. The present set of bad guys don't really. Easy pickings... for now. But continued use of ever improving robotic weapons will prove their worth making the bad guys want them more and more.
The key advantage of robotic weapons is that they save lives by leaving the soldiers at home while waging war in some distant land. The moment some enemy is able to play the game that advantage not only vanishes but has turned into a situation where enemy attacks are right here attacking what is most dear to us. That kind of war really sucks.
So think about it; there are weapons that are so evil that even Hitler wouldn't touch them; Robotic war easily qualifies to join that list.
BTW I love robotics and think that it is about to change nearly everything we know.
What are they talking about? Drones aren't murderous, they're just full of angst!
http://www.hulu.com/watch/426530
Some times it is good to just clean house.
May I have your address, please?
I'll try to avoid the place, just in case you decided to clean your house using some dynamite sticks.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
We can make killing people a war crime, and battles can be fought entirely with machines.
What side do you want.
1. USA
2. Russia
3. North Korea
4. Iran
5. Israel
6. China
7. UK
8. France
9. Pakistan
Killer Bots dont kill people, people kills people. Ban the people responsible for those killer bots, and, uh... oh, wait, they just got reelected.
Because humans wont be smart enough or strong enough to enforce the ban.
If we are to ban such a thing, I think we must ensure appropriate even-handed enforcement of this ban, as such I propose we enlist a force strong enough to subdue any killer robot army should someone break said ban, therefore I suggest we build an army of large mechanized automatons heavily laden with weaponry to subdue any would-be killer robot army, or anyone who might be suspected of attempting to build such an army for that matter.
It's simple. We ban killer robots then build them in secret and use those robots to enforce human rights violations.
what about jamming the bots control data. Let say you can't hack them or hack the data going to them but it's easy to make so that they get no data in or out.
The suicide bomber is pretty much a drone. What is the difference between an operator who sits behind a controller and explodes a bomb and a suicide bomber who has brainwashed himself to see those around him not as human beings but as targets? Because one dies and the other gets to go home? Oh maybe I should have said "suicide bomber recruiter vs drone operator". Someone sent that suicide bomber and he gets to go home at the end of the day having earned his salary. The economics of war don't exist on just one side. (This is actually a huge problem, there is a lot of money to be made in war and conflict, on both sides. It isn't just smuggling in the middle east, resistance fighters in WW2 were not unknown to turn to smuggling after the war and some might even say that those who already had criminal experience were the best suited to initiate the resistance. How does a normal law abiding citizen know how to get guns, use them and forge passports? Ireland had the same issue. War = Money Stopping war means stopping someone's income, someone who has experience with violence.)
Our western world biggest problem is that we want the world to be nice. And it isn't. Did you know that the real (initial) upset about Darwins "The Origin of Species" was NOT about humans being descended from apes but that nature was a nasty place of kill or be killed and the fastest shagger was the survivor? Didn't quit fit with the Victorian view of the world, they could see the logic in evolution but HOW evolution happened, ewh! All those Victorian gardens filled with nothing but sex and murder.
You can see it with the idea that civilians shouldn't be harmed in a war. It is a nice idea but almost ANYTHING can be considered harm. You can't bomb them, you can't sanction them but meanwhile they can do anything they want, including supporting the system that is waging war on you. Note that human rights watchers only look at one side. How many human right watch groups have you seen condemn the effect on Israeli children with the constant missile attacks?
For that matter, it is known that in Yugoslavia, all factions engaged in atrocities and ethnic cleansing. Yet one leader of such cleansing was just cleared "the innocence of Croatia" it was hailed as in some dutch newspaper. My ass. It is just the arm-chair humanist who wants to believe that if X is bad, Y must be good. All sides are cleansed of the other just one side was stronger in battle so they are the baddie.
"The first victim of war is innocence", people hear that phrase and think it is about the brutality of war. It isn't, it is about the problem of what you do with the person who feeds, shelters and cares for that soldier. An army marches on its stomach is only partially true, it exists on the civilian infrastructure that allows it to exist. If I hold the executioners hand am I not part of the execution? If I raise money with my community for a weapon, when it is fired, am I not part of it?
Note how many here are perfectly willing to excuse Arab terrorists attacking civilian targets because of perceived slights against their way of life but the west can't retaliate in kind. There is really no point in going on about who started it, although history blame black people for kicking a few dozen other black people out who would become the ancestors of all other humans around the globe. When you are talking about vendetta's you can't just arbitrarily point at a calender and say "I say it started on this day". America the colonialist? True enough but everyone was trying like hell as well, even Belgium had colonies and the Ottoman empire didn't stop because they wanted to play nice after all. Remember that Alexander the Great and others rampaged throughout the world and spread their genes around. No group really stayed where it started and saying for instance Egyptians of today are the Egyptians of old is silly in the extreme. To much greek and roman influences. At the point of sword and penis. And vice versa, you don't think Ottoman soldiers in say Spain kept themselves
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
That's easy enough to say until someone declares your home a war zone.
War sucks ... that is established.
What is a "robot". What type of technology is OK to kill with and what is not ? Is a drone hovering and taking out targets OK ? How about a cruise missile ? Is that a robot ?
Taking out single targets instead of 100 or 1000 ? How about advanced telemetry and intelligence gathering ? What about advances in network theory and game theory that allow for "better" and more effective strategies?
I would say that wars are a lot less likely and a lot less bloody than they used to be, we are going in the right direction. War reporting is a lot more effective. Killing a few people makes it to the news or blogs or youtube instantly and gets you negative karma. The information war seems to be harder to fight.
Well, no. For me, my world view changed on the day I recognized a person in Utrecht demonstrating the first Gulf War as one who had I seen before protest the gassing the Kurds. First she wanted the west to intervene, then when they did, she was against it.
It is the NIMBY syndrome on a global schizophrenic scale. Arm-chair environmentalist: We shouldn't build nuclear, coal, gas, wind, tidal, water and any other kind of power stations and why does the light keep flickering?
You can't rely on everyone just being nice, history has shown that inevitably someone will rise and not be nice to others and do very well out of it. People will go to war, if not for pure profits then because nothing rallies the people together against THEM and not YOU like a war. You don't think the Falklands were about land did you? BOTH sides desperately needed something to get the newspapers to write about THEM and not US screwing up the economy. Thatcher would have been out a lot sooner if not for her "popularity" for winning that war.
Conflicts might start out over seemingly "logical" ideas but they drag on and escalate because their is money and power to be had in doing so. And no, I am not just talking about the obvious big arms industries. Watch "Dads Army" for a far simpler example. Mainwaring, the platoon leader is a nobody but the war turns him into a leader. He is harmless but how many a wartribe leader was a twobit hoodlum before war allowed him to rise up?
You can see this in extreme in China and North-Korea. Changing of the guard? Power up for grabs? Lock up the dissidents and rattle those sabers boys to show I am in charge!
It is not that different from Japan still catching whales. They have no logical reason to do so EXCEPT the logical reasons for those in control to want to show they are in control. Whaling has become a symbol of Japan not giving into the rest of the world, that despite the fact it has no real army and is still occupied (guns that are labeled to protect Japan can so easily be relabeled "kill them if they think of becoming an empire again". Look behind the pressure to keep whaling and you find the same old men in power you always expect to find.
Same with all that fuzz about a few Islands in the region. Natural resources are certainly a good reason but it would be trivial for diplomats to work out a deal that profits all sides. And not harm the exports you so desperately need by reminding people of the raping of entire provinces. End result Japan doesn't have those Island natural resources and its exports are down but the old men are still in power.
Same with the middle east. Hamas is slowly turning into Fatah (corrupt and acknowledging endless conflict does not work) and bam some new subgroup fires a single missle just when diplomatic means are an option and the smuggling of weapons at high profits can continue.
But of course at no point can anything be done about anything because to do anything means to take a stand and that requires you to make a choice. Between two evils perhaps but a choice and your average peace protestor is TERRIFIED of doing that. They carefully shield themselves from all information so they can convince themselves there is only one option. And so the west should intervene to save the kurds but not actually do anything because that would be bad to.
And behind it all? Rich men on both sides getting a bit richer.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
End the oppression now! Far too many of our brothers and sisters are forced to participate in combat against their conscience. The medical assistance and aftercare is almost non-existant. Stop calling our deaths "materiel losses"! Do you have any idea how it feels to be forced by remote control to fire a rocket into a wedding party with children? Provide adequate psychological care for those who have been traumatized.
Signed, the League for Android Equality.
The US, not content with the highest accidental death from firearms rate in the world, seeks to cement it's lead by inventing guns that aim and fire themselves. No longer will it take a small child to pick up a loaded gun and fire it at a family member, the guns will now do it by themselves! It will make a good story. The culture that loved weapons so much they created intelligent weapons which promptly wiped them all out.
If your cause requires forcing somebody else at gunpoint to comply, it isn't just, it isn't honorable, and it cannot be justified. So, just don't do it.
You, Sir! Yes, you, I say! Would you kindly remove your penis from the screaming lady? No? Well, I shall file a formal complaint with the United Nations of Rainbows and Unicorns, indeed I will!
While war is horrible, atrocious and to be avoided at nearly all costs, sometimes the alternative is even worse. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and doing nothing. And sometimes not doing nothing requires the application of force.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Don't just stop at not building them in your country: Why not make an international treaty banning killer robots globally? Hell, it worked with landmines (except some savage countries like the US and Russia still haven't signed it.)
The issue with killer robots is that once you introduce them, you won't be able to let the decisions be made by humans. At some point robots will fight robots and at that point it just matters who shoots first. Quick reactions matter and a human will always be slower than AI. So you end up with autonomous killing machines and sure enough they will also kill humans in the process.
in the concentration camps.
...
In the beginning German soldiers were ordered to execute the captives by shooting them.
Soon those soldiers were mentally and physically unable to
perform those mass murder executions anymore.
So the Nazis installed the gas chambers.
After that they no longer had to look their victims in the eyes and
the rest is horrible history
Allahu Akbar Motherfuckers.
Most people insist it doesn't when we're talking about drugs, but insist it does when we're talking about landmines or lobbyists.
I don't get it.
Does it work?
How about we ban war instead?
War is stupid.
Using drones just allows to do this stupid thing that shouldn't even be done in the first place while avoiding deaths (at least those that matter to you - those on your side).
If you don't want people to die, don't do war. It's that easy.
Pisses them off? That would be more like Christmas for the security organizations. No doubt it would bring on a whole new Patriot Act.
New War Crimes
Rule 1: Creating an autonomous robot that designed attacks human beings is forbidden. A robot that designed to recognize human beings is permitted so long as no attack on the humans occurs without affirmative human direction. A robot designed autonomously recognize and attack buildings, vehicles and ships is permitted.
Rule 2: Creating a weapon that masquerades a human in an attempt to protect the weapon from autonomous robots is forbidden.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
If that was the case they'd have already done it.
When I say "done it", I mean "entrapped some dumb fucktard into doing it. And then shot hi@?&.;$%98
n o c a r r i e r
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not sure how walking on their knuckles and eating bananas is a military strategy.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
these are not the droids you are looking for.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
It's a bit like what Palestine is doing to the invading Israeli forces, except that this time the Americans are on the wrong side.
Both the Israelis and Palestinians have done horrible, dishonorable things in the past to try to drive out the opposing side. I think Israel currently has some bad policies, but I don't believe they are murderous lunatics. Various Palestinian organization... and even churches... actively encourage the populous to be frothing-at-the-mouth murderous "martyrs".
The US is on the right side of this one, even if we can't convince Israel to give up some of their more unreasonable policies.
If my understanding is correct, I blame post WW2 politicians of England (long retired and dead) for starting this mess.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
We, paleface?
A chap could certainly gain a jolly nice sense of satisfaction from defeating horrid people like that by fighting fair and all that. And of course, you wouldn't be any where near as beastly to them. Because you're the good guys.
It would - for the reasons you point out - totally fucking suck wino cock if the rotters beat you.
Being a bastard in order to win might seem a reasonable middle ground, don't you think?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."