Not Quite a T-1000, But On the Right Track

New submitter misanthropic.mofo writes with a look at the the emerging field of robtic warfare. Adding, "Leaping from drones, to recon 'turtlebots', humanity is making its way toward robo-combat. I for one think it would make it interesting to pit legions of robot warriors against each other and let people purchase time on them. Of course there are people that are for and against such technology. Development of ethical robotic systems seems like it would take some of the fun out of things, there's also the question of who gets to decide on the ethics."

Comments

Sigh

[Kell Bengal]

Hello - robotics researcher here (specialising in UAVs). I wonder when these breathless articles about battlefield robotics will end. There is nothing new about battlefield robots - we've had tomahawk missiles since the early 80s. It's just that these days we think about them as robots rather than as cruise missiles. Drone strikes? What about the missile strikes from the Gulf War? They were the champions of good and (along with stealth technology) the gold hammer of the Forces of Good.

The only thing that has changes is more penetration of robots into our militaries and more awareness of some of the ethical considerations of automated weapons. Don't forget - the machine gun and landmine have killed far more people than drones likely ever will. They kill mindlessly so long as the trigger was pulled or they are stepped on. And yet, their ethical considerations were long debated. It's just that "omg a robot!" is headline magic.

(To whit - the author of this article must not know that much about robotics if they're claiming "The turtlebot could reconnoitre a battlesite". No it can't - it's a glorified vacuum cleaner. I just kicked the one in my lab. It can barely get over a bump in the carpet.)

Let's focus on the real ethics of robotic warfare: how our leaders choose to use the tools we have made.

Re:Sigh

[rohan972]

The difference between being killed by an semi-automatic rifle and being killed by a machinegun (sub or otherwise) is lost on me.

If someone is specifically talking about the risk of being killed by one or the other it becomes relevant, otherwise not so much.

The average person probably thinks the categories are: pistol, shotgun, rifle, machinegun and thats pretty much it.

I aspire to more intelligent discussion than the average person I suppose. I don't see how this is possible unless words are used correctly.

When people with a political agenda of banning guns use incorrect terminology that confuses semi-auto with full auto weapons it seems like they are deliberately obfuscating the issue to exploit the average persons ignorance. That requires correction, unless you're in favor of deceiving people to sway their political opinion. I know that's a popular tactic to the point of being near universal but I always live in hope of conversing with people who prioritize truth over their own opinion.