Slashdot Mirror
Emotional Attachment To Robots Could Affect Battlefield Outcome
vinces99 writes "It's becoming more common to have robots sub for humans to do dirty or sometimes dangerous work. But researchers are finding that, in some cases, people have started to treat robots like pets, friends or even as an extension of themselves. That raises a question: If a soldier attaches human or animal-like characteristics to a field robot, can it affect how they use the robot? What if they 'care' too much about the robot to send it into a dangerous situation? Julie Carpenter, who just received a doctorate in education from the University of Washington, wanted to find out. She interviewed Explosive Ordnance Disposal military personnel – highly trained soldiers who use robots to disarm explosives – about how they feel about the robots they work with every day. What she found is that troops' relationships with robots continue to evolve as the technology changes. Soldiers told her that attachment to their robots didn't affect their performance, yet acknowledged they felt a range of emotions such as frustration, anger and even sadness when their field robot was destroyed. That makes Carpenter wonder whether outcomes on the battlefield could potentially be compromised by human-robot attachment, or the feeling of self-extension into the robot described by some operators."
Build robots to control the robots.
At least you know they're getting lubricated regularly.
Just... no.
I get that they might be sad when a robot they were using somehow gets lost or destroyed, but I really can't see that influencing how likely they are to use that robot for dangerous situations unless the soldier had somehow personally invested time and energy into making the robot do or act the way that it does, and in particular such that it would require some substantial personal investment (monetary, timewise, workwise, or simply having to wait a while) to replace it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I've had the same kind of feelings for computers I've owned; some you like (or dislike) more than others, even the ones you've built yourself. Even cars have their own personalities, even if they're ostensibly identical.
I had an emotional attachment to my Cherry 2000 at one point too...
semper ubi sub ubi
Do combat personnel feel emotions regarding the loss of other pieces of equipment, such as rifles or transport vehicles? If a pilot has to ditch a multi-million dollar aircraft, does he not feel anger/sadness/guilt? Have these feelings been shown to be an emotional attachment, or feelings of personal failure, etc?
What is it they're worried about? That the robot gets destroyed, or getting chewed out by their superior officer for letting a multi million dollar piece of equipment get destroyed?
People get attached to all sorts things, not just robots, and this has happened for centuries. Captains get attached to their ships, soldiers get attached to their weapons, people get attached to their cars, or houses, or places, so on and so forth.
It seems to be built into our nature to do so. That people would/could development an attachment to a robot is no surprise.
~X~
Given the option of taking point on some really hazardous operation yourself and letting a machine do it? I think it's stretching it to think that soldiers are going to start treating the machines as equals.
Besides, you can backup the robot's state onto a USB key, air-drop in a new one and restore its "personality" (such as it is) and your "friend" is back from the dead.
Very little requirement for sympathetic emotional attachment.
G.
"I can't shoot him, he's gorgeous!
John Dvorak, is that you?
The Japanese have been exploring that concept for years.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Is to be as cute and memorable as possible to increase your own chances of continued existence.
(Sometimes referred to as the "WALL*E Rule")
Soldiers told her that attachment to their robots didn't affect their performance, yet acknowledged they felt a range of emotions such as frustration, anger and even sadness when their field robot was destroyed.
There are two ways this can be taken:
a) Like a soldier that loses a comrade on the battlefield
b) Like a mechanic whose only 10mm crescent wrench snapped
The former may be the implication, but the latter is a fact -- the robot is a tool and without that field robot the operator isn't doing his job / lacks the thing he's operating.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
This is probably rooted in anthropomorphism; mankind has been attaching personal human-style connections to inanimate objects since before recorded history; animals, ships, deities, whether imaginary sky gods or natural objects such as sacred lakes, rocks and trees, the list goes on. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was a strong correlation between the depth of feelings felt for the machine and the degree to which the operator had established a human-style connection to the it. Once operators start assigning pet names, applying custom paint jobs and taking photos of themselves with their robots, then it's only to be expected that there is going to be a stronger reaction when it gets damaged or destroyed.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
In WWII many US citizens donated their dogs to the war effort. Some of them wore suicide vests (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/480/animal-sacrifice). In comparison to that, the robot thing is surely not a big deal.
soylentnews.org
First have the soldiers fuck the robots.
have the robots tell the soldiers they're pregnant and they want money.
Rinse and repeat
As the type (and cost) of battlefield deployed robots skyrockets, don't we want some attachment, at least in terms of fear of loss? These days there are few, and highly controlled, robots in the battlefield. However imagine the day where every soldier is a highly trained Call of Duty soldier controlling a remote robot. I'm sure many, given the lack of repercussions, have dived headlong into a losing FPS firefight because the cost of doing so was low. With battlefield robots controlled by individuals with no threat to their well-being, couldn't they get potentially get reckless? Maybe some attachment is good: your robot does things you wouldn't do, but prevents you from just pulling a Leroy Jenkins...
Becoming attached to the item will only make people slightly less likely to risk it needlessly. I don't see any way that that behavior could be considered bad.
If I get attacked by a battle robot and destroy it, I would rather that someone, somewhere cared at least a little bit. The idea that no one cared about it at all would just make the whole thing worse.
Companion Cube
Will I be held accountable if it is damaged or destroyed? Y/N
Will I have to wait for a replacement? Y/N
Y-Y - I'm keeping this thing in the original packaging.
Y-N - I'm still keeping this thing in the original packaging.
N-Y - I'm keeping this thing until I absolutely need it.
N-N - ROBOWARS! Grab a beer and bet on which one will win. I've already requisitioned the replacement parts.
... if people can get riled up about fantasy characters in mass effect 3's bad ending, then having them be emotionally invested in tools that do stuff veering on what humans can is not that far fetched.
Make the battlefield robots look like gnarly insects, with stink generators that make being around them unpleasant. If they can "talk," make them sound like tedious doofuses.
Of course, the enemy could counter by making their robots able to shape-shift -- as soon as they are out of site of their own side -- into beautiful, elegant shapes that no one would want to kill.
Uh . . . .
Cripes, I just wrote the background for an anime series, didn't I?
Soldiers told her that attachment to their robots didn't affect their performance, yet acknowledged they felt a range of emotions such as frustration, anger and even sadness when their field robot was destroyed.
Anybody who has seen an episode of Mythbusters knows their positive relationship with Buster and the other dummies they have or craft.
bash$
Cherry 2000
www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
Just like a phd to interview some soldiers and then go off and tell other people about soldiers.
yet acknowledged they felt a range of emotions such as frustration, anger and even sadness when their field robot was destroyed.
yet acknowledged they felt a range of emotions such as frustration, anger and even sadness when their ship sank
yet acknowledged they felt a range of emotions such as frustration, anger and even sadness when their house burnt to the ground
yet acknowledged they felt a range of emotions such as frustration, anger and even sadness when their car was totaled.
yet acknowledged they felt a range of emotions such as frustration, anger and even sadness when their ipod fell in the toilet and was destroyed.
Yes people get mad or sad when their stuff is destroyed... Duh!
News flash! Kid cries when his teddy bear is lost. Severance of emotional attachment is traumatic. News at 11.
Stupid research by a shallow person at a morally bankrupt university, can we agree with this?
WTF is with this nascent shallow philosophers pontificating about people killers' performance when their pet robot gets hurt? Other peoples' lives are more valuable than a gazillion of those "helper" robots. This is so hard to understand for this bonehead woman.
If I compare the disposable attitude I have toward a video game life, I would think that it's far more important for a Drone pilot to value the tool he is using. We wouldn't want him throwing away a half million dollar tool right at the beginning of the game because he was more concerned with slurping his Mountain Dew.
We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
Based on my past history of swearing at and smacking tech gear (it works!), I'm pretty sure any robot I worked with or acquired would suffer nothing but abuse from me.
And what's with people trying to make robots cute? I want mine to look mean as hell, remember Maximilian from the Black Hole? That guy was freakin' awesome!
Granted, I've been attached to some of my cars and felt really shitty when I crashed one, but it's just a car. It can be fixed and there are others out there.
When people all around you are dying, why not care about the robots? It's all you have.
Bolo Combat Units, Mark XX and later, equipped with psychotronic circuitry and thus self-aware, will often be anthropomorphised by their crew (or commanders where no crew was assigned). Its not just that they will be honorable, law abiding, curious, and potentially interested in researching their human creators' other creations, like song and story...
They were so damned expensive of COURSE you had to cry when they were damaged or destroyed. Do you have any _idea_ how much a Continental Siege Unit costs?
One of my favorite science fiction authors wrote a series of short stories that dealt with Battlefield Robots. I suggest reading the "Bolo" series by Keith Laumer to see that this problem was long anticipated, but now, with advances in robotics, is fast becoming reality.
hilarious...you just said in one sentence what it took me a paragraph to say above...
it is just like a gun or any personal tool (...) that soldiers use...the 'robot' aspect is irrelevant
Thank you Dave Raggett
I dare say I hope robots become emotionally attached to us one day, so that they don't decide they don't need us around.
Go gittem.
-- Woof Woof.
Well, we could sit around investigating just how much an effect it has, or find ways to eliminate the emotional bond between soldiers and robots. Which yes, can actually be quite significant - there's a famous story of soldiers bringing a robot fishing with them while on leave.
Or we can do the smart thing and use some tricks of psychology. I propose a system whereby the robot's "personality" (aka log files and any customized settings) be stored on a removable, hardened flash drive. Make it look like the dog tags soldiers currently wear, if possible. Then create a program under which the "personality" of damaged or destroyed robots can be transferred into new ones. Give this program a nifty acronym - I'm leaning towards MARIO (Military Android and Robot something something), for the obvious "1-Up Mushroom" reference).
There you go. The robots can still "die" if the drive is destroyed, but otherwise I think it might cause soldiers to see that the program is just a placebo. Other than that, they'll "survive". I can see some soldiers doing foolhardy things after the fact to recover the drive, but that's *after* whatever the robot needed to do is done.
And even better, it's cheap. Even after adding in the costs of development, procurement, certification, a few bribes and some generous donations to senators (technically not a bribe!), it should still cost less than a new toilet seat on a B2 bomber.
The US doesn't have women serve because the politicians don't want to have dead women posted on the news. The military doesn't want them because they fear that the men in the field will be too emotional in the presence of women. Now we hear men are too emotional in the presence of robots. So the issue is that men are too emotional. They can't work with women or robots, and come back with PTSD and all sorts of problems. So ban men from the field, and the problem goes away.
Learn to love Alaska
Someday, robosympathy will make sense. I'd prefer that we liked them a little better than a wrench by then. Most of the robot horror stories that have been written happen because we're unfeeling and brutal.
Watch this video of DARPA's Big Dog. Pay attention around the 0:33 mark where the guy walks over and kicks the hell out of the robot, which makes a nice recovery.
Raise your hand if, for an instant, you thought to yourself "Damn, that was fucked up, kicking it like that."
(Raises hand)
simply place said robot in a pool of parts that must be checked out in pieces each deployment or other practicable time separator so there is no one unit to be attached to, simply a bag o'parts. ie.a central unit and add boom arm or camera arm or mine sweeper attachment perhaps replaceable tracks which are serviced and assembled like tires and rims etc, they would be more diverse and allow the service member to have a better battlefield understanding of how to repair the machine once he is deployed.
Do you have a Z Z Alpha requisition form for pre-conceptual authorization to think about putting a robot at risk?
Is it filled out in triplicate?
If so, you may now think about doing this.
(caveat: the article clearly states soldiers have no problems sending robots to die, but they like to have a funeral or memorial service for them if they die - not the same thing)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
to a bomb disposal robot. Its the sudden "Oh Shit , we don't have any more robots" response when you still have bombs to dispose of.
Bingo.
If soldiers don't use robots in dangerous situations for fear of damaging them, it won't be because of emotional attachment issues. It will be due to fear of being raked over the coals for losing the expensive toy, or fear of not being issued a replacement.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Make the robot be a real douche to the soldiers so that they don't mind it blowing up.
...on Sheldon Cooper.
Mac users have long seen their macbooks as an extension of themselves. (sent from my MBP).
A dog is a pet, it has emotions among other characteristics that it shares with humans and as such a dog's loyalty is akin to love of its owner and vice-versa. But a robot? It is just a thing. Now, I don't think it's an 'emotional' bond between robot and human, but just a proprietary reaction of valuing the robot as a possession. It's like people and their cell phones, which they will even sleep with. It's not the love of the cell phone, it's just the dependency of having it for use whenever they see fit.
"Soldiers" includes officers and non-coms - right down to teenage corporals - who send their human friends and colleagues out of cover to maybe get killed. The ability to do so is a primary burden of soldiering, harder, most say, than going over the top yourself.
It's terrific if they have such humanity that they hate doing it to dogs and even robots - but they either have to be able to do it, or belong at home.
That's nothing. I have feelings for my car.
a person any day of the week.
And I doubt I'm alone in this. Just think of all the people who raise pets. Many of this same people will never once consider donating anywhere near the time or resources they're putting into the animals, to other people. This people will literally dedicate their life into creating a paradise for a member of another species, while rejecting their own.
And I can't blame them... Hell, catch me off on a bad day with a humans vs. robots choice, and I'll be opting out on the whole damn race.
As a hobbyist in the area of robotics (done quite a bit with LEGO Mindstorm and am now working with Arduino automation), I can say it's quite frustrating to do something that causes your bot to partially or mostly fall apart. It's a lot of effort putting this stuff together and when your latest quadcopter autopilot program crashes into the side of your house at 30-40 mph, it's a bit sad. But also an excuse to build a newer, better robot. And possibly buy a new window.
Just... no.
I get that they might be sad when a robot they were using somehow gets lost or destroyed, but I really can't see that influencing how likely they are to use that robot for dangerous situations unless the soldier had somehow personally invested time and energy into making the robot do or act the way that it does, and in particular such that it would require some substantial personal investment (monetary, timewise, workwise, or simply having to wait a while) to replace it.
I get that they might be sad when a robot they were using somehow gets lost or destroyed, ...
The soldier gets sad when the robot is destroyed because next time the solder has to go downrange instead of the robot.
... but I really can't see that influencing how likely they are to use that robot for dangerous situations unless the soldier had somehow personally invested time and energy into making the robot do or act the way that it does, and in particular such that it would require some substantial personal investment (monetary, timewise, workwise, or simply having to wait a while) to replace it.
I think this is nothing new. Consider a sailor and his ship. Sailors invest a lot of time and effort working on their ship, maintaining it, improving it. Its their home. Its a place of safety in a very hostile environment (the sea). They often get to love their ship yet they risk it in battle. They do so because they love something else even more, getting home. Similarly the soldier will risk the robot so he gets home.
We already have the answer to this: http://mvpimages.net/willys/mauldin01.htm
This study is silly.
Military equipment has always been anthropomorphized by the troops. Ships are actually named by the government. Historically tanks and aircraft were named, frequently with the name painted on the nose. This is partly because top-of-the-line military hardware pushed to the edge of it's performance envelope (ie: training) usually has a personality (ie: some idiot over-tightened a bolt on Tank A by 2%, so when exactly these three things happen there's a rattle just to the gunner's left, but on Tank B that bolt is 1% loose and the rattle happens all the damn time), but mostly it's because when your entire job is to work with something for 8 hours a day you anthropomorphize the damn thing. Your monkey-brain just won't accept anything this complex is simply a tool, therefore your soul is convinced Tank A rattles at the gunner because it doesn't like it when you do those three things, but Tank B is a cantankerous schmuck. And when the Nazis blow up Tank B you miss it. For like 30 seconds. Then you'll jump for joy because the replacement, Tank C, is a newer model with a bigger gun and you haven't figured out what makes it rattle yet.
This is something that everyone deals with. Us geeks get irrationally attached to computers. Normal people get attached to cell phones and cars.
It's kinda interesting that it's happening to robots now, too, but it's not exactly surprising.
“I hurt.Do me a favor.Disconnect me.I could be reworked, but I’ll never be top of the line again.I’d rather be nothing.”
You will imprint with any unique piece of equipment that you work with on a regular basis. A car, a computer, a gun, a pen. If there is something about the equipment that makes it unique then you will have some sort of emotional response to sudden separation.
Sure you can replace you 4-year old 2009 Honda Civic with another 2009 Honda Civic, but it just isn't the same.
The only way to prevent such material relationships is by rotating the equipment regularly. If you drive a 2009 Honda Civic every day for 4 years but you drive a different one every week then you will not have the same attachment.
Did Shakespeare anticipate this or has man used doggies in warfare ever since they were first "domesticated?" And doesn't this use of canines render their designation as domesticated oxymoronical?
"O, they ruled the solar system
Near ten thousand years before
'Til one brave advent'rous spirit
Brought that mighty ship to shore."
As you finish the last verse, Floyd smiles with contentment, and then his eyes close as his head rolls to one side. You sit in silence for a moment, in memory of a brave friend who gave his life so that you might live.
Theres an easy solution: Don't let the soldiers name their robots. No "Sending ol' joe out to examine the bomb" or anything like that. People will anthomorphize anything. Back in the 90s I was involved with some forest protection activism and one trick we'd do (for a while) is we'd get activists to go out, name a tree as their own "personal" friend and talk to it. It was a bit of psychology to get people emotionally involved with the campaign and it worked amazingly because they'd get angry when the logging started wanting to protect their :"friend".
We stopped however, because people would flip the fuck out when their tree was cut down, and in some cases people would get quite depressed. We decided that a lot of folks in activism are already high strung enough as it is (The suicide rate is phenomenal amongst activists) , the last thing we wanted was to go screwing passionate people up even further.
I suspect a similar psychology is working here. Once people name their robot and start attaching affectionate feelings towards it (after all a bomb disposal bot has probably saved their ass more than once, given enough time), then its going to mess them up. And one thing activists and soldiers have in common, its anxiety.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
This is my robot. This is my gun. This is for fighting, and this is for fun.
The Sphere
Johnny 5 IS ALIVE.
Honestly, the fact I hadn't seen that posted and marked as funny in this crowd is shocking.
was a japanese rocket which landed on an asteroid and returned a sample to earth. was turned into a good ken 'inception' 'batman' watanabe movie and SPOILER hayabusa burns up in the end. I have no idea why but I CRIED. http://www.japanflix.com/japans-modern-day-apollo-13-starring-ken-watanabe-in-theaters-february-11
This already exists, in Financial Attachment... Ask any CFO, and you will see that his Financial Attachment to 'his' equipment may have even more far-reaching impact than any short-term attachment.
You wan't to win the war? Make sure your enemy starts arguing over the military budget.
I though they beat all the feelings out of soldiers years ago.
Don't Date Robots!
This is my robot. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My robot is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
My robot, without me, is useless. Without my robot, I am useless. I must fire my robot true.
My robot is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its screens and its CPU. I will keep my robot clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other.
Before God, I swear this creed. My robot and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!
Hi everyone! I recently medically retired from the Army. I was part of the Chemical Corps., and served in a Chemical Company stationed in Germany. As part of the Recon team for the company, we received one of only two robots retrofitted to be used as Remote On-Scene threat evaluators. I was one of perhaps four people taught how to operate the refitted iRobot Packbot. The iRobot guys came out and gave us a class, I got a fancy ballcap, everyone was happy. We named it the first week. Was there an emotional attachment to this machine? You bet. Let me clarify as to why. This machine is expensive. As an enlisted guy, if it breaks, and I'm operating, I'm paying for it. So I was very protective of it. Would I go after it sand recover it in the event that something horrible happened? Yes, given the chance, I'd have donned my full Tyvek Moonsuit and gone after it, mostly because it would have been my fault as the operator, but also out of curiosity and a sense of strange camaraderie. Soldiers anthropomorphize things constantly. 80% of the folks I know had names for their weapons. Don't even get me started on sailors. I was Navy before I was Army. If anything, they're worse. So, I can understand the concern. I just felt maybe this would clarify a bit. Thanks!
"I drank WHAT?!"--Socrates
Simple solution. End all wars for good. Problem solved and nothing of value is lost.
1. Human will not damage robot or allow robot to be damaged
Clearly how this will happen in society has already been spelled out in Star Wars
Even though it's not a central theme in Str Wars, it's the obvious outcome. Some people treat robots with respect ( Luke )
some with disdain ( Han ) , some treat them as practical instruments exclusively ( Uncle Owen ) some treat them like children/pets ( Obi Wan )
I think part of the problem is that the upper cadre have beat into these guys that the robots are crazy expensive and hard to obtain, therefore are perceived as rare and possibly irreplaceable. Maybe if we build several more and assigned, say, 5 - 10 to a unit then they wouldn't care as much if they are blown up.
On the other hand, I've build a very "close" relationship to my M-16, despite the fact that there are at least thousands available to me. You work with them and get to know their nuances and a familiarity is created that has taken time and effort to build.
I can certainly see it both ways
Loading...
Soldiers became attached to their Jeeps during WWII, so much so that they would cry when the vehicle was destroyed in combat. This kind of thing with the robots is very common and can happen with anything and anyone -- it says less about the robot, and more about the need for companionship during a dangerous time.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
People have been doing the same things with vehicles and planes for a hundred years now.
Proverbs 21:19
People have been attached to tools as long as there have been tools. The more crucial the tool is to your job/survival the more you grow attached to it. I think this old Bill Maudin cartoon sums it up: http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbegfzWUtg1rhjbado1_500.jpg
Disprove enumerated points of fact regarding added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity that custom hosts files can give users here -> http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
---
"No one runs from you Petey, they just walk away from the ridiculous bullshit you spew." - by Stenchwarrior (1335051) on Saturday May 11, 2013 @05:59PM (#43697705)
Funny: YOU DID RUN here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3738579&cid=43697705
---
* Fact: You PROVE you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & punk that can't backup his b.s.: Quoting YOUR CRAP above's your b.s. "excuse" for your own stupidity, & not a first from you either big talking coward - below are quotes of you RUNNING on the same before it too, lol!
APK
P.S.=>
"I have no interest in explaining why hosts file usage (the way you do it, at least) is a bad idea, in much the same way I have no interest in explaining to my 3 year old how the microwave makes her applesauce warm; the capacity to understand isn't there." - by Stenchwarrior (1335051) on Monday February 28, @04:32PM (#35341578)
No, you're just TOO STUPID to do so (& it's impossible to get the better of me on, period) - I can't BELIEVE THEY ALLOWED YOU TO REPRODUCE your cretinous bloodline, lol...
... apk
If what the fundamentalists are saying is true, robots cannot feel emotions. does that mean emotions do not exist subjectively? robots(computers) are capable of emulating any process, if they are not capable of emulating emotions what does this mean to us?
Oblig. The Soul Of The Mark III Beast" by Terrel Miedaner.