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.
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.
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?
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.
John Dvorak, is that you?
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
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.
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?
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
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.
...on Sheldon Cooper.
I don't even know what that means! Was that supposed to be a joke?
That's nothing. I have feelings for my car.
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.
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.
This is my robot. This is my gun. This is for fighting, and this is for fun.
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.