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."

18 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. The solution is simple: by harvestsun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Build robots to control the robots.

    1. Re:The solution is simple: by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, the simple solution is to intentionally make the robots evil.

      That way when GJ Joe marches out there he will have no qualms about sending Flexo to his doom.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:The solution is simple: by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't you kids read Asimov, anymore? The message is simple:
      Robots are for fucking, not for fighting!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:The solution is simple: by hedwards · · Score: 5, Funny

      I take it you haven't heard of electro-gonorrhea the noisy killer.

    4. Re:The solution is simple: by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Before we had robots to do EOD, men had to do it.

      No matter how attached someone might be to his robot, he's going to be more attached to his men.

      Until you find an EOD guy who says "Wish we'd never invented these robots, things were much better when *I* was the one being blown into next week rather than my little metal buddy here..." you don't have to worry about human attitudes to robots affecting their judgement in war.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:The solution is simple: by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suppose we could just use humans instead. We don't get emotional attachments to those, do we?

      Well the robot's won't get an emotional attachment when they send a human in to get blown up, they'll just send another one.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  2. No. by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No. by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "You will give your robot a girl's name."

    2. Re:No. by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yep just 'no' is kind...

      i'd call the research total bullshit...

      unless the soldier had somehow personally invested time and energy into making the robot do or act the way that it does

      right...this is *at the most*

      it's the same as a favorite gun or hat or w/e...I know in high school if you'd have asked me if I had an emotional attachment to my lucky black socks, I'd have said yes, and probably answered a damn Likert Scale questionaire in a way similar to this...

      fuck I hate what passes for PhD work these days...

      this study **might** have been worthwhile if she'd done some actual science by comparing her results with the bomb bot to things like favorite *boots* and *rifle* and then to drone pilots and their craft...that'd be the start of a PhD worthy researxch project

      bah!

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  3. Not really surprised by this by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  4. Needs perspective.. by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  5. The Fourth Law of Robotics by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 3, Funny

    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")

  6. perception by themushroom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Anthropomorphism by Zocalo · · Score: 3

    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!
  8. Mod parent up. by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... 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.

    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.

    1. Re:Mod parent up. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Their "willingness to use it"? You realize these are EOD guys they are talking about, right? If there's a bomb on the road, and you're responsible for disarming it, and you can either put on the big suit and walk out there to do it or fire up your robot and bust out the joystick, which choice are you going to make? The EOD guys don't think that they would rather lose a limb than have to put in an order for another robot. They use the robot unless they have no other choice, they don't want to be standing over that bomb if it goes off. Even if they gave their robot a name and painted eyes and a mouth on it and sleep next to it and act like they're feeding it, when it's time for them to do their job the choice is obvious.

      My brother in law is an EOD guy. He's not going to have the Marines call his wife and son to let them know that he's not going to be coming home, or that he's missing a couple arms and legs, because he didn't want to deploy his robot. This entire discussion is stupid.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  9. Ban men from the field by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  10. The least original post on this thread... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.