Slashdot Mirror
Weapons Systems That Kill According To Algorithms Are Coming. What To Do?
Lasrick writes "Mark Gubrud has another great piece exploring the slippery slope we seem to be traveling down when it comes to autonomous weapons systems: Quote: 'Autonomous weapons are robotic systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator. Advances in computer technology, artificial intelligence, and robotics may lead to a vast expansion in the development and use of such weapons in the near future. Public opinion runs strongly against killer robots. But many of the same claims that propelled the Cold War are being recycled to justify the pursuit of a nascent robotic arms race. Autonomous weapons could be militarily potent and therefore pose a great threat.'"
Yet another predictor.
Bring on the Terminators.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
They're not "coming" as if from space. We just need to choose for them not to exist and they won't. These things will (or won't) be made by individuals who can make moral decisions.
Don't be a terrible individual; don't make or participate in the making of terrible things.
Problem solved!
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Select targets? Really?
Wait until the system realizes ALL humans are targets.
Don't worry. Fail safe measures will be implemented in order to keep the systems secure. Look all that fabulous advances made on our computer security nowadays and rest assur... Oh, wait!
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Wear a tshirt with a message written in a carefully formatted font so it causes a buffer overflow, giving your tshirt root privileges.
Mine would have the decss code on it, so the drone starts shooting pirated DVDs at everybody. The RIAA will make short work of the problem at that point.
But many of the same claims that propelled the Cold War are being recycled to justify the pursuit of a nascent robotic arms race.
You environmental weenies are all the same, you go on and on about how we all need to recycle, but when we do it you complain about how we`re not doing "right"
What To Do?
"Endeavor to be one of the people writing the algorithms" would probably be a good idea.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I don't get this... Aren't human soldiers killing based on something other than algorithms? Or is it that the implementations are coded in vague human languages, that makes them feel somehow warm and fuzzy? Well, Pentagon's Ada may be considered similar, but only in jest...
I'd say, whether such systems are bad or good is still up to the algorithms, not the hardware (nor pinkware), that executes them.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
... both land and naval. They have become more sophisticated in that they can be triggered by target characteristics, and in the naval case, maneuver.
You'll like this
Bender: [while sleeping] Kill all humans, kill all humans, must kill all hu...
Fry: [shakes him] Bender wake up.
Bender: I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it.
Hack in. Make military-industrialists fit the target profile. Problem solved.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Another guy'll be making a robot painting system that aims it's cars "so make a more profitable assembly line".
Yet another'll make a self-driving car "so you won't have to worry about drunk drivers anymore".
Once those pieces are all there (hint, today), it doesn't take much for the last guy to glue the 3 together; hand it a gun instead of spraypaint; and load it with a databases of faces you don't like.
I'm sure the DMCA has shown you what automated systems can do.
Be seeing you...
I think that there is a difference, though. It is one thing to create unrelated technology that when linked together is dangerous. It is another thing to just create technology that doesn't have an application outside of killing people. By your argument, every invention all they way back to using flint and tinder to create fire is nothing but a weapon, and why should we even have bothered?
My prediction is that this technology will float about the edge of popular awareness, until an unbalanced individual sets up a KILLMAX(tm) brand 'smartgun perimeter defense turret' in an elementary school and murders a bunch of children and escapes because he didn't have to be on the scene. Then national outrage will lead to mass bans on such weapons.
Should we be making such weapons? I don't know, I suppose that the argument can be made that they fill the same role as land mines, but have the upside that there is less problem with getting rid of them when the fighting stops. I find the glee we as a species have in building better was of killing each other to be really depressing on the whole.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
(Arnold holding a rocket launcher in his hand)
I have your security hole right here.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
To all the engineers working on this: you're responsible. You are doing this. You are a terrible person.
We still rely on chemical energy to power our weapons and as such they all have the ultimate fail safe system.
Brace yourself before clicking the link. This may come as a surprise to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Well, to be the devil's advocate, in fact fewer and fewer people are dying in wars the more advanced the weaponry gets.
I realize this is a very minority position on this page. But it's pretty easy to take a position against defense weaponry and feel on a moral high ground, and pretty easy to adapt a fearful / risk-averse position to unknown change and new developments. It's harder to present a risk-benefit analysis that says electronics wars are hurting more people. It's not impossible to imagine that the robots will do a better job, and we'd have fewer headlines like "US Marine Sargent Kills 16 in Kandahar, 9 of them children". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_massacre]
Gently reply
I can't remember the documentary; maybe Fog of War starring Satan's favorite child Robert McNamara. But, they figured out that in combat 25% of of soldiers weren't actually shooting at other people. They were intentionally shooting up in the air to avoid killing. So, part of the Army's training post WWII was to get soldiers to fire without thinking. The outcome was soldiers were more effective in battle. The consequence was soldiers weren't evaluating the act of taking lives until AFTER they'd done it which contributed to the increased mental issues Vietnam-era soldiers endure.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Most of the comments on this article seem to be against this which is interesting, because every time an article about gun control gets posted, the highest rating comments are overwhelmingly from gun advocates, often with the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Whats the difference here? Surely robots don't kill people, people kill people?