Slashdot Mirror
The Struggle To Ban Killer Robots
Lasrick (2629253) writes "The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is a year old; the same month is was founded, the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions called for a moratorium on the development and deployment of autonomous lethal weapons while a special commission considered the issue. The campaign is succeeding at bringing attention to the issue, but it's possible that it's too late, and if governments don't come to a common understanding of what the problems and solutions are, the movement is doomed. As this article points out, one of the most contentious issues is the question of what constitutes an autonomous weapons system: 'Setting the threshold of autonomy is going to involve significant debate, because machine decision-making exists on a continuum.' Another, equally important issue of course is whether a ban is realistic."
...easier to stop them if they turn on us. Also, give them a 3-foot cord.
-Dwight Schrute
I am pretty sure that Skynet will nip this ban effort in the bud.
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
I saw the Killer Robots. They opened for the B-52s at the House of Blues in Orlando.
They were... interesting. Why does the UN want to ban them? I've seen many worse bands.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Even if such technology is never deployed, its existence represents a bargaining chip for that nation at the negotiating table. See nuclear weapons for precedent. This is essentially trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle; not gonna happen, no matter who says what.
Okay, I'll admit, when I read the first sentence of TFS, I figured this was some kind of joke campaign or something. I guess my mind is too much in science fiction, and not really noticing that the future is already here.
Still, do we really think the governments of the world (at least the ones with the resources to build these robots) are actually going to go for fully autonomous killing machines? I would think all of them would want humans in the loop, if for no other reason than to justify their military hierarchies. The USAF, for example, seems determined to keep pilots in planes.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Serve Gonk.
because machine decision-making exists on a continuum.'
No kidding. Depending on how you define it, a cruise missile could be considered a one-use killer robot. It executes it's program as set on launch.
Now consider making it more sophisticated. We now provide it with some criteria to apply against it's sensors when it reaches the target location. If criteria A is met, dive and explode on target, if B, pull up and detonate more or less harmlessly in the air. If neither criteria is met, it depends on whether it's set fail safe/deadly.
This is mixed - on the one hand properly programmed it can reduce innocent casualties, but on the other it encourages firing missiles on shakier intelligence. But then again Predators armed with hellfires are a heck of a lot more selective than WWII gravity bombs. As long as you presume that at least some violence/warfare can be justified, you have to consider these things.
On the whole, I like weapons being more selective, tends to cut down on civilian casualties, but I think that it's a topic more deserving of careful scrutiny than a reflexive ban.
I don't read AC A human right
Looks like someone was curious about the protestors in the new season of "24", and started Googling!
I gotta say, this whole thing seems a little ridiculous. Unlike Hollywood, any such weapon would be incredibly limited by power source (batteries or burning hydrocarbons) and limited ammunition. I'd also like to point out that there numerous ways to disrupt robots such as EMPs and strong magnets.
Besides, I'm looking forward to the giant robot spiders that sound like children.
Just kidding, it's a pile of shit.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
1) Does this even make sense: No. Autonomy is not well-defined. Does a thermostat make "decisions"? etc.
2) Assuming it makes sense, is it a good idea: No. Firing a cruise missile at a target is better than firing a huge barrage of mortars towards a target, for everybody involved. Any smarter version of a landmine would be better than the current ones that "decide" to blow up whatever touches them 20 years after the war is over.
3) Assuming it's a good idea, can it be implemented: No. Arms races are often bad for everybody involved. Everybody involved knows this. And yet that universal realization does not provide a way out. Everybody knows if they don't, the other side might well anyways.
Don't have them.
First: If the concern is really about automated killing then we have to establish the following:
No object capable of generating enough kinetic energy to kill a human can be directly interfaced with an electronic circuitry.
But that would include cars and all kind of machinery. So the rule above would be a 95% insurance that AIs would not be able to kill humans. The other 5% is accounting that an AI would self-destruct to short-circuit and generate enough electromagnetic current to electrocute a human from a few centimeters away. And with my CS knowledge I would say that the electrocution scenario nowadays is impossible due to the physical properties and disposition of the materials involved in computer construction. But I don't know if an AI is only possible with materials and devices capable of such currents.
This rule also prevent external hacking from turning one's arsenal against himself. If I had an army I rather take my chance with good old meat bags for the trigger pulling.
This combination doesn`t exist: ETIs that know about humanity and want to see us dead. Otherwise we wouldn't exist.
Selective, efficient killer robots only make sense in the context of using them in limited skirmishes/small wars. For the really BIG wars, killer robots would be horribly inefficient, because the point of the big wars is to eliminate as much of your enemy as possible--civilians included. Both the Axis and the Allies were actively involved in targeting each other's civilian populations via total war. In that regard, there isn't anything much cheaper and effective, or cost-efficient, than nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Anything less merely prolongs the conflict and ensures more agony suffered by all over a long period of time.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of the human mind. Done.
The consensus around here is that autonomously-driven cars will inevitably establish a better safety record than human-driven cars. I.e., robotic systems will on the whole make better, less-reckless decisions than human drivers.
A good case could be made that autonomous military systems will likewise make better decisions than fatigued and/or panicky young soldiers.
Current military tools and techniques certainly result in fewer friendly-fire incidents, collateral damage, etc. than were experienced during WW II. But by banning autonomous systems, we may be barring ourselves from any further reductions in these problem areas.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
You know, the pact to outlaw war. Signed in 1928.
Didn't work out so well.
And even if it were signed by a significant number of nations, we could be sure the non-democratic ones would be violating the ban before the ink was even dry.
Unenforceable treaties are actually worse than worthless: they constrain good actors without deterring bad ones.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
A robot is going to (or will eventually) react much faster to a threat or other adverse conditions than a human can. If you've got a hypersonic missile heading toward a carrier, are you put a human in the loop? Nope.
There are simply going to be many many situations where a robot will neutralize a threat faster than a human can, and those situations will increase if fighting against another autonomous army.
Is this a good thing? No, it's like atomic weapons. We're heading toward another arms race that will lead us to the brink or over. We barely survived the MAD era.
If you post it, they will read.
But I wanted to make killer robots! Now what am I going to do with this libKillerRobot I was working on?!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
As will all new weaponry, all the countries that don't have it/can't get it panic and agree that it's a horrible idea. They pass UN resolutions banning it, etc... all the countries that do have it refuse to sign and so nothing has changed, other than the countries that don't have it will start accusing those that do of war crimes and flouting international law which they rarely recognize anyway. When some of the countries that signed the ban finally get enough money/science to get the tech, they of course do so despite the treaty and now the countries that didn't sign use it against them to levy sanctions. Until forever, on it goes Through the circle, fast and slow.
Skynet and The Terminator are definitely coming. But what about the economics of machine intelligence? This article makes an interesting case: http://hanson.gmu.edu/aigrow.p...
If the "killer robots" tried to take over the world today they would fail quickly, XKCD seems to have explained why already.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/
while
only super criminals will have killer robots.
... dictates the answer. Reasoning strictly inside the box that creates, if you then try to propose a robot can use it's own judgment for everything but firing a weapon, you'll get criticized for hitting the edge of the box and not allowing it to actually be autonomous.
In fact, the question isn't "how autonomous", it's "autonomous or not".
davecb@spamcop.net
Could some of the people arguing for this ban please explain the difference between being on a ship during WWII that was hit by a kamikze and being on a ship during the Falklands war and being hit by an Exocet? Somehow being killed is being killed regardless of whether there was a human pilot or an autonomous robot flying the lethal projectile.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
If it chooses what target to select and makes the call on whether to attack the target, it is autonomous.
If a human chooses the target and makes the strike call, the machine is not autonomous.
Complete no brainer.
Robocop, the ultimate law enforcement officer!
From my essay: http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco...
====
Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. Here is some dark humor I wrote on the topic: A post-scarcity "Downfall" parody remix of the bunker scene. See also a little ironic story I wrote on trying to talk the USA out of collective suicide because it feels "Burdened by Bags of Sand". Or this YouTube video I put together: The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income.
Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. I discuss that at length here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/post...
There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
You simply present them with a paradox, and they'll melt down or blow up trying to solve it. I saw Captain Kirk do it once.
Read TFA, found an easier-to-read, more informative page.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Old Glory Insurance. "For when the metal ones decide to come for you. And they will."
https://screen.yahoo.com/old-g...
A mine in the earth or at sea is an autonomous weapon on one possible definition. So is a proximity triggered automatic rifle, as used on the Berlin Wall. The ship has sailed; the question is what parameters can be introduced.
Yeah, let's ban killer robots. Better let humans do the killing. I'm sure they have a much better track record at discriminating hostiles from innocent civilians.
After the war, when we bring our killer heroes back home to rejoin their families, everything will be just dandy. Because after daddy has shot three Extremistanis in the face and seen his buddy's leg torn off by an IED, the first thing he wants to is hug his little girl and tell her he loves her.
Killer robots would just be so immoral.
You can bet that China will protest martial robots. After all when it comes to flesh and blood soldiers China has a huge advantage due to their excessive population levels. But with dedication and planing smaller nations like Norway or Switzerland could invest heavily in reserves of very potent martial robots capable of resisting invasion by much larger nations. Think about it. Russia is doing an expansion right now. If the Ukraine and others had a few thousand really good nuclear equipped cruise missiles I seriously doubt that Russia would have dared to tread on them. Most of the nations of the world seem to take any perceived weakness in another nation as an invitation to invade and slaughter and it is so convoluted that the aggressor will claim that their victims deserved their fate as they did not keep strength and readiness sharpened enough to not tempt others to invade.
Because an army of robots is less likely to rape civilians after taking over and occupying a city. As a result there's actually less collateral damage.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Start developing Robots that are "3 Laws Safe," before you wish you had.
HUMAN OODA LOOP:
1. Orient
2. Observe
BOOOOOM!!!!
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
...but not till I've got one of my own!
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
But I think he's living at his mother Jan Kowalski's basement at:
At least, that's where he wants users of his hostfile manager to send him money.
But I think he's living at his mother Jan Kowalski's basement at:
At least, that's where he wants users of his hostfile manager to send him money.
But I think he's living at his mother Jan Kowalski's basement at:
At least, that's where he wants users of his hostfile manager to send him money.
Are you this guy? The Start64 malware site shows the following:
But I think he's living at his mother Jan Kowalski's basement at:
At least, that's where he wants users of his hostfile manager to send him money.
Once they ban killer robots then they'll work on taking away your Roomba, and the self autoclaving toilet washing robots so you have to clean your own floors and, worse yet, toilets.