Slashdot Mirror
The UN Will Consider Banning Killer Robots (hrw.org)
Friday the United Nations agreed to discuss a ban on "killer robots" in 2017. The 123 signatories to a long-standing conventional weapons pact "agreed to formalize their efforts next year to deal with the challenges raised by weapons systems that would select and attack targets without meaningful human control," according to Human Rights Watch.
"The governments meeting in Geneva took an important step toward stemming the development of killer robots, but there is no time to lose," said Steve Goose, arms director of Human Rights Watch, a co-founder of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. "Once these weapons exist, there will be no stopping them. The time to act on a pre-emptive ban is now."
schwit1 reminded us that IEEE Spectrum ran a guest post Thursday by AI professor Toby Walsh, who addressed the U.N. again this week. "If we don't get a ban in place, there will be an arms race. And the end point of this race will look much like the dystopian future painted by Hollywood movies like The Terminator."
schwit1 reminded us that IEEE Spectrum ran a guest post Thursday by AI professor Toby Walsh, who addressed the U.N. again this week. "If we don't get a ban in place, there will be an arms race. And the end point of this race will look much like the dystopian future painted by Hollywood movies like The Terminator."
Ban Bastion now!
Like many of the proclamations from the UN, such a ban will have little influence over the development and use of "killer robots".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
It sounds like a great way to jump-start the killer-robot economies of places like Iran and North Korea. They will likely do it openly. I would expect China or Russia to be more circumspect, but more capable.
There are better ways to discourage it than incentivizing enemies to work in a particular direction. It would be nice if these folks knew a little about folks likely to make these weapons, and then made a strategy to actually work instead of just to buy short term political capital in exchange for the strategy not actually working.
Who is doing the thinking here. This is somewhere between 0th level and 1st level thinking. Isn't there like ... international warfare on the menu for something like this.
Oh, and killer robots have existed for a while, you just haven't rubbed two brain-cells together enough to find them. Think hard. You have seen them dozens of times.
The US will use them, Russia will use them, Korea already uses them I think, China will use them...
So, what, it'll be a warcrime to try and use robots to fend them off? Human soldiers only, no killer robots, final destination?
That will stop those killer robots from killing us.
If there's one thing Skynet recognizes, it's the authority of the written word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
or
http://www.albinoblacksheep.co...
The Reaper has a 950-shaft-horsepower (712 kW) turboprop engine (compared to the Predator's 115 hp (86 kW) piston engine). The greater power allows the Reaper to carry 15 times more ordnance payload and cruise at about three times the speed of the MQ-1. The aircraft is monitored and controlled by aircrew in the Ground Control Station (GCS), including weapons employment.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
It's strange how the human race will go through so much effort to define the " rules " of War, when the effort would be better spent on removing War entirely.
( yeah I know, sometimes you just gotta bomb the shit out of somebody because their ideals conflict with other ideals and they won't take no for an answer. Example: Sharia Law vs The Civilized World )
It's rather strange to wrap my head around the idea of being prosecuted for " War Crimes " ( lol wtf . . it's a War ) for killing someone in an unauthorized manner whilst in the middle of combat with those who are trying to kill you.
with robot lawyers.
The main concern is assassins, gov & enterprise takeovers powered by remote animation of the human body using functional electrical stimulation over power beaming technology, which is driven by advanced AGI to emulate the personality.
What's the UN's stance on this?
I'm sure there are many good references but the only one that comes to mind is voyager S02E13 Prototype.
You know the one where they end up getting pulled into a war between robots.
The war ended but the robots kept fighting.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Does it count as a robot if there's an evil mutant inside a robotic shell, or are these still permitted?
User-Agent: T-1000 /+LarryPage /+SergeyBrin
User-Agent: T-800
Disallow:
Disallow:
If we don't ban time machines first.
1."Serve the public trust" 2."Protect the innocent" 3."Uphold the law" 4.(Classified) "Never Oppose an OCP Officer"
Magnets are your friends.
Not just that - this is a macrocosm of 2nd amendment arguments in the US. Just like people who advocate banning assault rifles would only affect law abiding citizens, similarly, such a ban would affect law abiding nations, but do nothing about rogue nations who sooner or later would have that capability
Besides, I disagree w/ this proposal for a simple reason. We should avoid intervening in other countries, such as Syria. But if we have to go in, I'd rather send in killer robots after ISIS rather than American (or any other) humans who'll get killed or maimed for life. We should have killer robots substitute soldiers: it would also solve the issue of a depleted military as well as the idea for a draft. If we transform our soldiers into simulation controllers where each soldier controls up to say, 10-16 robots, we then have an army that can theoretically take on every one of our adversaries should we need to fight them - China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the list goes on...
The other thing about killer robots: it's automation in the military. In the civilian world, we've seen a whole lot of harmless but grunt jobs get automated - from store clerks to robocalls. In the military world, this is a function ideal for automation: it not only saves the lives and limbs of our soldiers, but also extends their efficiency. They get to learn more deeply about robotics and computing principles, and come out of it body intact, no PTSD and merge seamlessly into the civilian work force. In fact, the military is where we should have as much automation as possible, not less.
Killer Robots Will Consider Banning UN
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Killer robots should ban the UN.
The powers that be will just find some loophole. Perhaps having the bot phone a human before it fires. A human who will always respond "good to go!".
-
Whoever develops them anyway wins world war 3.
Nyquil and tequila are a wicked mix.
I thought they were the same thing, except for the worm.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Right to bear arms, motherfucker!
I thought it was a joke, but no, it had to be real.
What does Google know that the rest of us don't???
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
We are all safe, now that the UN has banned killer robots. Everyone will surely respect this new ban, just like they respect UN bans against war crimes. I've got a better idea...the UN should ban war! Why do they still allow war anyway???
It's my understanding that the way cruise missiles work is the operator inputs the GPS coordinates of the target and off it goes to the target. The only human input is the target. What's difference between this and and autonomous robot that has various built in systems that do human soldier recognition as the target? Once released each weapon has no human intervention or control.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Ask the Americans, they went to war in Iraq and got their asses handed to them by goat farmers
As the summary says, the proposed ban is on devices which "select and attack targets without meaningful human control". So basically none of what you wrote applies.
In fact, it's the exact opposite of "macrocosm of 2nd amendment arguments in the US" - supporters of the second amendment point out that "guns don't kill people, people kill people"; their argument is that the device is controlled by a person, who can do good or bad with a steel pipe too.
The proposed ban is on devices which "select and attack targets without meaningful human control". That's quoting the summary at the top of this page.
> All killer robots as is every modern torpedo and missile.
I'm pretty sure that with "every modern torpedo and missile" a human selects the target and initiates the attack. The definition could be stretched to include certain types of IEDs, though, aka land mines, which are already banned by international law.
I'm quite sure US&Russia will veto that. Especially US.
You're no fun at all.
The US would be at too great a disadvantage if we do not lead the world in combat robots. The US has a tiny population compared to nations such as China or India. That means that in an all out war we would have to use nuclear weapons to survive. We simply can not field anywhere near enough human soldiers. And we also can not afford masses of human soldiers. Deaths and disabilities cost us for many decades after a war ends. We already have drones fighting for us and getting the human out of the link will soon make robotic aircraft far superior to human pilots. I see no reason why a well designed robot warrior would harm more innocents than traditional modes of combat. Our Navy is building automated war ships. We will not be putting as many sailors, airmen or ground forces in harms way. And there are some legitimate uses for automated weapons in civilian life as well. The drive by shooting problem is quite severe in some cities. Imagine a robotic warrior in a tower that would open fire on any car that has bullets being fired out the window. Police departments could also drop by air or from vehicles warriors that would pin down a wooded area and prevent any human movement or escape, thus making surrender the only choice for criminals. Also breaching barricaded positions held by criminals is a legitimate use of automated force. How many lives would be saved if that system was quickly available in ever large town and city?
After they ban those Killer Robots....
The word is they will then move to ban
global climate change.
Something between the lines jumps out and bites your arm off. Soltan Gris / London
Why not just ban war?
Have gnu, will travel.
First they came for the killer robots. I'm not a killer robot...
You are referring to another aspect of the 2nd amendment argument. I was talking about the one regarding the question of who follows the law. In case of guns, criminals usually flout gun laws, and so it's just the law abiding who are handicapped. In this case, nations replace individuals, the UN replaces law enforcement and killer robots replace guns. Making it the macrocosm
Chatbots are the real enemy.
But what if I want my robot girlfriend to strangle me? Shouldn't I be allowed the freedom of choice? Thanks, UN, for all you do.
captcha: globalist scum
Time to get Old Glory!
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-ni...
Black Mirror.
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
Well then ban drones used to kill people ffs!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
See/#10.
http://www.derrickjensen.org/endgame/premises/
Nations aren't American people, though.
Americans tend to care about "freedom". Not any particular freedom, mind you, but they cling to the fantasy story that they are somehow "free" in an abstract sense, and any limit on that freedom is a grave assault on their very essence. However, the more recent evolution of this philosophy has extended the concern to others' freedoms as well. The privacy advocates don't have anything to hide themselves, but they're sure that someone out there has horrible secrets they're trying to keep from the Big Bad Government. The civil rights advocates aren't being persecuted, but they're supporting those who are being persecuted. The gun lovers don't own bazookas or urban-assault weaponry, but they want to be absolutely sure someone else can get them.
International politics, on the other hand, looks a lot more like the stereotypical spaghetti westerns. Every nation is concerned primarily with their own interests, and everybody's just one sufficient excuse away from attacking someone else. Their cattle came too close to your territory? That must mean they're your cattle now. They cut down a tree you liked to look at? That must mean they owe you reparations. Their drunk belligerent son insulted your father? This calls for a duel to the death.
There are also the outlaws. There are certain countries who have caused more trouble than their existence is worth, and it'd probably be best if they were relieved of their sovereignty, but, they still have a few powerful friends. You can't just kill that guy who annexed your land, because you'd be dead yourself in short order.
Now, the UN is suggesting new rules. Continuing the metaphor, this is effectively the equivalent of the townsfolk coming together and agreeing to not breed coyotes. No, there's no real way to stop someone from breeding coyotes if they want to, but everyone else has said they don't want more coyotes around.
What this means is that there is a new excuse in town. If someone accuses you of coyote-breeding, they might use that as justification to steal your horse. If they can prove you're breeding coyotes, they might be able to get a posse to kick you off of your land and take it for their own. Your friends won't have much ability to protect you, because they don't want to be associated with a low-down dirty rotten coyote-breeder. With your allies gone and a bounty on your head, everyone with an opportunity will try to prove their commitment to the law by coming after you.
Of course, it's very difficult to claim that breeding coyotes is bad when one is already doing it themselves. This is exactly what happened with nuclear weapons. The United States had them, so we couldn't effectively ask everyone else to ban them. Right now, though, there's very little interest in fully-automatic lethal robots. Even drone strikes are commanded by a human, and there is significant political pressure to keep them that way. The closest we have to automated killing machines is the common land mine, whose use is finally banned or regulated by most countries. There are also IEDs, whose use is being publicized as an indiscriminate assault on civilians... and in response, the good guys of the world continue to hunt those dastardly villains to protect the innocent!
In the public perception, there is a huge difference between the freedom of people and the freedom of nations. Yes, a country bound by the UN rules could still create AI killers, but there are effective human-led counterattacks to them. There is no benefit to pursuing the prohibited weaponry.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
"Death, destruction, disease, horror. That's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided."
Star Trek The Original Series: "A Taste of Armageddon"
Exactly. One of the consistent and reasonable critiques of modern American warfare is that because there is no draft, the influential wealthy and policy-making classes have no personal incentive to avoid war. Many people know few or even no service members. The further you push human beings away from the horrors of war, the more those people will be willing to engage in war.
I've met people who've been personally tortured by foreign heads of state. I've seen people fighting politically to pull their countries together in the face of what seems like neverending war and oppression by warlords. And I've read the stories of people who have seen their countries fall apart in the face of characteristic propaganda and strong men taking power. The less real all of this is and the less human it is, the more people will be willing to stay unengaged in matters of life and death.
Real lawyers write in C++
We should worry about the concentration of power rather than robots becoming sentient. Sentience is a long ways off, whereas even with the technology today, a single human can command a large number of autonomous drones and missiles. The more autonomy the weapon has, the less the human is required in the loop, which means eventually, a single general or hacker can command the equivalent of the entire armed forces. At that point, who can stop them from starting unnecessary wars or becoming dictators?
Why don't they fing put a ban on killing civilians in Aleppo? Freakin' useless bunch of sissies sitting around while Russia takes over the world.
Nobody will give a shit anyway.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Once these weapons exist, there will be no stopping them. The time to act on a pre-emptive ban is now."
These weapons already exist, asshole. Sentry Guns have been a thing for over a decade.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Someone else has been convinced into drinking the Kool-Aid. Look, I'm not saying that this type of future is impossible. But if the most recently released videos of cutting edge robots is any indication of how close we are...I'm not exactly worried. They're slow, awkward, heavy, and loud machines that burn through battery life faster than my Samsung smartphone. Meh.
They likely haven't anything that doesn't kill people.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
It's hard, cold dollars. The US will spent 5x the cost of the Afghanistan war over the next few decades just taking care of all of the humans that were injured in the fight - and nobody has budgeted for that.
We gave up feeling the warm blood, entrails, and life draining from our vicims when we invented firearms.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
There's more than a few videos out there of ISIS using off the shelf 'toy' drones to drop ordnance people in several conflict zones.
Sorry UN... Every major power is rolling out their own full military versions of drones, and they have been for years. You've lost that fight before you ever know there was a fight going on.
I wonder, will trust in robotic decision making will change when more people trust their lives to self driving cars?
I agree that we should ban killer robots, but only if they arn't from Venus. I think Killer Robots from Venus are A-Ok. Heck, they gave me some zucchini from their garden yesterday!
Clearly, the UN doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics and power source design.
And then there are the unintended consequences. ITAR has been around for decades but only in the last few years has it gotten so out of hand that even a standard commercial off-the-shelf screw that you can buy in Home Depot can be considered a controlled item simply because it's part of a complete product that is controlled. What's worse, the powers-that-be want to restrict online discussions of firearms on the grounds that such behavior can be considered technology transfer never mine the fact that that kind of information has been freely available for as long as ITAR has existed.
They, through technological means, detect the presence of something that meets a set of parameters which depend on the type of mine. Then they detonate themselves with the goal of destroying whatever it was that triggered them. All without any consent or intervention required by the party that placed it. Oh wait, landmines are already banned by the UN. Well at least they tried.
Killer robots will consider banning the UN
I highly doubt there will be a robot apocalypse, however there is a huge problem with letting a computer program decide whether a person should be killed or not. Bugs are inevitable and putting a computer algorithm in charge of this means someone who isn't supposed to be killed is going to get killed eventually due to a software defect.
Seriously, Russia can not afford to go along with this. In fact, none of the big players can afford to to sign this. The reason is that China will simply ignore it and then take it underground (like they did with nuke warhead production).
An organisation made toothless by archaic rules giving the security council veto rights. The US will surely veto this, can't have anyone stopping the glorious American war machine and the nation's interference in the political affairs of every country in the world (with anything worth taking).
Anyway, the robots aren't bad, they're just misunderstood. Scientists are now teaching them to fear (so they can say they pulled the trigger because they were afraid). Anyone watching Red Dwarf's appearance on "Can't cook, won't cook" (Crichton's offering to stir something with his groin attachment) can see the lack of understanding of robots (or Androids anyway) by those who will only be their overlords for a short time.
I was worried about self-determining attack drones but if the UN is getting involved, the problem is as good as solved! There's absolutely no way individual countries can ignore the UN and just do whatever they want... I'll be sleeping soundly, tonight!
"unlike what some robot experts might claim, many of those humans will be innocent civilians"
Not targeting 'innocent' civilians is a fiction told to the home population to protect them from the truth about their heroes in arms. Armies have never been squeamish about targeting the opposing civilian population.
Was sent here to do. Were doomed there can be no doubt.
Our new robots will not be considered killer robots. In fact, we'll call it the Physic Automated Simple Simulator, P-ASS for short.
It's goal is to only use electricity to push small object to simulate physic at 3km/s toward a specific direction automatically.
They may consider it, but im sure just about any of them would jump at the opportunity to have one.
Like all the items that are 'banned' now, but still sold and used?
War and Peace is the greatest novels of Tolstoy in many ways, above all because of the humanity in the context of war is the focus Art, texture works based on two-sided unity of the people's heroism and historical narratives. The plot is built on two major historical events of the early 19th century: the war in 1805 and 1812, reflecting the life and peace of the people and the Russian aristocracy in the 1805-1812 period , 1812-1820. The plot and story structure above the focus around two major historical events: People theme cohesively with the historical theme, and the theme of war the entire work shop toroidal cross binh.Boi theme of harmony with this, historical narratives with the people's heroism are two sides agreed to form the basis of the complete structure of the epic, creating all the circumstances in the work and are shaped symbolized according to the construction works. One of the other features of War and Peace is a psychological art depicting characters. Fate character with subtle moods are closely linked to the ups and downs of history. This is where innovation Tolstoy epic genre, which created the kind of epic in the history of modern Russian literature and world literature. (https://goo.gl/ZcEBoN)