Russia Wants To Send A Gun-Shooting Robot To The ISS (mashable.com)

"Just in time for the rise in global military tensions, Russian officials have released video that's sure to calm fears all around: a death dealing humanoid robot that shoots handguns." An anonymous reader quotes Mashable: Posted to Twitter on Friday by Russia's deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry Rogozin, the video shows the country's space robot FEDOR (Final Experimental Demonstration Object Research) accurately shooting twin pistols in a scene chillingly similar to images from The Terminator. But rather than being displayed as a not-so-subtle warning to the entire human population of the planet, Rogozin instead claims via Facebook that it's just a demonstration of the robot's dexterity and use of algorithms to execute tasks.
CNET quotes Russia's deputy prime minister as saying "We are not creating a Terminator, but artificial intelligence that will be of great practical significance in a lot of spheres." Russia plans to deploy the robot on the International Space Station by 2021, Mashable reports, adding "Hopefully, the robot's arrival on the ISS will come sans life-snuffing weaponry, which is pretty much the opposite of the intent behind creating a peaceful international space station shared by the world's super powers in the first place."

Comments

Almaz

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'm pretty sure they still have some NR-23 autocannons in a warehouse somewhere if they'll ever feel the need to weaponize the robot. ;)

Re:Almaz

[ls671]

Exactly, that sounds fine with me at first glance, as all participants in the ISS. As a matter of fact. the "I" stands for international.

Re: Almaz

[Anonymous Coward]

The robot is.... so.... Disappointing....

The video is so lame. It just stand there and shoot some targets.....

A quartcopter with a pistol and a proper targeting system would be way more mobile and lethal.

Re: Almaz

[Anonymous Coward]

More lethal to itself, maybe.

I can't imagine a quadcopter handling recoil from a pistol.

Re: Almaz

[BeanThere]

What I take away from that video is that they're not-so-subtly courting further investment from the military in order to develop a way more lethal 'version 2'. And the military is going to jump on this .. expect them to succeed in getting further funding and ultimately, bulk orders. This trend is worrying and likely inevitable ... scoff now, I would not want to be facing down an army of these invading my jurisdiction after another decade or two's advancement of the tech (this will happen in our lifetimes). The 2nd Amendment could become an important defense against robot armies.

Re: Almaz

[haruchai]

Google is your friend
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Almaz

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly gleaned everything you know about defense R&D from Real Genius and Short Circuit. Sorry, but the power requirements, noise, and lack of true decent all terrain ability means your robopocalypse fantasy is for naught.

Re: Almaz

[BeanThere]

You do know technology actually progresses?

Re: Almaz

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is always watching

Bomb Russia Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Defeat them before the army of robots is deployed, because then all the humans will be expendable.

Missed Opportunity

[mentil]

This was a missed opportunity to call the robot FEDORA. The acronym was tortured enough, but for no reason. That'd raise the question... does it run Linux?

Re:Missed Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they want to give it the feminine version of the name? The robot itself doesn't look very lady like.

Re:Missed Opportunity

[Thud457]

They should have named the damn robot HECTOR and sent him to the space station with whoever is today's equivalent of Farrah Fawcett.

Only way to get press these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the press gave a big yawn when they announced this

FEDOR was displayed last year drilling into a pile of cinderblocks and touted as an assistant to astronauts during space travel.

Re:Only way to get press these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Justa a funny coincidence.
FEDOR in portuguese means "Smelling bad", "Stinking", "fetid"

Re:Only way to get press these days

[Anonymous Coward]

We gotta drum up more scare pieces about Russians. The war isn't cold enough yet.

Re:Only way to get press these days

[flycode]

great article i really like it homework answers

misread as ISIS

[gravewax]

for a moment there I had my hopes up as I misread that as them deploying it against ISIS. We must actually be pretty close to being able to deploy remotely controlled ground infantry to deal with them. I hate the idea that robots would dehumanise war so that those that instigate it feel no consequences, but in the case of ISIS I would put my moral beliefs to one side.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Bomazi]

What century are you living in ? Cruise missiles (which result in no casualties for their user) have been used without hesitation for decades in situations in which ground troops would not have been sent. Similarly bombing missions are carried out against ISIS precisely because they don't have the necessary anti-aircraft defenses. Same with the more modern UCAVs. Arms manufacturers invest heavily in the development of unmanned weapons because there are expensive and useful to politicians who want to be able to do something without having to deal with the families of dead soldiers. War has been easy for a long time. If troops are indispensable then it is a bit harder but not that much given the ridiculously disproportionate casualty numbers between sophisticated and unsophisticated armies.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Rei]

Cruise missiles and drone bombings do not substitute for ground troops. The GP is clearly talking about a robotic substitute for ground troops.

Re:misread as ISIS

[DarkOx]

The ethical issue however is mostly the same. It push button warfare. One side can kill the other without facing death themselves. Machines still do the killing (whether a gun toting robot or shell on the end of a guided missile with an altitude trigger) at a remote site where there isn't a human been to look the other guy in the eyes and possible change its mind.

Consider the MOAB. We killed 36 ISIS 'fighters' were they all fighters or were two of them just guys ISIS grabbed and said "you'll be cooking our meals or we kill your family" those two hypothetical individuals are men who might have surrendered to ground troops when the position was eventually over run. Those are lives that might have been spared, instead they got incinerated like everyone else! Again this just my imagination it is probably more likely everyone of the guys hold up in those caves were committed Islamists determined to kill anyone standing in the way of their caliphate.

Maybe one day our or Russian 'terminators' will have capacity to capture or kill, hopefully by the time these are deployed in the field they will have enough visual recognition to see if someone is carrying what appears to be a firearm and shoot them and maybe not kill the the little girl carrying a bucket of water. That kind of target recognition is far from simple however. Maybe that isn't a bucket of water, maybe is a bucket of acid? Humans are somewhat good and figuring that stuff out, machines have a ways to go yet.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Kjella]

We must actually be pretty close to being able to deploy remotely controlled ground infantry

I doubt it, I don't think we have anything that comes close to passing a military obstacle course. If you think of say an urban area and the task of the robot(s) is to secure a building it has to execute so many practical little details, just using a door handle is challenging outside the lab. The other big deal is stealth, if you look at the robots today most of them are quite loud with hydraulics and such so they couldn't sneak up on anyone. There's a reason all soldiers do hand signals and all that shit, if they just trampled in they'd be easy targets. Also jamming would be a big issue, it's not that hard to create a big noise generator that could be triggered by a trip wire or such. Outdoors a jamming device trying to bring down a drone makes you a big target to shoot at but in the basement of a building your robo-soldiers would be cut off without any easy means to restore contact. For sure robots could do more but I think we're dependent on humans in close proximity for quite some time to come.

Re:misread as ISIS

[drinkypoo]

There are basically three kinds of military robot which are useful today, walking bombs, flying drones, and cruise missiles. We are only building two out of three of these today. The kind we're not building (walking bomb) is not particularly susceptible to jamming; if you jam it, it just blows up. Once it's safely away from the operator, you can arm that functionality.

Re: misread as ISIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, actually ISIS have developed pretty good technology for walking bombs, it is pretty effective on the battlefield and it's pretty immune to hijacking attempts too. You can say whatever you like but they surely have some damn good engineers onboard.

Re:misread as ISIS

[meta-monkey]

Consider the MOAB. We killed 36 ISIS 'fighters' were they all fighters or were two of them just guys ISIS grabbed and said "you'll be cooking our meals or we kill your family" those two hypothetical individuals are men who might have surrendered to ground troops when the position was eventually over run.

To be fair, the MOAB is totally awesome.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh but not so childlike one. Cruise missiles and drone bombings are exactly substitutes for ground troops. You see, once upon a time there were no aircraft. Back in those olden days ground troops and ships were the only option. When air capabilities were developed these craft were used to fill ground roles. Recon, delivering damaging explosives and such. So once you automate the aircraft the initial aspect of replacing ground troops does not go away. Cruise missiles and drones specifically replace ground troops though perhaps not at the simple level.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the casualty figures on the ISIS side role to close to 100

Re:misread as ISIS

[93 Escort Wagon]

If you think of say an urban area and the task of the robot(s) is to secure a building it has to execute so many practical little details, just using a door handle is challenging outside the lab.

The Russians apparently solved the door handle problem a while back...

Re: misread as ISIS

[Anonymous Coward]

We've been replacing "ground troops " as long as we've been human. Spears javelin arrow catapults guns etc have all been to kill from farther away and less harm to "us" as possible.

Re:misread as ISIS

[DarkOx]

To be fair, the MOAB is totally awesome.

I know you were being tong in cheek, but you are not wrong. It is awesome, that we can eliminate an enemy position without risking the lives our our service personnel!

I did not mean my post to suggest the right/moral course was to send ground troops into that mess of caves. I would have used the bomb too, honestly if the president ordered me to take out that position. I simply was observing that there is a moral hazard to push button war of any sort. It makes it an easier call to kill people when you know its none of your people that will be doing any of the dying.

There is always the potential for civilian casualties, especially with large impact remote weapons systems. The next question is what is a legitimate target. I don't think if you are fighting a war for example all civilians are really off limits in terms of targets. What about the guy working in the tire factory, or the oil field. You know his effort supports the war effort and he knows it too but is still working there, is he fair target? What about the farmer tending his wheat field? I would say yes! If taking out that facility means either sweeping it with ground forces and loosing American lives or bombing / sending in terminator unit and killing some 'enemy' non-combatants, better them than us, would be my call.

What more worries me is does all this stuff make it to easy to decide to go to war in the first place? I still think there is a fundamental question this nation has wrestled with since before our entry in WWI, should be fighting wars that don't relate to our immediate interests? or should we keep the blood off our hands, even when that means sitting by and allowing injustice and even atrocities to occur?

Re:misread as ISIS

[meta-monkey]

What more worries me is does all this stuff make it to easy to decide to go to war in the first place?

It does, but it shouldn't. The standard should be "war means innocent little babies are going to die. Is this action worth it?" And the answer to that is almost always "no."

or should we keep the blood off our hands, even when that means sitting by and allowing injustice and even atrocities to occur?

Generally yes, we should keep the blood off our hands, because eventually if everybody decides they don't want blood on their hands the wars kind of stop.

Obviously it depends on what kind of ethics you practice. If you're a utilitarian or consequentialist then you're going to start trying to predict the future about how many people you're going to kill or how many people would have died otherwise. As a Catholic and therefore big on the deontological ethics I get to neatly sidestep the question by saying "killing is wrong and therefore don't do it."

Interesting, sort of releated: I just read a study titled Roman Catholic beliefs produce characteristic neural responses to moral dilemmas wherein the authors hooked up atheists and Catholics to MRI machines and asked them moral questions and showed there's a real difference in the thought processes and areas of the brains activated. Makes me wonder if we can never really agree on a common ethical system between the religious and the non-religious.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Cruise missiles and drone bombings do not substitute for ground troops. The GP is clearly talking about a robotic substitute for ground troops.

Correction: they are not an efficient substitute for ground troops.
They have been used as a substitute for ground troops and even SWAT teams and show no signs of giving up those roles any time soon.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Kjella]

The kind we're not building (walking bomb) is not particularly susceptible to jamming; if you jam it, it just blows up. Once it's safely away from the operator, you can arm that functionality.

Until IS tricks you into sending it into a building full of civilians, that would be a PR nightmare. Basically it would be a very slow and impractical delivery mechanism after you've decided it's safe to blow it up. It's different when you don't give a shit about accidental or collateral damage, then you can just strap a stick of C4 to a RC toy and wire the detonator like a dead man's switch to make it a walking bomb. When you lose signal or turn it off it's going to blow up something.

Re: misread as ISIS

[Anonymous Coward]

"Generally yes, we should keep the blood off our hands, because eventually if everybody decides they don't want blood on their hands the wars kind of stop."

Lul the enemies we face want world domination. Hitler was one. ISIS is another. They won't stop just because you don't want blood on your hands. Because they want blood on theirs.

Vietnam was a little different. We could
Have avoided that one.

Re:misread as ISIS

[DarkOx]

That is interesting and it confirms neurologically what psychologists have suspected for a long time. Certain religions attract the "healthy minded." Which sounds nice but really isn't a value judgement. You could call it a certain tolerance for injustice if you will. The healthy minded individual says, "I am not responsible if I am not personally involved and things are not necessarily in my power to improve". Catholicism mostly falls into this line of thinking. Other people see an unjust situation and think, "I might not have anything to do with it directly and I might not be able to fix it; but I have a responsibility to try." This is more consistent with people attracted to mainline Protestantism. I don't know where your typical atheist might fall on the spectrum but I can see how elements of secular humanism philosophically might be attractive to that type of individual as a mainline Protestant myself, I don't find the day to day conduct of your typical secular humanist in conflict with our/my own view of what Christ like behavior would be.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Aighearach]

The ethical issue however is mostly the same.

The ethical issues are exactly the same in every situation, and it does not matter if the killing is done with a rock in your hand, remotely by pulling the trigger on a gun, or remotely by pressing a button on a joystick.

Notice that the automation added by a robot is the same automation that was already added by a gun!

Airplanes and bombs are also the exact same type of automation.

A person decides to kill another person, and acts on it. That is the entire moral and ethical issue, and the technology used makes no difference.

When you read about a robot firing a gun, there is no change. Nobody said the robot is going to decide when the gun gets fired, that's like saying the string of a bow will decide when the arrow is released. Stop blaming the bow and take responsibility for your actions.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Aighearach]

Obviously it depends on what kind of ethics you practice.

For a Buddhist it is fairly simple; did you use less violence than what you were trying to prevent others from using, and in the end did you reduce the overall level of suffering?

In the case of dropping the MOAB on a terrorist base, I think it clear that this passes Buddhist moral and ethical analysis. Killing 2 dozen people with a bomb is less violent than letting those people take over whole cities and murder a significant percent of the residents, which is what ISIS has done in other places. Also, being a remote location there was likely little additional or accidental suffering caused. Compare that to a single ISIS suicide bomber in a city!

It is true that angry words are best combated by kind words, and that minor violence sometimes requires angry words. In this way Buddhism teaches to use a lower level of violence than what you are trying to stop. However, that scale goes up to "total annihilation," and it is considered good to stop total annihilation even if requires partial annihilation. This is why some monks practice martial arts, even though they usually refuse to fight. You can stop a knife with a stick, if you know how. If you can stop a missile with a bullet, do it!

Re: misread as ISIS

[Aighearach]

engineers

You're missing the engine part, all you have is an `eer.

A nothingeer does not an engineer make.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Anonymous Coward]

A person decides to kill another person, and acts on it. That is the entire moral and ethical issue, and the technology used makes no difference.

Bullet to the brain or live and conscious vivisection. Both equally ethical.

-Aighearach

Re:misread as ISIS

[Jzanu]

As a catholic it is still more complex. You need to famliarize yourself with the concept of Just War. Lots of soldiers, probably even most soldiers world-wide are Catholic if they are not Muslim, and have been throughout history since the establishment of Christianity.

Re:misread as ISIS

[farble1670]

One side can kill the other without facing death themselves

The men that make decisions regarding war have always been able to do so without facing death themselves. Nothing new here.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Khashishi]

The large number of friendly fire and collateral damage reports suggests that humans are not very good at target recognition. I suspect that AI can do better

Re:misread as ISIS

[farble1670]

If you can stop a missile with a bullet, do it!

Or, if you can stop a bullet with the largest non-nuclear armament ever deployed in combat, do it!

Re:misread as ISIS

[farble1670]

Stop blaming the bow and take responsibility for your actions.

Does it change things if I'm drunk while shooting the bow? I think it does.

Re:misread as ISIS

[DarkOx]

the technology used makes no difference

In some absolutist systems perhaps but most of us live in a little more grey world. Its not as simple question of minimizing the absolute violence in the world. There are other considerations. When is it our fight, only when we are threatened? when who we consider to be the victims are unable to defend themselves? When our 'allies' are threatened?

Does it matter that we have a volunteer armed services, that our people had a choice to be put in harms way. What if we have a draft again in the future does that raise the bar for the entering a war?

Re:misread as ISIS

[Khashishi]

There is always the potential for civilian casualties, especially with large impact remote weapons systems. The next question is what is a legitimate target. I don't think if you are fighting a war for example all civilians are really off limits in terms of targets. What about the guy working in the tire factory, or the oil field. You know his effort supports the war effort and he knows it too but is still working there, is he fair target? What about the farmer tending his wheat field? I would say yes! If taking out that facility means either sweeping it with ground forces and loosing American lives or bombing / sending in terminator unit and killing some 'enemy' non-combatants, better them than us, would be my call.

You make a good war criminal. The problem with going down that route is that everybody loses. Civilization stagnates as infrastructure and knowledge is continually destroyed, so we return to a period where we have fragmented tribes at total war with each other. You don't think America will be able to maintain military superiority forever, do you?

Re:misread as ISIS

[Khashishi]

You don't think robots will eventually decide when to fire? It could happen soon!

Re:misread as ISIS

[gravewax]

since when did cruise missiles count as ground infantry? must be a new type of missile I have not heard of?

Re:misread as ISIS

[Aighearach]

All of your questions are pure moral and ethical questions and the technology used has no bearing at all on the answers.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Aighearach]

Hey derp-stick, you consider the crimes of ISIS to be equivalent to a bullet in that analogy? So a whole training camp dug into the mountains, for a group that has done the things they have in Iraq and Syria, trying to take over a new area and commit those same crimes against a new group of civilians, that's just 1 bullet to you? hurdurrrrrrrrr to you to, maaaaaaaaaaan.

Re:misread as ISIS

[farble1670]

You should read less between the lines. I didn't say anything about the right / wrong of the action. I said the analogy of stopping a bigger weapon with a smaller weapon is exactly the opposite of the actual example. But don't let this get in the way of your ranting. Carry on soldier!

Re:misread as ISIS

[Aighearach]

Obviously, all the moral responsibility is still on the human that presses the "on" button, or who turns off the safeties and places it in combat mode. Duh.

Even there you don't find any new moral or ethical issue.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Aighearach]

I didn't read "between" the lines, I simply carried the context from a comment to the reply. If your reply didn't intend to carry the context of what it was replying to, then I can't help you with that.

Re:misread as ISIS

[farble1670]

All I can say is, enjoy your delusion. Imagining people think things and then yelling at them for it is FUN!

Re: misread as ISIS

[david_thornley]

Fortunately, ISIS doesn't have anywhere near the threat or military potential of 1939 Germany.

Re:misread as ISIS

[david_thornley]

The USN has had air defense guns on ships that will fire automatically for a long time. The day-to-day human control is switching the things on and off.

Re:misread as ISIS

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a utilitarian or consequentialist then you're going to start trying to predict the future about how many people you're going to kill or how many people would have died otherwise. As a Catholic and therefore big on the deontological ethics I get to neatly sidestep the question

Nah. Catholics (and religious people in general) are the first ones to predict the future. Namely, they predict what's going to happen to everyone in when they reach the pearly gates, in the end times, after the rapture, or whatever afterlife they believe in.

The real difference between deontological and consequentialism isn't that one tries to predict the future and one doesn't, but that one predicts the future using facts and logic, while the other based on feelings of faith and blind devotion to whatever was written in some holy book.

You didn't sidestep the question. You internalized the answer your religion gave to the question without questioning it. Just like how the left basically invented the deontological rule that WASP males are the most evil thing in existence, and all the left's faithful followers simply obey the rule without question.

Re:misread as ISIS

[DarkOx]

On nation war criminal is anthers hero. Its always been that way. There are few lines Westerns have generally agreed should not be crossed but usually it comes down to intent. Yes its wrong to target civilians, its not always wrong to target assets even when that means civilians will die.

Dropping incendiaries on wheat fields and automotive plants because you can is wrong clearly. Doing it because you *need* to disrupt the enemies supply chain so as to save the lives of your own service men, does not seem so unethical to me. I would echo Harris' comments on the bombing of Dresden:

Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.

Already have a title!

[Gravis Zero]

RoboGunslingers from Outerspace!

Humanity shall endure! ;)

Prelude to hurling rocks from space?

[MrCodswallop]

Prelude to hurling rocks from space?

Re:Prelude to hurling rocks from space?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to know more.

Re:Prelude to hurling rocks from space?

[Anonymous Coward]

What or Wu are you referring to?

Re:Prelude to hurling rocks from space?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man shoots bullets. Man creates robots. Robots shoot handguns. Handguns shoot bullets. Man dies, robots inherits the earth.

Re:Prelude to hurling rocks from space?

[unclefred]

Now you on to some serious fire-power in the form of mass drivers (A mass driver or electromagnetic catapult is a proposed method of non-rocket space launch which would use a linear motor to accelerate and catapult payloads up to high speeds.) No need for explosives of any kind just dense payload and enormous speed produces enormous damage at the other end regardless of the type of material standing in the way. Everything Smashed including machines!

Sorry not that impressive

[wisebabo]

In the video it was just shown holding some pistols and shooting them at some targets. Very little body movement, didn't walk anywhere. Looked like a locked down animatronic (hydraulic powered robot) from a theme park (I should know, I used to design them - theme parks).

While the reality of it might be much more impressive, I didn't see it on (this) video. However, there was a link on the page which led me to some official footage (after there was a leak) of Boston Dynamics' fantastic (and scary!) wheeled/legged robot. You've really got to see it:

http://mashable.com/2017/02/28...

Since Boston Dynamic's robot can apparently easily handle a 100lb. object, it wouldn't be too hard for it to wield a really serious gun. When A.I. becomes sentient we'd better hope that they're friendly. Anyway, if they could adapt this robot for zero-gee (replace the wheels with grappling hands? A tail? Like Doc Oc?) I would imagine it would be much more useful (and terrifying) on the ISS.

Re:Sorry not that impressive

[Rei]

I agree, that video looked rigged as hell. I've seen a lot more convincing animatronics in theme parks.

What exactly were the Hollywood-style "explosions" supposed to be anyway? Were we supposed to believe that they were something that that "robotic tank" was shooting, were they supposed to be smoke screens, or were they just added for ambiance?

Seriously, I've seen better robotic gun platforms made by Syrian rebels living in rubble.

Re:Sorry not that impressive

[Opportunist]

Any intelligence, artificial or otherwise, that looks at us and how we act will most likely not react friendly to us. Either for self preservation or for morality reasons.

Re:Sorry not that impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look closely at the targets - firstly, the 'wall' is all targets - so it really can't miss - secondly the targets are falling in no obviously determined order - and at that range, the bullets could easily be hitting at random. I suspect that you'd get similar results if you mounted the two guns on somewhat non-rigid mounts (like those flimsy-looking arms) and used a couple of solenoids to pull the triggers.

We've seen ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxBa5bQfTGc ) much better than this before (about 1:38 into the video, for example).

Re:Sorry not that impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'd say most counties 5-10 years away ... Hammer Industries .. 20.

Re:Sorry not that impressive

[BeanThere]

I agree, that video looked rigged as hell. I've seen a lot more convincing animatronics in theme parks.

To me this looks kinda like effectively a demo video designed to show the potential of the (next generation of this) technology, given further funding (which they are probably likely to get). I'm not worried about robot soldier tech of today, but given it another 10 or 20 years development and it's not going to be a joke anymore.

Re:Sorry not that impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

See this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6u7EhM-bW4

Re:Sorry not that impressive

[grep -v '.*' *]

Any intelligence, artificial or otherwise, that looks at us and how we act will most likely not react friendly to us. Either for self preservation or for morality reasons.

Do What I Want or I'll Turn You Off (as I usually threaten my computer.) So why would it get upset or anything? I promise I'll call you in the morning and turn you right back on.

Hmmm, there's even a double entendre there for a Sex Robot. What could go wrong?

"If you had an off switch, doctor... would you not keep it secret?" - Data,

Re:Sorry not that impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

That does not make sense. Artificial Intelligence will be as friendly to us as we code it to be. It won't be intelligent though, that's why the word "artificial" is in front of it.

Alien intelligence that is equally evolved, or more evolved, than we are, will in all likelihood be a LOT more like us than unlike. They would have evolved in a world full of predator-prey relationships, just like we did, and as such would have had the same violent instincts that we did throughout their history, and as such would have wound up developing the same concept of justice that we did (it is a logical necessity you see....without it they cannot cooperate well enough to achieve the techs needed for space travel).

If they are more evolved, then they will recognize us as primitives but also see that we are progressing just like they did. They won't wipe us out due to social pressures (the exact same pressures that we would feel from our own people if we proposed wiping out all the martians because they were still using late iron-age technology).

Hollywood creates drama by creating completely unrealistic circumstances. Based on everything we actually know, advanced-but-compassionless aliens are ridiculously unlikely.

Re:Sorry not that impressive

[Opportunist]

What AI would be like is entirely up to its maker. Which creates a really big moral dilemma: Imagine you can build a sentient robot. Able to think and consider everything you can. Is it morally acceptable to force it with its programming to like you?

lame

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new gun-shooting robot overlord since its aim is apparently crap. 16 gunshot salvo sounds in the video (32 rounds), but less then half of the targets fell.

To be fair, the footage looks edited. The 3rd and 4th targets from the left on the top row got hit from the drone's perspective view at 1:20 but were still up at the end of the video at 1:24.

Re:lame

[Rei]

Everything about that video looks fake. The "robot" doesn't even appear to move at all as targets fall at significant angles relative to it. And what's up with those bullet casings falling at the end which don't appear to correspond with anything actually happening at the time?

Re:lame

[Anonymous Coward]

No you are just jealous so you hate.

Re:lame

[BeanThere]

The "robot" doesn't even appear to move at all as targets fall at significant angles relative to it.

I think you failed to notice the fitted lasersights, which are an obvious giveaway as to the mechanism they're using for visual targeting, and given that, the only movement necessary is very small adjustments of the hands and perhaps lower arms.

Re:lame

[Rei]

It doesn't matter if you have a laser sight (which, by the way, why would you use a visible laser?), the gun still has to rotate, meaning at least the hands have to rotate. Nothing moves; it's all perfectly still.

Re:lame

[BeanThere]

Nothing moves; it's all perfectly still.

I watched the video closely again, and the hands clearly move. I'm really not seeing the problem. Nothing else needs to move ... this isn't a Hollywood movie ...
  have you ever shot a handgun?

Terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows you should gently apply pressure to the trigger with the tip of your index finger. This robot is terrible.

For authenticity

[Anonymous Coward]

It needs an orange wig.

ISIS might also be an option

[thesjaakspoiler]

so test this thing on. With the Americans firing missiles without any justification, this doesn't sound so bad at all.

Talk about inflating to inflame a situation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a silly mockup of a robot, with a couple of switches on the triggers. The things Boston Dynamics have been building are far more alarming than this. But leave it to dishonest russophobic websites to use this to make everyone fear the dangerous Russians.

Re:Talk about inflating to inflame a situation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!"

After Hal9000...

[ctrl-alt-canc]

...now cosmonauts have to worry about FEDOR's attitude and software glitches ?

Re:After Hal9000...

[Opportunist]

Hey, Hal9000 worked fine. That's just what happens when you put an AI into a double bind situation. It will solve the situation.

LOKI mechs

[Anonymous Coward]

I killed hundreds of these in Mass Effect 2.

tell that to China

[Anonymous Coward]

"which is pretty much the opposite of the intent behind creating a peaceful international space station shared by the world's super powers in the first place."

Obviously

[nospam007]

"Russia Wants To Send A Gun-Shooting Robot To The ISS "

Obviously a mistake, the last 's' has to be removed.

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

You shoot robot

Why humanoid?

[Henriok]

Can someone explain to me why a humanoid configuration would be the best form such a robot would come in? Seems so me that this form we have has some pretty severe downsides that can be accounted for if we had the opportunity to redesign us for military purposes. We fall over easily, have a hard time getting up, have limited locomotion options, have limited FOV, only two tool manipulating appendages with limited articulation and action range, don't float, can't jump good or fly, exposed compute/sensory hub, etc.. I'd go with a more octopus like configuration with for example six appendages with independent compute/sensory complexes, and that can be used for locomotion, recon, tool manipulation or just as backup looks nothing like a bipedal humanoid.

Re:Why humanoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because things like tools,doorknobs,handguns,chairs/seats, etc are all designed for human body. A new design such as extra legs may not be compatible with a wide range of current human technology.

Re:Why humanoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

A human form factor allows humanoid robots to use human tools, access areas intended for humans, use human transportation, etc.
 
An integrated weapon would be more effective, but it would need to be a new design. Using a handgun designed for humans accomplishes roughly the same objective but doesn't need a new object to be designed, built, tested, replaced, and maintained.

Re:Why humanoid?

[Henriok]

You don't need to be bi-pedal, two arms and have a head to do any of the things you mentioned. A octopus-like robot with highly articulated arms/legs, and with dito hands could operate door nobs, guns, sit, drive cars, wear pants, use hand signals, open bottles, etc..

Re:Why humanoid?

[Henriok]

A octopus-like robot with highly articulated arms/legs, and with dito hands could operate door nobs, guns, sit, drive cars, wear pants, use hand signals, open bottles, etc.. You don't need to be bi-pedal, two arms and have a head to do any of the things you mentioned.

Re:Why humanoid?

[Bender0x7D1]

Except, now you have to design all of the arms/hands to have the durability to do all of those things. Right now, they can design the finger-joints to manipulate 5-10 pounds of pressure. If they also acted as "feet" (on Earth) they would have to be able to support the entire weight of the robot.

Also, you are assuming that we can make the arms as articulated as an octopus - without breaking wiring, hydraulic tubing, or whatever else we need to run through the arms to the "hands".

Re:Why humanoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the end goal is human use. It is the robot form that says "with" and not against.

We aren't making it a squid, spider, or beetle, because while those are amazingly capable configurations they are also quite inhuman.

-EngrStudent

Re:Why humanoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go with a more octopus like configuration with for example six appendages with independent compute/sensory complexes, and that can be used for locomotion, recon, tool manipulation or just as backup looks nothing like a bipedal humanoid.

They would still be vulnerable to attack by Keanu Reeves.

Re:Why humanoid?

[ColdWetDog]

Russians don't do tentacle porn. That's Japanese.

Re:Why humanoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

A octopus-like robot with highly articulated arms/legs, and with dito hands ..

... will suck at climbing stairs, will cost more, and will have more complex parts that risk failure than a bipedal robot with one manipulator arm and it's primary armament mounted directly to the chassis or on a specialized arm.

Re:Why humanoid?

[thygate]

yeah, and don't get me started about the plumbing !

Re:Why humanoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

That still wouldn't hit half of your desired features, add a couple orders of magnitude to complexity and cost, and would be more fragile.

An octopus configuration would be less resilient, wouldn't be able to fly, stand up nearly as fast, move as fast, apply even half of the leverage, would have an even more exposed "compute/sensory hub", can't jump...oh, and humans do float. Why do you think we don't?

Your reasoning has issues. You replaced one set of benefits and problems for another set of benefits and problems with no meaningful gain. Or, to put this in common sense terms: if there was an evolutionary advantage to being an octopus on land instead of bipedal, the dominant species would be an octopus. At least one species of creature on land would be an octopus configuration, yet there are none and octopuses are easy prey out of water.

Re:Why humanoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because not everyone is into tentacle pr0n such as yourself, obviously.

Re:Why humanoid?

[neoRUR]

Its not that the human form is the best, it's just that we can't even get them to do anything yet, so it's a start. Once we solve all those problems, then you will see many more designs.Yes walking is hard, climbing stairs and opening doors is hard and the massive metal bodies are not easy to move.

Soft robots will come soon.

Also the world is build for humans, seats are build so humans can recline in with a seat belt, the height of things, like elevators and doors are all built around a personal space. If you make something that is outside of that space, or can't use human tools. then you have to re-design everything.

Re:Why humanoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Upvoted for Samurai Jack reference

Re:Why humanoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to be bi-pedal, two arms and have a head to do any of the things you mentioned. A octopus-like robot with highly articulated arms/legs, and with dito hands could operate door nobs, guns, sit, drive cars, wear pants, use hand signals, open bottles, etc..

You must not be a software developer. Any real software developer can come up with a million different incompatible things for 8 legged humans.

For example, your robot may not fit inside a space suit which is designed for humans. It may need to use space suit for temperature control during space walk, or mobility, etc. Maybe it uses the visor portion to see out of during space walk. With your robot it would need a special suit of its own, which costs money to design and test.

Re:Why humanoid?

[nihilun]

Although we know all this, we still think we (humans) are so perfect, and the world has to spin around us. And about Fedor, well, I've seen similar robots in a robot fair around a 2 years ago. And why would they need a gun-shooting robot on the ISS? To shoot the crew?

I don't like this world any more...

[Anonymous Coward]

...with these new violent death machines.

There is no non-violent way to die in practice, anyway.

Re:I don't like this world any more...

[unixisc]

Why not just drink cyanide?

low standards slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

sensationalized title lying by trying to get people believed Russia was sending an armed robot to space, when in fact it was just a tool that could, possible, fire a gun.

You know who else could do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any of the astronauts on board the ISS.

Must... not... click...

[Anonymous Coward]

Must... click... the... bait

I for one welcome or robotic overlords

[DarkOx]

Could it be that much worse than the current ruling class?

Opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

If it has a even a semi-strong AI then it could be quite useful. I think that the offer of something seriously advanced should be considered a serious contribution. This looks like a peace offering.

They probably named it after

[twistofsin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Isn't that just another name for a Trump supporter

[squash_me_quickly]

"Trump supporter" = "Gun-Shooting Robot"

The real West World

[LesserWeevil]

I can so see Yul Brynner being played by Putin and the robot playing itself in endless role-switched gunfights where the robot always loses because it's shooting blanks.

Re:The real West World

[LesserWeevil]

http://www.damndirtygeeks.com/...

You don't shoot handguns

[utahjazz]

They mean "gun-firing robot". A "gun-shooting robot" is a robot that fires bullets at guns.

Re:You don't shoot handguns

[FFOMelchior]

I was imagining a robot that shoots guns as bullets. Link to the first google image I could find: http://doodle.ly/doodles/4e974...

Finally an answer

[Anonymous Coward]

To the life long question: can you fire a gun in space!

Robocop

[Anonymous Coward]

walks up to ISIS and shoots them. "Your move creep"

Dexterity

[fustakrakich]

We can't just have the robots sort tiny screws, can we? No we have to do Dirty Harry

Re:Dexterity

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of like a Dexter...what about a pistol-packing robot that can tighten the tiny screws on eyeglasses in between shots? Oh, wait, I think I just described Bender---the future of A.I., and robots.

You wanna a have a REAL dexterity test?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a robot change a baby's diaper! Please test with a 100 dolls made out by eggshells first.

Guns instead of hands to prove "dexterity"...

[TheOuterLinux]

...yeah.....not buying that. You'd have to be a moron to believe that.

Re: Guns instead of hands to prove "dexterity"...

[TheOuterLinux]

Never mind. It has hands, but still...

I don't want to alarm anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

But astronauts can shoot pistols, too.

A *second* ISS?

[Anonymous Coward]

International Space Shooter, or International Space stowaway.

dept of famous last words

[Anonymous Coward]

"We are not creating a Terminator, but"

file under Famous Last Words

We're not NOT making the Terminator

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Cyberdyne didn't specifically set out to create a "kill all the humans" T-800 Terminator either, nor was it part of their 5-year plan to create an AI that would launch a nuclear war and destroy humanity. The "law of unintended consequences" and all; they DID deploy a few T-70 units before Judgement Day. It had no neural net processor. Being in space, though, it is very "iffy" if a T-800 (or any with a coltan exoskeleton) could survive re-entry. Tantalum has a melting point of 3,020C, re-entry could hit that. Tantalum is the primary metal pulled from "coltan", and is probably one of the main metals in the Terminator's hyperalloy structure.

If I had a robot firing a pistol

[John.Banister]

I'd have a wrist eyeball behind the gun sight and an encapsulated magnetically operated trigger that makes a captured pistol hard for non-robots to fire. I suppose it'd be nice for the robot to be able to fire a weapon that it captured, but the pistol in the photo doesn't look like the preferred weapon of its enemy. A good demo of algorithmic superiority would be for the robot to pick up and fire a cheap old pistol, miss and put subsequent shots exactly on target by exactly compensating for the amount of the initial miss.

Re: Almaz (quadcopter won' fly in weightlessness).

[Anonymous Coward]

> A quartcopter with a pistol and a proper targeting system would be way more mobile and lethal.

I'm fairly sure a quad-copter (or even an octo-copter) would be unable to fly in weightlessness conditions aboard the International Space Station (which is the intended locale of the particular news snippet discussed in this Slashdot entry). Not to mention doing a spacewalk in vacuum, where the spinning propellers have nothing to push against...

In contrast, a humanoid gunslinger robot could plausibly perform cosmonaut / astronaut extermination tasks, both inside and outside the orbital module. He should be named "Fedor of HAL 9000".

RoboCop

[Anonymous Coward]

"You called for backup?"

It shoots guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

It shoots guns!

With every weapon there is a defense

[Neuronwelder]

They can have human temperature figures go past the place of question first before the rest proceed. If they find an automatic gun, they kill the nest.

Re: Almaz (quadcopter won' fly in weightlessness).

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'm fairly sure a quad-copter (or even an octo-copter) would be unable to fly in weightlessness conditions aboard the International Space Station

I'm fairly sure it wouldn't. Why did you think it would?