Slashdot Mirror


AI Experts Boycott South Korean University Over 'Killer Robots' (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Leading AI experts have boycotted a South Korean university over a partnership with weapons manufacturer Hanwha Systems. More than 50 AI researchers from 30 countries signed a letter expressing concern about its plans to develop artificial intelligence for weapons. In response, the university said it would not be developing "autonomous lethal weapons." The boycott comes ahead of a UN meeting to discuss killer robots. Shin Sung-chul, president of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (Kaist), said: "I reaffirm once again that Kaist will not conduct any research activities counter to human dignity including autonomous weapons lacking meaningful human control. Kaist is significantly aware of ethical concerns in the application of all technologies including artificial intelligence."

37 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. They're breaking the First Law by rossdee · · Score: 2

    Asimov rolls in his grave

    1. Re:They're breaking the First Law by DrTJ · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's not the first law they broke...

    2. Re:They're breaking the First Law by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Asimov rolls in his grave

      Reminds me of a 1st season ST:NG episode, the Arsenal of Freedom

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    3. Re:They're breaking the First Law by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Asimov rolls in his grave

      Raises the question of what these guys think we should do when the killbots show up (which they will; can't stop every place on earth from developing them).

      Perhaps we should try to discuss 1940's science fiction with the kilbots? That should work.

    4. Re:They're breaking the First Law by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      I think the underlying point of the stories were that there's no iron-clad set of rules that COULD govern the behavior of robots without unexpected consequences. Even such obviously benign and logical rules such as those had serious limitations. Besides the impossibility of programming such rules... The 3 rules don't and CAN'T exist.

      That said, yeah killer robots suck.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    5. Re:They're breaking the First Law by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Raises the question of what these guys think we should do when the killbots show up (which they will; can't stop every place on earth from developing them).

      Make killbot killer bots?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    6. Re:They're breaking the First Law by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      Raises the question of what these guys think we should do when the killbots show up (which they will; can't stop every place on earth from developing them).

      Well, since killbots have a preset kill limit, we can send wave after wave of men at them until they reach their limit and shut down... It worked for Captain Brannigan!

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
  2. Tiem to design a powerful EMP by jerryjnormandin · · Score: 1

    You know what will take out robots, right ? Design one that will penetrate even the most robust faraday cage. First law of war on the battlefield... blast an EMP over enemy lines. take out central command.

    1. Re:Tiem to design a powerful EMP by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Design one that will penetrate even the most robust faraday cage.

      So when AQ deploys a killbot on Wall Street, are we going to self-nuke NYC?

      First law of war on the battlefield...

      Modern wars are not fought on "battlefields".

      blast an EMP over enemy lines. take out central command.

      There are no "lines" and there is no "central command".

      You play way too many video games.

    2. Re:Tiem to design a powerful EMP by jerryjnormandin · · Score: 1

      Yep.. An EMP to roll us all back to living like we are in the 1800's again. If AI evolved to be that dangerous.. then hell who needs tech. We would need to put an end to it, to preserve humanity.

    3. Re:Tiem to design a powerful EMP by jerryjnormandin · · Score: 1

      Many modern warfare battles can be taken out with a massive EMP. If I was faced to face with a bot like that.. and had a high power EMP, I'd use it. I've built a small EMP capable of destroying old cell phones, tablets, and computers. I can imagine it scaled up.. it would work. no need for a nuclear EMP. just give me a high voltage source, large capacitor bank, decent electrodes, it could be done.

  3. Technology already exists, just needs integration by DrTJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is excellent computer vision algorithms (e.g. in automotive industry) that can detect and track humans (even partially obscured) with great accuracy.
    There is excellent robot technology available (just look at Boston, or your average drone manufacturer).
    And there is no lack of "aim and fire" technology from the e.g. north american continent.

    It is not all that difficult to assemble these pieces into a nightmarish unit. You can already now see (rather harmless soft air gun) prototypes of this on YouTube.

    The university does not need to "manufacture autonomous lethal weapons", they just need to some generic AI stuff and leave the weaponization to others who probably are more than willing to do it.

    This sounds like an arms race to me; if one army will obtains this technology, will the others sit around and accept it? Heck, even if all armies would collectively refrain from it, what prevents your favorite terrorist organization from doing it? It's not THAT high tech anymore.

  4. These aren't the droids you're looking for... by FritzTheCat1030 · · Score: 1

    They won't be developing "autonomous lethal weapons." They'll merely be developing autonomous technology for a company that makes lethal weapons. Nothing to see here, move along.

  5. If these "experts" couldn't see this coming... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    ... then either they're incredibly naive or just stupid. Either way, I wonder if they're the sort of people to be working on a paradigm changing technology since clearly their understanding of human nature and what it will do with powerful technology is left severely wanting.

    1. Re:If these "experts" couldn't see this coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Western, relatively free countries don't do this stuff to keep ahead, the less ethical non-free countries will beat everyone to it.

      China is not going to stop because a bunch of eggheads whined about it.

      This is just a ploy by globalists and leftists to trick people in free countries from getting ahead.

    2. Re:If these "experts" couldn't see this coming... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "If Western, relatively free countries don't do this stuff to keep ahead, the less ethical non-free countries will beat everyone to it. "

      And fuckwit CEOs in various corps virtually gave china the technology to do it by outsourcing manufacturing and effectively paying the chinese to improve their technological abilities. All to save a bit of cash and increase shareholder value.

  6. So, people just won't develop this military tech, because peace? Got it.

    No, we need to develop it, first, fastest, and best. And develop AI powered countermeasures too.

    1. Re:wha? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      So, people just won't develop this military tech, because peace? Got it.

      They say "To Err is Human, To really fowl things up you need a Computer" Can you imagine trying to debug that!??!?

      No, we need to develop it, first, fastest, and best. And develop AI powered countermeasures too.

      Of we go then, what could possibly go wrong?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:wha? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Of we go then, what could possibly go wrong?

      It is going to be developed; the only person you can stop from developing it is yourself. Let me know how that works out for you.

    3. Re:wha? by nasch · · Score: 1

      We need to be ready for it, but that doesn't mean we need to develop it too. If a terrorist organization obtains killbots, having our own better killbots first won't help with that. We need anti-killbot technology. Maybe that's killbots too, but maybe it's not.

    4. Re:wha? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Of we go then, what could possibly go wrong?

      It is going to be developed;

      The fewer people involved making it unreliable and prone to failure the better so let's not be naive and think that nothing is going to go wrong with doing it. It's a bad idea so people of good sense and good will have the right idea slowing the process down. Do we actually need AIs that can kill us? No. Do we need to think of the ramifications and prepare for them, I don't think it's unreasonable, so let's do that first. We could start here.

      I'd start with weapons that destroy themselves if they kill and have a moral capacity to determine if the cause is worth their destruction sans Revelation Space weapons. That's because AI's have no idea what it means to be alive. How will you subject AI's to the LAW while humans are subject to it. These are all the challenges that are by-passed with this stupidest of stupid ideas. And so naive.

      What about AI surgical assistants, or AI counselors, or AI taxi's, there are literally thousands of better applications of AI. Things that make people live.

      the only person you can stop from developing it is yourself.

      I'm already involved in my second AI project. Have I thought about how I would develop weaponised AI countermeasures? Yes and the conclusion I came to was I don't want to have to development weaponised AI countermeasures, I think they're dangerous things - I'd rather spend my time developing some of the applications for AI that I deem constructive that helps people.

      Why would I waste my time developing AI counter measures in a race where I can be easily outspent and any developments I patent are captured by government on national security grounds? What possible thing can an individual do to counter a force using tax dollars to develop things designed to kill?

      Anyone who attempts to develop AI countermeasures will have them captured by government to strengthen existing developments and if they're lucky they will avoid jail time.

      What weaponised AI counter measure do you intend developing?

      Let me know how that works out for you.

      Great so far because I spend my time on profitable adventures. Weaponising AI is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard from the minds of emotionally unbalanced, barely evolved primates. So it's a game where you are compelled to play by a lot of bad actors who are psychologically unsound. Just convince the AI engineers that someone will do it and someone will fall for it, but it's still a dumb idea. That's what this game is making smart people do a dumb thing.

      People smart enough to develop AI can see this is stupid and are saying No. However, like always, intelligent people are pestered by people with deceit and cunning when confronted with these emotive double bind arguments that someone out there is going to do it - because they are too stupid to do it themselves. If someone else is going to do it I'll eventually see how it works out for them no matter what I do. The fewer people working on it the better.

      That is not an attack on you, btw, what I'm pointing out is it's lunatic reasoning that is driving this and no matter how it is justified, it is a stupid, if not the stupidest idea I have ever heard.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  7. Wow 50 people signed something... by aicrules · · Score: 1

    That's like almost a statistically relevant number in a population of 1,000. I guess since the world is 7 billion people though, these 50 don't really register. But wait, you say. Not all 7 billion are AI experts! Well, there are 10,000+ people that could be labeled that, so it's still not statistically relevant.

  8. Like This by DrTJ · · Score: 1

    Replace the light with lead:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  9. Re:Technology already exists, just needs integrati by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    Also in the US, we're so used to DARPA having funded cool projects. It's the last thing US-based researchers would want to boycott.

    For those of you outside the US, DARPA means Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and it falls under the purview of the Department of Defense.

  10. 50 Years of AI by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    Since the dawn of AI, it was funded, and still is, by the military at all universities. The technology researched and further developed by larger corporations has been both lethal and non-lethal. Usually the university does the basic research and the company adds to it.
    So now some new AI hotheads are protesting developing AI (i.e. technology) that will be used in military weapons?
    Technology is neither good or bad, it's how you apply it. Anyone can take the research done by a university and apply it to weapons.

    I would be more scared of the research and development being done by the larger companies that you don't hear of.

  11. AI and killbots versus Internet and porn by Ted+Stoner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Naively thinking AI will not be used for creating killbots is like thinking you could create the Internet and not have it used for porn.

  12. A Cruise Missile by Zorro · · Score: 1

    IS a "Killer Robot."

    It fly's to its destination under its own guidance then explodes.

    FAR too late to ban.

    1. Re:A Cruise Missile by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      fly's?

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  13. So stupid by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    All make a big deal against it, but all nations are doing it. Russia, America, and esp china , are pouring huge bucks into this.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  14. Re: Weasel words by haruchai · · Score: 1

    "What is funny, is that America works it tail off to not hit civilians"

    That went out the window in many of the drone strike operations and has gotten worse under Trump

    https://www.independent.co.uk/...

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  15. Thinking Machines by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the war of the thinking machines. Let the Butlerian,jihad begin.

    1. Re:Thinking Machines by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      ...after which mankind was controlled by two cabals of manipulative bossy bitches on permanent PMS. I'll take the killer AI instead, thanks.

  16. While China and Russia and . . . . by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    Are busy design Terminator series (which would speak Chinese, Russian and not heavily accented English with a German flavor), everyone else should be snoozing?

    Sure makes sense to me for them to do it, and cannot understand the umbrage?!?!?

  17. Re: Weasel words by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Right.
    America makes lots of mistakes, as does any large nation.
    However, I would argue that gitmo is not a mistake, but a crime.
    We either treat these ppl like soldiers or they should be civilians. There is no real 3rd group for this.
    Hopefully, some day, Rumsfeld will make the mistake of going to Europe and grabbed and tried for war crimes.
    It is one thing to go after terrorists in afghanistan and pakistan where the govs were/are hiding them, but to simply hold these ppl with no trials, as well as our invasion of Iraq, are out and out war crimes in my book.
    And since terrorists hide amongst civilians, there will alway be side deaths. Sadly.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  18. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. by theCat · · Score: 1

    That said, I have 0% faith in anyone telling me they absolutely will not weaponize AI. Anyone saying that must think we're all idiots. The first and best use for AI is replacing humans in dangerous situations, replacing them with a machine. Yeah you can do that for miners and truck drivers, but the real application will be replacing people as soldiers waging war. Period. Full stop. Okay maybe I should include law enforcement too but these days war and police work are starting to blur together at least in the US.

    So, the perfect soldier. Means the perfect war. Means we get lots and lots more wars for increasingly retarded reasons including no reason of any kind. And if you happen to have played the PS4 game "Horizon: Zero Dawn" much then as you hear all these industrialists promising "we will never weaponize AI ... much" you might notice a chill running down your spine. Well my friend that is you having a premonition of Fun Things to Come.

    There are a lot more ways this could go wrong than go right, and I'm even including increasingly retarded wars as "going right" just because 1) good or bad that is the product working exactly as designed, and 2) retarded wars might not end all life on Earth as we know it, especially not if there is money to be made by the weapons vendors.

    But I cannot rule out weapons dealers screwing the pooch in some dead-stupid race to provide the best possible service to war-mongering, seeing as that is mostly what industrialists do when they have room to run: they four-square fuck absolutely everything up.

    All the really bad things I can think of coming from weaponized AI end up with organized humans not being around. Probably won't even be an accident when (not if) it happens, probably some genuine god-damned "kill-all-*" wild card feature of the terrifying things.

    Christ but we're dumb.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
  19. Re:Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    I love that guy :)

    --
    [($)]
  20. Re:FOR SCIENCE! FEAR SCIENCE! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Sorry if you didn't have the balls to post as yourself.

    The problem is, "This COULD happen with a sufficiently advanced AI", so we shouldn't pursue it AT ALL?

    So, because, some day, we MIGHT eventually turn out a sufficiently advanced AI that could be dangerous, we shouldn't pursue ANY form of AI, no matter how primitive?

    Sorry, that's just FUD.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!