News Pentagon planning to build robot soldiers

[ar81]

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...bot-soldiers-that-wont-commit-war-crimes.html

Ethical war machines...?
I can't imagine a war machine debating between ethos, pathos and logos...

 

[cjp]

Will these robots recognize which party is the good guys and which party is the bad guys?

 

[ryan]

Will these robots recognize which party is the good guys and which party is the bad guys?

I watched a show about this sort of stuff, they say yes, but they will usually put them in places were there are no friendlys around.
The robot soldier has been in the works since the 60s.

 

[cjp]

I watched a show about this sort of stuff, they say yes, but they will usually put them in places were there are no friendlys around.
The robot soldier has been in the works since the 60s.

No, I didn't ask "does it distinguish friends from enemies?", I wanted to ask "does it analyze which party should be its friends?"

 

[Urwumpe]

No, I didn't ask "does it distinguish friends from enemies?", I wanted to ask "does it analyze which party should be its friends?"

It's friends don't move, don't breathe and don't have a IR signature.

 

[ar81]

I see, so the strategy is to tell civilians to flee, then kill everything that moves or has IR signature... Any inocent casualty would be collateral damage... That's clever ethics... Doom 3 ethics. :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Is Cyberdyne involved?

 

[ar81]

It means that Pentagon plans to use taxpayers money that should be used to attend needs of americans, to play geopolitical videogames... nothing that a good hacker can't crack.

 

[eveningsky339]

Do not fear the robots, my children. Just make sure they open the pod bay doors when you ask.

 

[ar81]

Headline news - Soldier robot hacked by teenager, enemy leader escaped alive.

 

[Urwumpe]

Headline news - Soldier robot hacked by teenager, enemy leader escaped alive.

Would be bad hacking, but applied justice. After all, robots killing enemies leaders already happens.

 

[Sherrif of Nottingham]

What about the three laws?

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

WIKI

 

[Eagle]

The article is a little misleading. They aren't trying to replace humans with robots because the robots can't commit war crimes. The goal is to replace humans with robots because there is less of an issue if the robot is destroyed or captured.

They want a lawyer's opinion about what can be automated and what needs a human judgment. Legally they need it to follow the Geneva conventions which include not causing unnecessary wounds and bloodshed, accepting surrender etc.

I think its very likely that target acquisition and movement can be automated to a high degree, but "pulling the trigger" will be done by a human with a camera feed. The question is at which stage(s) does the robot wait for human judgment.

 

[adamb193]

I can see it now *In a surprise development today the US Army's robotic warfare command has announced "All your base are belong to us!" A Chinese Military official was quoted as saying "Someone has set us up the bomb!" This is just another occurrence in the rise of increasing tension between the US and China, and in other news Killtron X-5 the Army's most intelligent robot soldier, attributed with only 79 friendly fire incidents and 3,009 civilian casualties, and the destruction of an enemy jeep is to be rewarded with a Medal of Honor, for killing the least number of civilians in the Army’s latest operation.

 

[Andy44]

Of course the logical result of this will be more asymmetric warfare on the part of the US's enemies, followed by whining at the Pentagon about how the enemy doesn't "fight honorably" and just sit in a foxhole and wait for the indestructible robot to come and slaughter him.

In other words, more terrorist tactics. Avoid fighting the US on the battlefield, where the robots have the advantage. Fight in the schools and shopping malls and hotels, instead.

 

[ar81]

"It takes six people to operate a Predator drone round the clock. I know the Air Force has developed software, which they claim is to train Predator operators. But if the computer can train the human it could also ultimately fly the drone itself."

6 people instead of one soldier. That's what you could call "cost-effective".

 

[JamesG]

Those 6 include the 1 or two people who take off and land the drone locally plus the tactical operators who conduct the actual mission who might be on the other side of the planet. Also, those personell can work with and operate more than one bird at a time. If a drone is lost in combat or an accident, you don't lose anyone.

Automated weapons are demographically and technologically inevitable. We just need to keep them on a short leash because the danger of them dehumanizing war or turning against us IS a real threat.

That said, as an Iraq vet, I really can appreciate robotic weapons. Besides the positives of taking people out of harm's way, there are benefits of "sending in the drones". There were a few times where we got hit, and then sprayed the countryside in frustration. With a tele-operated bot, there wouldn't be that emotional connection to it, you would simply take another sip of coffee in your air-conditioned operator's shelter, and type up a contact report email while the bot scanned for the trigger man.

 

[ar81]

The interesting thing here is that taxpayers money that should be used to attend needs of US citizens would be used to play geopolitical videogames. If you find partnerships instead of making enemies, you really would take everyone out of harm's way, including your enemy who now would be a good friend.

In 2001 the enemy was a small band of foreigners, but foreign policy made the whole islam world (religious) and arab world (ethnic/political) to be presented as the enemy. If you read Sun Tzu basic lessons, you will find that republican disaster was not only economical, but also strategic. Making enemies where you had friends is very bad.

Also I still do not understand how is that if enemies came from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, why Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded. To me there is a small gap in geography or a GPS failure.

 

[JamesG]

Its cheaper than blood and disability entitlements...

 

[Moonwalker]

The use of robot soldiers can have advantages. But I think there is a big difference between reality and what jounalists do suggest if we only look to the picture of the news article. I think it will be less sensational and not comparable to "Terminator" at all. We are very far away from a machine like that, and we may never be able to build such a roboter, like the vast majority of enginers who develope roboters and its software say so. But we certainly will have some amazing machines in future.

I'm for it partly. If I had the choice to send my son into war or a machine, I surely would vote for the machine. And it can't be wrong to be vastly superior technological, especially in a world wich becomes threatened by insidious invisible terrorism.