If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Despite activists and other experts demanding an international ban on robotic military weapons, the future battlefield of war will be crawling with robots. It's just a matter of time   (motherjones.com) divider line 49
    More: Obvious, Space weapon, Laws of Robotics, military weapons, autonomous robot, George Jetson, combat vehicle, Ronald Arkin, roboticist  
•       •       •

974 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 May 2013 at 11:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-03 11:17:59 AM  
Solid Snake.  Come in, Solid Snake.
 
2013-05-03 11:20:24 AM  
I don't know what these "activists" are thinking.     They seem to believe that robots should somehow be our moral superiors.  It's like they're stuck in an Asimov novel.  Don't you understand?  If you die as a soldier in a war, you die in real life.
 
2013-05-03 11:22:16 AM  
If people don't die in war, there is no reason to avoid war.

http://www.startrek.com/database_article/taste-of-armageddon
 
2013-05-03 11:23:32 AM  
i for one welcome our new robot overlords
 
2013-05-03 11:28:50 AM  
Lets say they have to be piloted by real people.
 
2013-05-03 11:28:57 AM  
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
 
2013-05-03 11:34:25 AM  
1) people want wars to happen, especially after getting attacked (yes, folks might think that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq, but it was a popular decision at the time)
2) people don't like their boys coming home in body bags.

the only solution that meets the immature view of the public about war is sending in robots to kill our enemies.
 
2013-05-03 11:34:31 AM  
www.animeout.com

All hail our new Japanese overlords... their whole culture is ready for the robot future
 
2013-05-03 11:35:50 AM  
cdn.chud.com
 
2013-05-03 11:38:17 AM  
But if we allow killer robots does this mean we get to have countless arguments about which tech company's killer robots are the best and why you'd be an absolute idiot to want to use the competitor's product?

I'm so sick of the Northrop Grumman dronefans.  BAE Systems makes a superior product with much higher fit and finish and real chrome exhaust ports.  You really get what you pay for.
 
2013-05-03 11:38:55 AM  
Yeah, the DARPA Chief died of a heart attack, uh I don't know what happened. Metal Gear.. whatever, Meryl's hot.

Right now, we build war machines from fragile human volunteers. When they get a limb blown off, you cant just build a new one that mimics the exact form and function of the old one and attach it with some welding and wrenches. When something goes wrong with their 'circuitry', it takes years and they never fully recover. They require support. They require training. They also require a 9 month gestation period and roughly 17-18 years to become full grown, and are so variable at that point that a majority of them won't even volunteer to go risk life and limb for the ideology you have attempted to persuade them is truth/just/right.

Its going to happen whether the Princeton guy or Goose and Squirrel or Steve with the tinfoil hat down the street want it to or not. Theres too much money and too much to be gained by doing it.

James!: Lets say they have to be piloted by real people.


Only if it has a customizable UI, standardized targeting reticules are boring.
 
2013-05-03 11:40:54 AM  

Kristoph57: Yeah, the DARPA Chief died of a heart attack, uh I don't know what happened. Metal Gear.. whatever, Meryl's hot.

Right now, we build war machines from fragile human volunteers. When they get a limb blown off, you cant just build a new one that mimics the exact form and function of the old one and attach it with some welding and wrenches. When something goes wrong with their 'circuitry', it takes years and they never fully recover. They require support. They require training. They also require a 9 month gestation period and roughly 17-18 years to become full grown, and are so variable at that point that a majority of them won't even volunteer to go risk life and limb for the ideology you have attempted to persuade them is truth/just/right.

Its going to happen whether the Princeton guy or Goose and Squirrel or Steve with the tinfoil hat down the street want it to or not. Theres too much money and too much to be gained by doing it.

James!: Lets say they have to be piloted by real people.

Only if it has a customizable UI, standardized targeting reticules are boring.


www.logicalmoon.com
 
2013-05-03 11:43:58 AM  

Kristoph57: Yeah, the DARPA Chief died of a heart attack, uh I don't know what happened. Metal Gear.. whatever, Meryl's hot.

Right now, we build war machines from fragile human volunteers. When they get a limb blown off, you cant just build a new one that mimics the exact form and function of the old one and attach it with some welding and wrenches. When something goes wrong with their 'circuitry', it takes years and they never fully recover. They require support. They require training. They also require a 9 month gestation period and roughly 17-18 years to become full grown, and are so variable at that point that a majority of them won't even volunteer to go risk life and limb for the ideology you have attempted to persuade them is truth/just/right.

Its going to happen whether the Princeton guy or Goose and Squirrel or Steve with the tinfoil hat down the street want it to or not. Theres too much money and too much to be gained by doing it.

James!: Lets say they have to be piloted by real people.

Only if it has a customizable UI, standardized targeting reticules are boring.


I demand that they tap into the pilot's chi and transform at a climactic point in the battle.
 
2013-05-03 11:44:08 AM  
I'm Anan 7, and I approved this message.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-03 11:47:23 AM  
Just as Tesla predicted. Tehhhhsssslahhhh.
 
2013-05-03 11:48:02 AM  

NostroZ: [www.animeout.com image 850x637]

All hail our new Japanese overlords... their whole culture is ready for the robot future


The Endless Waltz versions are alot better and so much more cooler then the original designs!

/Long live Deathsythe Hell Custom!
 
2013-05-03 11:48:02 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: If people don't die in war, there is no reason to avoid war.

http://www.startrek.com/database_article/taste-of-armageddon


I've been thinking about that, and realized it only "works" because of the "there's no money in the ST universe" thing. If you have two powers fighting with robots, one of them will run out of robot-building resources before the other, and likely concede the conflict.
 
2013-05-03 11:52:24 AM  
Robots won't get heavy use until they're really, really cheap - and at that point, they'll be mostly facing each other.

Which means that operating the non-autonomous ones will be awesome...
 
2013-05-03 12:02:04 PM  
So far, I like our military's official position that there has to be a human at some point in the process responsible for actually pulling the trigger. I have no problem with drones being used instead of pilots or if PETMAN eventually starts taking over risky infantry jobs, just make sure there's someone responsible for what they do. Last thing we want is an autonomous bot vaporizing a group of kids wielding super soakers because it perceives a threat.
 
2013-05-03 12:08:20 PM  
I look forward to when war is approached like in Shattered Galaxies. Very underrated game.
 
2013-05-03 12:18:41 PM  

Carolus99: So far, I like our military's official position that there has to be a human at some point in the process responsible for actually pulling the trigger. I have no problem with drones being used instead of pilots or if PETMAN eventually starts taking over risky infantry jobs, just make sure there's someone responsible for what they do. Last thing we want is an autonomous bot vaporizing a group of kids wielding super soakers because it perceives a threat.


You have a massively hollywoodized view of AI if you think they actually have a choice about whether to have a human pulling the trigger at this point, you might be able to get something that can recognize human shapes with a moderate degree of accuracy and fire at them, but given that it would have no real way of determining friend, foe or civilian, there is little benefit to spending lots of cash on something you can already do by dropping a big bomb on an area for 1/100th the price.
 
2013-05-03 12:20:38 PM  
i74.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-03 12:22:18 PM  

xria: You have a massively hollywoodized view of AI if you think they actually have a choice about whether to have a human pulling the trigger at this point, you might be able to get something that can recognize human shapes with a moderate degree of accuracy and fire at them, but given that it would have no real way of determining friend, foe or civilian, there is little benefit to spending lots of cash on something you can already do by dropping a big bomb on an area for 1/100th the price.


Of course I am forgetting a few exceptions - for example the existing anti-missile systems the navy already uses are effectively expert systems that can automatically shoot down incoming missiles and ignore everything else, so theoretically you might see a handful of specific robotic weapon systems that have very limited target sets that it can reliably take out, but humans are not going to be the target of automated systems for the foresseable future.
 
2013-05-03 12:23:39 PM  
www.gutenberg.org
 
2013-05-03 12:35:09 PM  

Ambitwistor: The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.


Came for this reference, leaving satisfied...
 
2013-05-03 12:45:04 PM  
We will still need humans to be pilots, and to make dramatic threats to enemy operators.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-03 12:46:18 PM  
 So what you're saying is that in the future, an 'aircraft carrier' will have 2-3 'human' flight wings and 20-30 'droid' flight wings?

/or a much smaller carrier with just the droids?

/or a plane with parachute-deployed droid swarms?

Fortunately, a lot of what that military wants is NP-COMPLETE
 
2013-05-03 12:47:52 PM  

xria: xria: You have a massively hollywoodized view of AI if you think they actually have a choice about whether to have a human pulling the trigger at this point, you might be able to get something that can recognize human shapes with a moderate degree of accuracy and fire at them, but given that it would have no real way of determining friend, foe or civilian, there is little benefit to spending lots of cash on something you can already do by dropping a big bomb on an area for 1/100th the price.

Of course I am forgetting a few exceptions - for example the existing anti-missile systems the navy already uses are effectively expert systems that can automatically shoot down incoming missiles and ignore everything else, so theoretically you might see a handful of specific robotic weapon systems that have very limited target sets that it can reliably take out, but humans are not going to be the target of automated systems for the foresseable future.


Very short CSB, but that is the kind of stuff I'm currently working on: How to instantiate a kind of "theory of mind" in autonomous and semi-autonomous robot platforms so that it can, with reasonable accuracy, be able to determine a friendly from a hostile based on perceptual features (facial expression, posture, physiological measures like heavy breathing/blinking/sweating/etc.). None of the platforms are weaponized, so they are for surveillance only, and then that information is routed to human team members who can then do whatever with that information. Theoretically, it isn't that far into the future.
 
2013-05-03 12:48:37 PM  

xria: xria: You have a massively hollywoodized view of AI if you think they actually have a choice about whether to have a human pulling the trigger at this point, you might be able to get something that can recognize human shapes with a moderate degree of accuracy and fire at them, but given that it would have no real way of determining friend, foe or civilian, there is little benefit to spending lots of cash on something you can already do by dropping a big bomb on an area for 1/100th the price.

Of course I am forgetting a few exceptions - for example the existing anti-missile systems the navy already uses are effectively expert systems that can automatically shoot down incoming missiles and ignore everything else, so theoretically you might see a handful of specific robotic weapon systems that have very limited target sets that it can reliably take out, but humans are not going to be the target of automated systems for the foresseable future.


The newly released UN report complains about Navy anti-missile systems like CIWS.
 
2013-05-03 01:06:49 PM  

Big Beef Burrito: We will still need humans to be pilots, and to make dramatic threats to enemy operators.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x306]


That movie was awesome.   Yeah sure it's a B-movie but they spent the whole budget on stop motion Mecha beating on each other.  Win.
 
2013-05-03 01:10:36 PM  
No protest movement is gonna stop the military-industrial complex. Drone warfare is inevitable, and with it will come a return to the doctrine of total war. Losses to a drone army are trivial; if you want to defeat it you have to kill the people that make and support the drones. The future is gonna be ugly.
 
2013-05-03 01:15:04 PM  
the world needs fewer activists. Maybe we can sic some drones on them
 
2013-05-03 01:59:05 PM  

xria: Carolus99: So far, I like our military's official position that there has to be a human at some point in the process responsible for actually pulling the trigger. I have no problem with drones being used instead of pilots or if PETMAN eventually starts taking over risky infantry jobs, just make sure there's someone responsible for what they do. Last thing we want is an autonomous bot vaporizing a group of kids wielding super soakers because it perceives a threat.

You have a massively hollywoodized view of AI if you think they actually have a choice about whether to have a human pulling the trigger at this point, you might be able to get something that can recognize human shapes with a moderate degree of accuracy and fire at them, but given that it would have no real way of determining friend, foe or civilian, there is little benefit to spending lots of cash on something you can already do by dropping a big bomb on an area for 1/100th the price.


Sorry, but as a guy who does things tangentially related to this, you're completely wrong.

Here's an approximately $150 device that not only recognizes humans, but also recognizes their posing:

upload.wikimedia.org
It's major limitations are sensing ability (it only has one microphone, one camera and one depth mapper) and computational power. Higher quality optics and more on-board processing isn't an issue for the DoD.
As far as extending this from your living room to the battlefield, it'll be a challenge no doubt, but it'll be more of an engineering challenge than a research challenge... the Kinect is essentially a pre-computed support vector machine, so there's no reason to think that more data wouldn't be able to solve the majority of problems.

As far as the IFF problem, we already have a fantastic amount of technology designed to avoid exactly that.  The case of civilians is potentially troubling, and no technology is perfect, but as I mentioned above we already have decent pose recognition, and it's a short hop from there to threat recognition. Failing all of that, we've had free fire zones (in war) for a long time now. We talk about how important ROE is for our soldiers, but think about the way we've been using drones... they care about excess casualties, but not enough to stop us from using our technological advantage.

Word on the street is that South Korea already has autonomous gun turrets that have a fully-automatic mode along the DMZ, which operate simply on movement recognition (something you can do at home on a laptop).

Also, have you checked into how much bombs cost lately? A JDAM kit costs $27K, and the bomb underneath is $3K, you drop a dozen of those and you're already up to $360K without factoring the total cost of the aviation program and training that supports dropping those bombs. I don't have exact numbers, but I can say that the yearly cost of keeping one soldier in Afghanistan is over $800K.  For comparison, a willow garage PR2 (a relatively complex and modern robot) costs $400K to purchase, but once purchased only needs maintenance and electricity.

I'm not saying that robot warfare will be cheap, but you have to keep the current cost of war in perspective. This is why we're probably not going to see very many man-piloted aircraft in the future- pilots cost a ton to train, aren't easily replaceable, and you're on the hook for benefits and pensions once they get out.
 
2013-05-03 02:04:49 PM  

skullkrusher: the world needs fewer less stupid activists. Maybe we can sic some drones on them


ftfy
 
2013-05-03 02:19:51 PM  

grinding_journalist: AverageAmericanGuy: If people don't die in war, there is no reason to avoid war.

http://www.startrek.com/database_article/taste-of-armageddon

I've been thinking about that, and realized it only "works" because of the "there's no money in the ST universe" thing. If you have two powers fighting with robots, one of them will run out of robot-building resources before the other, and likely concede the conflict.


Concede, hell, their civilian population will be overrun by murderbots they can't hope to defend against and they will immediately and unconditionally surrender or face genocide.
 
2013-05-03 02:35:09 PM  
Meh, I'm all set.  I've got my neurohelmet ready.  I'd even get EI tattoo implants or Manei Dominei implants to improve the connection.
 
2013-05-03 02:57:18 PM  
I'd like to see Petman joined with something like this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpHWJMytx5I&feature=youtube_gdata_pla y er
 
2013-05-03 03:36:01 PM  

swahnhennessy: [www.gutenberg.org image 600x423]


I have forgotten about that story. Added to book list for my upcoming vacation.
 
2013-05-03 03:44:26 PM  

Carolus99: I'd like to see Petman joined with something like this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpHWJMytx5I&feature=youtube_gdata_pla y er


I think that's where its going.
Soldiers in VR harnesses guiding killer robots through combat patrols as if they were on the streets themselves.   Whoever has the money for the best and most robots wins, while civilians run screaming from the remote controlled fracas.
When the only casualties are people the media doesn't care about, and the nation is making a profit from selling weapons to itself, the war never has to end.

/Eventually the designers realize that the easy way to overpower a killer robot is to make a bigger robot,
/and then Gundams... Gundams everywhere.
 
2013-05-03 03:56:03 PM  
All of this has happened before, all of this will happen again.
 
2013-05-03 04:40:47 PM  
 
As long as it doesn't look like this I'm fine.  We couldn't afford the damn licensing fees.
 
2013-05-03 04:41:57 PM  
was a witty photo from Star Wars episode III I guess.  One of the crappy ones, with lots of toys.  And droids that looked like bugs, and things with big wheels and shiat.  It was a good photo..  =(
 
2013-05-03 08:50:01 PM  
www.movieprop.com
 
2013-05-03 09:53:55 PM  
Well, duh.  After the robots kill us all, there will be only robots left to wage wars.
 
2013-05-04 12:11:25 AM  
d3d71ba2asa5oz.cloudfront.net
 
2013-05-04 06:30:27 AM  

xria: xria: You have a massively hollywoodized view of AI if you think they actually have a choice about whether to have a human pulling the trigger at this point, you might be able to get something that can recognize human shapes with a moderate degree of accuracy and fire at them, but given that it would have no real way of determining friend, foe or civilian, there is little benefit to spending lots of cash on something you can already do by dropping a big bomb on an area for 1/100th the price.

Of course I am forgetting a few exceptions - for example the existing anti-missile systems the navy already uses are effectively expert systems that can automatically shoot down incoming missiles and ignore everything else, so theoretically you might see a handful of specific robotic weapon systems that have very limited target sets that it can reliably take out, but humans are not going to be the target of automated systems for the foresseable future.


I think you give the missile shoot down systems too much credit. They are quite sophisticated. But they only operate when the crew turns them on. And the crew only turns them on if they are in a situation where they perceive a threat. There are plenty of humans in the decision making loop, even if they aren't involved in the split second "Cry Havok" judgement the computer makes.
 
2013-05-04 08:30:17 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: If people don't die in war, there is no reason to avoid war.

http://www.startrek.com/database_article/taste-of-armageddon


That hasn't done much to stop us so far.
 
2013-05-04 08:31:33 AM  

pastorkius: But if we allow killer robots does this mean we get to have countless arguments about which tech company's killer robots are the best and why you'd be an absolute idiot to want to use the competitor's product?

I'm so sick of the Northrop Grumman dronefans.  BAE Systems makes a superior product with much higher fit and finish and real chrome exhaust ports.  You really get what you pay for.


Don't forget that BAE requires always on internet.
 
2013-05-04 03:43:38 PM  

nocturnal001: AverageAmericanGuy: If people don't die in war, there is no reason to avoid war.

http://www.startrek.com/database_article/taste-of-armageddon

That hasn't done much to stop us so far.


I also wondered what kind of pointy headed gibberish that was. All it will take is for civilization to crack a little and we'll be going at it enmasse again.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report