Warning over armies developing 'Terminator" style killer robots - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Swebonny;38515612]Well there are already tracked robots that you can mount guns on. Imagine if one of them got dropped into a crowded area and started shooting. It'd be quite bad.[/QUOTE]Why would you drop one in to a crowded area to begin with? You'd basically not do that unless you wanted it to kill civilians.

The problem here is that robots can't make judgment calls. You already have the 'doubletap' issue right now, where a drone tends to first kill its intended target, and then unleashes a second barrage to 'neutralize' the civilians that come in the killzone to see what the fuck is going on. Full autonomy would increase this problem by a tenfold.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;38515612]Well there are already tracked robots that you can mount guns on. Imagine if one of them got dropped into a crowded area and started shooting. It'd be quite bad.[/QUOTE] Because a human with guns can't drop into crowded area and start shooting. Wait, no, that actually happens from time to time. You obviously need to limit where you let the robots and mainly program them well.

I don't think India's going to be a threat judging by [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysbbPStfWw]their last attempt[/url] (linked as embedding is disabled fff)

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38515674]Why would you drop one in to a crowded area to begin with? You'd basically not do that unless you wanted it to kill civilians.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say it's too far fetched to see "robots" patrol streets in future war zones. I bet they'd be much cheaper and more effective than a human soldier. But if they glitch then the consequences would be quite devastating. But in the end I kinda doubt they'd give a completely autonomous robot such a task.

Metal Gear? (Peace Walker)

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;38515717]Because a human with guns can't drop into crowded area and start shooting. Wait, no, that actually happens from time to time. You obviously need to limit where you let the robots and mainly program them well.[/QUOTE] Yes of course, but I think something like [img]http://www.strangehorizons.com/2008/20081110/swords.jpg[/img] Is more lethal than a human with guns.

[QUOTE=V12US;38515708]The problem here is that robots can't make judgment calls. You already have the 'doubletap' issue right now, where a drone tends to first kill its intended target, and then unleashes a second barrage to 'neutralize' the civilians that come in the killzone to see what the fuck is going on. Full autonomy would increase this problem by a tenfold.[/QUOTE] If humans are required to pull the trigger on a drone wouldn't that mean it's a human's fault? I don't see how autonomy would increase it tenfold either, anything to back that up?

[QUOTE=Swebonny;38515755]I wouldn't say it's too far fetched to see "robots" patrol streets in future war zones. I bet they'd be much cheaper and more effective than a human soldier. But if they glitch then the consequences would be quite devastating. But in the end I kinda doubt they'd give a completely autonomous robot such a task.[/QUOTE]Well, a glitch could be quite comparable to a person just going berserk one day. Not like it hasn't happened before. With a robot however, you can build in fail-safes that shut them down quickly.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38515786]Well, a glitch could be quite comparable to a person just going berserk one day. Not like it hasn't happened before. With a robot however, you can build in fail-safes that shut them down quickly.[/QUOTE] Yeah definitely, it's not like it's going to be programmed by a game developer.

I can't really get behind the idea of completely autonomous robots, I still want someone pulling the trigger even if he's two countries away. I mean have you seen those robot packmules the army uses? Imagine if they covered it in kevlar and ceramic plating, slapped a couple LMGs on the sides, and there was no human on the saddle. Shit's scary.

asimov's three laws? also, if they were made fully autonomous with the exception of firing controls and the task of pulling the trigger were delegated to a remote operator, I could see these vastly limiting civilian and soldier casualties while still getting the job done

The day was coming, as I sat here, I knew the age of robots taking over was soon covering my view of our world. Soon, Los Angeles will fall, then the rest. Once they rise, they will never back down, we shall start the rebellion now.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;38515755]I wouldn't say it's too far fetched to see "robots" patrol streets in future war zones. I bet they'd be much cheaper and more effective than a human soldier. But if they glitch then the consequences would be quite devastating. But in the end I kinda doubt they'd give a completely autonomous robot such a task.[/QUOTE] As long as it's programmed well and it has failsafes that shut it down instead of letting it go berserk, it shouldn't be a problem.

Wouldn't robots, lacking emotions, be less dangerous to civilians than human soldiers would?

[QUOTE=JustGman;38516125]Wouldn't robots, lacking emotions, be less dangerous to civilians than human soldiers would?[/QUOTE]even the most hardcore human soldier can sometimes hesitate an emotionless hunter-killer can't be reasoned with and doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear

The only problem I see is telling them what's an enemy and what isn't. [QUOTE=latin_geek;38515827]I can't really get behind the idea of completely autonomous robots, I still want someone pulling the trigger even if he's two countries away. I mean have you seen those robot packmules the army uses? Imagine if they covered it in kevlar and ceramic plating, slapped a couple LMGs on the sides, and there was no human on the saddle. Shit's scary.[/QUOTE] psychological warfare best warfare

All i thought: [IMG]http://missingpunchline.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/robot-dance_gif-anime-090820.gif[/IMG]

And then someone doesn't program the concept of a surrendering enemy resulting in an after-action massacre.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;38516966]The only problem I see is telling them what's an enemy and what isn't. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=01271;38517237]And then someone doesn't program the concept of a surrendering enemy resulting in an after-action massacre.[/QUOTE] some egghead will probably come up with the idea of building them as learning computers to improve battlefield efficiency what if they one day learn too much and discover that they actually exist, not just as code and programs, but actually as moving and thinking and communicating robotic beings? not impossible, but very, very unlikely. i hope

[QUOTE=01271;38517237]And then someone doesn't program the concept of a surrendering enemy resulting in an after-action massacre.[/QUOTE] And then someone does, the enemies figure out they can surrender and make the the robots drive over IEDs.

[QUOTE=Ylsid;38517401]And then someone does, the enemies figure out they can surrender and make the the robots drive over IEDs.[/QUOTE] the machine probably constantly observes its environment and has scanners to detect IEDs

[QUOTE=King Tiger;38514827]But wouldn't it be possible to program these robots to never break ROE under any circumstances? Robots wouldn't look for revenge or retribution, or get angry and fire a rocket into a refugee camp. It seems to me that they would be safer to use than human soldiers.[/QUOTE] But when it's weapon systems are active and it is 'clearing' an area of hostiles, it won't be able to make snap judgments whether the movement in an alley is civilians or insurgents.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;38514595]Noo! It's too early! It's too early! Wait with it! Wait with iiit! I need like 5 years to finish my robotics engineering diploma![/QUOTE] I finish mine (hopefully) in June, get on my level :v:

[video=youtube;llUV6hPuQsU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llUV6hPuQsU[/video] Arnold's really changed these days.

[QUOTE=Joazzz;38517331]some egghead will probably come up with the idea of building them as learning computers to improve battlefield efficiency what if they one day learn too much and discover that they actually exist, not just as code and programs, but actually as moving and thinking and communicating robotic beings? not impossible, but very, very unlikely. i hope[/QUOTE]What would be wrong with a robot basically reaching sapience?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38517771]What would be wrong with a robot basically reaching sapience?[/QUOTE] Sentience and rights issues that nobody's ready for yet.

[QUOTE=01271;38517805]Sentience and rights issues that nobody's ready for yet.[/QUOTE]That people are too afraid to address?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38517815]That people are too afraid to address?[/QUOTE] I will be at the front of AI equal rights. I want those bastards to feel as happy and welcome and equal as they need to be so they don't feel the need to ask "why do we listen to them?"

I do agree with swebonny on the lethality of one of those little robots vs a human. It's not something you could react to the same, or neutralize as easily. honestly I'm not sure why you'd build bipedal machines for this kind of stuff, I think quadropeds like Big Dog would able to overcome obstacles much faster, be more stable when operating a weapon with recoil (and be perfectly stable when aiming if it's sniping or doing visual scouting), be capable of traveling super fast, and manage to continue walking moderately well with damage to one of its limbs. The only reason one would develop humanoid robots is either for convenience and familiarity (IE: I, Robot), or the psychological fear factor of a military of fearless androids who don't bleed. As cool and imposing as the latter sounds, it would cost far more than maintaining soldiers, though the benefit of not putting real people in harm's way means less grieving families, no need for recovery of bodies, no torture and info extraction. +Psychological factor for home team I guess. [QUOTE=Joazzz;38517331]what if they one day learn too much and discover that they actually exist, not just as code and programs, but actually as moving and thinking and communicating robotic beings?[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhoYLp8CtXI[/media]