Article

2008-02-28 Science & Technology

Automated killer robots 'threat to humanity': expert

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-02-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [12 views ] Top

#1 For Sharkey, the best solution may be an outright ban on autonomous weapons systems.

Why is this that for tranzis or supposed tranzis, the right response is always to ban whatever can give an edge to technologically superior but relatively undermanned western armies (think cluster bombs)? Am I bad in thinking this is a long term effort of the ongoing marxist memetic warfare (God, I love that expression!) that tried with some good measure of success of persuade the West that it was immoral for it to defend itself?

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-02-28 03:33|| 2008-02-28 03:33|| Front Page Top

#2 Dune anyone?

Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger 2008-02-28 06:46|| 2008-02-28 06:46|| Front Page Top

#3 For those of you who haven't read it, my online novel about autonomous military robots.

Autonomous Operation

Posted by phil_b 2008-02-28 06:58|| 2008-02-28 06:58|| Front Page Top

#4 I for one welcome the rule of our new robot overlords.

(C'mon--someone had to do it!)

Posted by Mike 2008-02-28 08:36|| 2008-02-28 08:36|| Front Page Top

#5 A minor technical note: There is no such thing as "artificial intelligence" or "intelligent machines".

Note also that the 4,000 "robots" in Iraq are actually radio-controlled vehicles, not robots. Some such as Marcbot are actually R/C toy trucks.

Posted by Thorgrim the Obnoxious 2008-02-28 09:48|| 2008-02-28 09:48|| Front Page Top

#6 http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/mluphoup/cybermen.jpg

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-02-28 10:07|| 2008-02-28 10:07|| Front Page Top

#7 Typical lefty in that he thinks a treaty is the way to deal with this.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-28 10:15|| 2008-02-28 10:15|| Front Page Top

#8 What the hell is an international agreement ?

Posted by wxjames 2008-02-28 10:26|| 2008-02-28 10:26|| Front Page Top

#9 Suppose the robots don't want to sign an "international agreement"?
"I don't think so, Noel..."

Posted by tu3031 2008-02-28 10:43|| 2008-02-28 10:43|| Front Page Top

#10 Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!

I will know the experts are serious when they start using Runaway as a reference to robots gone wild.

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-02-28 12:32|| 2008-02-28 12:32|| Front Page Top

#11 and may one day unleash a robot arms race

They started it with suicide boomers

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-02-28 13:09|| 2008-02-28 13:09|| Front Page Top

#12 BOLO
(If you don't know the acronym, shame on you)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2008-02-28 14:13|| 2008-02-28 14:13|| Front Page Top

#13 Oh where do I start. This guy is SO full of shit. Fisrt off, there are NOT 80 additional units of SWORDS on order. Wish it were so, but it is not. As someone else pointed out, these are remotely operated systems. They are NOT robots. Weaponized UGV's, because of idiotic articles like this and stupid comparisons to Terminator and other scifi BS, are not going to be fielded for a long time. The demand for zero error is just too high. In this case zero error means NO collatoral damage or fratricide. It will be a career ending experience when it does happen (assuming weaponized UGV's are eventually deployed). Since there seems to be so much reluctance about fielding a man-in-the-loop system, imagine what would have to happen for an autanomous weapon system to be deployed. Friggin maroon.

Posted by remoteman 2008-02-28 15:14|| 2008-02-28 15:14|| Front Page Top

#14 There is no such thing as "artificial intelligence" or "intelligent machines".

Sorry - you're wrong. It's my area of expertise and I'm pretty familiar with what we have and haven't created so far -- and where it's heading.

But call it 'computational intelligence' if you like. That's one school of design and has the most applicability in robotics.

You're right that the robots used in Afghanistan and in Iraq right now are teleoperated.

You're wrong in the implication that they represent the state of the art.

Posted by lotp 2008-02-28 15:15|| 2008-02-28 15:15|| Front Page Top

#15 Ogre mark V.

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-02-28 15:24|| 2008-02-28 15:24|| Front Page Top

#16 Noel Sharkey = Media Whore.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-02-28 17:12|| 2008-02-28 17:12|| Front Page Top

#17 lotp, do not assume that you are more expert than I am.

Posted by Thorgrim the Obnoxious 2008-02-28 18:11|| 2008-02-28 18:11|| Front Page Top

#18 Are we gonna have an 'academic-penis' waving contest now?

Posted by Pappy 2008-02-28 18:33|| 2008-02-28 18:33|| Front Page Top

#19 I'm assuming an "academic-penis" would have a pointy head?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-02-28 19:24|| 2008-02-28 19:24|| Front Page Top

#20 Pappy, its probably as useful and grotesque as a physical contest of the same organ would be.

And for the record, the state of the art is far advanced from these bots. But nobody has managed to get more than 2 areas hooked up together. Its pretty complex to get multiple areas of "AI" working together.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-28 21:23|| 2008-02-28 21:23|| Front Page Top

22:26 Abdominal Snowman
22:17 Rambler in California
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:09 Barbara Skolaut
22:08 Barbara Skolaut
21:58 darrylq
21:50 Mark E.
21:43 KBK
21:42 phil_b
21:33 phil_b
21:33 g(r)omgoru
21:23 OldSpook
21:21 Omung Squank9908
21:20 OldSpook
21:18 JosephMendiola
21:11 phil_b
21:03 darrylq
21:03 Beldar Thrating4013
20:56 phil_b
20:55 3dc
20:42 tu3031
20:31 Frank G
20:30 tu3031
20:25 legolas