THE PACK Message Boards

Robots break Asimov’s first law

And so it begins

By Nick Farrell: keskiviikko 15 maaliskuu 2006, 08:20
THE US Army is deploying armed robots in Iraq that are capable of breaking Asmov’s first law that they should not harm a human.

SWORDS (Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems) robots are equipped with either the M249, machine gun which fires 5.56-millimeter rounds at 750 rounds per minute or the M240, which fires 7.62-millimeter rounds at up to 1,000 per minute.

They are still connected by radio to a human operator who verifies that a suitable target is within sight and orders it to fire. Then the robot has the job of making sure lots of bullets are sent towards the target.

The bots are modified Talon robots that have been used by the military for at least four years, but apparently they are better at shooting than human soldiers.

Later the US plans to replace the control system of the bots with a "Gameboy" type of controller hooked up to virtual reality goggles. There are some pictures here.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30306


Some pictures, and more information:

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-F ... ewsNum=320

I wonder where this will lead....

Interesting...unfortunately, I couldn't access the picture page.


Frankly, I think this is good news. As an American, it makes me glad to know that my country is currently using the height of military technology. Not because I'm a patriot, but because I want to always be on the winning side.

This is old news.

The Asimov law thing really isn't important. For one thing, it's supposed to apply to AIs, not relatively simple automated systems. Also, they've been demonstrated to not be perfect; there are ways around them, and there are even scarier things that could happen by following them.

Hmmhh ... independently of whether it's old news or not ... I think that's bad news.
Frankly, if I am going to be killed I wanna be killed by a damn[spoiler], f***ing [/spoiler]human soldier, I don't wanna be killed by a damn[spoiler], f***ing[/spoiler] machine.

From my perspective, a bullet is a bullet. Doesn't matter much where it came from once yer dead. I'd rather /fight/ a human soldier, because his/her aim wouldn't be as good. Unless I had some sort of EMP or radio interference generating device on hand.

It will certainly soften the meaning of war, especially if they plan to use a "Gameboy" controller. War is supposed to be a last resort, but the fewer lives are on the line in war, the more likely it is that we'll be fighting another war that's completely unjustified.

all i can htink of is- "oh, man" this dosn't sound good.

I mean, 'yay' we winn, but this just sounds WAAAAYYY too much like soo many trashed-world scifi books i've read.

But, wait and see.

I'd like to comment further on what I said earlier.

I am not in favor of war. War is a very bad thing.

However, sometimes was is necessary, despite what even the most peace-loving person may say. Sometimes, it just has to happen. And, while I'm certainly not in favor of war, I am in favor of winning a war if a war occurs. Somebody has to lose, I'd rather it be the other guys.

And these machines seem like a good way to help win wars.

Renorei wrote:I'd like to comment further on what I said earlier.

I am not in favor of war. War is a very bad thing.

However, sometimes was is necessary, despite what even the most peace-loving person may say. Sometimes, it just has to happen. And, while I'm certainly not in favor of war, I am in favor of winning a war if a war occurs. Somebody has to lose, I'd rather it be the other guys.

And these machines seem like a good way to help win wars.

*nods* You're right. Sometimes war does have to happen. Ideally, war should be the very last resort, but sometimes wars happen just because someone found both a way to profit from it and a way to make it impersonalized to the people that could wage it (the Spanish/American war, for example).

The less people are involved in war, the less likely it is that people will consider the options. We already see this in today's society with the difference between the soldiers in Iraq and the people cheering them on at home like the war casualties are some kind of score board. Take the soldiers off the battlefield and suddenly war becomes a synonym for entertainment.

"I just don't think war should become some kind of video game." - Stealth

Hehehe. Great anim, and makes a good point.

This is a step towards realization of Tesla's prophesy, that war will eventually exclude humans and will be a battle of technology.

Kind of reminds me of a classic Trek episode, "A Taste of Armageddon," in which computers by two warring civilizations ran simulations of nuclear blasts, and people in "destroyed" areas on both sides reported to disintegration chambers. This went on for about a century, until Kirk refused to let the crew of the Enterprise be "accidental casualties."

What's really spooky is, I caught this episode while channel-flipping the afternoon of the day the U.S. began the war in Iraq.

Heh. What's funny is that I can imagine that happening in reality, too.

Scott Gardener wrote:This is a step towards realization of Tesla's prophesy, that war will eventually exclude humans and will be a battle of technology.

I don't really think so. I mean, most of countries don't have the equipment/money/etc. to get those things.

Why get expensive machines when humans can do the same thing?

THE US Army is deploying armed robots in Iraq that are capable of breaking Asmov’s first law that they should not harm a human.

I wonder if they understand that those were 'laws' created for a work of fiction, and weren't hard-and-fast rules of robotics.

I was waiting for something like this to happen.

Heart of the Pack wrote:

Scott Gardener wrote:This is a step towards realization of Tesla's prophesy, that war will eventually exclude humans and will be a battle of technology.

I don't really think so. I mean, most of countries don't have the equipment/money/etc. to get those things.

Why get expensive machines when humans can do the same thing?

Well, think of it.

A machine never tires. He can perform at his maximum 24/7. His aim never wavers, he does not know mercy, nor fear. He will not disobey orders. He can silently and quickly communicate with other robo-soldiers. He requires far less than a human soldier - no food, no water, not much equipment. He requires little more than basic maintenece, repair, and recharging. He is expendable, and parts can be salvaged. Furthermore he does not require training, once the intial program is devolped, all can be given it and the neccesary modifications made as things go along. A Machine is, in the long run, a better investment than a soldier; theoretically.

I have mixed feelings about combat robots. Because, well, it means less people dieing, and thats good because I don't wanna ever go to war. If a machine's there to take the shots for me and anyone else so much the better.

The bad part is, however, combat 'bots would make make war less real, people would care less about going to war. It'd turn into a video game. It'd be like a RTS, on a grand scale. The "Horrors of War" would be something people would only know to exist in movies.

*shrug*

Aki wrote:
Well, think of it.

A machine never tires. He can perform at his maximum 24/7. His aim never wavers, he does not know mercy, nor fear. He will not disobey orders. He can silently and quickly communicate with other robo-soldiers. He requires far less than a human soldier - no food, no water, not much equipment. He requires little more than basic maintenece, repair, and recharging. He is expendable, and parts can be salvaged. Furthermore he does not require training, once the intial program is devolped, all can be given it and the neccesary modifications made as things go along. A Machine is, in the long run, a better investment than a soldier; theoretically.

I have mixed feelings about combat robots. Because, well, it means less people dieing, and thats good because I don't wanna ever go to war. If a machine's there to take the shots for me and anyone else so much the better.

The bad part is, however, combat 'bots would make make war less real, people would care less about going to war. It'd turn into a video game. It'd be like a RTS, on a grand scale. The "Horrors of War" would be something people would only know to exist in movies.

*shrug*

What I'm really worried about, is that machines have no conscience problems about killing people.

I mean, how can a machines separate a civillian from a soldier? (Not right now of course, when there's a human behind the machine, but what if they develope an 'independent' program for it?)

Heart of the Pack wrote:

Aki wrote:
Well, think of it.

A machine never tires. He can perform at his maximum 24/7. His aim never wavers, he does not know mercy, nor fear. He will not disobey orders. He can silently and quickly communicate with other robo-soldiers. He requires far less than a human soldier - no food, no water, not much equipment. He requires little more than basic maintenece, repair, and recharging. He is expendable, and parts can be salvaged. Furthermore he does not require training, once the intial program is devolped, all can be given it and the neccesary modifications made as things go along. A Machine is, in the long run, a better investment than a soldier; theoretically.

I have mixed feelings about combat robots. Because, well, it means less people dieing, and thats good because I don't wanna ever go to war. If a machine's there to take the shots for me and anyone else so much the better.

The bad part is, however, combat 'bots would make make war less real, people would care less about going to war. It'd turn into a video game. It'd be like a RTS, on a grand scale. The "Horrors of War" would be something people would only know to exist in movies.

*shrug*

What I'm really worried about, is that machines have no conscience problems about killing people.

I mean, how can a machines separate a civillian from a soldier? (Not right now of course, when there's a human behind the machine, but what if they develope an 'independent' program for it?)

The recognition program mighty be devrived from how a soldier would tell, I guess. Tell the 'bot what you'd tell a Soldier.

Of course, with foes like the guys like Iraqi insurgents, youi can only really give them a 'do not fire unless fired upon' thing, since they look like normal civies until they pull out a AK-47 or somethinmg....

Heart of the Pack wrote:I mean, how can a machines separate a civillian from a soldier? (Not right now of course, when there's a human behind the machine, but what if they develope an 'independent' program for it?)

Skynet anyone? I realize Terminator is just a movie, but the danger presented could very well become real.

Man...I miss the old days when people actually fought eachother face to face with swords and shields. Sure, dying in such a battle was horrid and painful, and the sight of all the decapitated, gutted, and otherwise sliced up bodies would make most people retch but it really drove home the fact that war is not something to be taken lightly.

Right now, most countries interested in war are the ones still in the dark ages. So, I do grant that at the moment it's cheaper to use human labor.

But, war evolves like everything else, and whatever is most efficient wins out. Indeed, war is the extreme example of "survival of the fittest," as the goal of war is to defeat and destroy the adversary.

And, when you consider events like the Iraq War, where one side is a technological superpower and the other fighting with found objects, the statistics of casualties is very lopsided. In fact, it could easily be worse for the insurgents, if there weren't some interest in the Iraqis in general. If the Bush administration were completely war-mongerish (that is, if they had no pretenses of being otherwise), with virtually no immediate loss of American soldiers, the push of a few buttons could eliminate virtually all insurgents.

Large scale battles are becoming obsolete in this day and age. Given the lopsidedness of war against major powers, the warmongers have shifted the battlefield to infiltration and subversion tactics.

A comparable paradigm shift happened during the American revolution back when it was the underdog against Britain, a superpower back in the late 1700s and early 1800s. British red coat soldiers lined up in formation to shoot at Patriot colonist forces. But, to their dismay, the colonist rebels didn't line up in counter formation. They instead hid and shot back from the trees and other hiding places. Roman soldier formations died that day, and guerilla fighting and trench warfare had begun.

Hence why the US lost the Vietnam war..... Obviously at the rate the US is going, it would unlikely be able to fight the guerilla war in Iraq for much longer either.

How might machines be able to determine soldiers/civilizions?

Computer Vision/Machine Vision, despite still having a long way to go, will make it possible.

http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-1/p18.html

Hearth wrote:Why get expensive machines when humans can do the same thing?

Because the people back home aren't going to picket the Whitehouse to bring back the Packrats. People hate George W. because he started a war for Iraq's oil that people are dying in. If there were no soldiers in Iraq, the war would not be nearly as emotional as it is now.

In other words, an army of robots would make war impersonal to the country that uses them. And the more impersonal war becomes, the more likely it is that war would be considered for the wrong reasons.