dreamdancer 0 #1 January 23, 2010 they're behind you! QuoteNato forces now depend on a range of killer robots, largely designed by the British Ministry of Defence labs privatised by Tony Blair in 2001. Every time you hear about a "drone attack" against Afghanistan or Pakistan, that's an unmanned robot dropping bombs on human beings. Push a button and it flies away, kills, and comes home. Its robot-cousin on the battlefields below is called SWORDS: a human-sized robot that can see 360 degrees around it and fire its machine-guns at any target it "chooses". Fox News proudly calls it "the GI of the 21st century." And billions are being spent on the next generation of warbots, which will leave these models looking like the bulky box on which you used to play Pong. At the moment, most are controlled by a soldier - often 7,500 miles away - with a control panel. But insurgents are always inventing new ways to block the signal from the control centre, which causes the robot to shut down and "die". So the military is building "autonomy" into the robots: if they lose contact, they start to make their own decisions, in line with a pre-determined code. This is "one of the most fundamental changes in the history of human warfare," according to PW Singer, a former analyst for the Pentagon and the CIA, in his must-read book, Wired For War: The Robotics Revolution and Defence in the Twenty-First Century. Humans have been developing weapons that enabled us to kill at ever-greater distances and in ever-greater numbers for millennia, from the longbow to the cannon to the machine-gun to the nuclear bomb. But these robots mark a different stage. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-1stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #2 January 23, 2010 Quotethe military is building "autonomy" into the robots: if they lose contact, they start to make their own decisions, in line with a pre-determined code. Nothing to worry about. http://agoldenworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/adam-levermore-rich-how-to-spot-a-cylon.jpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #3 January 23, 2010 Autonomy is a very important word in this information. Current drones and other remote vehicles require a remote pilot to operate and authorize a kill. That may seem menacing, but to me it's just another abstraction in the technology of warfare. For the last 100 years, people have been fighting wars with guns, which require someone to aim and pull the trigger - the bullets do the real work of killing, but that doesn't make them sinister. When I worked at LM Astronautics, the company was working on semi-autonomous vehicles, which still required remote piloting, but the vehicle itself was capable of making some small decisions itself, based on whether it lost contact with the remote pilot, or even to simplify the job (for instance, you tell it to drive straight, but it decides to drive in a curved path to avoid an obstacle). Sci-Fi is replete with stories of fully-autonomous robots that decide when to kill and the best way to do it. From a technology perspective, we are further away from creating machines like that, then we are of seeing flying cars. Theoretically it's all possible, but the A.I. required to do that sort of job - it's just not feasible. Humans have trouble deciding when to kill, and we're nowhere near getting A.I. to be as good as a human.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #4 January 23, 2010 harlan ellison - 'i have no mouth and i must scream' - brilliant stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #5 January 23, 2010 Kernel Panic! (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #6 January 23, 2010 Quote From a technology perspective, we are further away from creating machines like that, then we are of seeing flying cars. . www.luxuo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/flying-car.jpg... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #7 January 23, 2010 Quote Theoretically it's all possible, but the A.I. required to do that sort of job - it's just not feasible. Humans have trouble deciding when to kill, and we're nowhere near getting A.I. to be as good as a human. Battle manager software is rather easy to develop. The hard part is to correctly ID a target and classify as Friend or Foe. In the early 80s I wrote a battle manager for a laser weapon. The inputs were a series of targets that the battle manager had to prioritize. You had to account for aiming, lase time and the destructive power of the target. There was also a 'man-in-the-loop' that could override the battle manager. With the drone killers/robots, the communication between the live being and the robot is the weakest link. Signals may be jammed, but the way around that is to frequency shift signals in a way that only the person and robot know. The frequency shifting occurs on small time scales eg broadcast/recieve on Channel 1 for 35 msec then switch to Channel 2 etc. You have to shift over frequencies that the enemy uses too because if they try to jam all frequencies they block themselves out too. Frequency shifting is rather easy with laser communication devices, but for radio signals it's a bit harder and cannot be done as fast. When the radio frequency lasers become more robust and can lase over a relatively broad spectrum, the drones will gain tactical advantage. When robots become self-sufficient you get into the HAL syndrome. There was also a movie about a computer run home that tried to kill the occupants. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #8 January 23, 2010 Would the case of computers trying to kill humans very much different than we humans doing our unintentional best to destroy the environment from which we evolved? Sci-F is not all that much stranger than real life and, in some cases, less strange.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #9 January 23, 2010 the ultimate nightmare would be that the enemy didn't just jam the controls - but gained control of the robot entirely stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #10 January 23, 2010 The flying drones that drop bombs don't bother me so much, but replacing the man on the battlefield with a bot bugs me. Sure... I'm concerned a little about the sci-fi what-if scenarios, but if you remove human cost from war, then it's just monetary cost preventing you from going to war.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #11 January 23, 2010 Quote For the last 100 years, people have been fighting wars with guns, which require someone to aim and pull the trigger - the bullets do the real work of killing, but that doesn't make them sinister. What other uses do they have other than killing (wanking doesn't count)? and how is that not sinister, both of these things are sinister? maybe not for those that want to kill or eat but most defiantely for those being shot at!. I Keep hearing 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' they also kill animals. I can't think of another purpose, some use them on targets, which is practicing for the kill, but explain to me how bullets are not sinister, that mindset seems to be A VERY LARGE PROBLEM america faces right now. QuoteSci-Fi is replete with stories of fully-autonomous robots that decide when to kill and the best way to do it. From a technology perspective, we are further away from creating machines like that, then we are of seeing flying cars. Theoretically it's all possible, but the A.I. required to do that sort of job - it's just not feasible. Humans have trouble deciding when to kill, and we're nowhere near getting A.I. to be as good as a human. So you don't think that using a gun and a robot by remote makes the process of killing another human being than say, shooting them yourself? Will this not lead to even more un-necessary deaths?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #12 January 23, 2010 QuoteNothing to worry about. Nah? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1pr683SYFk What happens when a robot kills a robot in combat? Who wins then? your economy? Certainly not, arms manufacturers? bingo?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #13 January 23, 2010 >What happens when a robot kills a robot in combat? Who wins then? The two soldiers who didn't die. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #14 January 23, 2010 Once both sides of a conflict have robots that attack war is simply economic, not tragic. These same machines designed to destroy could actually lead to the end of conventional warfare. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #15 January 24, 2010 Quote These same machines designed to destroy could actually lead to the end of conventional warfare. [Smile] I hope you are right, but with human beings' track record, I would guess it would mean more innocents will get killed with less accountability from those that wish to inflict harm. Are you imagining a battle field where there are only robots fighting each other and we all watch, from the comfort of our own home in anticipation of what happens? These robots will have human blood on them! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTabSf1Dxx8&NR=1 What do the gun nuts think about the geek gamers taking over thier jobs? Will the erecton still be the same if it is a robot 'feeling the power'?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #16 January 24, 2010 Quote I can't think of another purpose, some use them on targets, which is practicing for the kill, but explain to me how bullets are not sinister, that mindset seems to be A VERY LARGE PROBLEM america faces right now. so you REALLY think all target shooters are practicing for killing people or animals?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #17 January 24, 2010 Quoteso you REALLY think all target shooters are practicing for killing people or animals? Yes, instictively that is where you get your satisfaction, it is a primal instinct. Kinda on subject 'on many levels' is this interesting article, as robots will be purchased by military (private) contractors. This ruling is quite relevant indeed! http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/22/call-for-immediate-arrest-of-5-supreme-court-justices-for-treason/ What is the point of being a good aim when you have some geeks' robot honing in on you 3 at a time! What the fuck is this world coming to, we have the cabilities to create utopia or mahem, if we would all just grow a spine we would be O.k. but all this conflict we are seeeing is not necessary at all and is driven purly on profit, not freedom, and not democracy. It is the people that allow it to happen, there will always be bad guys, just how we deal with them needs to change, the good guys aren't winning right now!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #18 January 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteso you REALLY think all target shooters are practicing for killing people or animals? Yes, instictively that is where you get your satisfaction, it is a primal instinct. sometimes a steel plate is just a steel plate. steels matches are a lot of fun, and bear more resemblance to a carnival game than a body target.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #19 January 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteThese same machines designed to destroy could actually lead to the end of conventional warfare. [Smile] I hope you are right, but with human beings' track record, I would guess it would mean more innocents will get killed with less accountability from those that wish to inflict harm. Are you imagining a battle field where there are only robots fighting each other and we all watch, from the comfort of our own home in anticipation of what happens? Yes. As most of these robots are built from off the shelf technology, if they are effective they will be quickly adopted by all fighting forces. In the short term, there will be robot vs. human battles but that will quickly change to robot on robot. More attacks will be targetted at control centers. As less people are needed, particularly as the robots become more and more autonomous, terrorism and rebel fighting will change as well. An extremely rich person could have their own formidable army with only a small proportion of actual people. But as it will be robots fighting robots battles will be won or lost based not on casualties, but to be able to repair or purchase replacements. Economic warfare is the warfare of the future.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #20 January 24, 2010 >But as it will be robots fighting robots battles will be won or lost based not >on casualties, but to be able to repair or purchase replacements. >Economic warfare is the warfare of the future. That's not "the warfare of the future" - that's how things work now. We didn't win World War II because our generals, pilots, soldiers, weapons etc were better than the Germans and the Japanese - we won because we could massively outproduce them. One of their pilots would shoot down two of our aircraft and we'd build ten more, while targeting their factories so they couldn't do the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #21 January 24, 2010 Quote >But as it will be robots fighting robots battles will be won or lost based not >on casualties, but to be able to repair or purchase replacements. >Economic warfare is the warfare of the future. That's not "the warfare of the future" - that's how things work now. We didn't win World War II because our generals, pilots, soldiers, weapons etc were better than the Germans and the Japanese - we won because we could massively outproduce them. One of their pilots would shoot down two of our aircraft and we'd build ten more, while targeting their factories so they couldn't do the same. Modern society and communications would never tolerate the casualties we took in WWI and II, hell, even D-Day. Battles plans that required sustaining such heavy losses to "turn the tide" would never even be approved. Pictures of captured, injured, tortured, and killed people (soldiers, civilians, children) is very powerful and with the Internet, easy to distribute worldwide and can quickly turn the public support of a war. Today we have far superior numbers to the people we are fighting and if willing to sustain x human losses could route them quite easily. People can handle defense budget increases to cover heavy robot losses to quickly end a battle. Probably by being more aggressive and quickly winning it, the number of losses is less than being more cautious and drawing the conflict out. In this sickenly PC time, this is the only we can actually win wars. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #22 January 24, 2010 QuotePictures of captured, injured, tortured, and killed people (soldiers, civilians, children) is very powerful and with the Internet, easy to distribute worldwide and can quickly turn the public support of a war. Bullshit, as long as the masses can be fooled into thinking there is imminent danger if these wars 'do not' take place they will get public approval. People will turn a blind eye to maiming and murder as long as they think they are safe. It is all a crock of shit and the warmongers create both the fear and the hate that drives public opinion on 'defence'!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 January 24, 2010 QuoteI can't think of another purpose, some use them on targets, which is practicing for the kill You know, you're right - I haven't seen a live bullseye walking around in just YEARS. Quote but explain to me how bullets are not sinister, that mindset seems to be A VERY LARGE PROBLEM america faces right now. When bullets can think and decide their own actions, then they can be 'sinister' . Until then, saying that makes you sound a few sandwiches short of a picnic.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #24 January 24, 2010 QuoteWhen bullets can think and decide their own actions, then they can be 'sinister' . Until then, saying that makes you sound a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Well, that IS kind of what this thread is about. Check the subject line.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 January 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteWhen bullets can think and decide their own actions, then they can be 'sinister' . Until then, saying that makes you sound a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Well, that IS kind of what this thread is about. Check the subject line. He's talking about *bullets*, Paul...not robots. Our drones are still controlled from the ground, for that matter, as mentioned above.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
