Killer Robots?

[Crab Puncher]

The United Nations held a conference to discuss robots taking the place of soldiers. Conspiracy theorists rejoice! But seriously, the reason this is such a big deal is because the robots may go rogue. I would assume to have a soldier that could kill and function properly in battle there has to be some kind of AI. This could be like terminator. or not. Apparently Gill a former disarmament ambassador of India believes not, "The robots are not taking over the world. Humans are still in charge.” I think it would be best not to have human solders that kill other people. Of course it is just redirecting the killing but humans wont die on the front lines. We should be weary about Artificial intelligence in the future. What do you think?

Quote

In 2014 Elon musk said that "killer robots" would be here in 5 years, so that would be next year

 

Source: The Verge

[Sniperfox47]

A) "Killer robots" are already here. The US has used drones for warfare for what... 8 years now?

 

B) People who worry about the robots turning on us really don't understand modern machine learning. This isn't, by any means, general intelligence. These are tools that do what we tell them nothing more and nothing less.

 

C) at the point where you're fighting robot proxy wars of your robots vs someone else's robots in a place independent of both of you what's even the point in war anymore. Our continued insistence on armed conflict is just baffling.

[Crab Puncher]

1 minute ago, Sniperfox47 said:

A) "Killer robots" are already here. The US has used drones for warfare for what... 8 years now?

although i agree with you on point B and C. They don't mean air drones. They have not used foot soldier drones 

 

[lewdicrous]

Having actual robots instead of humans is better, in my opinion, cause it reduces the amount of lives lost to war.

However, some may argue that more innocent lives will be lost on the opposing side of the war

[Shreyas1]

I don't think they will turn against us, more like they may be hacked

[Sniperfox47]

5 minutes ago, Crab Puncher said:

although i agree with you on point B and C. They don't mean air drones. They have not used foot soldier drones 

 

What fundamental difference is there? Whether they're on land or in the sky they're still self directed weapons that end lives.

[Andreas Lilja]

16 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

A) "Killer robots" are already here. The US has used drones for warfare for what... 8 years now?

NGO ban proposals refer to autonomous vehicles. A drone is controlled by a human.

[Enderman]

They already exist, whether the UN likes it or not.

 

They are still controlled by humans because of some laws in the way, but everything is ready to just be controlled by software instead of human input at the flip of a switch.

 

You can be sure that right at this moment they are working on and testing autonomous modes.

 

[Andreas Lilja]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

They already exist, whether the UN likes it or not.

 

Is it autonomous, though? I doubt it.

[Crunchy Dragon]

13 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

Having actual robots instead of humans is better, in my opinion, cause it reduces the amount of lives lost to war.

However, some may argue that more innocent lives will be lost on the opposing side of the war

To be blunt, it is war. People lose lives.

Look at the Soviet Union, they literally threw civilians at the advancing Nazi forces.

 

10 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

I don't think they will turn against us, more like they may be hacked

Agreed, that sounds far more likely.

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

Is it autonomous, though? I doubt it.

Read my edit, sorry.

[Sniperfox47]

26 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

NGO ban proposals refer to autonomous vehicles. A drone is controlled by a human.

At the end of the day what *is* control. Where do you draw that line?

 

Is a gun who's trigger is pulled by humans controlled by them? Yeah that seems pretty safe to say.

 

Is a vehicle piloted by humans controlled by them? Again pretty safe.

 

Is a drone remotely piloted by a person controlled by them? Probably, but theres already all kinds of software handling gyroscopics, stability  control, aim assist, etc.

 

How about a drone that does all of the flying and aiming itself but where a human still has to push a button to fire? Is that controlled by a human?

 

A drone that has to be told where to go and what to do but then uses software for the rest of it? Is that not controlled by a human too?

 

Atthe end of the day there's not really any difference between a fully autonomous drone that requires weapon authorization, and a drone "piloted" by a human.

[Andreas Lilja]

13 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

How about a drone that does all of the flying and aiming itself but where a human still has to push a button to fire? Is that controlled by a human?

 

A drone that has to be told where to go and what to do but then uses software for the rest of it? Is that not controlled by a human too?

 

Atthe end of the day there's not really any difference between a fully autonomous drone that requires weapon authorization, and a drone "piloted" by a human.

Well the campaigns refer to completely autonomous weapons, not controlled by humans at all, especially the decision-making.

[Drak3]

45 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

Well the campaigns refer to completely autonomous weapons, not controlled by humans at all, especially the decision-making.

Well, it's a little to late for that. The DMZ of the Koreas have completely autonomous machine guns. At least they're stationary.

[Spotty]

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

They already exist, whether the UN likes it or not.

 

They are still controlled by humans because of some laws in the way, but everything is ready to just be controlled by software instead of human input at the flip of a switch.

 

You can be sure that right at this moment they are working on and testing autonomous modes.

 

 

Spoiler

 

Out of curiosity I looked up the specifications of that weapon system. It is an EOS R-400s Mk2. Depending on the gun and ammunition used, it can hold between 75-1200 rounds of ammunition. I can already see a fatal flaw in the design of this killer robot.
 

 

[Enderman]

20 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Out of curiosity I looked up the specifications of that weapon system. It is an EOS R-400s Mk2. Depending on the gun and ammunition used, it can hold between 75-1200 rounds of ammunition. I can already see a fatal flaw in the design of this killer robot.
 

Don't worry I'm working on better ones.

[Shreyas1]

next can we have robotic civilians?

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Enderman said:

They already exist, whether the UN likes it or not.

 

They are still controlled by humans because of some laws in the way, but everything is ready to just be controlled by software instead of human input at the flip of a switch.

 

You can be sure that right at this moment they are working on and testing autonomous modes.

 

Question,  how does that robot use it's winch? 

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

 Our continued insistence on armed conflict is just baffling.

You can refuse to have conversations, you can ignore letters/mail and you can turn computers off, but you can't ignore imminent personal danger. It is still the only way to force a person, group or nation to do what you want.

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Question,  how does that robot use it's winch? 

You see the joystick on the side of the robot?

You can basically use it as a big rc car to pull stuff while walking/driving beside it.

It's not for remote use obviously.

[LDX]

Then it saw all people as a threat, not just the ones on the other side. Decided our fate in a microsecond: extermination

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

You see the joystick on the side of the robot?

You can basically use it as a big rc car to pull stuff while walking/driving beside it.

It's not for remote use.

Isn't the idea of this thing to go were humans can't?

[Enderman]

Just now, mr moose said:

Isn't the idea of this thing to go were humans can't?

Just because a vehicle is remote controller or autonomous doesn't mean that it literally lives it's own life 24/7.

You still need to transport it, charge it, maintain it, etc.

Maybe only a few minutes or hours at a time it is away from base doing it's own thing.

 

The idea is not to go where humans can't go, it's to go where humans don't want to go.

Aka into a battlefield.

[Doobeedoo]

Nothing new surprising. Something as advanced as Terminator is not the only thing under 'killer robot' though. 

Though robotic warfare while seeming inevitable will be such a waste of money where it could go elsewhere for aiding people. But you know, government priorities so. 

[NotKalo]

Just imagine a quad-copter with UZIs doing PATAPTATATATAT to Vietnamese farmers