Killer Robots?

[Linus_torvalds]

10 hours 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

What about do not fight at all? Stop wars and start saving our planet. Making new discoveries and trying to research space finding new life. What if there is a primitive life? We could help them develop civilization and not make the same mistakes we made!

 

But no humans are so stupid that they want to fight for land that they does not even need! For example russia. Biggest country in the world and they can't stop. I am from Georgia. And they occupied 25% of my countys territory abkhazia and samachablo (they call it south osetia). They also fought with Ukraine and took their lands too. Next wars are coming in. Why? Why they need to do this? Why?

 

Russian people can come out and make their government stop doing this. They can change their government. What can government do with 159 million people? Why are solgers doing this? Coming on Georgian and Ukrainian land and fight with people, killing man, women, childrens, destroing their homes. Why?

 

Humans deserve that some fucking civilization came here and destroyed us saving our planet, all the species that live here, nature. Earth would be green and blue ball of peace after this.

 

 

[cj09beira]

9 hours ago, mate_mate91 said:

What about do not fight at all? Stop wars and start saving our planet. Making new discoveries and trying to research space finding new life. What if there is a primitive life? We could help them develop civilization and not make the same mistakes we made!

 

But no humans are so stupid that they want to fight for land that they does not even need! For example russia. Biggest country in the world and they can't stop. I am from Georgia. And they occupied 25% of my countys territory abkhazia and samachablo (they call it south osetia). They also fought with Ukraine and took their lands too. Next wars are coming in. Why? Why they need to do this? Why?

 

Russian people can come out and make their government stop doing this. They can change their government. What can government do with 159 million people? Why are solgers doing this? Coming on Georgian and Ukrainian land and fight with people, killing man, women, childrens, destroing their homes. Why?

 

Humans deserve that some fucking civilization came here and destroyed us saving our planet, all the species that live here, nature. Earth would be green and blue ball of peace after this.

 

 

the only way to prevent wars is to talk, the problem is that today's media sensationalizes things way too much and ends up dividing people because of it, with things like calling 50% of a country's population deplorables, they should stick to giving information and not opinions, before we can have more peace we need to make a system where truth is the main focus and biases are reduced to the minimum, as right now we rarely hear the whole story, we get part of it as told from the perspective of a political party, most people don't even notice this which is why its so bad for us.

 

Nature can and many times is very cruel, when we let nature do its thing, species disappear, animals torture one another, its not any different than what we do, so dont you think everything would be so much better without us interfering 

[Linus_torvalds]

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

the only way to prevent wars is to talk, the problem is that today's media sensationalizes things way too much and ends up dividing people because of it, with things like calling 50% of a country's population deplorables, they should stick to giving information and not opinions, before we can have more peace we need to make a system where truth is the main focus and biases are reduced to the minimum, as right now we rarely hear the whole story, we get part of it as told from the perspective of a political party, most people don't even notice this which is why its so bad for us.

 

Nature can and many times is very cruel, when we let nature do its thing, species disappear, animals torture one another, its not any different than what we do, so dont you think everything would be so much better without us interfering 

Agree on first part.

 

On the second part i'll say shortly. I do not agree!

[Motifator]

Well, it's a bad world after all... nature is a different beast than humans obviously. Back in the primitive times it has killed people to no end because they clearly did not have the equipment we have now to stand against it. Animals, some of them live somewhat as they did back then. They don't have the abilities to build cities and live on their own... his example is clearly poor. A lot of them even need human help to survive their surroundings.

So many people are sheep. They would sit down at Starbucks and drink their shitty coffee without even knowing where the origins of that company lead to.

Nothing you can help.

[Mira Yurizaki]

In some sense, we already have "autonomous" deadly robots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

 

If you want the tl;dr, it's a cluster bomb munition that explodes when either it thinks it has a target, it's at some minimum altitude, or after a certain period of time.

 

The fact that this munition looks for targets and explodes when it finds one should be scary enough.

[Sauron]

An AI can't rebel and it would have no reason to, anyway. They don't think like humans, if you give it no concept of freedom it won't seek it. There are some AI safety concerns, but those are dealt with in the design phase.

 

The only potential problems would sprout from malfunctions and bugs. Still, I doubt we'll have automomous robot soldiers any time soon - they aren't likely to be deployed side by side with humans in a battlefield, they'll probably be closely supervised and only fire when remotely controlled by a human.

11 hours ago, NotKalo said:

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

There already are bomber drones.

20 hours 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?

It's both, the robot is the part that takes movement and aim decisions on its own. It just happens to have a remotely controlled gun strapped to it.

[Sniperfox47]

6 hours ago, Sauron said:

There already are bomber drones.

It's both, the robot is the part that takes movement and aim decisions on its own. It just happens to have a remotely controlled gun strapped to it.

Yeah but I mean where do you draw the line? Where's the distinction between "Oh it's a drone weapon? Okay." and "OMG KILLER ROBOT!!!1!"? What functions are okay to automate. Any line you can draw seems pretty arbitrary.

[Sauron]

8 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Yeah but I mean where do you draw the line? Where's the distinction between "Oh it's a drone weapon? Okay." and "OMG KILLER ROBOT!!!1!"? What functions are okay to automate. Any line you can draw seems pretty arbitrary.

It doesn't really matter in the end, the only distinction of any importance is the one between a robot that can autonomously pull the trigger and one that can't. I don't think we'll be able to have the latter any time soon, distinguishing "the enemy" from an allied human or a civilian is incredibly hard for an AI. We might get there some day with machine learning, but it's definitely not trivial. It's also hard to mimic the mobility of a human being - substituting a tank is easier than substituting a soldier on foot.

 

There's also a humanitarian concern - is it ever forgivable to use lethal force without being exposed to any? What's the excuse for killing a soldier who can't threaten your life?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 8/28/2018 at 1:31 AM, Crab Puncher said:

But seriously, the reason this is such a big deal is because the robots may go rogue.

So can soldiers.

On 8/28/2018 at 1:31 AM, Crab Puncher said:

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?

 

Source: The Verge

 

28 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It doesn't really matter in the end, the only distinction of any importance is the one between a robot that can autonomously pull the trigger and one that can't. I don't think we'll be able to have the latter any time soon, distinguishing "the enemy" from an allied human or a civilian is incredibly hard for an AI.

For military purposes, it doesn't necessarily have to be extremely accurate, though.

 

28 minutes ago, Sauron said:

We might get there some day with machine learning, but it's definitely not trivial. It's also hard to mimic the mobility of a human being - substituting a tank is easier than substituting a soldier on foot.

I think automated tanks, planes, etc. are much more attractive than an army of little terminators anyway.

It like humanoid robots washing cloths by hand vs. a washing machine. Most of the times, machines take our functions, not really "our place" so to speak.

28 minutes ago, Sauron said:

There's also a humanitarian concern - is it ever forgivable to use lethal force without being exposed to any? What's the excuse for killing a soldier who can't threaten your life?

Well, that's always been the purpose of war. The attacking army is on route to kill or force themselves in control of the attacked civilians. It's only because the defending side builds up another army to try and stop them that there is a soldier vs. soldier clash. War isn't sports: armies aren't teams that are supposed to face each other according to some rules, they just get in each other's way to cause harm or control the enemy's civilians.

 

 

[Sauron]

24 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Well, that's always been the purpose of war. The attacking army is on route to kill or force themselves in control of the attacked civilians. It's only because the defending side builds up another army to try and stop them that there is a soldier vs. soldier clash. War isn't sports: armies aren't teams that are supposed to face each other according to some rules, they just get in each other's way to cause harm or control the enemy's civilians.

If the purpose is to kill then it's not a war, it's genocide. Killing civilians intentionally (as opposed to them getting caught in the crossfire) is a war crime. Sure, these "rules" are in place only because we choose them to be, but they are rules nonetheless and breaking them (in theory) means facing ripercussions from the international community.

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

For military purposes, it doesn't necessarily have to be extremely accurate, though.

It has to be accurate enough to not attack its own side, especially if it's part of a defense force. If it has a chance of targeting civilians then it should never be deployed - a trained soldier is much more likely to stay alive in the field than a civilian that has been erroneously targeted by a killbot.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

If the purpose is to kill then it's not a war, it's genocide. Killing civilians intentionally (as opposed to them getting caught in the crossfire) is a war crime. Sure, these "rules" are in place only because we choose them to be, but they are rules nonetheless and breaking them (in theory) means facing ripercussions from the international community.

That's all fine as wishful thinking, but war was born as tribe A violently making sure tribe B doesn't get near "their" pond. The fact that it has evolved to the point where we have professional armies still doesn't turn it into a sport, and understanding this is key to understand why the only outcome of UN "laws of war" is just a constant stream of people you can accuse of war crimes after every war, because complying is never better than losing.

 

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It has to be accurate enough to not attack its own side, especially if it's part of a defense force. If it has a chance of targeting civilians then it should never be deployed

It may or may not need to be. There's a reason we invented napalm, V2s, nuclear ICBMs, carpet bombing, AP mines... not to mention siege, the main purpose of which is to starve/disease a population into surrender.

 

Make no mistake, I see how you may want to debate the ethics behind war in many dimensions, I'm just saying that autonomous weapons don't seem to bring anything new to the table in that regard.

 

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That's all fine as wishful thinking, but war was born as tribe A violently making sure tribe B doesn't get near "their" pond. The fact that it has evolved to the point where we have professional armies still doesn't turn it into a sport, and understanding this is key to understand why the only outcome of UN "laws of war" is just a constant stream of people you can accuse of war crimes after every war, because complying is never better than losing.

It doesn't matter how the concept of war was born, what matters is how the world works right now. Yes, UN rules are constantly broken, that doesn't mean it's acceptable or moral. I'm merely pointing out the concerns with this sort of weaponized robot, if armies decide to ignore them that's another matter entirely. Denying that there are any concerns because armies will ignore them anyway is like saying that there are no concerns with nukes because, if backed against a wall, the losing power will use them anyway. I can't stop them from using them, but I can call them genocidal monsters if they do.

7 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It may or may not need to be. There's a reason we invented napalm, V2s, nuclear ICBMs, carpet bombing, AP mines... not to mention siege, the main purpose of which is to starve/disease a population into surrender.

There's also a reason most of those are illegal according to international law. Carpet bombing a city that contains no military objectives is genocide, period. Ideally, war should only go as far as necessary to obtain victory; any additional suffering and death caused intentionally is a war crime. It's impossible to completely prevent it, but at least it should be possible to prevent it from happening openly. And it's not a population that needs to surrender, it's their government. If you attack the population directly you get vietnam style guerrilla and we all know how that went down.

[ARikozuM]

I hope that we do not. This would severely hamper industries that rely on metals and circuitry. If every country is trying to build a machine as quickly as possible it will only be a matter of time until we hit a point that someone has everything and dissent can be shut down without losses except for those dissenting. 

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

It doesn't really matter in the end, the only distinction of any importance is the one between a robot that can autonomously pull the trigger and one that can't. I don't think we'll be able to have the latter any time soon, distinguishing "the enemy" from an allied human or a civilian is incredibly hard for an AI. We might get there some day with machine learning, but it's definitely not trivial. It's also hard to mimic the mobility of a human being - substituting a tank is easier than substituting a soldier on foot.

 

There's also a humanitarian concern - is it ever forgivable to use lethal force without being exposed to any? What's the excuse for killing a soldier who can't threaten your life?

I mean if youre going to make a robot that aims with machine learning and can fire for itself why would you make it kill enemy combatants though? It's far better to teach it to maim them because then you destroy enemy morale as well as putting more people out of the fight to take care of them.

 

War crimes? Psh. As mentioned everybody breaks them anyways. The only reason they exist is to gentrify war, to put a coat of paint on it that says "Look! We're totally waging war humanely! Promise!" even as we continue to allow and partake in attrocities.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I mean if youre going to make a robot that aims with machine learning and can fire for itself why would you make it kill enemy combatants though? It's far better to teach it to maim them because then you destroy enemy morale as well as putting more people out of the fight to take care of them.

 

War crimes? Psh. As mentioned everybody breaks them anyways. The only reason they exist is to gentrify war, to put a coat of paint on it that says "Look! We're totally waging war humanely! Promise!" even as we continue to allow and partake in attrocities.

Even if you ignore the war crime being committed, that doesn't solve the problem of distinguishing armed enemy soldiers from your own and from civilians.

 

"Everyone breaks them anyways" is not an excuse to break human rights and international law. Without those laws, "let's nuke them into orbit" would be a viable strategy and at that point you hardly need robots.

24 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I hope that we do not. This would severely hamper industries that rely on metals and circuitry. If every country is trying to build a machine as quickly as possible it will only be a matter of time until we hit a point that someone has everything and dissent can be shut down without losses except for those dissenting. 

You could argue the same thing with nukes, "thankfully" enough countries have them to force a standstill.

[Sniperfox47]

24 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Even if you ignore the war crime being committed, that doesn't solve the problem of distinguishing armed enemy soldiers from your own and from civilians.

 

"Everyone breaks them anyways" is not an excuse to break human rights and international law. Without those laws, "let's nuke them into orbit" would be a viable strategy and at that point you hardly need robots.

You could argue the same thing with nukes, "thankfully" enough countries have them to force a standstill.

It does if you just stop sending soldiers into the combat and just use your terminators instead. If you're shooting at the big scary killer robot you're clearly not a civilian. If you charge at it with a knife also not a civilian. Throw rocks at it and you're clearly an enemy combatants. (Edit: here's an explicit /s in case the sarcasm wasn't dripping off my text thickly enough.)

 

I'm also pretty sure there are some people that to this day are proponents of just nuking "them" to hell, where them is whatever group happens to be the enemy of their cause.

[Sauron]

Just now, Sniperfox47 said:

It does if you just stop sending soldiers into the combat and just use your terminators instead. If you're shooting at the big scary killer robot you're clearly not a civilian. If you charge at it with a knife also not a civilian. Throw rocks at it and you're clearly an enemy combatants.

It's not nearly that easy, and if you wait for the enemy to hit you before you identify them then you lose the confrontation. Also, if I were an armed civilian in a warzone and a killer robot entered in the same room I'd shoot it without hesitation - I wouldn't be taking a human life anyway. That doesn't make me a soldier, it makes me a civilian who is (correctly) concerned for their safety. With a human soldier you can reason, with a killer robot you can't and you don't know what its orders are.

 

If I throw a rock at a machine, lethal force against me is hardly justifiable.

5 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I'm also pretty sure there are some people that to this day are proponents of just nuking "them" to hell, where them is whatever group happens to be the enemy of their cause.

Yeah, and those people are inhuman garbage. Questions?

 

By the way, going back to the previous argument of "they do it anyway" - thiefs gonna steal no matter what you do, does that mean stealing should be legal or ignored?

[Sniperfox47]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It's not nearly that easy, and if you wait for the enemy to hit you before you identify them then you lose the confrontation. Also, if I were an armed civilian in a warzone and a killer robot entered in the same room I'd shoot it without hesitation - I wouldn't be taking a human life anyway. That doesn't make me a soldier, it makes me a civilian who is (correctly) concerned for their safety. With a human soldier you can reason, with a killer robot you can't and you don't know what its orders are.

 

If I throw a rock at a machine, lethal force against me is hardly justifiable.

Yeah, and those people are inhuman garbage. Questions?

 

By the way, going back to the previous argument of "they do it anyway" - thiefs gonna steal no matter what you do, does that mean stealing should be legal or ignored?

I think you're missing my point. I added an explicit /s in an edit to my last post because I realized it hadn't been coming through the text to this point, but it seems you say it before I did.

 

I'm well aware of exactly how insane and meaningless the points I've been "making" have been.

 

I'm not exactly fond of "War Culture".

[ARikozuM]

46 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I'm not exactly fond of "War Culture".

We should just have wars decided with Nerf guns. We'll see an explosive increase in durability and design in the children's toys industry!

[Whiskers]

Just to remind everyone, it's against our Community Standards to argue about politics and / or religion. I understand this topic is somewhat inherently political but please try to keep it reasonable - no "country A sucks", "country B shouldn't do this" etc. If things get too political the mod team will need to close the thread.

[wasab]

I would love to see robot soldiers, as long as it isn't killing me. 

 

We can use robots to die in battle fields so actual humans don't have to.