Skynet Is Getting Closer Everyday

[MA-Caver]

Military killer robots 'could endanger civilians'

Action on a global scale must be taken to curb the development of military killer robots that think for themselves, a leading British expert said.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...y-killer-robots-could-endanger-civilians.html

Published: 3:24PM BST 03 Aug 2009

"Terminator"-style machines that decide how, when and who to kill are just around the corner, warns Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield.
Far from helping to reduce casualties, their use is likely to make conflict and war more common and lead to a major escalation in numbers of civilian deaths, he believes.


"I do think there should be some international discussion and arms control on these weapons but there's absolutely none," said Prof Sharkey.
"The military have a strange view of artificial intelligence based on science fiction. The nub of it is that robots do not have the necessary discriminatory ability. They can't distinguish between combatants and civilians. It's hard enough for soldiers to do that."
Iraq and Afghanistan have both provided ideal "showcases" for robot weapons, said Prof Sharkey.
The "War on Terror" declared by President George Bush spurred on the development of pilotless drone aircraft deployed against insurgents.
Initially used for surveillance, drones such as the Predator and larger Reaper were now armed with bombs and missiles.
The US currently has 200 Predators and 30 Reapers and next year alone will be spending 5.5 billion dollars (£3.29 billion) on unmanned combat vehicles.

Is it me or is James Cameron a prophet? :lol:

This could be serious though... honestly... viruses could infect the CPU's and alter the programming and thus collateral damage might be worse than originally intended.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

*points the truck Texasward*

Come with me if you want to live.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Right behind you!

 

[Flying Crane]

I think that the more that People are removed from the actual combat and fighting, the more prevalent wars will be, especially if this technology exists primarily on one side of the conflict. When real people aren't dying in the conflict, at least on your side, it becomes easier to view the conflict like a video game. No real consequences.

Personally, I'd like to see war go back to the old face-to-face, stick a sword in somebody's guts kind of fighting. And I think the political leaders who start the wars should be the one's leading the charge on the battlefield. The uglier and nastier and more horrible the experience, I think that holds the key to diminishing conflicts on the level of actual warfare. When the leaders are forced to experience the consequences up-close and personal, I think they will be less likely to start wars.

 

[MA-Caver]

I think that the more that People are removed from the actual combat and fighting, the more prevalent wars will be, especially if this technology exists primarily on one side of the conflict. When real people aren't dying in the conflict, at least on your side, it becomes easier to view the conflict like a video game. No real consequences.

Personally, I'd like to see war go back to the old face-to-face, stick a sword in somebody's guts kind of fighting. And I think the political leaders who start the wars should be the one's leading the charge on the battlefield. The uglier and nastier and more horrible the experience, I think that holds the key to diminishing conflicts on the level of actual warfare. When the leaders are forced to experience the consequences up-close and personal, I think they will be less likely to start wars.

If they survive.

Either way they will have to pick up a weapon and fire it while being fired upon and watch their friends and platoon mates get killed/wounded all around them, before they realize just how god-awful the experience can be. But even Robert E. Lee realized that war is so terrible... as per a signature from someone here. Yet we all know that the "button-pushers" aren't going to expose themselves to the risks, so they're going to rattle their sabers and send in the troops as cannon fodder.

 

[MA-Caver]

Right behind you!

Yeah we all remember how well ED-209 worked out don't we?

 

[Flying Crane]

If they survive.

Either way they will have to pick up a weapon and fire it while being fired upon and watch their friends and platoon mates get killed/wounded all around them, before they realize just how god-awful the experience can be. But even Robert E. Lee realized that war is so terrible... as per a signature from someone here. Yet we all know that the "button-pushers" aren't going to expose themselves to the risks, so they're going to rattle their sabers and send in the troops as cannon fodder.

Yup. I really really really wish that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and company would have been dropped into Baghdad just in time to have somebody's brains splattered across their faces while bullets richocheted all around them and a bouncing betty took off a leg and left them with a colostomy bag and a lifelong series of appointments with a shrink.

But I digress...

 

[stone_dragone]

I believe that General Robert E. Lee had said something about it being good that war is such a terrible thing, lest we get to fond of them.

 

[Flying Crane]

I believe that General Robert E. Lee had said something about it being good that war is such a terrible thing, lest we get to fond of them.

I honestly think it's too late.

 

[grydth]

I think that the more that People are removed from the actual combat and fighting, the more prevalent wars will be, especially if this technology exists primarily on one side of the conflict. When real people aren't dying in the conflict, at least on your side, it becomes easier to view the conflict like a video game. No real consequences.

Personally, I'd like to see war go back to the old face-to-face, stick a sword in somebody's guts kind of fighting. And I think the political leaders who start the wars should be the one's leading the charge on the battlefield. The uglier and nastier and more horrible the experience, I think that holds the key to diminishing conflicts on the level of actual warfare. When the leaders are forced to experience the consequences up-close and personal, I think they will be less likely to start wars.

Hard to dispute such a well written and reasoned post such as you have made here. Yes, if our politicians had to personally lead from the front as once they did in Rome I can think of a couple of wars (at least) that'd never have happened.

But the depressing truth is that cyber killers may be the only way our degenerating society can win even a just war.

Our enemies have long felt that our societal unwillingness to take high casualties could be used to defeat us.....they don't have to contend with polls, a hostile media or elections. They are always on the lookout to seize hostages or prisoners, who are then ruthlessly exploited. While our military is second to none, the bad guys believe the home front can be worn down. They believe they are ruthless enough to simply outlast us, and will manipulate our own media to attain that goal.

There's a couple of future wars that might not happen, too, if our enemies know they will be coldly and relentlessly hunted by killer machines....who will not stop until they are dead.

While I share your personal disgust about what war is becoming, at least we can win a video game war.

 

[MA-Caver]

Yup. I really really really wish that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and company would have been dropped into Baghdad just in time to have somebody's brains splattered across their faces while bullets richocheted all around them and a bouncing betty took off a leg and left them with a colostomy bag and a lifelong series of appointments with a shrink.

But I digress...

To be honest... I think the wounded that come home wouldn't want to wish that upon anyone themselves.

But that topic is good enough for a different subject/thread don't you think?

This one is about the possibilities of unmanned and non-human soldiers running amuck. They still kill human beings and that just rubs me the wrong way... okay, it rubs me the wrong way anyway when humans kill one another... but to allow the machine to do it... it's not the same as pointing a car at someone or tossing them into a woodchipper or causing their plane to crash or ship to sink... they were caused by people.
To program a computer to operate a machine that goes out HUNTING for people to kill... that's something different I think. Ultimately, yes a person had typed in the code to program the CPU and so forth... but in the future will these machines keep on?
How will they truly be able to recognize friend from foe, or non-combatants? How will they know that the enemy in the village didn't simply toss their weapon aside and mingled with the other villagers (like VC did in 'Nam) ... will the machine force everyone (somehow) to hold out their hands so it can detect GSR? Then summarily execute the one who has GSR on their hands?

How far will the machine be programmed to go?

 

[searcher]

Andy swing through KS, so Me and The Wife can fall into your convoy. I just need to swing by the gun shop and pick up a few items on the way.

 

[Andrew Green]

I think that the more that People are removed from the actual combat and fighting, the more prevalent wars will be, especially if this technology exists primarily on one side of the conflict. When real people aren't dying in the conflict, at least on your side, it becomes easier to view the conflict like a video game. No real consequences.

It's getting close.

Iraq death toll of Americans to Iraqis is something like 1:25.

We are very fortunate in North America, no one living has seen our countries hit by a "real" war, where cities are flattened and civilians make up a good chunk of the casualty list. Most countries can't make that claim.

 

[MA-Caver]

It's getting close.

Iraq death toll of Americans to Iraqis is something like 1:25.

We are very fortunate in North America, no one living has seen our countries hit by a "real" war, where cities are flattened and civilians make up a good chunk of the casualty list. Most countries can't make that claim.

Very true... in-so-far we've been "blessed" without having a major (military lead) attack on U.S. soil from (hostile) foreign governments in quite a long time. Hawaii doesn't count because it wasn't a state and I believe that it wasn't really U.S. soil... just occupied territory.
One would like to think that our nuclear arsenal has been a deterrent for the most part, knowing that we are probably crazy enough to nuke our own cities if overrun by invading forces... but still... a country would have to be wholly committed to invading continental U.S. soil. ... come to think of it... the British Isle hasn't had any (modern post 1900) invaders either... bombed yes but invading troops? If so they didn't last for long.

 

[Darksoul]

I think that the more that People are removed from the actual combat and fighting, the more prevalent wars will be, especially if this technology exists primarily on one side of the conflict. When real people aren't dying in the conflict, at least on your side, it becomes easier to view the conflict like a video game. No real consequences..

-->Kind of like Ender's Game almost. Just not sure the people we vote into office or have in charge of our military will be the right ones with their hands on the controllers. I think of the kids who play GTA and other violent games now, and who have trouble telling reality from fantasy. Maybe by then, we won't care who's in the right, as long as we win. Guess I can see morals being tossed to the side when it comes to survival. It should not ever go that for.

Personally, I'd like to see war go back to the old face-to-face, stick a sword in somebody's guts kind of fighting. And I think the political leaders who start the wars should be the one's leading the charge on the battlefield. The uglier and nastier and more horrible the experience, I think that holds the key to diminishing conflicts on the level of actual warfare. When the leaders are forced to experience the consequences up-close and personal, I think they will be less likely to start wars.

-I'm so okay with this idea.


Andrew

 

[Ironcrane]

Isn't there already a company of some sort in Japan called Skynet?

 

[Monadnock]

I'm fine with robots, but when the Clone Wars start.... [insert Twilight Zone theme here]

 

[Flying Crane]

To be honest... I think the wounded that come home wouldn't want to wish that upon anyone themselves.

I know, my comments were in a bit of bad taste. But I stand by my point. I think if the personal consequences of war were personal for the politicians and not just the soldiers, they might not be so eager to start wars. Politicians tend to be chicken-hawks.

Robot soldiers removes this reality even more, and I suspect would tend to make politicians even more eager to go to war with no justifiable reason. Heck, we wouldn't even have to PRETEND that war was about anything other than profit.