Do we want robots and computers fighting our wars?

This article on io9.com actually makes it sound like the science-fiction of films like The Terminator are becoming less and less fiction and moving towards fact.

Wired for War Asks What Happens When Robots Kill for Us

Should governments and their militaries continue to move forward to making war become solely between opposing robotic armies and th computers who run them? I mean does keeping real soldiers from harm due to the use of robotics make it easier to accept war. War has always been tolerated by a nation's people when casualties remain acceptable as whole. If casualties on those fighting the war becomes limited due to less and less deaths would people be more willing to accept going to war to help their nation's interest.

*is reminded of The Second Renaissance*

Part I
Part II

The interesting part of what the article points out is that military people actually use science-fiction as a mine to find newer and better weapons to fight wars. Also, that weapons that have been automated have already begun killing people despite not being part of their operational protocol.

The interesting part of what the article points out is that military people actually use science-fiction as a mine to find newer and better weapons to fight wars. Also, that weapons that have been automated have already begun killing people despite not being part of their operational protocol.

Buck_Hotep

better that robots get mauled, shot or step on a land mine than a human, amirite?darkspineslayer

I'm back, But i think the reality is that if we go that way, we're are going to count civilian casualties instead of military. One reason is there will always be collateral damage, and secondly haveing robots kill each other is a war of attrition but if they just started to destroy cities instead of military bases It would be the side that can't take loosing civilians.biocunsumer

That's the big rub of war in the last hundred or so years. Civilian casualties and civilian areas have become part of any war plan. There's always something in a civilian area a military commander will deem as being helpful to the opposing military. I don't think robotics and computers will change the targeting of civilians either purposely or by accident. If any, some military people see robotics and computers as maybe limiting collateral damage. As long as the machine does what it's been programmed or taught to do then their reaction time would be faster in determining if a target is military or civilian.

Which brings up a new problem. That's only the case if the programming holds up and the machine doesn't go off track in its protocols. Thus the fear of many who think arming machines and letting them fight for us is a major disaster just waiting to happen.

[QUOTE="darkspineslayer"]better that robots get mauled, shot or step on a land mine than a human, amirite?Buddha_basic

If there's a war, it should be settled using Counter-Strike or Team Fortress 2. Each side fights one another using a game. No one dies, and all of us gamers can do something for our country. remmbermytitans

Which brings up a new problem. That's only the case if the programming holds up and the machine doesn't go off track in its protocols. Thus the fear of many who think arming machines and letting them fight for us is a major disaster just waiting to happen.

I could go for this. Probably cost taxpayers insane amounts of money though.

[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"]

[QUOTE="darkspineslayer"]better that robots get mauled, shot or step on a land mine than a human, amirite?darkspineslayer

Well, I don't think war using robotics and computers will go unnoticed. But I do think that people would become distant to the dangers and consequences of war if there are less and less soldiers actually in harm's way to fight it. I don't think even that distancing from war will end wars from ever happening. I actually think i would make it easier for people to tolerate it. I mean even now people are not as horrified about civilians being killed unless it from their own country. A robotic tank or fighter bomber taking out a city block in an opposing country and people may actually complain that the machine should've done a better job. Programmers should make a better product so the mistake doesn't happen again. If it's not happening to us then it's tolerated is a thinking that's as old as war itself.

[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"]If there's a war, it should be settled using Counter-Strike or Team Fortress 2. Each side fights one another using a game. No one dies, and all of us gamers can do something for our country. darkspineslayer

Also, the US and UK military have been actively recruiting people who grew up playing video games. Even some of the controllers now being used to work the robots and drones already being used are nothing but clones of the PS2 controller.

I think people should invest in robots that help humanity, not destroy it. I'd rather a robot work my land while i sit in my nice house while getting served by a robot. If everyone had that kind of lifestyle then why the need for wars.

This article on io9.com actually makes it sound like the science-fiction of films like The Terminator are becoming less and less fiction and moving towards fact.

Wired for War Asks What Happens When Robots Kill for Us

Should governments and their militaries continue to move forward to making war become solely between opposing robotic armies and th computers who run them? I mean does keeping real soldiers from harm due to the use of robotics make it easier to accept war. War has always been tolerated by a nation's people when casualties remain acceptable as whole. If casualties on those fighting the war becomes limited due to less and less deaths would people be more willing to accept going to war to help their nation's interest.

I think people should invest in robots that help humanity, not destroy it. I'd rather a robot work my land while i sit in my nice house while getting served by a robot. If everyone had that kind of lifestyle then why the need for wars.

Yongying

Because as long as there's people out there who want more of something that they don't have much of there will always be war. Really, technology has advanced more through human history due to wars than to peace.

I think people should invest in robots that help humanity, not destroy it. I'd rather a robot work my land while i sit in my nice house while getting served by a robot. If everyone had that kind of lifestyle then why the need for wars.

i don't think so,therefor war's destiny would be changed by a hacker

To some extent. As long as they can't think for themselves I am all for it, kind of like the droids in Star Wars.

To some extent. As long as they can't think for themselves I am all for it, kind of like the droids in Star Wars.

thelastguy

Well, if robots are truly to become people's personal helpers then they need to be efficient enough to be able to anticipate it's owners wants and needs without having to be programmed everytime something new is asked of it. Only advanced AI can truly make robotics self-sufficient to become part of people's everyday life. So, trying to keep robots and computers from being too smart to think for themselves is counter-productive since consumers will always want something that was better than the previous model.

Plus, if something can be programmed to do non-violent behavior then it can be reprogrammed to do the opposite. The only way to truly keep machines from becoming a danger or at the very least not make wars so sanitizing and impersonal is to reverse the forward progress in technology.

[QUOTE="thelastguy"]

To some extent. As long as they can't think for themselves I am all for it, kind of like the droids in Star Wars.

Well, if robots are truly to become people's personal helpers then they need to be efficient enough to be able to anticipate it's owners wants and needs without having to be programmed everytime something new is asked of it. Only advanced AI can truly make robotics self-sufficient to become part of people's everyday life. So, trying to keep robots and computers from being too smart to think for themselves is counter-productive since consumers will always want something that was better than the previous model.

Plus, if something can be programmed to do non-violent behavior then it can be reprogrammed to do the opposite. The only way to truly keep machines from becoming a danger or at the very least not make wars so sanitizing and impersonal is to reverse the forward progress in technology.

[QUOTE="Buck_Hotep"]

[QUOTE="thelastguy"]

To some extent. As long as they can't think for themselves I am all for it, kind of like the droids in Star Wars.

mattykovax

Well, if robots are truly to become people's personal helpers then they need to be efficient enough to be able to anticipate it's owners wants and needs without having to be programmed everytime something new is asked of it. Only advanced AI can truly make robotics self-sufficient to become part of people's everyday life. So, trying to keep robots and computers from being too smart to think for themselves is counter-productive since consumers will always want something that was better than the previous model.

Plus, if something can be programmed to do non-violent behavior then it can be reprogrammed to do the opposite. The only way to truly keep machines from becoming a danger or at the very least not make wars so sanitizing and impersonal is to reverse the forward progress in technology.

I actually had to continue reading the book on robotics and AI in warfare to find an answer to your question. Also, spoke to a few people in the field who are part of DARPA-funded projects on the subject.

It's actually a problem that's currently being worked on. Robotics and the programs which run them continue to be created and made by people. But there's already been major progress in creating programs for robotics that allow for it to learn and adjust depending on the situation it's been presented. While still in their early stages most robotics pioneers and researchers hope that within 10-15 years a truly functioning AI will have been created that will allow robotics and programs to combine reactive, predictive and creative intelligence into one cohesive package so they would truly become autonomous.

We already have robots and programs with a semblance of AI. But the problem with the current AI in today's robotics and computers is that they only exhibit one of the three types I mentioned above. Some uses reactive intelligence which means they're sensing and reacting to the information they receive either through sensors. Some uses predictive intelligence in that they anticipate what will happen from prior information and acting before it occurs once again. Then there's some which are a semblance of creative intelligence in which they recognize patterns of information and create new solutions to old or new problems.

The goal is to combine all three which would make tampering with their original paramenters by an outside agency. The danger this may pose is the apocalyptic scenario people like to bring up and that's robotics and computers finally deciding to go beyond serving its creators and instead subjugating them according to some new found insight they've collectively come to.

why not, we have advanced the instruments of death quite a bit without advancing the soldier (biologically)AncientNecro

Exactly. Training of soldiers on how to fight wars as efficiently as the weapons they're wielding have come to a point where the technology used in these weapon systems actually react much faster to the battlefield situation than a highly-trained soldier can.

lets just try and take the peace route, k?

lets just try and take the peace route, k?

fiscope

All well and good and I'm all for it, but history has shown that peace is rarely the progressive factor in human advancement. Wars has been a mjor factor in advancing not just robotics and computers but medicine, food production and even scholastic.

Well a lot of life's would be saved, so yeah.