Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27343076

"Autonomous killer robots do not currently exist but advances in technology are bringing them closer to reality
Killer robots will be debated during an informal meeting of experts at the United Nations in Geneva.

Two robotics experts, Prof Ronald Arkin and Prof Noel Sharkey, will debate the efficacy and necessity of killer robots.

The meeting will be held during the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW).

A report on the discussion will be presented to the CCW meeting in November.

This will be the first time that the issue of killer robots, or lethal autonomous weapons systems, will be addressed within the CCW.

“
Start Quote
"I support a moratorium until that end is achieved, but I do not support a ban at this time" ”
End Quote
Prof Ronald Arkin

Georgia Institute of Technology
Autonomous kill function

A killer robot is a fully autonomous weapon that can select and engage targets without any human intervention. They do not currently exist but advances in technology are bringing them closer to reality.

Those in favour of killer robots believe the current laws of war may be sufficient to address any problems that might emerge if they are ever deployed, arguing that a moratorium, not an outright ban, should be called if this is not the case.

However, those who oppose their use believe they are a threat to humanity and any autonomous "kill functions" should be banned.

"Autonomous weapons systems cannot be guaranteed to predictably comply with international law," Prof Sharkey told the BBC. "Nations aren't talking to each other about this, which poses a big risk to humanity."

Prof Sharkey is a member and co-founder of the Campaign Against Killer Robots and chairman of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control.

Side events at the CCW will be hosted by the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots.

Automation of warfare
Prof Arkin from the Georgia Institute of Technology told the BBC he hoped killer robots would be able to significantly reduce non-combatant casualties but feared they would be rushed into battle before this was accomplished.

"I support a moratorium until that end is achieved, but I do not support a ban at this time," said Prof Arkin.

He went on to state that killer robots may be better able to determine when not to engage a target than humans, "and could potentially exercise greater care in so doing".

Prof Sharkey is less optimistic. "I'm concerned about the full automation of warfare," he says.

Drones

The discussion of drones is not on the agenda as they are yet to operate completely autonomously, although there are signs this may change in the near future.

The UK successfully tested the Taranis, an unmanned intercontinental aircraft in Australia this year and America's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) has made advances with the Crusher, an unmanned ground combat vehicle, since 2006.

The MoD has claimed in the past that it currently has no intention of developing systems that operate without human intervention.

On 21 November 2012 the United States Defense Department issued a directive that, "requires a human being to be 'in-the-loop' when decisions are made about using lethal force," according to Human Rights Watch.

The meeting of experts will be chaired by French ambassador Jean-Hugues Simon-Michel from 13 to 16 May 2014."



Personally, the idea of autonomous armed robots scares the living daylights out of me. Not just because of the "hal" syndrome, but because it allows one, or very few, people to gain a mass producable "super soilder" of sorts that wont have individual morals as our human troops do.

The Idea of the next hitler/stalin/ect having an army that wont give a second thought to morals is a plausable nightmare scenario.

Considering how bad things have gotten with human troops, like during the holocaust and so on, this just seems like it opens the door for somthing even worse.

What do you think?

Are you stocking up on haywire grenades and getting ready to go back in time to stop this?

Or do you welcome out new robot overlords to suckle at your bio-electric teat?

Can we not all be in a hurry to turn the Terminator franchise into a documentary? Please? Killer robots are just a bad idea. It never works out well in the movies, why would anyone think it would turn out well in real life?

Thing about robots is: They only do what you program them to do.

You're not looking at full-blown Artificial Intelligence here. You're looking at machines that are programmed to destroy certain objects when they are detected.

Stop thinking "Terminator" and start thinking "Aliens sentry gun".

I vote we settle all future disputes Robot Jocks style

Did anybody else get the mental image of politicians arguing with killer robots?

Hand over your flesh.

This explains the recent Earth-Decepticon Alliance.

squidhills wrote:
Can we not all be in a hurry to turn the Terminator franchise into a documentary? Please? Killer robots are just a bad idea. It never works out well in the movies, why would anyone think it would turn out well in real life?

Quit talking before you hurt yourself. The dangers involved have nothing to do with Hollywood's Luddism. The problem is accountability - we can't even hold someone accountable for an open and shut war crime like shooting a civilian trying to rescue the other civilian you just shot, and that's only going to get worse once you can start blaming indiscriminate shootings on programming errors.

Omnicorp would like a word...

"We've got the future under control."

 AlexHolker wrote:

squidhills wrote:
Can we not all be in a hurry to turn the Terminator franchise into a documentary? Please? Killer robots are just a bad idea. It never works out well in the movies, why would anyone think it would turn out well in real life?

Quit talking before you hurt yourself. The dangers involved have nothing to do with Hollywood's Luddism. The problem is accountability - we can't even hold someone accountable for an open and shut war crime like shooting a civilian trying to rescue the other civilian you just shot, and that's only going to get worse once you can start blaming indiscriminate shootings on programming errors.

Quit assuming I was being serious before you embarass yourself.

There are more issues involved in why this is a bad idea beyond accoutability, but you are right that accountability is a big one. There are moral issues too (would wars become more brutal if we relied on a machine to do our killing for us?) there are security issues (if hackers could steal one of our drones over Iran, couldn't they change the IFF parameters of a gun emplacement to have it target friendly forces?) and there logistical and policy issues as well (if killbots become commonplace in the military, the military will have to change it's training focus away from conventional warfare and conventional thinking into a more tech-oriented one and radical doctrine changes take time and are often resisted strongly... rememeber Billy Mitchell).

yeah the prospect of one crazy guy gaining the power of a basically limitless supply of loyal robot soldiers is more worrying to me then anything else.

Also, the fact that we are skipping right past the humans in exoskeliton step...

we need that step because:

A: how else will we fight the robots when they turn on us or are taken over by some crazy guy

B: because exoskelitons are the second coolest thing ever.

 easysauce wrote:
yeah the prospect of one crazy guy gaining the power of a basically limitless supply of loyal robot soldiers is more worrying to me then anything else.

I think this is biggest worry on the mind of all rational men with proper perspective.

 Chongara wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
yeah the prospect of one crazy guy gaining the power of a basically limitless supply of loyal robot soldiers is more worrying to me then anything else.

I think this is biggest worry on the mind of all rational men with proper perspective.

Also, software bugs.

The US alone has had numerous projects over the last two decade that have incurred software failures which would have led to the crippling, firing of, or incorrect functionality of units and weapons systems on battlefields and which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fix. Autonomous battlefield robots would be even more prone to such issues. How awkward would it be if trying to activate IR sensors while scanning in normal Optical mode triggered an accidental "fire" command or began ignoring additional command input? Entirely possible.

On top of that, they're only as good as they're input. If they're just told to secure an area and kill everything, well, sucks for civilians there if they can't or aren't told to distinguish between targets.

Full autonomous combat robots are so far off technologically (in a practical sense) that even talking about them is nothing more than a token discussion. Another example of the UN having fethed up priorities.

 LordofHats wrote:
Full autonomous combat robots are so far off technologically (in a practical sense) that even talking about them is nothing more than a token discussion. Another example of the UN having fethed up priorities.

Eh, might as well get the conversation started early than too late.

20 years ago people thought that stuff like smartphones were the stuff of Star Trek and the like, hell more advanced than even that. Now everyone has one.

So, is one person going to represent the pro-killer robot side? Sounds challenging.

 LordofHats wrote:
Full autonomous combat robots are so far off technologically (in a practical sense) that even talking about them is nothing more than a token discussion. Another example of the UN having fethed up priorities.

no, they really are not.. 100% of the tech is there, right now, and we have autonomous robots already inservice, but they are not armed.


They are not armed, by choice, not because we cannot do it. A fully autonomous sentry gun that just has orders and the ability to shoot anyone in the perimiter who doesnt have an RFID FOF tag was doable a decade ago.

Best to deal with this before it becomes a problem instead of afterwards.

 easysauce wrote:


no, they really are not.. 100% of the tech is there, right now, and we have autonomous robots already inservice, but they are not armed.

There's a difference between a drone programmed to fly around and a machine capable of distinguishing targets, prioritizing them, and making them cheap enough and functional enough to replace human soldiers. That's still firmly in the realm of science fiction.

 Easy E wrote:
So, is one person going to represent the pro-killer robot side? Sounds challenging.

Wars could be fought without casualties and in arenas with Pay-Per-View style media coverage. Nations would settle disputes with robot death and people would cheer from their couches.

I dunno. That is the best I can come up with.

I'd much more prefer seeing thousands of robots die than a single US / EU Soldier. But as others stated, we're so far away from killer robots that I really can't be bothered with it.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also, software bugs.

Not even bugs! What about software failures? See, humans have problem determining whether someone is a threat or not. Bots are not even able to solve captcha. How in the name of reason do you expect a bot to be able to tell a threat from an innocent bystander ? Sending killer robots seems like a mix between carpet bombing and antipersonnel mines. Do we want that kind of weapon ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I'd much more prefer seeing thousands of robots die than a single US / EU Soldier. But as others stated, we're so far away from killer robots that I really can't be bothered with it.

Using the same logic, why did the U.S. send troops to Irak and Afghanistan? They could have sent atomic bombs. No U.S. soldier would have died, and the war would have been won.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Using the same logic, why did the U.S. send troops to Irak and Afghanistan? They could have sent atomic bombs. No U.S. soldier would have died, and the war would have been won.

You don't expect me to answer to that, do you? -_-

 Easy E wrote:
So, is one person going to represent the pro-killer robot side? Sounds challenging.

I'm your huckleberry.

The arguments against killer robots don't speak to me as arguments FOR the ban of such machines, but instead FOR greater caution in their creation and implementation.

Killer robots are a dynamite idea. Anything that allows us to protect the weak from the depredations of the wicked without endangering the lives of our own soldiers is an idea worth pursuing. (Not necessarily implementing, at least until much more research has been done, but it's at least worth looking into...)

 Sigvatr wrote:
You don't expect me to answer to that, do you? -_-

I do not know. My point was that if using killer robots endangers local civilian population too much, then it is far from obviously that we should rely on it rather than risking our soldiers lives. My example was over the top, though.

Hmm...Killer robots are far less detrimental to civilians than any human could ever be - unless asked to slaughter innocents. No rapes, no raiding, far superior aim compared to humans, no emotions aka no panic reactions, no adrenaline that leads to overreactions etc.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
See, humans have problem determining whether someone is a threat or not. Bots are not even able to solve captcha. How in the name of reason do you expect a bot to be able to tell a threat from an innocent bystander?

Only way to make an autonomous robot is to make an omnicidal maniac.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Thing about robots is: They only do what you program them to do.

You're not looking at full-blown Artificial Intelligence here. You're looking at machines that are programmed to destroy certain objects when they are detected.

Stop thinking "Terminator" and start thinking "Aliens sentry gun".

Right, because that always works out well with no human error on the part of the programmers...

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Thing about robots is: They only do what you program them to do.

You're... not a programmer, are you?

I think this fellow would like to address the assembly on the topic.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think this fellow would like to address the assembly on the topic.

Nope, he's an Autobot now.

ummm... ok, so let me get this straight.


So an X box can "target identify" between everyone in the house and tell the users apart.


But state of the art computers cannot tell the difference between friendlies holding FOF tags and people holding guns.

Riiiiiighhhhht.....

As someone above said, your dont program do you?

its 2014, we got computers plenty capable of that kind of thing now, and mounting them on weapons platforms is 100% in the scope of what we have right now.