Not that we're experts on the matter or anything, but if barrister and engineer Chris Elliot knows a thing or two about legal issues, a kind of "military Turing test" could be the key to legally deploying autonomous systems in battle. As it stands, "weapons intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets are illegal" -- at least according to Mr. Elliot -- but by testing an intelligent war machine's ability to hone in on legitimate targets and brush off friendlies, all that could change. Of course, actually administering the test still remains a mystery, but considering that remotely controlled armed bots are
currently being used in Iraq, we reckon someone's already figuring out a solution to said dilemma.
posted Feb 29th 2008 9:11AM
Ermmmmm.
That robo looks quite lethal :-(
Twin Drum fed MP5 SMG's
Start running now!!!
They're not MP5's. Try the AA12 Automatic Shotgun—watch your face...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun
That's actually a new prototype weapon called the AA-12- it's a fully automatic, almost recoilless shotgun. Wouldn't want to be in the way of that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhstuvzMiB0
Pretty sure it's not a prototype anymore...
It has I Robot written on it. Facetious, much?
Put the vacuum on the bottom of it and I'm buying one.
iRobot - the same company that builds robots to clean your house also builds robots for military uses.
Once they have a civilian version of this - probably in Hello Kitty pink (http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/17/hello-kitty-ar-15-assault-rifle-makes-you-wish-it-was-photoshopp/) - expect to see them trundling around the Arizona State campus http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0216guns0216.html
Ironically that's the exact gun I'm working on getting 150 kills with in COD4 right now (MP5)
The Turing test is far from scientific law. There are a ton of legitimate counterarguments to it, some of which were provided by Turing himself. This is not a good idea.
"As it stands, 'weapons intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets are illegal'"
As it stands, torture's illegal too....and, well....you know....
(just sayin')
I for one welcome our disturbingly ED-209-like overlords.
The army has obviously never watched RoboCop.
Are you kidding? This is a SkyNet minion, all the way.
Don't you mean "The army has obviously closely watched RoboCop"?
You're right. Here I was thinking that the army can tell the difference between a good idea and a bad one. Maybe they should watch some Animaniacs instead.
It is kind of cute in a 'I'm going to blow your face off' way.
Wall-E Part 2: The Rise of the Machines
Let's see an autonomous machine tell the difference between a human and a mannequin, especially in, say, a smokey environment.
New produict!
Think this thing can see from its side? Couple diversionary tactics, good rifle, dead machine.
Easy: thermal motion sensor
A Robot COULD tell the difference between a Manequin and a Human being...
its called an INFRA RED SENSOR.
A robot could also have night vision, magnetic resonance imaging and microwave vision.
A robot could determine the threat level of a "weapon" before shooting much faster than a human could. This way, it could tell the difference between a kid holding a watergun and a kid holding an AK-47 (note to parents, if your kid has an AK 47, he is gonna get LIT UP...that is unless the robot has "targeting denied" programming to prevent it from shooting targets shorter than 5'5)
So train dogs to run up to robots.
Boom.
Dead machine.
Oh!
Robots know dogs!
Okay...cats.
Oh!
Robots know cats!
Okay, pigeons.
Oh!
Dead machine.
Sweet!, i'm 5'4" so it looks like i'm going on a rampage when these things come out.
If they go bad, we just have to get them into space, then we can shoot them all down with SM-3s. Seriously, what are you guys worried about?
Do robots know midgets? I think there's a serious loophole here. Midget soldiers will be the way to go. All they'll have to do is paint the tips of their guns bright red.
Remember that invisible border post not so long ago?
Robot: "Green card"
Border Jumper: "No habla"
Robot: *pop* *pop* *pop* *pop* *pop* *pop* *click* *click*
What truly worries me is that the US government will take your humor seriously
That invisible border post made me think of that online hunting story a few months back. I thought why don't they just combine the two. Maybe we could have Call of Duty 5 Border Patrol. Instead of paying billions for a invisible fence that doesn't work have online hunting. The system would pay for itself in no time.
@eli 05
So what about all the frickin team killers?
Someone needs to read Screamers by Philip K Dick before letting robots fight the wars.
"Anything that moves is VC; anything that doesn't move is well-disciplined VC!"
- Full Metal Jacket
It seems to me that some human combatants in the modern field of war would fail this test.
I like automated robotic sentries because someday they will be able to kill without fear and without malice.
You can't accuse a robot of being a racist.
That is... unless robots become self aware and decide that humanity is beneath them.
And without a conscience. May you fall heard-on into a wood chipper.
You know what I see in the future? "Dude don't taze me, taze-bot!" There is no reasoning with Taze-Bot.
Ha, I was going to make the same reference, but I was going to go with "Dude, don't taze me robro!"
I'd like to taze you both right now.
or dont taze me Bro-bot
Judgment Day will soon come when SkyNet takes over.
And here I thought: the next-gen Elmos are going to exterminate humanity.
So in the future the country with the best robots wins the wars....
Start studying your Japanese.
sweet, all my years of mechassault will pay off in the future of warfare
Why bother learning japanese? Telling an evangelion to stop won't do much.
(apologies to bob s above)
Wall*E, noooooo!
I mean, Number 5, noooooo!
I mean, Artoo, put your clothes back on.
Chris Elliot a.k.a Cabin Boy?
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2187630848/tt0109361
Man, oh man, I hate those fancy lads!
It doesn't look too big, have they thought about the stair issues?.
Plus can the guns move up and down as otherwised a big rock would get in its line of sight.
Who designed this? wonder how much it cost them to strap a pair of guns to a set of treads. (personally i reckon it was last years scrapheap challenge winners)
I agree with emailtabs. I mean seriously, it sure looks like a Logitech webcam that's duct-taped to the front of the thing. Gee, I sure hope no insurgents know how to unplug a USB cable.
Given the civilian deaths in Iraq...you'd have to wonder about the distinction you introduce in the 2nd paragraph.
*uggh!?*... but... I... was holding... a... cameraaaaaaa....?
Autonomous killing machines may be considered illegal, but a "remote control" killing machine is NOT autonomous. Not saying either is a good thing, just clearing up some confusion in the post. It seems to be suggesting somebody's decided it is legal, or to ignore the fact that it isn't. "Remote control" and "autonomous" are very different things.
Hey enblahget, autonomous robots WILL STILL BE ILLEGAL regardless of this "turning test". Even a 12 year old can figure out the reason why these robots are illegal is because they can't distinguish between a 2month old and an old lady, not because of friendly fire.
Sending this into a warzone where there are civilians would clearly constitute a war crime. It would be like sending a group of solders into an area knowing they will kill every living thing thats not a home solider.
Please find better writers/editors because the quality is on this site is starting to take a nose dive.
"because they can't distinguish between a 2month old and an old lady"
To be fair, they both wear diapers, drool, and need liquid food, so...
Just make the enemy where RFID tags. Do I have to think up ALL the answers?
"Hey enblahget, autonomous robots WILL STILL BE ILLEGAL regardless of this "turning test"."
While testing a machine's ability to turn will not help guarantee the safety of noncombatants, passing a Turing test would require the ability to distinguish between targets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
this was on Future Weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_weapons
Lego Mindstorms FTW!
Disgusting
The real question is...
"Does that webcam mounted on the front come with Vista drivers?"
"Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply!"
*clunk*
"You now have 15 seconds to comply! You are in direct violation of Penal Code 1.13, Section 9. You have 5 seconds to comply!"
*Help me!*
"Four... three... two... one... I am now authorized to use physical force!"
That's just fuckin' scary once you think of it.
Un-maned Vehicles are NOT the future of warfare...they are the present. They save hundreds of lives and will save BILLIONS of dollars.
The only thing I'm uncertain of is how an "autonomous" bot can be secured against friendly fire. Our troops would have to be equipped with a device that sends a "friendly" signal just in case things got crazy on the battlefield--which they always do.
At this point in time, un-maned units are usually sentries and scouts, so the risk of friendly fire is minimal. But those units are all controlled by a SOLDIER, not by a pre-determined algorithm that gives them "autonomy" to make it's own decisions.
Really? Tomahawks cost about a million a piece and tend to miss something like 50% of the time. The last time they were used en-masse, there was an 80% failure rate. That 80% just happened to be in a city full of civilians. So I guess if we're talking about saving the lives of military personel, then yes, the 'enemy' didn't lose too much of its military. Yay?
/kick
"I win!!"
What we need is a waterboarding robot.
How do bombs, rockets, bullets, etc... not fall into the category of "weapons intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets"?
I wonder how long it will take for a missed software error to replace Enemy Combatant / Non-Combatant with Organic / Machine.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen! This is
Angry Bob and you are listening to W.A.R. Radio,
somewhere on your dial, and I am here to wake
you up! We got some real good news from the
Department of Defense todav. They're finally
moving forward with the long-delayed Mark 14
project -- I don't know what it is and I don't
care, but if you've got any kind of security
clearance at all, get your unemployed ass down
to Central Robotics first thing Monday morning.
Things are looking up. Just one more reason ta
celebrate on this great day, when we honor the
birth of that very special man...and...yet he
was not a man...This is Angry Bob wishing you and yours a very,
merry Christmas!
Future wars will be among autonomous robots of all kinds, which will target each other and Humans, it's inevitable.
Basically some robots will fire at us, and some will fire back to protect us.
The only Human soldiers left are those with super-human capabilities provided by high tech enhancement devices.
/turns off crystal ball.
"Chris Elliot knows a thing or two about legal issues, a kind of "military Turing test" could be the key to legally deploying autonomous systems in battle."
They're letting the star of "Get A Life" and "Cabin Boy" design these things?
http://www.retrojunk.com/img/art-images/getalife.jpg
I'm as terrified as I am intrigued.
I'm pretty sure that's gonna become the HK's from terminator.
This is a very controversial and delicate ground to be stepping upon prematurely. What would be the parameters and considerations a robot would have to discern between a civilian and a hostile entity? If the intended purpose of robots is to ultimately help save lives, the definitions of the previously mentioned categories becomes of dire importance.
What actions should a combat robot take in any given circumstance among the infinite possible scenarios? I see too many possibilities for error in judgment and calculation for a combat ready robot to be placed in active duty. Serious legal implications as well. If a robot commits a mistake by shooting an unarmed person, would it constitute murder or a war crime? Who would be helr raccountable for such a mortal mistake? The country? The programmer? The mechanic? Or would the slate remain clean and unblemished for the inability of the authorities and courts to adjudicate blame and responsibility?
Would this machine shoot on site at anyone who it identifies is armed? This is a concern of mine because civilians have the right to defend themselves from aggression, as well as to bare arms if necessary. Would the machine shoot upon recognizing the threat( whatever their method may be), no questions asked? If someone reacts aggressively against the robot for being frightened by this unnatural sight, would the robot shoot back?
The war crimes question I propose is one of the most terrifying one. Just imagine a platoon of combat ready robots sent to your home town during a extraordinary disturbance of the peace...would you feel safe? If during a wartime scenario these machines are sent to preform in live-combat; would the show mercy at any point? Could a genocide erupt? Could they be hacked into or controlled by the enemy? Who would be to blame? Who would be responsible?
This reminds me of Michel Foucault's biopolitic theory. It is the art and ability to govern capitalists societies by knowing that the power of govern ability falls in its strategic practices, not on its technological ones.
Manuel Antonio Alvarez
University of Puerto Rico
Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology
Why can't they just use a camera and let the operator decide?