Military Turing test to make autonomous war robots legal?
By Darren Murph 
posted February 29th 2008 9:11AM
posted February 29th 2008 9:11AM
posted February 29th 2008 9:11AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"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?