Terminator-Style Robot War 'Could Be A Reality Within 10 Years'

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,477
49,799
644
#1
Robot War: It's Coming

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080227111811.y9syyq8p&show_article=1

Increasingly autonomous, gun-totting robots developed for warfare could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and may one day unleash a robot arms race, a top expert on artificial intelligence told AFP.

"They pose a threat to humanity," said University of Sheffield professor Noel Sharkey ahead of a keynote address Wednesday before Britain's Royal United Services Institute.

Intelligent machines deployed on battlefields around the world -- from mobile grenade launchers to rocket-firing drones -- can already identify and lock onto targets without human help.

There are more than 4,000 US military robots on the ground in Iraq, as well as unmanned aircraft that have clocked hundreds of thousands of flight hours.

The first three armed combat robots fitted with large-caliber machine guns deployed to Iraq last summer, manufactured by US arms maker Foster-Miller, proved so successful that 80 more are on order, said Sharkey.

But up to now, a human hand has always been required to push the button or pull the trigger.

It we are not careful, he said, that could change.

Military leaders "are quite clear that they want autonomous robots as soon as possible, because they are more cost-effective and give a risk-free war," he said.


Several countries, led by the United States, have already invested heavily in robot warriors developed for use on the battlefield.

South Korea and Israel both deploy armed robot border guards, while China, India, Russia and Britain have all increased the use of military robots.

Washington plans to spend four billion dollars by 2010 on unmanned technology systems, with total spending expected rise to 24 billion, according to the Department of Defense's Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032, released in December.

James Canton, an expert on technology innovation and CEO of the Institute for Global Futures, predicts that deployment within a decade of detachments that will include 150 soldiers and 2,000 robots.

The use of such devices by terrorists should be a serious concern, said Sharkey.

Captured robots would not be difficult to reverse engineer, and could easily replace suicide bombers as the weapon-of-choice. "I don't know why that has not happened already," he said.

But even more worrisome, he continued, is the subtle progression from the semi-autonomous military robots deployed today to fully independent killing machines.

"I have worked in artificial intelligence for decades, and the idea of a robot making decisions about human termination terrifies me," Sharkey said.


Ronald Arkin of Georgia Institute of Technology, who has worked closely with the US military on robotics, agrees that the shift towards autonomy will be gradual.

But he is not convinced that robots don't have a place on the front line.

"Robotics systems may have the potential to out-perform humans from a perspective of the laws of war and the rules of engagement," he told a conference on technology in warfare at Stanford University last month.

The sensors of intelligent machines, he argued, may ultimately be better equipped to understand an environment and to process information. "And there are no emotions that can cloud judgement, such as anger," he added.

Nor is there any inherent right to self-defence.

For now, however, there remain several barriers to the creation and deployment of Terminator-like killing machines.

Some are technical. Teaching a computer-driven machine -- even an intelligent one -- how to distinguish between civilians and combatants, or how to gauge a proportional response as mandated by the Geneva Conventions, is simply beyond the reach of artificial intelligence today.


But even if technical barriers are overcome, the prospect of armies increasingly dependent on remotely-controlled or autonomous robots raises a host of ethical issues that have barely been addressed.

Arkin points out that the US Department of Defense's 230 billion dollar Future Combat Systems programme -- the largest military contract in US history -- provides for three classes of aerial and three land-based robotics systems.

"But nowhere is there any consideration of the ethical implications of the weaponisation of these systems," he said.

For Sharkey, the best solution may be an outright ban on autonomous weapons systems. "We have to say where we want to draw the line and what we want to do -- and then get an international agreement," he said.
 

Plunkies

Registered User
Jun 28, 2006
5,909
2,671
543
#2
What a stupid, fear mongering article and that Sharkey guy is a faggot. It's surprising that terrorists are using suicide bombs instead of stealing US robots and reverse engineering them? Is it really?
 

distortion9

Satellite Of Hate
Dec 12, 2001
4,925
8
368
NY
#4
How long before "the guy" isn't needed?

[yt]IYWd2C3XVIk[/yt]
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#5
What a stupid, fear mongering article and that Sharkey guy is a faggot. It's surprising that terrorists are using suicide bombs instead of stealing US robots and reverse engineering them? Is it really?
Dude, I heard people talking the Columbia crash was because terrorists shot it down with a SAM.

People have both way overblown ideas on what terrorists are capable of and underestimate them by a loooooong margin.

They have technical capabilities, but their technical capabilities come to a very, very, very narrow point. Whereas all the guys who directly use demo charges and the like in the US military actually KNOW what they're doing, 99% of the terrorists who blow themselves up with demo charges are simply given them by someone else who prepares it for them. And even then, the people doing the prep work tend to be sloppy.

Meanwhile, they're willingness to do horrible things is waaaaaaaaay underestimated by many.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,474
27,312
898
Seattle
#6
Bring on the robots. I'm ready for an old fashioned a-poccy-lips.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,776
9,203
768
#9
i will get started on one right away
 

Stalker2

Registered User
Jun 7, 2001
25,916
3
468
TRueWDTer
#10
Rise of the machine: Terminator-style robot war 'could be a reality within 10 years'

By NIALL FIRTH - More by this author » Last updated at 09:50am on 1st March 2008
Comments

Robot soldiers that can decide who to attack will soon be roaming the world's battlefields if something isn't done about the global 'robot arms race'.


That is the stark warning from a leading robotics expert who spoke today of the dangers of allowing increasingly sophisticated robots to make decisions of life and death.
Professor Noel Sharkey, a robotics and artificial intelligent expert from the University of Sheffield, also warned that armed robots could soon become terrorists' weapon of choice. Scroll down for more....
This Israeli military robot, the VIPeR can climb stairs and open fire on targets with a submachine gun



"The trouble is that we can't really put the genie back in the bottle,” said Professor Starkey.
“Once the new weapons are out there, they will be fairly easy to copy. How long is it going to be before the terrorists get in on the act?"
Over 4,000 robots are currently deployed on the ground in Iraq and by October 2006 unmanned aircraft had flown 400,000 flight hours. At the moment, humans can make the decision whether to attack or not but a recent policy shift in the U.S means that 'intelligent' autonomous attack robots will soon be given the power to decide who and when to kill
down for more...

U.S soldiers operate an unmanned drone aircraft. An increasing amount of funding is being spent on military robotics


In his keynote speech at a conference organised by the Royal United Services Institute, a military thinktank, Sharkey warned: "There's a massive drive towards developing autonomous robots for more complex missions.


LINK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ogy.html?in_article_id=520429&in_page_id=1965
 
Feb 20, 2006
8,646
549
521
**** Island
#11
Bring it on. After I shoot up the first one I see I'm going to fuck it's turret. Let it know who's boss.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#14
What a fucking idiot.

Terrorists don't have the wherewithal to produce their own cars to put carbombs in- they have to buy them from countries that actually produce them. Fuck, the countries most of these retards are from can't produce cars or equipment- they buy them from countries that have real economies.

These are going to be military AIs. They're going to have so many fucking safeguards and controls on them that terrorists aren't going to know what to do with them.

The technical skills of terrorist organizations comes to a very, very sharp point, and that point is not terribly high. They've got MAYBE a few dozen people to handle website design and video embedding for fuck's sake, and the people they have on that aren't exactly at the top of the game.

Shit, I've got a cousin-in-law who's working on the AIs for the Navy's new autonomous robot subs. Dude is seriously at the top of the computer programming game, brilliant as all get-out, and he's part of a HUUUUUGE team putting this stuff together.

Meanwhile, these camel fuckers would be lucky if they could assemble an RC tank from the instructions in the fucking box.
 
Feb 20, 2006
8,646
549
521
**** Island
#15
Actually, fuck this entire theory. If there ever is a Skynet type of uber-machine it isn't going to produce Terminator style robots. It will create nano-bots or as small a robot as it can. That would be far more efficient, cost effective, and harder to stop. Plus it damn sure wouldn't be stupid enough to mass produce lasers. It would stick with the standard metal bullet. This way it can still kill humans easily but not it's own troops. No worries about friendly fire either.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#16
Actually, fuck this entire theory. If there ever is a Skynet type of uber-machine it isn't going to produce Terminator style robots. It will create nano-bots or as small a robot as it can. That would be far more efficient, cost effective, and harder to stop. Plus it damn sure wouldn't be stupid enough to mass produce lasers. It would stick with the standard metal bullet. This way it can still kill humans easily but not it's own troops. No worries about friendly fire either.
Asimov's Laws of Robotics, along with a hard-wired imperative that any robot building machine puts the Laws into every robot it builds. Problem solved.
:icon_mrgr
 
Feb 20, 2006
8,646
549
521
**** Island
#17
Asimov's Laws of Robotics, along with a hard-wired imperative that any robot building machine puts the Laws into every robot it builds. Problem solved.
:icon_mrgr

People are driven to kill other people. It's always been this way and it will never change. Asimov's law goes out the window when war is afoot. Killing the enemy is far more important than the risk of an errant AI occurence.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,477
49,799
644
#18
Robin Williamsbot would never hurt us. He's so loveable.
 

Jambi

Infidel
Nov 29, 2006
3,452
374
523
FL
#19
Weren't we supposed to have flying cars in 2000?
 

weakside

He was stupid. I was lucky. I will visit him soon.
Dec 9, 2004
3,871
0
0
California
#20
Here is one of these killing machines now…

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTlV0Y5yAww[/media]
 

Hudson

Supreme Champion!!!!!
Donator
Jan 14, 2002
32,840
4,566
898
Land of misfit toys
#21
To Give Equal time:

Japan Seeks Robotic Help in Caring for the Aged
By JAMES BROOKE

Published: March 5, 2004


ACHIDA, Japan — With an electronic whir, the machine released a dollop of "peach body shampoo," a kind of body wash. Then, as the cleansing bubbling action kicked in, Toshiko Shibahara, 89, settled back to enjoy the wash and soak cycle of her nursing home's new human washing machine.

Futuristic images of elderly Japanese going through rinse and dry cycles in rows of washing machines may evoke chills. But they also point to where the world's most rapidly aging nation is heading.

This spring Japanese companies plan to start marketing a "robot suit," a motorized, battery-operated pair of pants designed to help the aged and infirm move around on their own. Then there is the Wakamaru, a mobile, three-foot-high speaking robot equipped with two camera eyes. It is used largely by working people to keep an eye on their elderly parents at home.

These devices and others in the works will push Japanese sales of domestic robots to $14 billion in 2010 and $40 billion in 2025 from nearly $4 billion currently, according to the Japan Robot Association
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/i...&en=eb854fe2a4e6c9bd&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND


This spring Japanese companies plan to start marketing a "robot suit," a motorized, battery-operated pair of pants designed to help the aged and infirm move around on their own.
???
Umm:[image]http://keepbreathing.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/the-wrong-trousers-05.jpg[/image]
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,474
27,312
898
Seattle
#22
This spring Japanese companies plan to start marketing a "robot suit," a motorized, battery-operated pair of pants designed to help the aged and infirm move around on their own.
Robot pants or smoke pants? That is the question.

And the terrorist don't have enough savvy to program Pong, for Christ's sake. I don't think we need to worry about Ocyber bin Laden any time soon.
 

BravoSierra

Why do people keep calling me?
Jun 27, 2005
3,463
4
293
Berkeley, CA
#23
Robots in wars will never happen. Know why? Because war is based on 2 sides with a different stance. We think "this," you think "that." Your stance isn't being threatened when all they're doing is destroying your non living robots with their non living robots.

If wars involving robots did happen, the opposing countries may as well settle their differences on a game of "Risk." Human loss is what makes a war a war. Just my thoughts anyways. My .02 cents as I like to put it.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,474
27,312
898
Seattle
#24
Robots in wars will never happen. Know why? Because war is based on 2 sides with a different stance. We think "this," you think "that." Your stance isn't being threatened when all they're doing is destroying your non living robots with their non living robots.

If wars involving robots did happen, the opposing countries may as well settle their differences on a game of "Risk." Human loss is what makes a war a war. Just my thoughts anyways. My .02 cents as I like to put it.
But they will be used against people as well. They are already talking about making a large force of robots to send into the caves of Afghanistan to flush out the savages like sticking a garden hose in a gopher hole.
 

BravoSierra

Why do people keep calling me?
Jun 27, 2005
3,463
4
293
Berkeley, CA
#25
But they will be used against people as well. They are already talking about making a large force of robots to send into the caves of Afghanistan to flush out the savages like sticking a garden hose in a gopher hole.
But if you guard the people with robots, you would have robots fighting robots. So basically, the country that can produce the most robots wins. And where do they manufacture these robots? Taiwan? INVADE TAIWAN!!!!! Politics goes around in cirlces.