General Misc > Misc

Human Rights Watch wants to ban armed autonomous robots

(1/3) > >>

Admin:
I'm not sure if you guys have seen this yet, but HRW is trying to ban the Terminator.

I haven't read the report yet because I'm coincidentally still reading this book and want to finish it first:
Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots

But after reading the press releases and online commentary, I'm much under the impression that the HRW report was written with little input from robotics engineers.

My personal opinion is that humans are historically unethical on the battlefield. It's hard to name a single conflict that didn't have a massacre of unarmed civilians. If a robot can be programmed to not kill out of hatred (or whatever other reason), I would argue it to be unethical to *not* use a robot soldier instead of a human soldier.

sys 49152:
Whatever happened to Asimov's 3 laws?  :(

Admin:

--- Quote from: sys 49152 on December 01, 2012, 07:07:45 AM ---Whatever happened to Asimov's 3 laws?  :(

--- End quote ---
Asimov's stories showed how his laws didn't work :P

Soeren:
Hi,


--- Quote from: Admin on November 28, 2012, 09:41:53 PM ---If a robot can be programmed to not kill out of hatred (or whatever other reason), I would argue it to be unethical to *not* use a robot soldier instead of a human soldier.

--- End quote ---
The problem is not the lack of emotions, but rather the situations where they go haywire and we all know that a human brain (even a not so bright one) is far superior to what a robot is, and will be for a lot of time, when it comes to eg. "pattern recognition" and it's easy to imagine a scenario where even a light damage (bullet, frags or whatever) makes a robot go haywire and then civilians will be in real danger.
And what's the point if two sides each sends robots and no humans (in some future battles) - It reminds me of the situation where two kids argues over who's father can beat the other ones father ;)

I know a lot of you yanks are spoonfed from birth with this "patriotism" or what should I call it and everyone goes on about how the US military defends your way of life and so (apparently a lot of this defending have to take place in oil producing countries ;)) and if something, this sort of "mass thinking" is something to fear, as that means a lack of questioning the purpose and presents a hook to hang your personal ethics, when enrolling the "common ethics" without a grain of doubt.
Sure I know that I'll be called a lot of things for this, mainly from those who bought into the "come right in and leave your ethics at the wardrobe girl, we have one size that fits all"-crowd, but that's very often the price of free thinking, so I'll live with that ;D

The question of killer-bots or -nots really can be simplified...
How would you (you, the reader) feel about having an armed and powered killer 'bot in your daily life? Would you trust it to never make a mistake and be strangely error free, contrary to all other electronics devices you've ever used?
Even the fairly harmless (in comparison) Robot Wars 'bots have, by rules, a hefty kill switch/link that is only to be removed when entering the arena. A fullblown and powered combat 'bot (combot?) with a couple of miniguns, rockets and what not woud scare the living daylight out of me - even if I had done all the electronics myself - Murphys Laws applies everywhere!

Anybody that (honestly) wouldn't mind sharing their life with such a machine have my full blessings to advocate them (plus my sympathy towards their stupidity ;))
All others should concentrate on building 'bots that are not ment to intentionally kill, maim and curse.

Funny thing is, people advocating such always start their dogmatic outburst with "I really don't like war, it's terrible, but...".
If all engineers simply didn't enter into developing killer 'bots, guns, bombs etc. there wouldn't be any such devices.

Needless to say, I understand the HRW's worries and I fully support their ideas!

Admin:

--- Quote from: Soeren on December 01, 2012, 11:07:39 AM ---The problem is not the lack of emotions, but rather the situations where they go haywire and we all know that a human brain (even a not so bright one) is far superior to what a robot is, and will be for a lot of time, when it comes to eg. "pattern recognition"

--- End quote ---
As long as this is true, robots will never be fielded in those situations. The above article is for the hypothetical day when robot brains are actually superior.



--- Quote ---and it's easy to imagine a scenario where even a light damage (bullet, frags or whatever) makes a robot go haywire and then civilians will be in real danger.

--- End quote ---
Humans don't even need light damage to go haywire. My Lai, for example.



--- Quote ---And what's the point if two sides each sends robots and no humans (in some future battles) - It reminds me of the situation where two kids argues over who's father can beat the other ones father ;)

--- End quote ---
When wars are fought over resources (such as oil fields or territory), the victor keeps it. When it is fought over ideals, the victor gets to force their ideals on the loser. etc. etc. etc.

And history shows the better equipped force is much more likely to win.



--- Quote ---Funny thing is, people advocating such always start their dogmatic outburst with "I really don't like war, it's terrible, but...".
If all engineers simply didn't enter into developing killer 'bots, guns, bombs etc. there wouldn't be any such devices.

--- End quote ---
Did you see the monetary prize for the latest DARPA robot competition? And there will always be engineers who believe what he is doing is right because it is for his nation.

I'm not an advocate of war, or making weapons. I refuse to make or assist in the creation of killer robots (yes, peaceful robot tech can be used for evil). But I realize that wars are not going away any time soon,  that dictators won't step down if you say 'please', and people will wage those wars regardless of the weapons they have. HRW can't ban robots no more than they can ban guns or war itself. It's a political - not engineering - issue.

Yes, chemical weapons were banned, and same with cluster munitions, but only because they couldn't discriminate between combatants and civilians. Carpet bombing was ended with the development of the smart bomb. And my argument is that future robots will be better than the current option.

Besides, how are we going to fight off the alien invasion if we don't have giant fighting robots? :P

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page