The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: SirLinksALot on October 05, 2016, 11:01:40 pm
-
SOURCE: WASHINGTON POST
URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/10/05/robots-could-eventually-replace-soldiers-in-warfare-is-that-a-good-thing/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/10/05/robots-could-eventually-replace-soldiers-in-warfare-is-that-a-good-thing/)
by: Vivek Wadhwa and Aaron Johnson
The United States has on its Aegis-class cruisers a defense system that can track and destroy anti-ship missiles and aircraft. Israel has developed a drone, the Harpy, that can detect and automatically destroy radar emitters. South Korea has security-guard robots on its border with North Korea that can kill humans.
All of these can function autonomously — without any human intention.
Indeed, the early versions of the Terminator are already here. And there are no global conventions limiting their use. They deploy artificial intelligence to identify targets and make split-second decisions on whether to attack.
The technology is still imperfect, but it is becoming increasingly accurate — and lethal. Deep learning has revolutionized image classification and recognition and will soon allow these systems to exceed the capabilities of an average human soldier.
But are we ready for this? Do we want Robocops policing our cities? The consequences, after all, could be very much like we’ve seen in dystopian science fiction. The answer surely is no.
For now, the U.S. military says that it wants to keep a human in the loop on all life-or-death decisions. All of the drones currently deployed overseas fall into this category: They are remotely piloted by a human (or usually multiple humans). But what happens when China, Russia and rogue nations develop their autonomous robots and acquire with them an advantage over our troops? There will surely be a strong incentive for the military to adopt autonomous killing technologies.
The rationale then will be that if we can send a robot instead of a human into war, we are morally obliged to do so, because it will save lives — at least, our soldiers’ lives, and in the short term. And it is likely that robots will be better at applying the most straightforward laws of war than humans have proven to be. You wouldn’t have the My Lai massacre of the Vietnam War if robots could enforce basic rules, such as “don’t shoot women and children.”
And then there will be questions of chain of command. Who is accountable in the event that something goes wrong? If a weapons system has a design or manufacturing issue, the manufacturer can be held accountable. If a system was deployed when it should not have been deployed, all commanders going up the chain are responsible. Ascribing responsibility will still be a challenging task, as it is with conventional weapons, but the more important question is: Should the decision to take a human life be made by a machine?
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST.....
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/13/article-2362490-1ACA6C56000005DC-221_634x401.jpg)
What could go wrong?
-
Should the decision to take a human life be made by a machine?
Even with so called AI there is still somebody that has to originally program the machine. I see this as weapons systems refinements but they will never replace boots on the ground.
There seems to be a tendency today by many in the military establishment to sanitize what a dirty business war is, you kill the bastards before they kill you, that will never change...
-
What if the robots are cute? Nobody would want to see that.
(http://cdn.techgyd.com/2015/11/cute-robot.jpg)
-
"Wonder weapons... my God, I don't see the wonder in them. Killing without heroics, nothing is glorified... nothing is reaffirmed? No heroes, no cowards, no troops, no generals? Only those who are left alive... and those who are left dead. I'm glad I won't live to see it." - Patton
-
"Wonder weapons... my God, I don't see the wonder in them. Killing without heroics, nothing is glorified... nothing is reaffirmed? No heroes, no cowards, no troops, no generals? Only those who are left alive... and those who are left dead. I'm glad I won't live to see it." - Patton
If it is just going to be machine against machine, why fool around? (https://www.planetdeadly.com/wp-content/uploads/castle-romeo-573x720.jpg)
That might not leave much afterwards for the "winner".
-
If it is just going to be machine against machine, why fool around?
That might not leave much afterwards for the "winner".
Any serious-minded person who wants to see a literary exploration of this topic would likely do well to read author William Gibson's "Neuromancer". His nightmare vision of the future is not so much about machines running amok on their own, as irresponsible, governments/multinational corporations misusing military munitions (including computer software/hardware) for nefarious purposes which serve only a plutocratic oligarchy and tramples the "greater common good" underfoot with a ruthless, reptilian phlegmatism.
(http://)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Any serious-minded person who wants to see a literary exploration of this topic would likely do well to read author William Gibson's "Neuromancer". His nightmare vision of the future is not so much about machines running amok on their own, as irresponsible, governments/multinational corporations misusing military munitions (including computer software/hardware) for nefarious purposes which serve only a plutocratic oligarchy and tramples the "greater common good" underfoot with a ruthless, reptilian phlegmatism.
(http://)
Saberhagen's Berserker series, and Bolo (Keith Laumer) are a couple of good trips down that road, too.
-
Any serious-minded person who wants to see a literary exploration of this topic would likely do well to read author William Gibson's "Neuromancer". His nightmare vision of the future is not so much about machines running amok on their own, as irresponsible, governments/multinational corporations misusing military munitions (including computer software/hardware) for nefarious purposes which serve only a plutocratic oligarchy and tramples the "greater common good" underfoot with a ruthless, reptilian phlegmatism.
(http://)
Sounds like precisely what Ike warned us about.
-
Sounds like precisely what Ike warned us about.
Yes, though what Gibson refers to in his writing is a step or two beyond the military industrial complex - it's nothing less than the forging of an unholy marriage between governments and corporations into a single entity - a new form of alien life. Really more of a competing form of life to human beings. Corporations ingest, protect themselves, preserve themselves in a chaotic environment, respire, excrete, and reproduce. Predatory life forms also protect, defend and expand territory. Gibson postulates that human beings have already created the life-form most likely to supplant human beings at the top of the food chain- multinational corporations.
As soon as corporations succeed in a complete merging with government so that the two are synonymous (if not overtly, then covertly) human beings cannot hope to stand against such a life-form and it will utterly and totally dominate the planet for ten thousand years.
-
John Brunner touched on similar ideas as well
-
The rationale then will be that if we can send a robot instead of a human into war, we are morally obliged to do so, because it will save lives — at least, our soldiers’ lives, and in the short term. And it is likely that robots will be better at applying the most straightforward laws of war than humans have proven to be. You wouldn’t have the My Lai massacre of the Vietnam War if robots could enforce basic rules, such as “don’t shoot women and children.
Ah, yes ... the old, "if everybody would just..." argument. If everybody would just program their robots to not shoot women and children....
Knowing that, how long do you suppose it would take a sufficiently bad guy to make soldiers of his women and children? And then what?
The real issue, of course, is that robots mainly represent a way to inflict tremendous damage on the enemy with minimal risk to one's own people. If both sides restrict their attacks to the other side's robots that's all very well and good. But of course that wouldn't happen. To deal with the robots, you deal with the factories and eventually the cities in which they reside; and then you point your robots at the population at large to take away their will to wage war.
Hell, we've already got that well in hand: how many nuclear missiles have we and the Russians and the Chinese (among others) got pointed at each other already?
-
Ah, yes ... the old, "if everybody would just..." argument. If everybody would just program their robots to not shoot women and children....
Knowing that, how long do you suppose it would take a sufficiently bad guy to make soldiers of his women and children? And then what?
The real issue, of course, is that robots mainly represent a way to inflict tremendous damage on the enemy with minimal risk to one's own people. If both sides restrict their attacks to the other side's robots that's all very well and good. But of course that wouldn't happen. To deal with the robots, you deal with the factories and eventually the cities in which they reside; and then you point your robots at the population at large to take away their will to wage war.
Hell, we've already got that well in hand: how many nuclear missiles have we and the Russians and the Chinese (among others) got pointed at each other already?
That's one reason nuclear proliferation is a threat in itself - the addition of automated systems is necessary to provide maximum speed and reliability in M.A.D. scenarios that ensure stability in reluctance to use nukes in a first strike. If a human component is disabled for any reason (cyber warfare, conventional attack, etc.) the ability to enable the weapons under their control to strike back without them is required. Also, for maximum speed in targeting and launching, machines must be used at least in all stages prior to authorization for actual launch.
There have been a few documented cases (that governments will admit to) where launches of missiles that might have provoked a larger response occurred. Norwegian air defense batteries went to a "go" status for launch when some Russian missile tests triggered their network.
When nuclear missile systems are in a constant state of readiness, there is always a risk that a false "go" scenario could be inadvertently triggered even with all of the available "fail safes" in place.
Since hostile powers do not communicate with each other directly in the case of missile threats and yet they monitor each other eternally in real time and there are literally only a few minutes to decide whether a threat is real or not, the risk of thermonuclear exchange by accident looms always over the globe with thirty thousand missile or bomber-loaded nukes deployed globally (that are known).
-
Since hostile powers do not communicate with each other directly in the case of missile threats and yet they monitor each other eternally in real time and there are literally only a few minutes to decide whether a threat is real or not, the risk of thermonuclear exchange by accident looms always over the globe with thirty thousand missile or bomber-loaded nukes deployed globally (that are known).
One very good example: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24280831 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24280831)