You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Science & Technology
Automated killer robots 'threat to humanity': expert
2008-02-28
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.
Ah, the dreaded "Robot Gap".
An expert would never lead us wrong.
"They pose a threat to low lifes 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.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#20  Pappy, its probably as useful and grotesque as a physical contest of the same organ would be.

And for the record, the state of the art is far advanced from these bots. But nobody has managed to get more than 2 areas hooked up together. Its pretty complex to get multiple areas of "AI" working together.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-02-28 21:23  

#19  I'm assuming an "academic-penis" would have a pointy head?
Posted by: Frank G   2008-02-28 19:24  

#18  Are we gonna have an 'academic-penis' waving contest now?
Posted by: Pappy   2008-02-28 18:33  

#17  lotp, do not assume that you are more expert than I am.
Posted by: Thorgrim the Obnoxious   2008-02-28 18:11  

#16   Noel Sharkey = Media Whore.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-02-28 17:12  

#15  Ogre mark V.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-02-28 15:24  

#14  There is no such thing as "artificial intelligence" or "intelligent machines".

Sorry - you're wrong. It's my area of expertise and I'm pretty familiar with what we have and haven't created so far -- and where it's heading.

But call it 'computational intelligence' if you like. That's one school of design and has the most applicability in robotics.

You're right that the robots used in Afghanistan and in Iraq right now are teleoperated.

You're wrong in the implication that they represent the state of the art.
Posted by: lotp   2008-02-28 15:15  

#13  Oh where do I start. This guy is SO full of shit. Fisrt off, there are NOT 80 additional units of SWORDS on order. Wish it were so, but it is not. As someone else pointed out, these are remotely operated systems. They are NOT robots. Weaponized UGV's, because of idiotic articles like this and stupid comparisons to Terminator and other scifi BS, are not going to be fielded for a long time. The demand for zero error is just too high. In this case zero error means NO collatoral damage or fratricide. It will be a career ending experience when it does happen (assuming weaponized UGV's are eventually deployed). Since there seems to be so much reluctance about fielding a man-in-the-loop system, imagine what would have to happen for an autanomous weapon system to be deployed. Friggin maroon.
Posted by: remoteman   2008-02-28 15:14  

#12  BOLO
(If you don't know the acronym, shame on you)
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-02-28 14:13  

#11  and may one day unleash a robot arms race

They started it with suicide boomers
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-02-28 13:09  

#10  Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!

I will know the experts are serious when they start using Runaway as a reference to robots gone wild.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-02-28 12:32  

#9  Suppose the robots don't want to sign an "international agreement"?
"I don't think so, Noel..."
Posted by: tu3031   2008-02-28 10:43  

#8  What the hell is an international agreement ?
Posted by: wxjames   2008-02-28 10:26  

#7  Typical lefty in that he thinks a treaty is the way to deal with this.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-02-28 10:15  

#6  http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/mluphoup/cybermen.jpg
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-02-28 10:07  

#5  A minor technical note: There is no such thing as "artificial intelligence" or "intelligent machines".

Note also that the 4,000 "robots" in Iraq are actually radio-controlled vehicles, not robots. Some such as Marcbot are actually R/C toy trucks.
Posted by: Thorgrim the Obnoxious   2008-02-28 09:48  

#4  I for one welcome the rule of our new robot overlords.

(C'mon--someone had to do it!)
Posted by: Mike   2008-02-28 08:36  

#3  For those of you who haven't read it, my online novel about autonomous military robots.

Autonomous Operation
Posted by: phil_b   2008-02-28 06:58  

#2  Dune anyone?
Posted by: Icerigger   2008-02-28 06:46  

#1  For Sharkey, the best solution may be an outright ban on autonomous weapons systems.

Why is this that for tranzis or supposed tranzis, the right response is always to ban whatever can give an edge to technologically superior but relatively undermanned western armies (think cluster bombs)? Am I bad in thinking this is a long term effort of the ongoing marxist memetic warfare (God, I love that expression!) that tried with some good measure of success of persuade the West that it was immoral for it to defend itself?
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-02-28 03:33  

00:00