[MyArete]

Recently P.W. Singer finished a new book titled Wired for War, wherein he discusses the use of weaponized robots within the US military.
Here's an article: http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/mi...bot-warriors/1

When I first heard about cloning I was very excited by the concept. What a cool idea, making humans. I soon realized, however, that not everyone shared my enthusiasm. The government was against it, the churches, seemingly everyone. Why? Well, you're not supposed to play god. And, what if some crazy Hitler-like loon were able to clone an entire army?

Well here we are. Not clones, but robots. The Pentagon is finally taking the idea seriously. They've already weaponized the flying drones and are looking to do more, much more, autonomous machines. My questions:

1. Are the ethical arguments against cloning applicable to war robots?
2. What are the cons/pros of having autonomous killing machines developed on a mass scale?
3. Is this the true birth of robotics?

In my opinion, there are many cons, but there are equally as many pros.

[WILLOW]

I think that we are playing god and have been playing god since the evolution of man. In the sense that god creates. The question or the problem lies in "What will we use our creations for?"

Answers to your questions

1. I think it would depend on how closely these robotos resemble humans. If the robots can be distinguished from humans then I say no. And if they don't think like humans and only think like machines, then I also say no.

2. The pro would be security. The con would be "for who?" Would we as the people be safe from these robots or is it going to be like the movie "I robot."

3. I don't think so. If anything I think it would be the true birth of control.

[MyArete]

A video of Singer discussing this topic:

Center of Science Writings

[Omega]

I'll read the article when I get home later today, but I wanted to make one quick post first.

Are these machines really autonomous? They aren't independent from our control are they? I was quite sure that all drones we had ever created were still under our control remotely.

PS I'm happy to see you using the slideshow functionality. I realize there are still a few bugs that need to be worked out. Hopefully you didn't have to much trouble getting the pictures to look right.

[MyArete]

No, the "robots" we are using now are not true robots. They are pretty much remote control toys, with weapons. However, the next generation weapons are much more advanced. What is expect to be operational in the next decade, is also likely to be remote controlled with some autonomy. However, complete task autonomy is the end goal, and is currently being worked on by numerous entities. The majority of all autonomous robotic companies are receiving pentagon funding. The end goal is to not to produce robots that are completely autonomous of human intervention, they will have an "off button". However, they are being designed to carry out specific sets of tasks autonomously. This type of autonomy has drawbacks and benefits. Drawback, what if they go crazy? Benefit, they don't get tired and make foolish mistakes. Developers are currently cautious when saying "autonomy" when referring to this breed of robot, for obvious reasons, but that is the end goal. What good would it do that have a human behind every robot?

Really, you should not have to use the word 'autonomous' when referring to a robot, it is a lot like saying "current flow," they mean the same thing. But this is the way they have been presented in the news of late.

Oh, and I didn't have too many issues getting the images up. The only issue was finding an image appropriate to fit the frame.

[Omega]

I think what matters is the degree to which they are autonomous. Its hard to draw the line between giving a machine enough independence to adapt to unforeseeable obstacles and enough dependancy for us to maintain control.

Remote war machines are still extremely valuable with a human being sitting behind the controls of each one. It saves human lives.

[MyArete]

Yes, the remote machines we currently use are valuable in that regard (saving lives). And more of the same would be more useful. But the status quo has never been good enough, and more of the same is not the driving force behind this new development, it never is.

[DizzyD]

Not more! I feel the same way about this thread than I do about the creative computer thread. It bothers me, but for no rational reason.

[MyArete]

Originally Posted by DizzyD

Not more! I feel the same way about this thread than I do about the creative computer thread. It bothers me, but for no rational reason.

I feel the same way about his topic as I do the other as well, a bit dualistic. On one hand I'm excited, intrigued and very curious. How far can we really go? I recently built a robotic car, fully autonomous. It could drive itself -- drive at 60 mph! -- on a road/track that had a white reflective strip on the side (like the roads we drive on). It had issues (crazy stuff), but it did work 93.2% of the time (which means I wouldn't be to comfortable inside it). For me, I had never built anything similar, and am quite amazed with what we (3 of us, with a lot of external funding) built. Funding is over.

So I'm excited by robotics and AI, but at the same time it is a bit terrifying. How far will we really go? Nano-machines building themselves. Software optimizing itself. Computers writing their own software. Mapping of the human brain. Autonomous weapons of war. These things are real! Some in infancy, some in childhood, but real. It is easy to imagine how these things could be used for ill.