I believe the US are considering stepping away from the idea (particularly the autonomous part) at the moment, so there's a chance that the US might be a well behaved country and obey a treaty on itBiH-Kira said:
United Nations To Debate Ban on Killer Robots
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Until the robots realise that we've set them against each other, and then they double team us all.MrGalactus said:
Why not? Then all international disputes could be solved with a game of Rock-em Sock-em Robots.MrGalactus said:
The concept of unmanned autonomous killing machines in the service of a national fighting force is as fantastic as it is terrible. The potential for good and bad are astronomical. 'Banning' such weapons systems will prove both futile and immoral. Conscription is immoral. Murder is immoral. I can not stop killing my fellow beings... however, I can stop conscription, I can stop utilizing my fellow beings as direct killing tools or throw away assets. This has the 'potential' to be valuable, particularly to a nation like the US or more over Canada and other large territory low population nations. A third world state would be terribly hindered by the adoption of robotic killing machines, the industry to produce them would likely either be as autonomous as the machines or off shore of them - nobody's handing over air craft contracts to (insert banana republic here) because it's got a cheap labor pool after all. You'd also loose all you're combat infantry/fighter pilots and naval crews. A country must be very careful in demobilizing forces both in fear of internal economic turmoil due to new unemployment rates and a glut in the local economy as well a due to having such a huge amount of people with combat training becoming unemployed. For a third world nation, even possibly a second world nation, such technology doesn't make sense yet. But for first world nations... it has serious merits that warrant greater discussion then the UN is willing to have publicly - more over then it's membership is willing to have publicly. I sincerely hope they reconsider tabling this bill at this time.
Probably for the best right now.
I'm not imagining some sort of Terminator style uprising, but some badly programmed piece of crap accidentally killing someone by mistake like the ED-209 or something
I'm not imagining some sort of Terminator style uprising, but some badly programmed piece of crap accidentally killing someone by mistake like the ED-209 or something
The Atomics Avenger seems to indicate otherwise, from what I've read the US plans to have combat UAV's in squadron sizes to fight along side their human flown counterparts.BrotherRool said:
Some info on the Avenger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger
Robotic fighters are already on the front lines, in the air, on the ground and at sea. The UN ban means nothing when their too late and no-one will listen to them. Especially since their silly bans, a robot doesn't kill out of hate or discrimination, it follows the rules with no emotions to interfere.
I couldn't tell from the article alone, but that wouldn't necessarily contradict this. It depends whether you're talking about 'autonomous-killing' machines or autonomous 'killing machines'. It's the former which the US frowns upon (in fact I don't believe they have any at the moment) and would be easiest to treaty. That's where every action that could result in someones death has to be initiated by a human, whether at the site or by pressing the 'release missiles' button all the way back in the US. A fully autonomous killing machine (and I think what the guy was talking about here) is one that confirms the target and initiates the attack by itself.RicoADF said:
Avengers are capable (as are other armed robots) of identifying targets and engaging themselves without human say so, they are given are area to protect and they rely on their own AI. There are even missiles that do that called LAM's that others in this topic have mentioned that are currently in use by the US which can both identify a target and decide on it's attack path based on what the target is.BrotherRool said:
As I said, their already on the front lines and proven to work. The UN can ban all it wants, the pandora's box is already open.
Pandora's box doesn't work when talking about military treaties and weapons. There have been countless weapons that were invented, actively used and then banned by treaty successfully. In fact it's probably reasonable to state that most weapons that have been banned by international treaty, existed first.RicoADF said:
Also I was wondering if you had information about automated strikes? I can find articles talking about how drones utilise a man in the loop policy in all systems to avoid automated engaging of targets but I haven't found anything more recent than 2010 and I'm willing to believe policy has changed. (Or if your in a position to know that for definite that'd be just as cool)
EDIT: I found an article from 2012 talking about the Deputy Defense Secretary taking steps to make sure that the US restricts it's purchase of automated drones
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/human-robot-kill/
Thats because terminator and robocop are very ineficient and vcvulnerable designs of robots that would not work in real life. they are good for movies where you always need a two arms two legs creatures, because human prejudice, but in reality that desing is extremely poor for armed combat.MrGalactus said: