http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/03/technology/robotex.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007120403?cnn=yes


Ok, i wasn't sure if I should have posted in TSB or Lounge, but I want to see the opinion of those who know more about the military than I do on the topic of robotic weapon platforms...

A. Do they have enough mobility/control to be effective combat machines? It seems to me that there would only be limited situations in which these ground units could be effectively deployed.

B. How far in the future do you think it will be until we DO have an effective ground based robotic platform?

C. How much automation and self-control should be given to these machines? Human error seems like it would be a liability, but i've seen plenty of movies like The Terminator to know that self-aware robots will become evil and turn on us.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 8:59 PM. Reason : ]

12/5/2007 8:55:03 PM

These aren't really robots. More like remote-controlled guns.

However, autonomous robot soldiers are coming. A 2003 report expected them by 2025.

12/5/2007 9:14:23 PM

I amazed that it took this long. Those are all using technology that has been around for years.

12/5/2007 9:53:43 PM

In the mean time, decent powered armor technology is starting to get some attention.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=109_1195663753
http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/30/sarcos-to-produce-us-armys-exoskeltons-in-2008/

12/5/2007 10:04:48 PM

12/5/2007 10:10:26 PM

^^

12/5/2007 10:13:31 PM

GET AWAY FROM HER YOU BITCH!!

12/5/2007 10:39:53 PM

http://www.geekologie.com/2007/12/helicopter_with_automatic_12ga.php

12/5/2007 10:56:45 PM

when machines fight wars instead of man thats when we all move to mars. Whats to stop wars? Whoever runs out of robots first loses? Countries won't be as inclined to sign peace agreements if their countrymen aren't the ones getting slaughtered.

12/5/2007 11:32:26 PM

Robots will just replace a portion of the assault troops. I really doubt that we're anywhere close to robots that can do occupation or peacekeeping duty.

12/5/2007 11:37:40 PM

^^An interesting point. If robots could replace human soldiers 100% and were only killing other robots, it would take much of the public objection out of the equation entirely. Now instead of having to worry about maintaining troop morale and public support, it becomes purely a battle of economic endurance. Which side can keep buying the resources necessary to assemble and equip the robots? Or rather, which side can and is willing do it for the longest?

Or has that always been a primary concern throughout every battle?

12/5/2007 11:52:51 PM

Bombing their robot plants ftw.

12/6/2007 12:17:21 AM

Quote :

"Countries won't be as inclined to sign peace agreements if their countrymen aren't the ones getting slaughtered."

Quote :

"Now instead of having to worry about maintaining troop morale and public support, it becomes purely a battle of economic endurance."

Exactly, this doesn't change much of anything really. War is about bending the enemy's will to your own and making it too costly for him to continue his path. Wars will continue until one side suffers so much that they surrender.

12/6/2007 6:22:15 AM

Okay, so you know the way it's argued that we had to drop the big A on Japan cause nothing less would hurt them enough to make them give up?

With the way some folks in Arab/Muslim countries are...aren't they kinda like the Japanese? Why should we bother fighting or occupying areas where the people are fucking crazy/homicidal/suicidal about their beliefs and shit?

12/6/2007 8:09:10 AM

Quote :

"I really doubt that we're anywhere close to robots that can do occupation or peacekeeping duty."

Oh, they'll probably be here within a few decades.

12/6/2007 10:32:52 AM

I would think that if the United States developed robot soldiers, they should include some sort of auto destruct in case of capture by the enemy.

12/6/2007 11:03:37 AM

Quote :

"I really doubt that we're anywhere close to robots that can do occupation or peacekeeping duty."

True, but I know that they're already starting to use them for sentry duty. I've heard that they've already got some deployed out on the DMZ in Korea to shoot the commies with (of course, given the sheer amount of firepower on that border, if war did break out those robots would probably be shooting at people for about 30 seconds before getting blown up).

12/6/2007 12:02:33 PM

you people fail to see the point that no matter how good these robot soldiers may be, they're all going to run off looking for sarah connors at some point.

12/6/2007 12:08:29 PM

Unless we can find ways to give our robots proper shielding, I'm guessing that the outcome of a completely robotized war will be determined by who has emp capability. To take out an enemy's robot soldiers, all you'd have to do is create a big enough emp and they'll drop like flies. Of course, you'd wind up taking out your own army as well.

So perhaps we'll never be truly rid of human beings on the battle field. Humans aren't affect by emp's, so once all of the enemy's robots are down you would have to send in your human troops to finish the job.

12/6/2007 12:12:40 PM

What I'm about to say is all assuming that the robots become primary front-line entities and not simply tools added to a squad of normal soldiers, which is surely what will happen first (and iirc is happenning now).

My initial fear would be that robots would initially only be used by a handful of developed countries, and that for some time they would be employed exclusively at the sort of underdeveloped countries we typically find ourselves fighting in. That gives us an edge, sure, but I think that removing the soldiers in charge of the robots from the actual battlefield environment will allow them to distance themselves from it too much, both physically (in the sense that they no longer have their full sensory capacity dedicated to the situation) and morally (in the sense that they aren't actually shooting anybody, they're clicking away on the mouse like it's Grand Theft Auto).

Robot units also aren't going to have embedded reporters or any other sort of on-the-ground human oversight, which, combined with the above, leaves room for even more abuse than we currently see in Iraq.

What I'm not worried about is the sort of prolonging of wars between robot-equipped nations that some of you are worried about, for these reasons:

1) If the robots are cheap enough that they can continually be built in large enough numbers to sustain the force throughout a campaign, then the enemy will, after a quick cost/benefit analysis, simply start going after the infrastructure that supports them, leading to human deaths and expensive damage.
2) If the robots are not so cheap, then economic factors will either force their eventual replacement with human troops or force the government to allocate too many resources to their manufacture, taking those resources away from citizens who will become unhappy with the war.
3) In much of the (especially developed) world, popular tolerance for casualties will almost certainly continue its downward trend; the introduction of robots will only speed that along, so that even a few casualties will cause major public outcry.

---

Having listed all those concerns, I think they're moot for the next several decades at least. Robots are, in several important senses, more fragile than humans; the logistics they require are more easily disrupted; they are a long ways off from being able to carry out many specialized operations; and, given the support they require, they aren't dramatically cheaper (in terms of dollars and cents) than a guy with a rifle.

For all these reasons, they won't become primary front-line troops. I do think, however, that their combat support role will be expanded, and with good reason. They make an excellent addition to a squad, but they do not make a suitable replacement for it.

12/6/2007 1:45:22 PM

Quote :

"obots are, in several important senses, more fragile than humans;"

They're much less fragile than humans in several important senses. Most critically, they aren't squishy meatbags.

Quote :

"the logistics they require are more easily disrupted;"

How so?

12/6/2007 2:20:28 PM

Quote :

"A. Do they have enough mobility/control to be effective combat machines? It seems to me that there would only be limited situations in which these ground units could be effectively deployed."

Well, depending on how large these robots are, it could be pretty devastating technologically to see them coming down your streets.

The other concern is that if one it capture, it gives a pretty impressive chunk of technology to the enemy.

12/6/2007 2:49:52 PM

Quote :

"The other concern is that if one it capture, it gives a pretty impressive chunk of technology to the enemy."

If this became a serious problem, you could most likely simply rig the robot to explode before that happened.

12/6/2007 2:51:27 PM

12/6/2007 2:52:34 PM

Quote :

"I would think that if the United States developed robot soldiers, they should include some sort of auto destruct in case of capture by the enemy."

12/6/2007 3:29:07 PM

Quote :

"They're much less fragile than humans in several important senses. Most critically, they aren't squishy meatbags."

My computer breaks for no apparent reason a lot more often than I break for no apparent reason. We're a long ways off from having robots that aren't prone to lots of breakdowns. And do you think it's easier to motivate a medic to rush out and save a soldier under fire, or to get an engineer to rush out and save a robot? Also, fucking with electronics can conceivably be done without ever exposing yourself (EMP, signal jamming, etc), which means that the human enemy has the same advantage as the humans in charge of the robots in terms of being able to fight from relative safety. These things, for starters, are what I'm referring to.

Quote :

"How so?"

Unless you're going to make them fully autonomous (a bad idea, one I doubt we'll pursue) they need constant communication with their handlers in order to function at all. This communication can be scrambled, blocked, or, worst of all, co-opted.

There's also the issue of a power source requiring frequent replinishment. A soldier trapped behind the lines without food can operate for a while, and, in a pinch, can scavenge, barter, or steal in order to eat. Food is also easier to transport and store than batteries/chargers/power plants.

Much like humans need medics, robots will need repair personell and facilities unless they are incredibly cheap, cheap enough to throw away. They're also liable to require a rather more elaborate and unwieldly maintenance system, as well as more specialized personell. Any soldier in the Army can perform basic battlefield medicine on a human being. Even after the technology has been around for a while, how many do you think will be able to perform basic robot repair?

12/6/2007 5:46:41 PM

I despise the thought of a robot army. It will make people more willing to engage in hostile activities. If something isn't worth dying for, then it isn't worth fighting for.

12/6/2007 5:57:01 PM

This is just paving the way for all wars to be replaced by a big MMORPG. No respawns. Facility. Pistols and headshots only.

12/6/2007 6:04:43 PM

Quote :

""The other concern is that if one it capture, it gives a pretty impressive chunk of technology to the enemy.""

think of it like the enemy shooting down one of your aircrafts over their soil and salvaging some tech. out of the crash site.

12/6/2007 6:15:23 PM

Quote :

"My computer breaks for no apparent reason a lot more often than I break for no apparent reason."

It's not really designed for reliability. Certainly not as a military robot would be.

Quote :

"We're a long ways off from having robots that aren't prone to lots of breakdowns."

Perhaps a few decades. Obviously, converting to a mostly robotic force isn't an option yet.

Quote :

"And do you think it's easier to motivate a medic to rush out and save a soldier under fire, or to get an engineer to rush out and save a robot?"

The engineer would likely be a robot as well. Besides, by the time autonomous robot soldiers are a reality, they'll likely be able to repair themselves.

Quote :

"Also, fucking with electronics can conceivably be done without ever exposing yourself (EMP, signal jamming, etc),"

Yeah, but electronics are nearly important to human soldiers as the would be robots. Information systems are already critical to military operations.

Quote :

"Unless you're going to make them fully autonomous (a bad idea, one I doubt we'll pursue)"

Project Alpha thought otherwise.

Quote :

"they need constant communication with their handlers in order to function at all. This communication can be scrambled, blocked, or, worst of all, co-opted."

Mostly likely, they'll need no more communication than human soldiers. In both cases, communication is essential for proper organization.

Quote :

"There's also the issue of a power source requiring frequent replinishment. A soldier trapped behind the lines without food can operate for a while, and, in a pinch, can scavenge, barter, or steal in order to eat. Food is also easier to transport and store than batteries/chargers/power plants."

That's a major problem at the moment, but the expected advances in nanotechnology could easily overcome it. Solar power of some sort would be an option in many cases.

12/6/2007 6:35:07 PM

Quote :

"Okay, so you know the way it's argued that we had to drop the big A on Japan cause nothing less would hurt them enough to make them give up? With the way some folks in Arab/Muslim countries are...aren't they kinda like the Japanese? Why should we bother fighting or occupying areas where the people are fucking crazy/homicidal/suicidal about their beliefs and shit? "

I don't know that it's so much that we had to, so much as retrospect tells us it was the least costly course of action.

That said I think the reason we don't is 1) we know, more than we did then, just what those do, 2) no one in the world would make that call anymore 3) we hope that the threat of doing that is enough

12/6/2007 6:35:11 PM

^add that the US isn't the only country with nukes anymore. Its strictly a defensive out of options weapon and even then it will unlikely be used.

12/6/2007 10:09:53 PM

Quote :

"It's not really designed for reliability. Certainly not as a military robot would be."

Yeah, talk to some military people. They looooove to talk about how reliable all their equpiment is. Really, once you get them started you practically can't shut them up.

C'mon, man, you're smarter than this.

Quote :

"The engineer would likely be a robot as well. Besides, by the time autonomous robot soldiers are a reality, they'll likely be able to repair themselves."

This is all far enough into the future to barely be worth talking about right now. And what do you base it on?

Quote :

"Yeah, but electronics are nearly important to human soldiers as the would be robots. Information systems are already critical to military operations."

They are critical to modern military operations. But you could EMP the whole goddamn planet and a human soldier can still engage enemies. Completely cut off from the rest of the world, the human soldier functions, if in a limited capacity. The robot doesn't function at all.

Quote :

"Mostly likely, they'll need no more communication than human soldiers. In both cases, communication is essential for proper organization."

What do you base the first on? And, again, communication is necessary for human beings to fight a proper war, but human communication has quite a bit of flexibility to it. We've got mouths and paper and guys on fucking horseback if need be. Even failing all that, a human cut off from communication is still a functional human and soldier.

Quote :

"That's a major problem at the moment, but the expected advances in nanotechnology could easily overcome it. Solar power of some sort would be an option in many cases."

Clouds.

More seriously, I'm hoping for some restriction on nanotechnology, because that's what really seems like the beast we want to keep caged. And, in the meantime, I think I'm looking more at robotics in the next fifty years, and you're looking at them more from the next 150...both viable, but not really comparable.

Quote :

"With the way some folks in Arab/Muslim countries are...aren't they kinda like the Japanese? Why should we bother fighting or occupying areas where the people are fucking crazy/homicidal/suicidal about their beliefs and shit? "

They haven't done near enough to warrant it, mostly. The American people could, I think, get behind dropping an atomic bomb on an enemy again, regardless of the backlash against it. Hell, we might have even been on the cusp of it on 9/11. As it stands, though, nobody has done anything to piss us off enough, and that's all there is to it.

12/6/2007 11:49:48 PM

Quote :

"This is all far enough into the future to barely be worth talking about right now. And what do you base it on?"

A few decades. Personally, I like thinking that far ahead. Anyways, you can find many articles about self-repairing materials online. Living creatures are the obvious model.

Quote :

"They are critical to modern military operations. But you could EMP the whole goddamn planet and a human soldier can still engage enemies. Completely cut off from the rest of the world, the human soldier functions, if in a limited capacity. The robot doesn't function at all."

I'm not sure how much that matters. Yes, you could have your boys running order on their last received orders and still shooting their rifles. Either way, though, a massive EMP attack seriously screws your military. Especially for the type of war the US is currently fighting, EMP's a non-issue.

Things will undoubtedly be different in the coming decades, but robots would be perfect for fighting insurgents. Reducing American casualties to zero would be wonderful politically. The only downside would be popular reaction. (This could be a major downside.)

Quote :

"What do you base the first on?"

The Project Alpha stuff about having largely autonomous combat robots by 2025.

Quote :

"More seriously, I'm hoping for some restriction on nanotechnology, because that's what really seems like the beast we want to keep caged."

Well, that's where we differ. I see enormous promise in nanotechnology. I agree the danger's there, but the potential rewards are worth it. Personal feelings, I think it's coming no matter what.

Quote :

"And, in the meantime, I think I'm looking more at robotics in the next fifty years, and you're looking at them more from the next 150...both viable, but not really comparable."

No, I'm looking at the next decades. We have different idea abouts the rate of technological progress. This is understandable. Consciously or not, you subscribe to the conservative, more linear model. I believe in Ray Kurzweil's exponential model. For example, I suspect we'll have AIs smarter than people within twenty to forty years. Personal nanofactories will likely come even sooner.

[Edited on December 7, 2007 at 12:59 AM. Reason : meow]

12/7/2007 12:58:37 AM

I can't wait until the day where nanobots can replace our nerve cells as they start to die, and then we could thrive indefinitely.

12/7/2007 9:44:13 AM

That should be fairly soon. For the rich, anyway.

12/7/2007 1:05:30 PM

^ that's insane. We're no where close to that level of technology. At least, not in our lifetimes.

12/7/2007 1:07:39 PM

damn, every time i look at this thread title i think it's so badass.

amirite?

12/7/2007 1:25:47 PM

Quote :

"^ that's insane. We're no where close to that level of technology. At least, not in our lifetimes."

Actually, we are. There are no guarantees about the future, of course, but the best futurists predict such things within the coming decades. Ray Kurzweil, for example, personally plans on living forever.

You have to understand that technological progress grows exponentially. I suggest reading this article:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

12/7/2007 1:31:30 PM

From what I've read of Kurzweil, humans will eventually evolve themselves out of existence as we know ourselves now. Why stop at repairing cells when far more durable materials can be created? Why settle for organic brains when there are computers that will far exceed current programming capacity will exist. Why even bother with bodies at all, if we can exist largely within the mind? Why bother with individuals when we can essentially process together as one supercomputer?

I disagree with Kurzweil's optimism for this future, but I agree that it is inevitable and I agree that its coming sooner rather than later.

Humanity's purpose will eventually be its own extinction.

12/7/2007 1:49:04 PM

^ You've got it about right, though I wouldn't count on dispensing with both bodies and the individual. I suspect some intelligences, at least, will want to operate in the physical world. There's a whole universe out there, after all.

Also, I imagine at a few pure humans will remain. Perhaps the AIs will keep us as pets. By that time, energy and matter will be absurdly plentiful. A handful of us wouldn't be a burden to them.

12/7/2007 1:55:31 PM

^ people predicted flying cars by now, and we don't have them, primarily because we don't have a power source dense enough, not any other mechanical reason. It only takes one aspect of development to stall, for someone to be hobbled entirely.

Even computers, for single threaded performance, are slowing a bit in their advance.

I can pretty much guarantee, and would bet you everything I owned, even my freedom, that Ray Kurzwell is not going to live forever, other than in the legacy of his writings.

I agree with this statement though:

Quote :

" Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. "

But I don't think it will be for another 50 years before the BEGINNINGS of a viable AI emerge, and not another 20-50 years after that before it eclipses human minds so as to not need them.

[Edited on December 7, 2007 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2007 1:55:40 PM

Quote :

"^ people predicted flying cars by now, and we don't have them, primarily because we don't have a power source dense enough, not any other mechanical reason. It only takes one aspect of development to stall, for someone to be hobbled entirely."

Oddly enough, those are coming as well. While power is indeed a problem, I've read that piloting is just as much of an impediment. Currently, neither humans nor computers can be trusted. That'll change.

Quote :

"I can pretty much guarantee, and would bet you everything I owned, even my freedom, that Ray Kurzwell is not going to live forever, other than in the legacy of his writings."

A safe bet, as you'd only have to pay up when forever came.

While you're entitled your opinions, Kurzweil's record gives his predictions considerably more weight. I'll be shocked if computers aren't as smart as people by 2050.

12/7/2007 2:15:39 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps the AIs will keep us as pets. By that time, energy and matter will be absurdly plentiful. A handful of us wouldn't be a burden to them."

I'm not sure I'm interested in this, or living forever for that matter. Humans being what they are, I think that eventually whatever intelligence form ascended to supremacy will eventually have to destroy us. I can't see us living in a Yellowstone for humanity.

I think it is worthwhile to ask what the cost of Singularity will be to human-kind. Obviously it won't happen everywhere simultaneously, it will happen in one place and reverberate out from there across the developed world first.

12/7/2007 2:46:51 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure I'm interested in this, or living forever for that matter."

I suspect many people feel this way.

Quote :

"Humans being what they are, I think that eventually whatever intelligence form ascended to supremacy will eventually have to destroy us."

Why? Unenhanced humans would be no threat whatsoever to them. There are various reasons why they'd choose to preserve such creatures, ranging from morality to scientific curiosity.

12/7/2007 3:04:33 PM

i mean, the way i understand it once humans are enhanced, the entire species will go that way... i don't think the enhanced will genocide the unenhanced.

12/7/2007 6:29:41 PM

I think some will refuse to upgrade.

12/7/2007 7:39:03 PM

You'd have the strength of five gorillas!

12/7/2007 8:26:18 PM

They also have miniature remote-controlled helicopters that can carry and fire assault shotguns.

Science fiction is becoming reality.

12/7/2007 8:57:00 PM

don't forget Raptors. UAVs. Drones. etc...for surveillance and arial recon.

12/7/2007 9:10:14 PM