I failed to explain myself properly - according to the manufacturer, if they are not in the target area (and by this I am assuming within a few hundred meters, allowing for a few seconds to arm), they will not activate their warhead and fuse mechanisms. So if goes off course or develops a fuel leak, it will simply crash into the ground and not explode (I can give you a class on how modern fuses and explosives work if you like, to clear any hollywood misconceptions <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> ). Hence people finding them in the middle of nowhere from time to time. It is probbly correct to say that if they experience a malfunction very NEAR a target, you will have big problems. Which is the scenario you are describing.
I must ask again, when you have to choose between precise robotic cruise missiles and B-52 carpet bombing, what is your preference?
As for the other risks... what about a private who forgets his weapon is off safe and accidently depresses the butterfly triggers on his .50 cal machine gun, while cruising through the downtown of baghdad? You have far less control over a person than a machine, as a machine operates under much more scientific and predictable tolerances. Hence my original argument about the cruise missile...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not sure that arguing that this advance will be no better or worse than the existing system is an argument at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To quote MonsE: Erm... What? I'm not opposing this technology throughoutly, I'm only mentioning that the obstacles seem to make them a little risky at this point of technological advancement.
[edit]MonsE: OK, no need to make me a demoman here, I believe you <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I think we can agree that the development of human-controlled armed drones is not indesirable to keep human casualties down, but that it has to be ensured that they work at least as precise as a human on the spot, can we?[/edit]
Hmm, while these robot soldiers aren't getting AI as such, they sure are interested in developing it for some other use..
"In response,DARPA ’ s Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO)is returning to its “ roots ” to take on Licklider ’ s vision again in a strategic thrust called “ Cognitive Computing.” Cognitive computers can be thought of as systems that know what they are doing.Cognitive computing systems will have the ability to reason about their environment (including other systems),their goals,and their own capabilities.They will be able to learn both from experience and by being taught.They will be capable of natural interactions with users and will be able to explain their reasoning in natural terms.They will be robust in the face of surprises and avoid the brittleness and fragility of previous expert systems."
"DARPA ’ s strategic thrust in Cognitive Computing is significantly reshaping the Agency ’ s enduring foundation in Information Technology.The six core Cognitive Computing research areas mentioned in Section 3.8 are setting the directions for DARPA ’ s information technology research.These efforts will result in a new class of computational systems that will be responsible for their own operation and able to cope with unforeseen events.These systems will possess the ability to reason in a variety of ways,using substantial amounts of appropriately represented knowledge;they will learn from experiences and improve performance using accumulated knowledge;they will be able to explain themselves and accept naturally expressed guidance and direction ;they will be aware of their own behavior;and most importantly,they will respond in a robust manner to surprises.DARPA envisions cognitive systems that possess imagination -the ability to invent interesting scenarios and plan for and predict novel futures."
Remote controlled killer robots, man-machine brain interface... so this is what it has come to. Sticking with SciFi references here that sounds alot like Shadowrun to me which leaves the question is that good or bad? Let me put it this way, enhancing the technology used for war is probably a good way to save some lives... but only those of your people. How about spending all that money on avoiding wars and saving lives on both sides?
Ah... darnit, guess that is my tree-hugger side speaking again. Let them develop their stupid Vehicle Control Rigs for war and then simply hand it over to the free market since steering with your hands is so 20th century...
Anyway. I think of it this way: Having a remote controlled plane in the air is one thing, something on the ground is completely different. The enemy cannot lay traps or simply "jump" air units, he can only shoot at them or try to jam the connection. I could imagine an army of remote controlled units simply doesn't have the necessary initiative and "control" over a diffivult situation. Since I have never been to war I can only guess, but what is vital to the survival of a soldier is beeing in control of the situation, always aware of your suroundings. Sometimes you have to rely on instincts, make a quick call just by intuition. Somehow I doubt that some cameras and sensors can deliver an adequate "feeling" to make quick calls or see vital information. Remote units are simply vulnerable to suprise.
Then again all this is assuming pretty much urban city combat. I guess a bunch of remote controlled tanks on a large open plain can take out the enemy just as good as normal ones. And for bomb squat tasks such robots are of course perfect, after all they are being used in this fashion for quite some time.
One thing I doubt though is that such remote units would be good at peace keeping missions. It is just to unpersonal and whoever you are trying to protect will probably not feel were comfortable beeing looked after by "some robot". Maybe Monse could shed some insight on this part of a possible use as probably the only one with "peace keeping" experience?
On a sidenote, I think it would be a very wise thing to implement the aforementioned "Three Laws of Robotics" into any form of AI, since they should really prevent anything bad from hapening. Then again, most of Asimov's stories consist of tales where these laws do fail in a way. Just take "I, robot" it is full of stories with robots interpreting the laws sort of wrong. Guess its not fool proof system either, after all.
So, for those wanting to implement the 3 laws into AI... do you know how AI works? How would you suggest, from a programming perspective, that such a thing be implemented?
Better question - from a programming perspective, how would you suggest to implement friggin AI in the first place? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
From the sound of your post I get the impression that you know how AI works, Fieari. So either you have just read some stuff on the matter or are a genius and have just not had the time to implement your knowledge into an actual AI, making billions of money and riducling all the research teams around the world. Sorry, no offense. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> I have next to zero knowledge about actual AI programming, so I couldn't even give a good guess how to implement the three laws. I do however intend to change that, studying computer science after all... so, ask again in four years. Better stop now before I'm shot for highjacking the thread...
From my (limited) knowledge on the field, the central idea for making an idea is to make a more or less tableu rosa (empty slate) AI and teach it from there. Adding in the laws of robotics would be teaching the youngin morals sort of speak (heck, maybe religion). Do it early enough they could become intergal parts of the AI. Man & machine intergation should get it's own thread if it doesn't have one already.
As for the drones, "it's easier to send a letter to an factory asking for a new robot than one to a mother explaining why her son won't be coming back." -someone I forget on bomb defusing robots
War since the creation of nation states has been one of exhausting the other's resources manpower and economy (fall of Troy, debts of Europe for pre-industial wars, etc). Since industrialization, this has become especially the case. For the American Civil War and World War 1&2, it was the one(s) who could throw the most thousands of men wearing mass-produced uniforms welding mass-produced weapons who won. Why not take out part that is the largest loss in terms of loss as well of resources?
The biggest potenial problem is that it'll further enhance US's "hyper power" status as now the biggest check on US's involvement (the shade of Vietnam) will be shattered. Spin offs of the project will also be interesting (from more precise robotics in factories to "live" CS matches on TV).
Bit of housekeeping <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I always wonder how a planet's resources can be exhausted, since matter cannot (effectively) be created or destroyed, only altered... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not that the matter is destroyed, it's that the resources are converted into forms of matter that are of little or no use to us: coal/oil burnt, uranium fuel rods become spent, metal rusts ect.
"It is good war is so terrible, lest we become fond of it". This quote is by Confederate General Robert E. Lee, a well known figure to Americans I am sure <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
That was the focus of my point: remove the human aspect from war and it becomes far more desirable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The biggest potenial problem is that it'll further enhance US's "hyper power" status as now the biggest check on US's involvement (the shade of Vietnam) will be shattered. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excellent point, and one I was considering raising but eventually didn't. Thankyou for showing that there are other's who feel the same way. Of course, Monse will say that it isn't a bad thing for the US to be the world's sole hyper-power <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Personally I believe in balance, and one state with the capacity to hurl robotic armies at whoever it chooses without risking any of it's own personel when all other states have no counter is unbalancing. The world is already heavily weighted towards the US: robotic armies would simply increase the US's military hegemony to nigh unscalable hights.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 23 2003, 11:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 23 2003, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Better question - from a programming perspective, how would you suggest to implement friggin AI in the first place? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There are a lot of computer scientists out there right now working on virtual neural networks and computers that "learn" their way around. If that much interest is being funded with public grants, one has to wonder how much money is going into military research to develop the same exact thing.
One thing that neural networks are good at is recognizing stimuli from previous exposure or inferring patterns from incomplete data (like picking out the shape of a human from all the background while camouflaged). Neural nets also are more efficient at this kind of pattern recognition than most other people, which explains why our brains are so good at the same type of thing - when you see an object, you see in order: a) the basic outline/shape of the object b) any colorations and gross details about the object c) fine details about the object
This is what allows you to distinguish a dog from a cat, and is precisely what an AI would need if it were to function "autonomously".
Now, that changes if the robot would be controlled by a human with some sort of electronic interface, but I seriously doubt that any robot "army" of this sort would replace a human on the battlefield, because the "technology" needed for a human soldier is already there - a human can aim, move over terrain without breaking anything (most of the time), make autonomous decisions on how to accomplish an objective, and a human has real-time sensory input - something distinctly lacking in a human-controlled robot. A human controller is fine for remote-controlled airplane drones, but in an actual combat situation nothing beats autonomy.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 23 2003, 10:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 23 2003, 10:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not sure that arguing that this advance will be no better or worse than the existing system is an argument at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To quote MonsE: Erm... What? I'm not opposing this technology throughoutly, I'm only mentioning that the obstacles seem to make them a little risky at this point of technological advancement.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My point was: If it's no more risky than the cruise, and the cruise is already in operation, then arguing that its unsafe isn't really a point, its no more risky than what's currently in use.
Its likely to be small scale - a weapon of "mild destruction", so any potential errors will be of a limited sort. Its likely to only be for specialist missons.
I think a debate about AI and its potential to kill biologicals is all very well, but not what this thread was originally about.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Apr 24 2003, 03:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Apr 24 2003, 03:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Personally I believe in balance, and one state with the capacity to hurl robotic armies at whoever it chooses without risking any of it's own personel when all other states have no counter is unbalancing. The world is already heavily weighted towards the US: robotic armies would simply increase the US's military hegemony to nigh unscalable hights. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Aye, and it's not completely impossible for a new Hitler to get as President in USA. A guy with charisma, good speaking skills and ability to control the masses could easily convince americans that they need more living space or there are several threads to be neutralized. What then, if USA has an invincible robot army which can take over the whole world?
And don't say it couldnt happen. It happened in Germany and they are not any more good or evil than people of the other nations, they are just human. Actually you don't even need to be very charismatic leader to get majority on your side. Or is Bush so convincing? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
On the other hand, you can't really stop the progress and it's pretty naive to think that super powers would stop developing weapons just for balances sake. I guess we can only watch and see what happens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aye, and it's not completely impossible for a new Hitler to get as President in USA. A guy with charisma, good speaking skills and ability to control the masses could easily convince americans that they need more living space or there are several threads to be neutralized. What then, if USA has an invincible robot army which can take over the whole world?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point, AI that was sufficiently advanced to operate almost autonomously, not requiring constant uplinks to actual people, would likely be able to be placed in the direct control of 1 person. If, for example, the armies of the US became robotic their CinC would be the President. If Bush tommorow ordered the army to attack Congress, burn the Constitution and install Bush the First as High King of the Empire of America I have serious doubts that the army would follow through with such a request <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> However, a robotic army subserviant to the wishes of their controller would have no qualms about such an action. Sure, it's an extreame scenario. But a worrying one none the less.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, you can't really stop the progress and it's pretty naive to think that super powers would stop developing weapons just for balances sake. I guess we can only watch and see what happens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well true, however the US has such a military supremecy vs the rest of the world right now as to be a generation of military technology ahead of the world. Robotic armies would push that even furthur and place the US in an almost untouchable position: they're almost there now, only nukes to worry about. And in terms of balance, when the USSR was still around US presidents were vary cautious about installing a missile defense system for fears of destabilising the balance of power. Now, with no counter to the US in the world, the US has emerged as a lone hyper-power that seems to regard world opinion as "not really important". Pushing ahead with the missile sheild throws the whole world out of balance, and the consequences of this may be far more reaching and destructive than we today imagine. Robotic armies may well have similar effects.
On the other hand, I have hard time believing that one nation could conquer the whole world and keep it effectively under control. Everyone in ancient Rome <b>knew</b> that their armies are invincible, still Rome fell. Same thing with WW2 Germany, EVERYONE in Germany knew for a fact that world would soon be just one big Germany but guess what happened. After Germany collapsed everyone in USSR knew that the whole world would be soon one big communistic nation. Nope, didn't happen. And there are several similiar examples in history.
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Apr 24 2003, 05:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Apr 24 2003, 05:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Germany came very close to wining WWI and WWII. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I am aware of this and with a little different strategy and without the insanity of Hitler they would have probably won, but they didn't.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Apr 24 2003, 06:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Apr 24 2003, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Egocentric europeans - WW2 was a WORLD war. Not just your little sub-continent, europe... Sheesh, ever heard of China, Japan, The Pacific?
Heh... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but Europe played the main part in WW2. Imagine Hitler going for Moscow instead of Stalingrad like his military advisors requested. After the fall of Moscow the whole Russia would have been practically paralyzed and Germany would have great amounts of resources coming from Ural and the southern Russias oil fields. Germany could have placed all its strength on taking over Great Britain and Iceland. After that USA wouldn't have had any safe place to bring its troops in Europe and after Hitler would have finished his atomic bomb, well *shrugs* <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Apr 24 2003, 02:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Apr 24 2003, 02:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Apr 24 2003, 06:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Apr 24 2003, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Egocentric europeans - WW2 was a WORLD war. Not just your little sub-continent, europe... Sheesh, ever heard of China, Japan, The Pacific?
Heh... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but Europe played the main part in WW2. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Poppycock. The armies of Japan and China battling on the chinese mainland were no less massive, nor was the effort of the US and ANZAC to fight across 10,000 miles of pacific, island by island, or for 5 million americans to join in BOTH theaters of action, as well as Africa and elsewhere. Your points are rather subjective, and my point remains. Germany came very close to winning the 'european theater' of WW2. And that's it. Just that one theater.
You are well and truly off-topic, please start a new one! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Apr 24 2003, 07:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Apr 24 2003, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You are well and truly off-topic, please start a new one! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry, Salty started it! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
And you're right about winning only one theater, but as I see it, the WW2 would have gone very differently if the things I mentioned above had happened. New grand-germany would have had at least as much or even more resources and recruitable troops under its control as USA. That would have led in to one helluva big war(even bigger than what happened) between the rest of the allied and the new Germany.
Ok, sorry sorry sorry. I just slipped <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> No need to start a new thread for this discussion. Lets end it right here and continue the real discussion.
Sorry, but I'm a bit confused on a certain point and would like some clarification. Are the "robots" remote controlled as in a desk soldier on the other side of the world tinkering with his controls or a US SEAL guiding the robot, aka heavy weapons platform, in the field of battle, much like "smart" bombs still need to be guided in by a trained soldier on the ground (I know they can be guided by other ways but ya still need someone relatively close by). The two are totally different kinds of robots, and the problems each would have to overcome would need to be handled differently.
Personally, if I could, I would give my armed forces robotic suits, to augment their soldiering skills so that I could have very mobile, heavy weapons platforms. Also, robotic suits could be made for stealth or tank killers. I really don't see how you could ever hope to replace a soldier with his tools, so giving them better personal armor seems more reasonable.
Comments
I must ask again, when you have to choose between precise robotic cruise missiles and B-52 carpet bombing, what is your preference?
As for the other risks... what about a private who forgets his weapon is off safe and accidently depresses the butterfly triggers on his .50 cal machine gun, while cruising through the downtown of baghdad? You have far less control over a person than a machine, as a machine operates under much more scientific and predictable tolerances. Hence my original argument about the cruise missile...
To quote MonsE: Erm... What?
I'm not opposing this technology throughoutly, I'm only mentioning that the obstacles seem to make them a little risky at this point of technological advancement.
[edit]MonsE: OK, no need to make me a demoman here, I believe you <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I think we can agree that the development of human-controlled armed drones is not indesirable to keep human casualties down, but that it has to be ensured that they work at least as precise as a human on the spot, can we?[/edit]
Anyway, If anyone's interested the full DARPA strategic plan is here..
<a href='http://www.darpa.mil/body/strategic.html' target='_blank'>http://www.darpa.mil/body/strategic.html</a>
Hmm, while these robot soldiers aren't getting AI as such, they sure are interested in developing it for some other use..
"In response,DARPA ’ s Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO)is returning to its
“ roots ” to take on Licklider ’ s vision again in a strategic thrust called “ Cognitive Computing.”
Cognitive computers can be thought of as systems that know what they are doing.Cognitive
computing systems will have the ability to reason about their environment (including other
systems),their goals,and their own capabilities.They will be able to learn both from experience
and by being taught.They will be capable of natural interactions with users and will be able to
explain their reasoning in natural terms.They will be robust in the face of surprises and avoid
the brittleness and fragility of previous expert systems."
"DARPA ’ s strategic thrust in Cognitive Computing is significantly reshaping the Agency ’ s
enduring foundation in Information Technology.The six core Cognitive Computing research
areas mentioned in Section 3.8 are setting the directions for DARPA ’ s information technology
research.These efforts will result in a new class of computational systems that will be
responsible for their own operation and able to cope with unforeseen events.These systems will
possess the ability to reason in a variety of ways,using substantial amounts of appropriately
represented knowledge;they will learn from experiences and improve performance using
accumulated knowledge;they will be able to explain themselves and accept naturally expressed
guidance and direction ;they will be aware of their own behavior;and most importantly,they
will respond in a robust manner to surprises.DARPA envisions cognitive systems that possess
imagination -the ability to invent interesting scenarios and plan for and predict novel futures."
/hums theme tune from "Terminator"..
Sticking with SciFi references here that sounds alot like Shadowrun to me which leaves the question is that good or bad? Let me put it this way, enhancing the technology used for war is probably a good way to save some lives... but only those of your people. How about spending all that money on avoiding wars and saving lives on both sides?
Ah... darnit, guess that is my tree-hugger side speaking again. Let them develop their stupid Vehicle Control Rigs for war and then simply hand it over to the free market since steering with your hands is so 20th century...
Anyway. I think of it this way: Having a remote controlled plane in the air is one thing, something on the ground is completely different. The enemy cannot lay traps or simply "jump" air units, he can only shoot at them or try to jam the connection. I could imagine an army of remote controlled units simply doesn't have the necessary initiative and "control" over a diffivult situation. Since I have never been to war I can only guess, but what is vital to the survival of a soldier is beeing in control of the situation, always aware of your suroundings. Sometimes you have to rely on instincts, make a quick call just by intuition. Somehow I doubt that some cameras and sensors can deliver an adequate "feeling" to make quick calls or see vital information.
Remote units are simply vulnerable to suprise.
Then again all this is assuming pretty much urban city combat. I guess a bunch of remote controlled tanks on a large open plain can take out the enemy just as good as normal ones. And for bomb squat tasks such robots are of course perfect, after all they are being used in this fashion for quite some time.
One thing I doubt though is that such remote units would be good at peace keeping missions. It is just to unpersonal and whoever you are trying to protect will probably not feel were comfortable beeing looked after by "some robot". Maybe Monse could shed some insight on this part of a possible use as probably the only one with "peace keeping" experience?
On a sidenote, I think it would be a very wise thing to implement the aforementioned "Three Laws of Robotics" into any form of AI, since they should really prevent anything bad from hapening. Then again, most of Asimov's stories consist of tales where these laws do fail in a way. Just take "I, robot" it is full of stories with robots interpreting the laws sort of wrong. Guess its not fool proof system either, after all.
Sorry, no offense. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I have next to zero knowledge about actual AI programming, so I couldn't even give a good guess how to implement the three laws. I do however intend to change that, studying computer science after all... so, ask again in four years.
Better stop now before I'm shot for highjacking the thread...
As for the drones, "it's easier to send a letter to an factory asking for a new robot than one to a mother explaining why her son won't be coming back." -someone I forget on bomb defusing robots
War since the creation of nation states has been one of exhausting the other's resources manpower and economy (fall of Troy, debts of Europe for pre-industial wars, etc). Since industrialization, this has become especially the case. For the American Civil War and World War 1&2, it was the one(s) who could throw the most thousands of men wearing mass-produced uniforms welding mass-produced weapons who won. Why not take out part that is the largest loss in terms of loss as well of resources?
The biggest potenial problem is that it'll further enhance US's "hyper power" status as now the biggest check on US's involvement (the shade of Vietnam) will be shattered. Spin offs of the project will also be interesting (from more precise robotics in factories to "live" CS matches on TV).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I always wonder how a planet's resources can be exhausted, since matter cannot (effectively) be created or destroyed, only altered...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not that the matter is destroyed, it's that the resources are converted into forms of matter that are of little or no use to us: coal/oil burnt, uranium fuel rods become spent, metal rusts ect.
"It is good war is so terrible, lest we become fond of it". This quote is by Confederate General Robert E. Lee, a well known figure to Americans I am sure <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
That was the focus of my point: remove the human aspect from war and it becomes far more desirable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The biggest potenial problem is that it'll further enhance US's "hyper power" status as now the biggest check on US's involvement (the shade of Vietnam) will be shattered. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excellent point, and one I was considering raising but eventually didn't. Thankyou for showing that there are other's who feel the same way. Of course, Monse will say that it isn't a bad thing for the US to be the world's sole hyper-power <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Personally I believe in balance, and one state with the capacity to hurl robotic armies at whoever it chooses without risking any of it's own personel when all other states have no counter is unbalancing. The world is already heavily weighted towards the US: robotic armies would simply increase the US's military hegemony to nigh unscalable hights.
There are a lot of computer scientists out there right now working on virtual neural networks and computers that "learn" their way around. If that much interest is being funded with public grants, one has to wonder how much money is going into military research to develop the same exact thing.
One thing that neural networks are good at is recognizing stimuli from previous exposure or inferring patterns from incomplete data (like picking out the shape of a human from all the background while camouflaged). Neural nets also are more efficient at this kind of pattern recognition than most other people, which explains why our brains are so good at the same type of thing - when you see an object, you see in order:
a) the basic outline/shape of the object
b) any colorations and gross details about the object
c) fine details about the object
This is what allows you to distinguish a dog from a cat, and is precisely what an AI would need if it were to function "autonomously".
Now, that changes if the robot would be controlled by a human with some sort of electronic interface, but I seriously doubt that any robot "army" of this sort would replace a human on the battlefield, because the "technology" needed for a human soldier is already there - a human can aim, move over terrain without breaking anything (most of the time), make autonomous decisions on how to accomplish an objective, and a human has real-time sensory input - something distinctly lacking in a human-controlled robot. A human controller is fine for remote-controlled airplane drones, but in an actual combat situation nothing beats autonomy.
Anyway, off to sleep.
To quote MonsE: Erm... What?
I'm not opposing this technology throughoutly, I'm only mentioning that the obstacles seem to make them a little risky at this point of technological advancement.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point was: If it's no more risky than the cruise, and the cruise is already in operation, then arguing that its unsafe isn't really a point, its no more risky than what's currently in use.
Its likely to be small scale - a weapon of "mild destruction", so any potential errors will be of a limited sort. Its likely to only be for specialist missons.
I think a debate about AI and its potential to kill biologicals is all very well, but not what this thread was originally about.
Aye, and it's not completely impossible for a new Hitler to get as President in USA. A guy with charisma, good speaking skills and ability to control the masses could easily convince americans that they need more living space or there are several threads to be neutralized. What then, if USA has an invincible robot army which can take over the whole world?
And don't say it couldnt happen. It happened in Germany and they are not any more good or evil than people of the other nations, they are just human. Actually you don't even need to be very charismatic leader to get majority on your side. Or is Bush so convincing? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
On the other hand, you can't really stop the progress and it's pretty naive to think that super powers would stop developing weapons just for balances sake. I guess we can only watch and see what happens.
Good point, AI that was sufficiently advanced to operate almost autonomously, not requiring constant uplinks to actual people, would likely be able to be placed in the direct control of 1 person. If, for example, the armies of the US became robotic their CinC would be the President. If Bush tommorow ordered the army to attack Congress, burn the Constitution and install Bush the First as High King of the Empire of America I have serious doubts that the army would follow through with such a request <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> However, a robotic army subserviant to the wishes of their controller would have no qualms about such an action. Sure, it's an extreame scenario. But a worrying one none the less.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, you can't really stop the progress and it's pretty naive to think that super powers would stop developing weapons just for balances sake. I guess we can only watch and see what happens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well true, however the US has such a military supremecy vs the rest of the world right now as to be a generation of military technology ahead of the world. Robotic armies would push that even furthur and place the US in an almost untouchable position: they're almost there now, only nukes to worry about. And in terms of balance, when the USSR was still around US presidents were vary cautious about installing a missile defense system for fears of destabilising the balance of power. Now, with no counter to the US in the world, the US has emerged as a lone hyper-power that seems to regard world opinion as "not really important". Pushing ahead with the missile sheild throws the whole world out of balance, and the consequences of this may be far more reaching and destructive than we today imagine. Robotic armies may well have similar effects.
I am aware of this and with a little different strategy and without the insanity of Hitler they would have probably won, but they didn't.
Heh... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Heh... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but Europe played the main part in WW2. Imagine Hitler going for Moscow instead of Stalingrad like his military advisors requested. After the fall of Moscow the whole Russia would have been practically paralyzed and Germany would have great amounts of resources coming from Ural and the southern Russias oil fields. Germany could have placed all its strength on taking over Great Britain and Iceland. After that USA wouldn't have had any safe place to bring its troops in Europe and after Hitler would have finished his atomic bomb, well *shrugs* <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Heh... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but Europe played the main part in WW2. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Poppycock. The armies of Japan and China battling on the chinese mainland were no less massive, nor was the effort of the US and ANZAC to fight across 10,000 miles of pacific, island by island, or for 5 million americans to join in BOTH theaters of action, as well as Africa and elsewhere. Your points are rather subjective, and my point remains. Germany came very close to winning the 'european theater' of WW2. And that's it. Just that one theater.
You are well and truly off-topic, please start a new one! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sorry, Salty started it! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
And you're right about winning only one theater, but as I see it, the WW2 would have gone very differently if the things I mentioned above had happened. New grand-germany would have had at least as much or even more resources and recruitable troops under its control as USA. That would have led in to one helluva big war(even bigger than what happened) between the rest of the allied and the new Germany.
Ok, sorry sorry sorry. I just slipped <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> No need to start a new thread for this discussion. Lets end it right here and continue the real discussion.
Personally, if I could, I would give my armed forces robotic suits, to augment their soldiering skills so that I could have very mobile, heavy weapons platforms. Also, robotic suits could be made for stealth or tank killers. I really don't see how you could ever hope to replace a soldier with his tools, so giving them better personal armor seems more reasonable.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Omg taddel tale!