It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Examining the Ethical Implications of Robots in War

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Examining the Ethical Implications of Robots in War


hardware.slashdot.org

This report has provided the motivation, philosophy, formalisms, representational requirements, architectural design criteria, recommendations, and test scenarios to design and construct an autonomous robotic system architecture capable of the ethical use of lethal force. These first steps toward that goal are very preliminary and subject to major revision, but at the very least they can be viewed as the beginnings of an ethical robotic warfighter. The primary goal remains to enforce the International Laws of War in the battlefield in a manner that is believed achievable, by creating a class of robots that not only conform to International Law but outperform human soldiers in their ethical capacity
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.timesonline.co.uk
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.popsci.com
news.bbc.co.uk

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Forecast: Sex and Marriage with Robots by 2050




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Is this the grunt of the future? Will your friendly neighborhood retire Navy vet be a "biometric synthetic artificial" collection of "Human DNA" with the discipline of a machine?

Will he emote as a human as well as be able to access data from a database off limits to the "JOE" citizen human being?

Who will pull the strings on these Pinocchio’s of the future who desire with all of their hydrogen based engine system to become a real human?

Will they usher in a future Dystopia that makes MKUltra look like a good way to catch a snooze?


hardware.slashdot.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Just to be clear, how are we defining robot.

Is it something remotely controlled by a human or is it something that independently thinks for itself, or within the confinds of a program.

We have already seen remote planes-small, but big enough to carry a missile.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
A chill came over me reading the original post. Wow, robot soldiers...does anybody else feel like this is a bad idea?

Robots don't have ethics. That's the simple answer.

Robots may be programmed with ethical software for certain scenarios but could never handle the complexities that modern warfare requires. Asking a robot to choose between 'kill' or 'not kill' is about as tricky as teaching the deaf how to dance. Perhaps you can create something that simulates the movements, but it's never going to be Saturday Night Fever.

Using robots as sentries or battlefield scouts makes a little sense and any option that reduces human casualties is a positive thing. But the modern soldier, especially in urban warfare environments, is constantly making decisions based upon experience, knowledge, moral compulsion and the ability to process information in a uniquely human fashion.

On a deeply primitive level, I would never want to put a weapon in the hands of something without a soul.

Check out my blog: Esoterica in America



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


Lets define robot as transhuman or/and transanimal. Exotic biometric platform with the ability to emote…at least to the point of “Good DOG”

You can add to or change the definition if you want….but the evolution seems to point to transhuman or transanimal



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I hope war and sex aren't the main things being focused on when it comes to robots.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AJ Lavender
 

An interesting point Lavender....this is part of the argument at the moment.
One notable critic of Friendliness theory is Bill Hibbard, author of Super-Intelligent Machines, who considers the theory incomplete. Hibbard writes there should be broader political involvement in the design of AI and AI morality. He also believes that initially seed AI could only be created by powerful private sector interests (a view not shared by Yudkowsky), and that multinational corporations and the like would have no incentive to implement Friendliness theory.

en.wikipedia.org...

.. There are some who want to develop an altruistic platform for AI using this operating system for all AI. Others, such as the quote from Hibbard, state that AI could evolve to the point in which it sets itself up to be Judge, jurist and executioner all in one logic process. It will consruct a ethical mode of behavior based upon its altruitic "seed".



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePiemaker
I hope war and sex aren't the main things being focused on when it comes to robots.


Very interersting that these are primary objectives. Both would be the big profit makers in the AI world.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Brain' In A Dish Acts As Autopilot, Living Computer



www.sciencedaily.com...

Go to the declassified DHS.gov and type in AAN army after next. read there many papers on brain to brain interface bionic organs etc.

the future vision reads liek a terminator movie scary stuff.

directly from the US army.


stinet.dtic.mil...



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
The first thing that comes to mind is the scene from RoboCop where the hay-wired prototype warns the test subject that he has ten seconds to put down his weapon, still the count down continues even after complying.

The second thing that comes to mind is the Police State Militia.

One thing to remember is, if it can be programmed, it can be hacked.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
One thing to remember is, if it can be programmed, it can be hacked.


Excellent point. and one that coincides with the comment by the OP about the private sector being the technology leader. With private interests fueling the AI movement, we are left with a potentially culture-shaking innovation that lacks any independent oversight.

It's hard to draw parallels between military robots and voting machines, but abundant security breaches have been discovered in these machines, includng the creation of backdoors that allow programmers to modify code and function.

RFID technology is another platform with security issues (won't labor this point, because I know there's a relevant thread still active), where the advances in encryption algorithms are emerging from the private and public sectors equally.

But the truly frightening is the concept of AI and machine inventing machine. Once Pandora's box is open, it may never be shut. This singularity is the stuff of nightmares.

Check out my blog: Esoterica in America



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AJ Lavender
... Once Pandora's box is open, it may never be shut. This singularity is the stuff of nightmares.


Which is exactly what the pro stem cell bunch should be examining, but refuse to do so because for every pro there will always be a con.

This is something that is sure to prove Man does not have the capability of keeping things under control.

The GoodBook says the meek shall inherit the Earth, perhaps the meek will be the hackers.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I was just thinking about this.

What is the real difference between a fully brainwashed..er..trained, 300 pound marine.

He will go and fight/kill till dead or told to stop.
There seems to be very difference to me.

Some say that a robot would be able to have an unfair advantage.
I say, what is the difference between a robot and a special forces member who do what seems impossible?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Intuition is the difference as well as human compassion. I know a few of these guys.....they love their country, freedom, family and would be the first to step up to defend your right to free speech.

They, off all Americans, know the cost of freedom. A robot does not, and will never (I should never say never) understand the idea of freedom.

A robot fights for its master....Spec. Forces fight for our rights to be free.

They would be the some of the first to disobey an illegal order.

By the way not all best Spec Force guys are Marines



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AJ Lavender
Robots don't have ethics. That's the simple answer.


That's the best answer.

Even if these so called robots are in fact human controlled war machines, think of the terror they'd inflict on the enemy. Having a hulking machine crash into your position with no implications of pain or fear would be absolutely terrifying.

My friend whose in the army says that a lot of modern warfare is simply scaring the opponent off, much easier than trying to wipe them all out. Throw down a good wall of fire and some low flying aircraft and even the most battle hardened will be running for their lives. Also the basis that even if you are hit, there is a small chance, no matter how remote, that the enemy wont just finish you off, but will make you a PoW. May not be the best life, but at least your not dead.

Now I'm talking about the WW2 kind of PoW, where they were treated with at least a small amount of respect and dignity, not nowadays where if you get caught your as good as dead.

With robots there is no chance of this, you either destroy it or it's going to kill you. Kill or be killed, the basis of our very being.

While I in no way condone war, having robots (with human controllers, or very heavily controlled AI) is a step towards ending them all together.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon

What is the real difference between a fully brainwashed..er..trained, 300 pound marine.

He will go and fight/kill till dead or told to stop.
There seems to be very difference to me.


Oh dear, another slam on our armed forces.
You have every right to call them brainwashed but you need to remember that it is their strong convictions that allowed you to post your sentiments the way you did.

You also have to look at the flip side or the opposite end of the spectrum.

I suppose you feel the Academia have every right to likewise brainwash young University students with idealogies of their own in order to push a totally separate and opposing agenda?

Regardless of how you feel about our Government, if you can't stand behind our troops, then perhaps you should stand in front of them.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
A few points you're all missing.

Robots to fight wars are only effective if your opponent does not have robots to fight wars.

A robot to robot war will just verify the complete pointlessness of war.

A robot to robot war would only be decided by which side has the most money and/or the best scientists/engineers. And would the war stop if all the oponents robots were destroyed?

After a war is over, robots would be no better use than to control a population.
Perhaps even yourselves controlled by the same robots that fought for your 'country'.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join