The future for drones: Automated killing, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 20-9-2011 @ 03:16 PM by SirMike
I bet they will name it [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/a-future-for-drones-automated-killing/2011/09/15/gIQAVy9mgK_story.html?hpid=z1]SkyNet[/u rl].

The Fort Benning tarp “is a rather simple target, but think of it as a surrogate,” said Charles E. Pippin, a scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, which developed the software to run the demonstration. “You can imagine real-time scenarios where you have 10 of these things up in the air and something is happening on the ground and you don’t have time for a human to say, ‘I need you to do these tasks.’ It needs to happen faster than that.”

The demonstration laid the groundwork for scientific advances that would allow drones to search for a human target and then make an identification based on facial-recognition or other software. Once a match was made, a drone could launch a missile to kill the target.

Military systems with some degree of autonomy — such as robotic, weaponized sentries — have been deployed in the demilitarized zone between South and North Korea and other potential battle areas. Researchers are uncertain how soon machines capable of collaborating and adapting intelligently in battlefield conditions will come online. It could take one or two decades, or longer. The U.S. military is funding numerous research projects on autonomy to develop machines that will perform some dull or dangerous tasks and to maintain its advantage over potential adversaries who are also working on such systems.


edit on 20-9-2011 by SirMike because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 20-9-2011 @ 03:41 PM by LeTan
reply to post by LanternOfDiogenes



Looks like you beat me to it by a couple of seconds, but yeah, looks like we think on the same wavelength.


reply posted on 20-9-2011 @ 03:49 PM by earthdude
reply to post by LeTan



Both you guys don't realize that pilots will not be necessary. Computers will do the flying and killing. The gamers will be replaced by robots.


reply posted on 20-9-2011 @ 04:06 PM by LanternOfDiogenes
reply to post by earthdude



No I understood the center point of the article was automated drones and hard points, however I can not see it passing. The military has a thing about, if it doesn't take a finger, or hand to start reload, or pull the trigger, they get itchy, imagine a base defenses being hacked or just the wavelength connected to one unit is appropriated, there will always be a need for the human back-up I can never see the military going more than 20% automation.
edit on 12/08/11 by LanternOfDiogenes because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 20-9-2011 @ 04:16 PM by spikey
reply to post by LanternOfDiogenes



At first, no neither can i.

But a smart and patient potential enemy would allow complacency to build over time...one who would allow for oversight committees, themselves overseen by those who want votes and budget savings, to reference the success and security of the 20% automated force, and how great it is that American or (insert your own country here) young lives have been saved on the battlefields, and how much money has been saved by using droids which don't eat, don't sleep, don't need equipment and don't complain or need treatment when they get shot apart, they don't ask for a salary or pension either.,,,that 20% would soon rise to 50%, then 80% or more.

Then that patient enemy would reveal it's ace in the hole...it's had the ability to hack the systems all through the programme, and only feigned failed attempts to gain access, increasing the military confidence in it's 'unbreakable' encryption, until the numbers of droids were sufficient to act as an exterminating force, for the wrong side.


reply posted on 21-9-2011 @ 12:55 PM by centurion1211
Doesn't this violate the first of Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics?

source

Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

1 - A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2 - A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3 - A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Pages:     ^^TOP^^