 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)recycle ...and 404 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614083 Today 3 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Increasingly, autonomous machines are being used in military applications, too. Samsung, for example, has developed a robotic sentry to guard the border between North and South Korea. It is equipped with two cameras and a machine gun. "Imagine the miners strike with robots armed with water cannons," he said. "These things are coming, definitely." views? is the future looking grim? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if robots weren't invented, then we wouldn't be having this very discussion... therefore i think they're an integral part of our daily lives. megaman forever *does gang sign |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's an interesting dilemma. Personally i think there's a similarity with using watch-dogs. Those autonomous guarding robots are just like any other watch-dog. Said robot will have a mind of it's own, metaphorically speaking, just like a dog. Normally its behavior will be predictable, but exceptions are a possibility. In any case the owner is responsible, and if it ever shows unwanted behavior, get another one. At least killing a robot is not as emotional as killing a dog. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think people will ignore Asimov at their peril; 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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
guard dogs aren't armed with machine guns. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, a robotic sentry, presumbaly a camera with a gun, is little more than any other .. I don't know what the term is but like a landmine or tripwire attached to a big bamboo spike, something that'll horribly maim you if you go near it. It's still a long way from some maruading attack-bot sent in to quell unrest. Ideally, in the Future Wars both sides will have robots whilst men sit at home controlling them, turning the whole world into some kind of Quake Arena. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the point is they both can kill. thanks for your considerate feedback |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
any technology where a military application is found usually has an eerie vibe about it. goDel=>how easy to u think it's going be to kill these robots? i'd rather face a dog knowing at least you have a chance killing another mere mortal.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
reminiscent of Total Annihalation's idea...pacifist wars |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that depends on the robot and the circumstances. with respect to their 'intelligence' i think you can compare it to playing chess against a computer. the mind of a computer works on a specific set of rules. if you know those rules, you can use that to your advantage and the win can be pretty easy. and btw, such robot will always have a set of overruling mechanisms which makes external intervention (such as shutting it down) possible. dogs don't always listen. robots can be made to always listen. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my point is that you've more chance of getting away from a guard dog, or even steering clear of it, than you do with one of these sentries. the_shark - i agree with you, only that i can see this developing more and more. they won't stop with sentries, there'll be mobile ones come a few years. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fine. "Right now, that's not an issue because the responsibility lies with the designer or operator of that robot; but as robots become more autonomous that line or responsibility becomes blurred." my point was wrt this issue. in those cases, the owner is responsible (like with a guard dog). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i guess we have these fantastic prenotions of robots being capable of overriding their default circuitry and inevitably fisting the human race. a stiff EMP should put them in their place tho, otherwise....fisting ensued |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Of course the future is grim - it's being shaped by humans. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I dont know about it being grim, but as humans embrace technology more and more - it will certainly be interesting to see. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The owner may well be legally (or formally) responsible, but that doesn't mean he, himself, actually feels responsible, which is where the main issue would be for me. If you remove the person from the act, the person is less likely to feel responsible because he can blame the robot's autonomy or the dog's animal nature (disregarding that he programmed the robot or that he trained the dog). The problem has analogies all over the place: Does the general feel responsible for the deaths caused by and to his soldiers when he orders them to attack? The higher-ups will always have the power to act by proxy, which makes both formally placing responsibility and personally taking responsibility harder. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Interesting to note the gradual erosion of free-thought & expression, yes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a very good post |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Perhaps he wouldn't feel responsible, and that's why there's such a thing as the law. The owner may not feel responsible, but does that matter when he's in jail? The system works nevertheless, and the owner will definitly feel something when he's behind bars. The higher-ups will always have the power to act by proxy, which makes both formally placing responsibility and personally taking responsibility harder. Yes, but those higher-ups will always be dependent on those that are lower. And in most cases those higher-ups cannot permit themselves to not feel any responsibility. Else he'd loose support from the lower ranked. A good general will always have a healthy dose of responsibility. A bad general is fighting a lost war. And that's a fact both good and bad generals are well aware of. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
again, another "future" dependent on the finite resource of oil... never gonna happen. or at least, definately not gonna last, that's for sure! not that you are, but i wouldn't worry about robots getting crazy more than anything else in the foreseeable future. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Morality isn't an external issue, so yes, I would stress the importance of the persons own attitude. The system may work in a way, but it's only about punishing those that commit the crime. It would be better if people were properly aware of their responsibilities before committing the crime so that they may think twice before doing it. This is especially relevant when it comes to deploying autonomous robots designed for killing; If the generals were aware of their actual responsibility for the deaths caused by these robots, and actually felt each life taken as a life taken and not just a +1 to the n: "Homeland saved n times today." When it comes to people not being permitted to not feel responsibility.. well... If that, once more, is a political, formal or external decision ("I take responsibility for this [or else I'd lose my job]"), instead of a personal or internal decision, it's a worthless one, a shell with no actual content, and if I knew something like that about that higher-up, he'd lose my respect, and if it was in my power, I'd fire his ass. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How could had this idea sooner....im watching jurasic park...ON DRUGS!!!!!!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But what's the difference between a general who sends robots into the battle-field, or soldiers? In both cases he may very well not feel responsible. I'm not sure what you're aiming at. Your point seems to aim more in the direction of whether or not those held responsible do actually feel responsible. Are you saying that those responsible will feel less responsible when robots carry out their calls? Do you think it matters whether someone hires a killer to kill someone, or pulls the trigger himself? In both cases said individual is just as guilty. In the former the person may feel a little bit less responsible, compared to the latter. Does it matter what the killer felt when shooting? If you think it does, you're in for some real shit. How the hell are you going to determine what someone actually felt? One thing is certain: you can never know with certainty if someone felt responsible when he/she gave a certain order. That's a problem of a whole different order. To me it seems to be the case that it doesn't really matter whether a general sent out some robots, or his men. In both cases he's just as responsible. Moreover, one could argue it's immoral to send out men when you can send out robots to the battlefield. Why put actual lives at stake when you can put in some droids? Should we keep on sending men, because then we can be more certain that those responsible will actually feel responsible? Again, I'm not sure where you're aiming at. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fuck feelings. the world's over populated as it is. that, and the majority of people are retards anyway. if a person finds themselves in the middle of a battlefield, it's not like they never saw it comin'. they know what they're getting into. i don't think anybody would refuse the purpose of war if governments came straight out with the truth and said, "hey look, we understand nobody wants anybody else to get killed in this world, but... well... the other option besides war is no more cars or computers or ipods or cell phones or tv or things like that which rely on petro chemicals, since we don't have enough oil to sustain our current version of modern culture. soo... if you can do with out those things we will never have to invade another country again, if not... at least will be united in an effort to continue living of off the blood of inferior nations." i mean, i think this is what the government is basically doing right now, w/o putting the country in panic and chaos by saying exactly that, "uhh... sorry but we ran out of oil." how do we get people to back up a war for oil w/o causing the collapse of the global economy? i know! stage a terrorist attack and declare a never ending war against an enemy that has no clear definition! enjoy your affordable highspeed internet now knowing the ultimate price people have paid to sustain all the luxuries we have! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
heres a vid of that samsung sentry robot, It has a sophisticated pattern recognition which can detect the difference between humans and trees, and a 5.5mm machine-gun. The robot also has a speaker to warn the intruder to surrender or get a perfect headshot. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So the decision to execute has been given to robots? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its only up to your perception. is it really making a decision to execute or is it a machine obeying its code? if you only choose to recognize the code then there's really no decisions being made, the robot is then the same as an axe or a typewriter, or an inkjet printer. it was designed to do something by a human and its doing just that... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A typewriter isn't a robot, it's a manual piece of machinery (apart from the fancy ones where it displays your text in a little LCD screen, and the user decides to delete/amend text). The robot machine-gunner will reach a point in its programming where it will be faced with the choice: Shoot / Don't Shoot - if it shoots then that is a decision, a decisive action. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm saying that in both action and responsibility there are lines and degrees of responsibility: To what extent is the person giving the orders, the higher-up, responsible when the order is accepted and carried out by another morally responsible person, and how does this contrast to the robot which doesn't really have the capability to be morally responsible in that it's neither conscious, rational or capable of choice? In my opinion, everyone (except for the robot, being amoral) involved is 100% responsible for the actions taken in such situations, but if no-one feels the responsibility, the action is more likely to repeat itself. I'm also not saying we shouldn't punish those that commit crimes against others even though they themselves don't feel personal responsibility or guilt; ultimately the majority decides, and they have both the right and power (though power doesn't make right) to do so at their leisure. I'm just stressing the point that the killer, if he felt the actual and full responsibility of each life he took, would be more likely not to kill; Responsibility is quite heavy stuff, so if every general felt each life taken as heavily as his own, I'm pretty sure war and killing would be more rare. The thing that happens in war, though, is that the soldiers "blame" the higher-ups ("I was just following orders") while the higher-ups don't have proximity to the killings, so they don't necessarily have to even be aware that lives are lost at anything but an abstract level (a life is a number, a casualty), and thus feel no responsibility. Thus they go on issuing orders to kill, that are performed by individuals who see themselves as not responsible for actions performed under orders, or against those who are classified (and caricatured, de-humanised) as the enemy ("Charlie," "Ali," "Kraut," whatever caricature, you can come up with that makes killing easier). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's not decision, that's calculation. Decision is conscious. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh, and another difference between soldiers and robots.. or, well, the problem could be that there wouldn't be much difference these days if you consider it from the higher-ups point of view; I'm not sure if the higher-ups even feel responsible for the deaths of their own men, or if they even consider them any differently from how they would robots (One life, that's $800000 in compensation to his family, one robot, that's $800000 for repairs/a new one). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Says who? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I do. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
decide To determine the result of; to settle an issue, to resolve. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, god damned, how do you translate "bestemme" into English then? You're missing a word! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Anyway, it can be said that all of those actions require consciousness, and that the robot is still only calculating; It isn't aware of what it is doing, or even that it is doing it.. it's just something that happens. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, I ran 'bestemme' through an online translator & it came back with the following result: adjust, appoint, assign, decide, determine, resolve, set. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, doesn't that increase the disquiet? That fact that its decisions are non-conscious & arbitrary. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's a pretty bad translation, especially adjust.. where did they get that from? The other ones are.. ok, I guess.. the most common uses are closest to assign and decide (different contexts). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not sure what you mean... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I mean the robot won't pause to consider for a moment: the morality is taken away from the procedure: a robot has no qualms. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you look at the history of animal evolution, new forms can only come in incrimental changes from current/previous forms. SO, I think the main robots will mutate/evolve gradually from the exact computer systems we have today. For example, in a single cell, the mitochondria probably used to be a seperate living thing, then eventually evolved to coexist with the cells as one unit. Well with computers, we have digital cameras, printers, scanners, microphones, headphones, the computer, monitor, etc. And all this stuff might evolve into a single robot unit. This would be the robot 'phenotype' (needing good locomotion too) or physical body, which I think would be very important in catalyzing their main evolution. Because the very definition of intelligence almost requires an environment to interact with. Websters defines intelligence as overcoming 'new or trying situations' which are plenty in the chaotic (possibly pseudo) random world. Bits on discs are the genotype. Maybe if the bits somehow coded for the construction of the robot phenotype from a robot embryo or something (instead of humans largly building them) then mutation/selection/evolution would ignite. Anyway I think the ethical thing to do is let robots get in complete control and replace this retarded dna with all this primitive 'nature is red in tooth and claw' shit and our pathetic minds swamped with too much evolutionary baggage. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so, once robots reach a state in their programming where they are making "conscious" decisions, how do we protect their civil liberties? should we even give robots titles and rights? or should we just 'utilize' their abilities while throwing out the moral and ethical principles we apply to our fellow humans? slave (slāv) n. 1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, it's amoral (not culpable), so it can't be immoral. The moral issues lies with those who decide to use the robots. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're assuming consciousness can be programmed, but since no-one actually knows consciousness or are able to define it outside of definitions that contain the impossibility of defining it. We can experience and describe features of it, but consciousness itself hasn't been touched upon in any satisfactory way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's something wrong with that paragraph, but you get the drift. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you said that the samsung machinegun robot will reach a point where it will be making decisions on its own. does that not mean that the machine will have free wil? does that not mean that the machine has consciousness? it is aware of what it is doing, and it is doing A LOT. its performing a shit load of functions independently, and with choice. how's that different from me? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If this trend continues, we may be looking at the evolution of an entirely new biological - erm, mechanical, kingdom. My theory is that robots will become autonomous to the point where they will develop their own robots. They will continue to evolve, but possibly at an exponentially higher rate than that at which flora and fauna evolved. It will come to the point where the term "robot" will become obsolescent, provided that the original Czech word meaning "labor" from which the word "robot" derived will no longer be a suitable term for these new autonomous life forms. Perhaps a new term will replace "robot"; the one I came up with is mechagen. Anyone who has a more appropriate alternative is welcome to contend. Not that this is of immediate concern, but there is the potential that these so-called robots will spark a revolution on a global scale, provided the field of robotics continues to advance as it does. Anyway.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I said no such thing. I said the machine isn't capable of decisions; it can only calculate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
aw, fuck. that whole exchange was meant for marlowe did you choose matching avatars on purpose? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
