Researchers Call For A Ban On Autonomous Weapons

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Should robots ever be able to engage targets without human intervention? Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak don't think it is a good idea at all and I agree with them. :)

In summary, we believe that AI has great potential to benefit humanity in many ways, and that the goal of the field should be to do so. Starting a military AI arms race is a bad idea, and should be prevented by a ban on offensive autonomous weapons beyond meaningful human control.
 

Kueller

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
5,983
I don't think those in decision making (executive) positions fully appreciate that once robots start making their own decisions, they (executives) will be considered by the machines to be the least valuable of all the meatbags.
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
What a scary time we live in. When war get's to the point of just being machines fighting...what's the point? I mean, it's pretty pointless to begin with, but when you don't even have that human element...that courage...then it's just a game. Killing real people for game is beyond fucked.
 

Kueller

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
5,983
What a scary time we live in. When war get's to the point of just being machines fighting...what's the point? I mean, it's pretty pointless to begin with, but when you don't even have that human element...that courage...then it's just a game. Killing real people for game is beyond fucked.
Well, the other side should just build it's own automated warbots...What could possibly go wrong?
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,635
If your enemy does it, then we'll have to do it to stay competitive in war.

If it's just bots fighting, it's just a cock fight, not a war.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
What a scary time we live in. When war get's to the point of just being machines fighting...what's the point? I mean, it's pretty pointless to begin with, but when you don't even have that human element...that courage...then it's just a game. Killing real people for game is beyond fucked.

TBH it could end up good, imagine that people accept that machines can easily beat them. Then they don't bother to engage machines. If war happens its machines vs machines if someone's machines win the people quickly surrender and its over. Very few human casualties. Is that really that bad? it seems like a somewhat better way to sort out disputes than how we do it now.
 

SpeedyVV

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,210
This is obviously another attack on my 2nd amendment rights! :mad:

Oh wait! I'm not American so I guess it does not apply :-p
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,226
TBH it could end up good, imagine that people accept that machines can easily beat them. Then they don't bother to engage machines. If war happens its machines vs machines if someone's machines win the people quickly surrender and its over. Very few human casualties. Is that really that bad? it seems like a somewhat better way to sort out disputes than how we do it now.

If ISIS / other terrorists decide to take us on with automated weapons, we should surrender?

Well, the other side should just build it's own automated warbots...What could possibly go wrong?

This.
 

Advil

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,093
It's no so much a matter of being scared robots fighting. That's going to happen. The first nation to do it forces all others to respond in kind.

The scary part is when that "cockfight" you guys mentioned changes gears.

So what happens when 5000 drones stop shooting at each other and instead are unleashed on a civilian population center with programming to attack anything with a heat signature that might be human? We're talking about the automated robotic killing of millions. And that's entirely possible today without getting into the science fiction of the machines making decisions.

5000 killer flying drones. They all have GPS. They are remotely told to engage everything inside a box X/Y dimensions (a town? a city? a couple of square blocks?). Programmed to engage targets on their own for a certain amount of time or being told to return to base.

THAT kind of thing is scary. It will appeal to generals because you don't have to completely destroy the area you want to take.
 

temujin987

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
1,351
If your enemy does it, then we'll have to do it to stay competitive in war.

If it's just bots fighting, it's just a cock fight, not a war.

yes, it's similar to nuclear weapons with all the fucked up consequences. at least with nukes and autonomous war robots there is a chance to contain it. next we invent nanobots. that's the point where mankind is 100% doomed.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Autonomous meaning able to function without commands or someone controlling them.
All it takes is for someone to reverse engineer a few, inject a virus into them and change how they operate. Instead of assisting us, they might come back and attack the civilian population and since they're autonomous, controlling them might be difficult.
Also it's sort of thought that humans making decisions to kill other humans do it with a moral conscious. When you leave it to AI, it's done without any morals or conscious so the effects could be inhumane.
 

ta_erog

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
192
What AI?? There is no AI or even close.
Sooo . . the robots would be shooting at sensor contacts, that's it.

No decision, no thought, no debating.
Not better then humans not really worse then either. No pity but also no hate. just what it is build for shooting targets.
We already have them it just depends at what point the human hands over control. (and that is hardly flawless)
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
If your enemy does it, then we'll have to do it to stay competitive in war.

And that is the point.

Let's ban them, so only the worse nations (think thug nations who would even use them on their own people) will have them. You really think Iran would care about a ban?
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
If ISIS / other terrorists decide to take us on with automated weapons, we should surrender?



This.

Your argument doesn't matter, if ISIS takes us on and beats us without machines you will still surrender. That's the whole point of war at some point you force someone to give up when they realize their only option is death.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
It's no so much a matter of being scared robots fighting. That's going to happen. The first nation to do it forces all others to respond in kind.

The scary part is when that "cockfight" you guys mentioned changes gears.

So what happens when 5000 drones stop shooting at each other and instead are unleashed on a civilian population center with programming to attack anything with a heat signature that might be human? We're talking about the automated robotic killing of millions. And that's entirely possible today without getting into the science fiction of the machines making decisions.

5000 killer flying drones. They all have GPS. They are remotely told to engage everything inside a box X/Y dimensions (a town? a city? a couple of square blocks?). Programmed to engage targets on their own for a certain amount of time or being told to return to base.

THAT kind of thing is scary. It will appeal to generals because you don't have to completely destroy the area you want to take.

That's not possible with humans right?
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,635
And that is the point.

Let's ban them, so only the worse nations (think thug nations who would even use them on their own people) will have them. You really think Iran would care about a ban?

You create them to be a deterrent and hope you don't have to use them. Like nuclear weapons. If we have some bad ass bots, it'll make it a much harder decision to attack. Always go for the guy with the smaller stick;don't bring a knife to a gun fight, etc..
 

ta_erog

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
192
That's not possible with humans right?

And will have a real limited threat time also . . . it is not like we have power sources that last long and with added limited ammo. . . a rogue bot would be killed by another bot(s) very quickly (assuming any failure would not also disable to bot - much better chance of it just failing). If it was a hack job it would depend on scope, but still not too much different, still limited resources . . . a one time disaster. Resupply all important.
Also remember no AI . . so no planning, no thinking, Just targets.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,226
Your argument doesn't matter, if ISIS takes us on and beats us without machines you will still surrender. That's the whole point of war at some point you force someone to give up when they realize their only option is death.

Huh?
The point is to not leave the door open for them to beat us.
As much as I dont want to have these things in the sky, they are coming.
I'd much rather we were first to develop them and had a leg up on the opposition so we know how to counter them better.
 

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
500px-Ed209.jpg


What could go wrong.
 

Advil

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,093
And will have a real limited threat time also . . . it is not like we have power sources that last long and with added limited ammo. . . a rogue bot would be killed by another bot(s) very quickly (assuming any failure would not also disable to bot - much better chance of it just failing). If it was a hack job it would depend on scope, but still not too much different, still limited resources . . . a one time disaster. Resupply all important.
Also remember no AI . . so no planning, no thinking, Just targets.

You don't have enough imagination. You don't need massive loitering time. Multiple sorties can do it. The humans dig in and take defensive positions a few blocks from the population area you want eliminiated. You truck in a few thousand of these small armed drones. Set their area to attack, let them go at it for 20 minutes. Bring them back, recharge them. Rinse and repeat until the population dies or surrenders.

You can use it for offense, defense, or just to inflict harm on civilian populations to decrease morale and disrupt commerce in an area.

They don't even necessarily have to be able to fly for miles to the target. Which would make production cost far, far lower.

What if you launch them in waves? A hundred or two at a time, around the clock terror.

This is within the outside edges of today's technology. Five years from now it will be no big deal at all.
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
11,367
What a scary time we live in. When war get's to the point of just being machines fighting...what's the point? I mean, it's pretty pointless to begin with, but when you don't even have that human element...that courage...then it's just a game. Killing real people for game is beyond fucked.

eh... people back in the 50's were also convinced that they were right on the edge of World War 3, except that never happened. I doubt we will see some huge machine war any time soon either.

I'd be more worried about smaller uses. Like people using armed drones to murder someone that they don't like; a crime that would likely be much harder to solve than if they were there and did it themselves.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,226
E.M.P weapon. There, now the robots won't do jack anymore.

A potentially good weapon but there are problems and limits.

It will need to have very fast + accurate targeting, and ideally a beam made of many sources that converge on the aim point to prevent a single stray beam being too strong should it miss.
This is to reduce the risk of harm to other electronics in the distance from strong stray beams. (ie to civilian/Allied aircraft)

Robots can be given deflection/protection against EMPs.
Imagine fleets of protected drones!
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
The history of the world includes new weapon systems that will end mankind. With each invention there soon followed a counter-measure. Sharp swords? Armor plate, etc. Robot mechs will be no different. The developing side will have an initial advantage until the other side gets their own or develops a new weapon to neutralize the robot threat.

It is better that we develop these weapons first and maintain a lead with regards to countermeasures than to hold the moral high ground and become the first victims.

"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women. "

Such is the history of all life. Big dinosaurs ate smaller dinosaurs. Big black holes consume smaller black holes. Better to be the predator than the prey...
 

ta_erog

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
192
You don't have enough imagination. You don't need massive loitering time. Multiple sorties can do it. The humans dig in and take defensive positions a few blocks from the population area you want eliminiated. You truck in a few thousand of these small armed drones. Set their area to attack, let them go at it for 20 minutes. Bring them back, recharge them. Rinse and repeat until the population dies or surrenders.

You can use it for offense, defense, or just to inflict harm on civilian populations to decrease morale and disrupt commerce in an area.

They don't even necessarily have to be able to fly for miles to the target. Which would make production cost far, far lower.

What if you launch them in waves? A hundred or two at a time, around the clock terror.

This is within the outside edges of today's technology. Five years from now it will be no big deal at all.



Um I am well aware of the possible capabilities, I was talking about the SUBJECT of the article! ie them going haywire.
what I was saying is that any military EVEN a "autonomous" one requires support and allot of it. For automated weapons to e a real threat (to the owner of the weapons) they would have to be also a completely automated support structure for supply.

(FYI I build robots and have build automated sentry guns. I am well aware of there limitations)
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,710
Nice to see all the people here plan to volunteer to go in place of a machine.
 

Sly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
5,748
Does this mean they'll ban Tomahawk Missiles?

They have onboard AI that finds a path to the target zone using cameras that scan the terrain, and then when it decides that it's found the target, divebombs into it and detonates itself.
 

ta_erog

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
192
Does this mean they'll ban Tomahawk Missiles?

They have onboard AI that finds a path to the target zone using cameras that scan the terrain, and then when it decides that it's found the target, divebombs into it and detonates itself.

be careful what you call AI. A Tomahawk Missile <> AI. it is a complex auto pilot/targeting system only.

but you make a good point, this is just a automated attack system that commits suicide rather then fly home.
 

sliverjazz

Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
747
Despite years of indoctrination through mass programming by government policy, middle-class Americans continue to resist the global dreams of a socialist. That’s because they are more independent and self-reliant and demand reward for their labor, placing them in competition for resources with the globe.
 
Top