So Much For The "First Law of Robotics"

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Dissident
edit: after completely reading the article, it seems they aren't true robots. just remotely controlled vehicles. big deal.

No they don't have "full" robots yet -- they're just working on them.

I'm interested in the implications of that.

[Lul Thyme]

training marines to distinguish between foes and friends is pretty hard too btw

[Dis]

Originally posted by Elok
What, were you thinking Voltron, or just Terminator?

yes

[Dis]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Designing a robot that can distinguish between friend and foe (and lket's not ofget the neutral innocents too) will be quite a job.

Just out of curiosity, what will they use to power the "smart dust"? Sure they're small, but today's electric batteries aren't that powerful.

this is what my original post was before I edited.

My impression was that these robots would be controlled by humans. Not really a robot imho.

Because my original post talked about the problem of friendly fire. And there will be lawsuits if it happens. The military is very hard to sue, but not some private company that manufactures robots.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
With robots doing the actual killing there is no stopping the war, since no bodys will be shipped home and the horrific reality of war won´t disturb the lives of people back home...

Money.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You know, I really don't think autonomous killing machines are a good idea.

I'm fine, as long as we don't have INDEPENDENT killing machines

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Designing a robot that can distinguish between friend and foe (and lket's not ofget the neutral innocents too) will be quite a job.

Our own soldiers often have a hard time. Presumably, though, the robots would know not to target other robots

Just out of curiosity, what will they use to power the "smart dust"? Sure they're small, but today's electric batteries aren't that powerful.

Light power, or very different kinds of batteries (since normal batteries probably don't scale well down that small).

[Dis]

Just as long as the system isn't called Skynet, I'm okay with it.

[The Mad Monk]

Industrial-grade nano-paste...

[:) Smiley]

IIRC the smart dust is solar powered, and since all it does is collect data and send signals, that's generally enough power.

Getting it to fly and attack **** is going to require some serious juice.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Whoha
His laws are pure fiction. There is nothing in silicon/iron/unobtainium that tells a machine not to harm/maim/kill a person. However, trusting a machine to make a good decision right now is quite foolish, so this probably won't go very far.

I understand the logic of the analogy in the thread title, but just to make a footnote clarification:

Asimov's Laws of Robotics were in conjunction with fully sentient robots which can for all purposes think like a human. His Laws are relevant only in relation with how to reconcile the widespread existence of such robots with the anxieties and inferiority complexes of humans about such robots.

The robots envisioned by the US army are basically automatons with a set of complex instructions, and that's why the army is conceptually unsure as to how wise it is to delegate crucial decisions to such automatons.

If the day comes when those "automatons" are fully or even nearly sentient, Asimovs Laws will be more relevant in many ways as to perhaps make military applications unviable.

[Ted Striker]

Robots and lots of other unmanned drones are already seeing action