4 ms·

We've had autonomous killing machines since WW2, and nobody seemed to care until recently when everything got reframed in a scary Skynet/Terminator way. Most p

We've had autonomous killing machines since WW2, and nobody seemed to care until recently when everything got reframed in a scary Skynet/Terminator way. Most people seem to get their knowledge on the subject more from movies than reality.

harryf 11y ago
...and we've already had an instance of autonomous killing machine gone wild. - http://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/ http://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- goldenkey 11y ago
  Has anything like this happened to an actual superpower?
vlehto 11y ago
>We've had autonomous killing machines since WW2 What are you referring to? The only examples I know involve using animals to do the targeting. But all examples failed, as animals don't detect friend from foe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_animal#As_living_bombs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_animal#As_living_bomb... I'd like to note that human being deciding when and where an attack should happen, never counts as "autonomous". Otherwise we have to count simple traps as "autonomous" weapons and the whole term becomes redundant. You could claim that any bullet shot while aiming through night vision goggles was "autonomous" because the shooter just set time and direction, but didn't really see who he was shooting at. Second thought: you could claim that Japanese balloon firebombs and British balloon troops were using "autonomous" weapons. Then you would need to claim that changes in wind was the "AI". And strictly speaking that might be correct term. But then it's pretty easy to see why current hype about computerized "AI" has taken off in different way.
- Ao7bei3s 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentry_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentry_gun Such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGR-A1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGR-A1 Quote: "identify and shoot a target automatically from over two miles (3.2 km) away." There are some scary videos of it on the internet.
  - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
    Notice the US does not use such a thing along side its border with Mexico, and the SGR-A1 is less than a decade old, WW2 was over 70 years ago...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- spatulan 11y ago
  Acoustic homing torpedoes.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    Currently anything "homing" is launched at a target by human. The fact that it can correct its course, does not make it "autonomous" in the sense of autonomous currently used. It's about differentiating kill decisions "could have killed that, but didn't". If we go to historical precedents, probably Russian swarming anti-ship missiles are the cut point. They can discriminate with carrier and it's companions, so the individual missile will make "I will not kill that" decision about individual ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-500_Bazalt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-500_Bazalt
padonetime 11y ago
my understanding of aiming mechanisms esp. wrt. airborne missiles and drones, is that the pilot 'firing' is merely giving the go ahead for launch and the targeting mechanism takes over from there. e.g a heat seeking missle.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

harryf 11y ago

...and we've already had an instance of autonomous killing machine gone wild. - http://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/ http://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
goldenkey 11y ago
Has anything like this happened to an actual superpower?

vlehto 11y ago

>We've had autonomous killing machines since WW2 What are you referring to? The only examples I know involve using animals to do the targeting. But all examples failed, as animals don't detect friend from foe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_animal#As_living_bombs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_animal#As_living_bomb... I'd like to note that human being deciding when and where an attack should happen, never counts as "autonomous". Otherwise we have to count simple traps as "autonomous" weapons and the whole term becomes redundant. You could claim that any bullet shot while aiming through night vision goggles was "autonomous" because the shooter just set time and direction, but didn't really see who he was shooting at. Second thought: you could claim that Japanese balloon firebombs and British balloon troops were using "autonomous" weapons. Then you would need to claim that changes in wind was the "AI". And strictly speaking that might be correct term. But then it's pretty easy to see why current hype about computerized "AI" has taken off in different way.

Ao7bei3s 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentry_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentry_gun Such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGR-A1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGR-A1 Quote: "identify and shoot a target automatically from over two miles (3.2 km) away." There are some scary videos of it on the internet.
- ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
  Notice the US does not use such a thing along side its border with Mexico, and the SGR-A1 is less than a decade old, WW2 was over 70 years ago...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
spatulan 11y ago
Acoustic homing torpedoes.
- vlehto 11y ago
  Currently anything "homing" is launched at a target by human. The fact that it can correct its course, does not make it "autonomous" in the sense of autonomous currently used. It's about differentiating kill decisions "could have killed that, but didn't". If we go to historical precedents, probably Russian swarming anti-ship missiles are the cut point. They can discriminate with carrier and it's companions, so the individual missile will make "I will not kill that" decision about individual ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-500_Bazalt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-500_Bazalt

padonetime 11y ago

my understanding of aiming mechanisms esp. wrt. airborne missiles and drones, is that the pilot 'firing' is merely giving the go ahead for launch and the targeting mechanism takes over from there. e.g a heat seeking missle.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]