6 ms·

Israel deploys automated military robots

49 points by sjreese 10y ago

josh_fyi 10y ago
Not fully automated. These may be autonomously driving, but not autonomously shooting. The article hints that that is technically possible, but also states that it is not implemented.
- robzyb 10y ago
  > The article hints that that is technically possible, but also states that it is not implemented. bool auto_fire = false; // Don't forget to set to false before deployment
  - pki 10y ago
    Prod/staging environments now taken seriously
    - msh 10y ago
      As if...
- scandox 10y ago
  Can't we just get a kind of programmer's Hippocratic oath going here? Let's just all not facilitate autonomous shooting. I know both sides of the argument. I know it won't prevent it being done. I just mean if enough people agreed not to do it, then we'd at least generate enough disapproval for it not to be the subject of any PR Puff.
  - FBT 10y ago
    Isn't it better to have robots fighting and dying than humans? War sucks, and I do wish that we could have world peace. But if war is going to happen, I'd rather it be robots that are the ones in harm's way.
    - brador 10y ago
      What would the robots be fighting for?
      - StavrosK 10y ago
        Power.
    - pindexis 10y ago
      No, it's not better to have robots killing humans!
    - zorked 10y ago
      That's not what's going to happen. One side will have robots, the other will have humans. This is already happening.
      - FBT 10y ago
        That's better than both sides being humans. Seriously. Incremental improvements are worthwhile. In general, militaries never want to comprise their effectiveness. So if given the chance to implement a life-saving intervention that harms their effectiveness, they will be reluctant at best to implement it. But this is a life-saving intervention that possibly even increases their effectiveness! That's what truly makes it awesome. A way to save lives that militaries are not only willing to implement, but rather are actually enthusiastic about implementing.
        origami777 10y ago
        That's a best case scenario. What it could do is make military intervention an even easier decision. The loss of human life is a deterrent to engaging in war. If one side isn't concerned about that, wouldn't they be more inclined to go to war?
        sharemywin 10y ago
        That would never happen... Drone operators refer to children as “fun-size terrorists” and liken killing them to “cutting the grass before it grows too long,” said one of the operators, Michael Haas, a former senior airman in the Air Force https://theintercept.com/2015/11/19/former-drone-operators-say-they-were-horrified-by-cruelty-of-assassination-program/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/19/former-drone-operators-s...
  - arethuza 10y ago
    Weapons that autonomously decide when to explode have existed since WW2 with radar proximity fuses and modern guided weapons can select targets (e.g. "fire and forget" Brimstone missiles). Where do we draw the dividing line?
    - executesorder66 10y ago
      Well in that case the weapons autonomously decided how to inflict maximum damage on the target. Which generally nobody has a problem with. There was still a human that chose the target, and a human that chose to fire on the target.
      - arethuza 10y ago
        Brimstone can select its own targets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile) This kind of ability to pick specific targets has been around for a while - e.g. SADARM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_Destroy_ARMor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_Destroy_ARMor Edit: Of course someone decides to fire these things, but isn't that similar to someone deciding to unleash an autonomous fighting system? Edit2: And what about mines?
        executesorder66 10y ago
        Those are very good points. I totally agree with you on mines. But I would say that deciding to fire an autonomous missile in a hostile environment is not the same as deciding to unleash an autonomous fighting system. In the first case, a human decides to unleash the autonomous missile once during a single event. Whereas in the second case, you are unleashing a system that decides for itself when to fire for every situation it is placed in. The second system is placed in many kill/no-kill situations and might not have enough discernment to realize that in this one special case the person in front of it is not hostile even though it is in a conflict zone.
        dogma1138 10y ago
- wepple 10y ago
  yeah, the title is a bit misleading. 'military robots' != 'autonomous vehicle'
erlich 10y ago
I wonder what the cost differential between The Trump Wall, and autonomous vehicle patrols would be. Electric vehicles with solar charging would be very cost-effective as a border security mechanism. Where are all the border security startups? Lots of government cash on the table I would think.
- MrLeftHand 10y ago
  Well, a wall for start wont shoot you in the face just because you want to cross a border. A wall, doesn't need electricity. The maintenance cost is lower. Can't be hacked. Oh, and you can paint nice big pictures on it.
98Windows 10y ago
The scary thing is once these things get a bit better it'll become cost effective to build thousands of them and just zerg rush your enemies.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
curiousgal 10y ago
I would be more impressed if their opponent were more technically sophisticated. You have people pretending to build a tank on one hand and people with automated robots on the other? Seems a bit overkill and pointless IMHO.
- bostik 10y ago
  In war, there is no such thing as overkill. There may be inconvenient and/or political repercussions - but those can be worked around by further magnifying the power imbalance. (Yes, I'm a cynic.)
- executesorder66 10y ago
  It's unfair, yes. But how is it unimpressive?
  - curiousgal 10y ago
    >more impressed. Of course it's quite impressive! Israel's R&D efforts are nothing short of that.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      What's so impressive, technically, about a four wheel drive moving to a series of waypoints and shooting anything that moves and doesn't squawk friendly? I'm surprised this hasnt been done sooner. Waypoint navigation is a consumer product, and we've had military grade target tracking for ages.
    - pyvpx 10y ago
      > Israel's R&D efforts are also not made in an vacuum. substantial assistance and sharing with the US has certainly accelerated their abilities.
    - executesorder66 10y ago
      Sorry. What I meant was, how is the opposing side's lack of technological innovation relevant to how impressive this is?
andy_ppp 10y ago
This classic scene from Robocop seems apt... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mqDjcGgE5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mqDjcGgE5I
MrLeftHand 10y ago
It looks like we don't have to wait for SkyNET to produce an army of robots and autonomous vehicles with guns. We make them ourselves, against ourselves. Can't wait to see someone hacking these machines and turn them against their former owners.
crdoconnor 10y ago
10 Initiate provocations in Gaza 20 Run live tests on technology 30 Use the proof of real life usage in a low boil conflict to sell the technology at international arms fairs. 40 Use realistic test conditions to refine & develop new technology for 2 years. 50 GOTO 10 This efficient QA/development cycle is a serious competitive advantage, since it's hard for other countries to replicate the same controlled conflict conditions. Hence these great sales figures: https://rwer.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/the-15-largest-arms-exporters-per-capita/ https://rwer.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/the-15-largest-arms-ex... And it's been ~2 years since the last conflict, so...: http://europe.newsweek.com/us-calls-americans-leave-gaza-soon-possible-492974?rm=eu http://europe.newsweek.com/us-calls-americans-leave-gaza-soo...
tim333 10y ago
A potential advantage or military robots is you could make them non or less fatal. In Aleppo type situations robots might be able to taser and arrest people instead of trying to kill them.
nivertech 10y ago
A brainwashed suicide bomber is not much different from an autonomous bio-robot. Indoctrination [1] doesn't let you question or criticize your programming, unlike modified Asimov's Laws [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

49 points by sjreese 10y ago

Not fully automated. These may be autonomously driving, but not autonomously shooting. The article hints that that is technically possible, but also states that it is not implemented.

robzyb 10y ago
> The article hints that that is technically possible, but also states that it is not implemented. bool auto_fire = false; // Don't forget to set to false before deployment
- pki 10y ago
  Prod/staging environments now taken seriously
  - msh 10y ago
    As if...
scandox 10y ago
Can't we just get a kind of programmer's Hippocratic oath going here? Let's just all not facilitate autonomous shooting. I know both sides of the argument. I know it won't prevent it being done. I just mean if enough people agreed not to do it, then we'd at least generate enough disapproval for it not to be the subject of any PR Puff.
- FBT 10y ago
  Isn't it better to have robots fighting and dying than humans? War sucks, and I do wish that we could have world peace. But if war is going to happen, I'd rather it be robots that are the ones in harm's way.
  - brador 10y ago
    What would the robots be fighting for?
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      Power.
  - pindexis 10y ago
    No, it's not better to have robots killing humans!
  - zorked 10y ago
    That's not what's going to happen. One side will have robots, the other will have humans. This is already happening.
    - FBT 10y ago
      That's better than both sides being humans. Seriously. Incremental improvements are worthwhile. In general, militaries never want to comprise their effectiveness. So if given the chance to implement a life-saving intervention that harms their effectiveness, they will be reluctant at best to implement it. But this is a life-saving intervention that possibly even increases their effectiveness! That's what truly makes it awesome. A way to save lives that militaries are not only willing to implement, but rather are actually enthusiastic about implementing.
      - origami777 10y ago
        That's a best case scenario. What it could do is make military intervention an even easier decision. The loss of human life is a deterrent to engaging in war. If one side isn't concerned about that, wouldn't they be more inclined to go to war?
        sharemywin 10y ago
        That would never happen... Drone operators refer to children as “fun-size terrorists” and liken killing them to “cutting the grass before it grows too long,” said one of the operators, Michael Haas, a former senior airman in the Air Force https://theintercept.com/2015/11/19/former-drone-operators-say-they-were-horrified-by-cruelty-of-assassination-program/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/19/former-drone-operators-s...
- arethuza 10y ago
  Weapons that autonomously decide when to explode have existed since WW2 with radar proximity fuses and modern guided weapons can select targets (e.g. "fire and forget" Brimstone missiles). Where do we draw the dividing line?
  - executesorder66 10y ago
    Well in that case the weapons autonomously decided how to inflict maximum damage on the target. Which generally nobody has a problem with. There was still a human that chose the target, and a human that chose to fire on the target.
    - arethuza 10y ago
      Brimstone can select its own targets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile) This kind of ability to pick specific targets has been around for a while - e.g. SADARM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_Destroy_ARMor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_Destroy_ARMor Edit: Of course someone decides to fire these things, but isn't that similar to someone deciding to unleash an autonomous fighting system? Edit2: And what about mines?
      - executesorder66 10y ago
        Those are very good points. I totally agree with you on mines. But I would say that deciding to fire an autonomous missile in a hostile environment is not the same as deciding to unleash an autonomous fighting system. In the first case, a human decides to unleash the autonomous missile once during a single event. Whereas in the second case, you are unleashing a system that decides for itself when to fire for every situation it is placed in. The second system is placed in many kill/no-kill situations and might not have enough discernment to realize that in this one special case the person in front of it is not hostile even though it is in a conflict zone.
        dogma1138 10y ago
wepple 10y ago
yeah, the title is a bit misleading. 'military robots' != 'autonomous vehicle'

erlich 10y ago

I wonder what the cost differential between The Trump Wall, and autonomous vehicle patrols would be. Electric vehicles with solar charging would be very cost-effective as a border security mechanism. Where are all the border security startups? Lots of government cash on the table I would think.

MrLeftHand 10y ago
Well, a wall for start wont shoot you in the face just because you want to cross a border. A wall, doesn't need electricity. The maintenance cost is lower. Can't be hacked. Oh, and you can paint nice big pictures on it.

98Windows 10y ago

The scary thing is once these things get a bit better it'll become cost effective to build thousands of them and just zerg rush your enemies.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

curiousgal 10y ago

I would be more impressed if their opponent were more technically sophisticated. You have people pretending to build a tank on one hand and people with automated robots on the other? Seems a bit overkill and pointless IMHO.

bostik 10y ago
In war, there is no such thing as overkill. There may be inconvenient and/or political repercussions - but those can be worked around by further magnifying the power imbalance. (Yes, I'm a cynic.)
executesorder66 10y ago
It's unfair, yes. But how is it unimpressive?
- curiousgal 10y ago
  >more impressed. Of course it's quite impressive! Israel's R&D efforts are nothing short of that.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    What's so impressive, technically, about a four wheel drive moving to a series of waypoints and shooting anything that moves and doesn't squawk friendly? I'm surprised this hasnt been done sooner. Waypoint navigation is a consumer product, and we've had military grade target tracking for ages.
  - pyvpx 10y ago
    > Israel's R&D efforts are also not made in an vacuum. substantial assistance and sharing with the US has certainly accelerated their abilities.
  - executesorder66 10y ago
    Sorry. What I meant was, how is the opposing side's lack of technological innovation relevant to how impressive this is?

andy_ppp 10y ago

This classic scene from Robocop seems apt... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mqDjcGgE5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mqDjcGgE5I

MrLeftHand 10y ago

It looks like we don't have to wait for SkyNET to produce an army of robots and autonomous vehicles with guns. We make them ourselves, against ourselves. Can't wait to see someone hacking these machines and turn them against their former owners.

crdoconnor 10y ago

10 Initiate provocations in Gaza 20 Run live tests on technology 30 Use the proof of real life usage in a low boil conflict to sell the technology at international arms fairs. 40 Use realistic test conditions to refine & develop new technology for 2 years. 50 GOTO 10 This efficient QA/development cycle is a serious competitive advantage, since it's hard for other countries to replicate the same controlled conflict conditions. Hence these great sales figures: https://rwer.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/the-15-largest-arms-exporters-per-capita/ https://rwer.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/the-15-largest-arms-ex... And it's been ~2 years since the last conflict, so...: http://europe.newsweek.com/us-calls-americans-leave-gaza-soon-possible-492974?rm=eu http://europe.newsweek.com/us-calls-americans-leave-gaza-soo...

tim333 10y ago

A potential advantage or military robots is you could make them non or less fatal. In Aleppo type situations robots might be able to taser and arrest people instead of trying to kill them.

nivertech 10y ago

A brainwashed suicide bomber is not much different from an autonomous bio-robot. Indoctrination [1] doesn't let you question or criticize your programming, unlike modified Asimov's Laws [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics