4 ms·

From the report[0] itself: >There is no need to solve the long-term AI problem of general intelligence in order to build high-value applications that exploit l

by rl3 10y ago

From the report[0] itself: >There is no need to solve the long-term AI problem of general intelligence in order to build high-value applications that exploit limited-scope autonomous capabilities dedicated to specific purposes. I'd argue that statement is inclusive of robotic infantry. We already have self-driving cars, so the prospect is not that far-fetched. [0] http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/DSBSS15.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/DSBSS15.pdf

cm2187 10y ago
If you are fighting an army in uniforms, your targets have like bull eyes painted on them. But if you look at all the modern conflicts since the viet nam war, how do you tell the difference between a viet peasant and a viet cong, between an afghan villager and a taliban, between a kurd fighter and an ISIS fighter? I doubt we are that close. Recognizing road signs and making judgement calls on the above are not the same order of magnitude of complexity. Remotely controlled infantry, that would be more realistic.
- tim333 10y ago
  Humans have problems telling afghan villagers and taliban apart too. AI may be able to better in some ways. See FindFace for example. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/17/findface-face-recognition-app-end-public-anonymity-vkontakte https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/17/findface-...
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    I hope you do realise the two are not mutually exclusive at all? (Disclaimer: Fuck the US for all the bs that is going down in the world thanks to it)
- dvh 10y ago
  If you shoot and they run they are enemies. If they don't run they are well trained enemies.
  - kctess5 10y ago
    Is this sarcastic, or are you actually implying that most people would not run away from someone firing a weapon?
    - brobinson 10y ago
      It's a reference to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpvTPhyLSNY#t=48s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpvTPhyLSNY#t=48s
      - kctess5 10y ago
        Ah that makes more sense. Thanks for the link!
- rl3 10y ago
  >Recognizing road signs and making judgement calls on the above are not the same order of magnitude of complexity. On the contrary, self-driving vehicles go far beyond merely "recognizing road signs", and must make life and death judgement calls themselves. Recognizing a person holding a weapon is already in the realm of current machine vision capability. In an environment where robotic infantry is deployed, it's not a stretch to imagine friendly forces possessing equipment to facilitate friend/foe identification. Moreover, robotic infantry doesn't necessarily have to be lethal in the first place.
  - cm2187 10y ago
    Everyone and their grand mother owns a Kalashnikov in Afghanistan.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Thus everyone is a combatant there. The AI for killer drones can be literally "if it has two legs and moves, shoot it".
- serf 10y ago
  Well, depending on how hot the area is, just shoot anyone (automatically) that doesn't have some sort of IFF-like beacon on their uniforms. (please no one do this.)
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > (please no one do this.) It's already being done, minus the IFF beacon. Just being in the general vicinity of some other person is enough to get murdered, no need for 'friendlies' (what a term) to go there at all.
  - gaius 10y ago
    Humans can do that perfectly well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_in...
- lawless123 10y ago
  If one of these peasants to taking shots at your robots, and only your robots, is ethical to kill them when no actual human is immediately threatened ?
  - omginternets 10y ago
    Is it ethical to keep human soldiers on the battlefield in order to have a pretext to return fire? These are some interesting questions, I have to admit.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Armed conflict is the ultimate rejection of rules societies normally impose on themselves. When two otherwise evenly matched armies fight each other, one following some arbitrary, self-imposed rules and the other one ignoring them, the latter will have a tactical advantage. Or to change your question - is it ethical to use civilians to maneuver around the killer robots who do not shoot at non-combatants? No, it's not, but it doesn't matter - because if your robots have such limitation, your opponent will surely exploit it to defeat you.
      - omginternets 10y ago
        >Armed conflict is the ultimate rejection of rules societies normally impose on themselves. This is begging the question. The fact that some conflicts are waged with ROE shows that they're still self-imposed rule in at least some wars.
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
        My point is that ROE are applied only by the side that feels very much sure of its power and ability to win the conflict. When you fight for your very survival, all rules go down the drain.
        omginternets 10y ago
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  > how do you tell the difference between a viet peasant and a viet cong Hasn't that question been answered already, over and over again? You don't, not really. Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11685995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11685995

by rl3 10y ago

cm2187 10y ago

If you are fighting an army in uniforms, your targets have like bull eyes painted on them. But if you look at all the modern conflicts since the viet nam war, how do you tell the difference between a viet peasant and a viet cong, between an afghan villager and a taliban, between a kurd fighter and an ISIS fighter? I doubt we are that close. Recognizing road signs and making judgement calls on the above are not the same order of magnitude of complexity. Remotely controlled infantry, that would be more realistic.

tim333 10y ago
Humans have problems telling afghan villagers and taliban apart too. AI may be able to better in some ways. See FindFace for example. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/17/findface-face-recognition-app-end-public-anonymity-vkontakte https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/17/findface-...
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  I hope you do realise the two are not mutually exclusive at all? (Disclaimer: Fuck the US for all the bs that is going down in the world thanks to it)
dvh 10y ago
If you shoot and they run they are enemies. If they don't run they are well trained enemies.
- kctess5 10y ago
  Is this sarcastic, or are you actually implying that most people would not run away from someone firing a weapon?
  - brobinson 10y ago
    It's a reference to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpvTPhyLSNY#t=48s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpvTPhyLSNY#t=48s
    - kctess5 10y ago
      Ah that makes more sense. Thanks for the link!
rl3 10y ago
>Recognizing road signs and making judgement calls on the above are not the same order of magnitude of complexity. On the contrary, self-driving vehicles go far beyond merely "recognizing road signs", and must make life and death judgement calls themselves. Recognizing a person holding a weapon is already in the realm of current machine vision capability. In an environment where robotic infantry is deployed, it's not a stretch to imagine friendly forces possessing equipment to facilitate friend/foe identification. Moreover, robotic infantry doesn't necessarily have to be lethal in the first place.
- cm2187 10y ago
  Everyone and their grand mother owns a Kalashnikov in Afghanistan.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Thus everyone is a combatant there. The AI for killer drones can be literally "if it has two legs and moves, shoot it".
serf 10y ago
Well, depending on how hot the area is, just shoot anyone (automatically) that doesn't have some sort of IFF-like beacon on their uniforms. (please no one do this.)
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > (please no one do this.) It's already being done, minus the IFF beacon. Just being in the general vicinity of some other person is enough to get murdered, no need for 'friendlies' (what a term) to go there at all.
- gaius 10y ago
  Humans can do that perfectly well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_in...
lawless123 10y ago
If one of these peasants to taking shots at your robots, and only your robots, is ethical to kill them when no actual human is immediately threatened ?
- omginternets 10y ago
  Is it ethical to keep human soldiers on the battlefield in order to have a pretext to return fire? These are some interesting questions, I have to admit.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Armed conflict is the ultimate rejection of rules societies normally impose on themselves. When two otherwise evenly matched armies fight each other, one following some arbitrary, self-imposed rules and the other one ignoring them, the latter will have a tactical advantage. Or to change your question - is it ethical to use civilians to maneuver around the killer robots who do not shoot at non-combatants? No, it's not, but it doesn't matter - because if your robots have such limitation, your opponent will surely exploit it to defeat you.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      >Armed conflict is the ultimate rejection of rules societies normally impose on themselves. This is begging the question. The fact that some conflicts are waged with ROE shows that they're still self-imposed rule in at least some wars.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        My point is that ROE are applied only by the side that feels very much sure of its power and ability to win the conflict. When you fight for your very survival, all rules go down the drain.
        omginternets 10y ago
PavlovsCat 10y ago
> how do you tell the difference between a viet peasant and a viet cong Hasn't that question been answered already, over and over again? You don't, not really. Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11685995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11685995