9 ms·

It’s all very cool looking. However when I watched this video my first thought was “my god they’re going to bring the drone wars to the ground.” I am a robotic

It’s all very cool looking. However when I watched this video my first thought was “my god they’re going to bring the drone wars to the ground.” I am a robotics engineer and have been focused on robotics my whole life. I worked at Google X on a robotics team with some great ex-Boston Dynamics people, and some of my friends have since gone to work for them. So I do understand what they have achieved. It’s fantastic from a technological perspective. And I know they have non military funders now. There’s a great many labor applications for machines like this if they can sell them for under half a million dollars and get them to do real work. I understand all that. But I fear that if the US military orders some, the company would happily oblige. Maybe they’ve committed to only peaceful non military use. But these extremely agile and capable machines to me seem like some military strategists dream come true. So when I watch all of this achievement from a company that for so long survived off of military funding, I am deeply saddened by the implications. Delivery robots and warehouse workers would be great. But these seem like in ten or 20 years time they’ll be another extension of the US global killing machine. I dream of a world where we can use robotics to make the world better, and the potential military use here leaves me uneasy. I cannot celebrate what I fear will be the dawn of ever more inhuman military conflict.

fermienrico 6y ago
It's weird to pick one point in the abstraction chain of human technological progress and create a threshold of unethical behavior. Technological progress will gaurantee this scenario of military use. If not BD, it will be another company. If not now, it will. If not the US, it will be someone else - China, Russia, etc. I don't see anypoint in feeling sad about just some geeks making robots as much as we didn't become sad when we saw the transistor being invented. The future is in our hands and tech has always been at the center of military warfare. Focus should be on government policy, electing good leaders and engaging in diplomacy over warfare.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  I think it’s important to talk about the concerns related to military robots well before they reach deployment so the public is primed to criticize leaders who would claim their use will be justified. When should we talk about it if not on the release of amazing new capabilities sure to catch the eye of military officials?
- atmosx 6y ago
  “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.“ - J. Robert Oppenheimer
- kristopolous 6y ago
  ah the " If not us, it will be someone else " argument. Let's replace that with other things to show how incorrect this logic is. "If we don't enslave these people, someone else will" "If we don't bomb these schools, by golly, someone else will!" The potential hypothetical existence of others acting immorally simply isn't a valid ethical argument to act immorally. In the same way the response is "how about if instead nobody bombs the hospital" the response here is "how about if instead nobody builds armies of killer robots" "no death cyborgs" sounds like a pretty easy ask for humanity. This should be well within reach.
  - fermienrico 6y ago
    That’s not even a remotely close analogy, no offense meant. Robots can be used for many good purposes. Intel makes processors, they can be riding on a missile or used on a CT Scan. Bombing schools is only horrific, how do you come up with this? I kind of wish we would just enjoy this stupid video of robots dancing. It’s getting tiring to fend off AI-doomsday crowd.
    - kristopolous 6y ago
      The statement I responded to specifically focused on military application "Technological progress will gaurantee this scenario of >> military use << . If not BD, it will be another company. If not now, it will. >> If not the US, it will be someone else << " This argument is "Technological progress will (always) lead to military use. If not us, it will be someone else" or: "The future is guaranteed to be full of war because of decisions made by humans that they somehow have no agency over. Because of this false premise, we need to be eagerly building weapons as fast as possible" It's a classic argument and it stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever. So instead the standard response is to generalize it through a deflection: "this is just general forward motion progress" which is exactly what happened. That's not the point. It's the idea that the fundamental inescapable nature of humans is to be as violent and brutal as possible - which is not true - it's a choice, an act of agency, a matter of policy, it's a decision that is freely made. Just getting to that simple realization, that barbaric brutal self-destruction takes choices, planning and intentional action that we can simply just choose not to do, would be a groundbreaking epiphany to most. I'm pretty confident I'm going to die without murdering anyone, just like almost every human ever. It's not natural in the slightest.
newsbinator 6y ago
This was my first thought as well. Watching them dance, I was thinking, non-jokingly “if they can do this now, what happens when these robots are dancing faster than the human eye can see?”
- nopzor 6y ago
  The Rat Thing has stopped. Which they never do. It's part of their mystery that you never get to see them, they move so fast. No one knows what they look like.
  - howlgarnish 6y ago
    (Snow Crash, by Neil Stephenson)
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  What happens if the robots can dance faster than human eye can see and can see your eyes in detail? Invisible robots - exploiting saccades to move around unnoticed. See also: Blindsight, by Peter Watts.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  Makes me think of scaling-up the techniques in this old video on a larger platform: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk
pjc50 6y ago
I was under the impression that the military were the main funders and intended clients; the robo mule in particular for offloading some of the increasingly heavy tech and supplies for infantry. What happens in 20+ years when surplus ones are handed out like MRAPs to careless police departments?
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  The military has been the main funder, but as of late they've been purchased by non-military groups and have suggested their products will have use in warehousing and package delivery. I am being optimistic to hope they wouldn't see military use, but I think it'd worth discussing in any case. > What happens in 20+ years when surplus ones are handed out like MRAPs to careless police departments? Good question indeed.
atmosx 6y ago
I don’t have anything to do with robotics and this was my first thought: fear. I am afraid these will be deployed as war machines to kill people instead of being deployed to save people. I wish to be wrong.

fermienrico 6y ago

It's weird to pick one point in the abstraction chain of human technological progress and create a threshold of unethical behavior. Technological progress will gaurantee this scenario of military use. If not BD, it will be another company. If not now, it will. If not the US, it will be someone else - China, Russia, etc. I don't see anypoint in feeling sad about just some geeks making robots as much as we didn't become sad when we saw the transistor being invented. The future is in our hands and tech has always been at the center of military warfare. Focus should be on government policy, electing good leaders and engaging in diplomacy over warfare.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
I think it’s important to talk about the concerns related to military robots well before they reach deployment so the public is primed to criticize leaders who would claim their use will be justified. When should we talk about it if not on the release of amazing new capabilities sure to catch the eye of military officials?
atmosx 6y ago
“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.“ - J. Robert Oppenheimer
kristopolous 6y ago
ah the " If not us, it will be someone else " argument. Let's replace that with other things to show how incorrect this logic is. "If we don't enslave these people, someone else will" "If we don't bomb these schools, by golly, someone else will!" The potential hypothetical existence of others acting immorally simply isn't a valid ethical argument to act immorally. In the same way the response is "how about if instead nobody bombs the hospital" the response here is "how about if instead nobody builds armies of killer robots" "no death cyborgs" sounds like a pretty easy ask for humanity. This should be well within reach.
- fermienrico 6y ago
  That’s not even a remotely close analogy, no offense meant. Robots can be used for many good purposes. Intel makes processors, they can be riding on a missile or used on a CT Scan. Bombing schools is only horrific, how do you come up with this? I kind of wish we would just enjoy this stupid video of robots dancing. It’s getting tiring to fend off AI-doomsday crowd.
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    The statement I responded to specifically focused on military application "Technological progress will gaurantee this scenario of >> military use << . If not BD, it will be another company. If not now, it will. >> If not the US, it will be someone else << " This argument is "Technological progress will (always) lead to military use. If not us, it will be someone else" or: "The future is guaranteed to be full of war because of decisions made by humans that they somehow have no agency over. Because of this false premise, we need to be eagerly building weapons as fast as possible" It's a classic argument and it stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever. So instead the standard response is to generalize it through a deflection: "this is just general forward motion progress" which is exactly what happened. That's not the point. It's the idea that the fundamental inescapable nature of humans is to be as violent and brutal as possible - which is not true - it's a choice, an act of agency, a matter of policy, it's a decision that is freely made. Just getting to that simple realization, that barbaric brutal self-destruction takes choices, planning and intentional action that we can simply just choose not to do, would be a groundbreaking epiphany to most. I'm pretty confident I'm going to die without murdering anyone, just like almost every human ever. It's not natural in the slightest.

newsbinator 6y ago

This was my first thought as well. Watching them dance, I was thinking, non-jokingly “if they can do this now, what happens when these robots are dancing faster than the human eye can see?”

nopzor 6y ago
The Rat Thing has stopped. Which they never do. It's part of their mystery that you never get to see them, they move so fast. No one knows what they look like.
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  (Snow Crash, by Neil Stephenson)
TeMPOraL 6y ago
What happens if the robots can dance faster than human eye can see and can see your eyes in detail? Invisible robots - exploiting saccades to move around unnoticed. See also: Blindsight, by Peter Watts.
EvanAnderson 6y ago
Makes me think of scaling-up the techniques in this old video on a larger platform: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk

pjc50 6y ago

I was under the impression that the military were the main funders and intended clients; the robo mule in particular for offloading some of the increasingly heavy tech and supplies for infantry. What happens in 20+ years when surplus ones are handed out like MRAPs to careless police departments?

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
The military has been the main funder, but as of late they've been purchased by non-military groups and have suggested their products will have use in warehousing and package delivery. I am being optimistic to hope they wouldn't see military use, but I think it'd worth discussing in any case. > What happens in 20+ years when surplus ones are handed out like MRAPs to careless police departments? Good question indeed.

atmosx 6y ago

I don’t have anything to do with robotics and this was my first thought: fear. I am afraid these will be deployed as war machines to kill people instead of being deployed to save people. I wish to be wrong.