3 ms·

I've been thinking about warbots lately. I don't think they will be very effective, because as soon as a given model is hacked, sending a pack of robots on a gi

by ph0rque 18y ago

I've been thinking about warbots lately. I don't think they will be very effective, because as soon as a given model is hacked, sending a pack of robots on a given offensive will be equivalent to giving them away to the enemy, assuming the enemy is savvy enough. If the robots are remotely sent instructions, then remote hacking will be possible. If they have the instructions downloaded to a media, then it would be possible to "reboot" the robots with the enemy's software. It wouldn't be trivial, but it would be possible. I think a robust black market will spring up soon after the first robots go on the offensive.

streety 18y ago
The vulnerable part will be the communications. If an enemy can decipher the communication channels then they can send false instructions. Having said this how is it different to the situation today when the soldiers are for the most part human. Would it really be that hard to convince a unit to retreat or to fire artillery on their own frontline troops? As we already occasionally see 'blue-on-blue' incidents I would argue it isn't. The danger with robots would certainly be greater but it is not a new threat.
- ph0rque 18y ago
  True, but it is rather difficult to convince an e.g. blue soldier that he is, in fact, red. Not so with robots, assuming you can reverse engineer their software.
  - streety 18y ago
    I agree that the potential consequences of a breach would be significantly greater with robots than with human soldiers. Most of the wars I'm aware about during the past few decades have been highly asymmetric technologically or have been between technologically limited forces. In the first case the likelihood is that only the more technologically advanced force would utilise robots and would be able to secure them beyond the capabilities of the technologically inferior opposing force to compromise. In the second case neither side is likely to have robots fighting. If this trend holds true for the future then 'warbots' are going to be increasingly used.

by ph0rque 18y ago

streety 18y ago

The vulnerable part will be the communications. If an enemy can decipher the communication channels then they can send false instructions. Having said this how is it different to the situation today when the soldiers are for the most part human. Would it really be that hard to convince a unit to retreat or to fire artillery on their own frontline troops? As we already occasionally see 'blue-on-blue' incidents I would argue it isn't. The danger with robots would certainly be greater but it is not a new threat.

ph0rque 18y ago
True, but it is rather difficult to convince an e.g. blue soldier that he is, in fact, red. Not so with robots, assuming you can reverse engineer their software.
- streety 18y ago
  I agree that the potential consequences of a breach would be significantly greater with robots than with human soldiers. Most of the wars I'm aware about during the past few decades have been highly asymmetric technologically or have been between technologically limited forces. In the first case the likelihood is that only the more technologically advanced force would utilise robots and would be able to secure them beyond the capabilities of the technologically inferior opposing force to compromise. In the second case neither side is likely to have robots fighting. If this trend holds true for the future then 'warbots' are going to be increasingly used.