4 ms·

Terminator has always been one of my favorite movies, and reality has an uncanny way of getting us closer and closer to the fantasy. We justify this new technol

by lmg643 13y ago

Terminator has always been one of my favorite movies, and reality has an uncanny way of getting us closer and closer to the fantasy. We justify this new technology in the same way - "it's for our protection"! Dictators run into trouble when the armies decide they won't attack a local population because, hey, it's their families and friends we're talking about. Robots eliminate that pesky detail. Imagine how a secession crisis, based on, say, widespread spying by the government on its own citizens, might be dealt with today versus fifty years from now. ----- If you were a resident of Afghanistan, the concept of a war against the robots is already a reality. From that perspective, is a fairly minor detail that the robots are currently piloted by people and not computers. And I expect the AI would get effective pretty quickly - I'm sure they will develop some effective way to identify a potential combatant based on either holding a weapon or some body language/temperature cues. This technology might not be field ready right now, but it won't be long. It's reasonable to expect that with some work, it would far exceed human capacity upon a few key dimensions - running speed, targeting ability, carrying armor/defensibility. Just like no human being can outrun even the crappiest car over any reasonable distance.

adamio 13y ago
Isn't this a nuclear weapon vs nuclear power type issue? We'll always have the capacity for evil, I'd expect an international ban on the use of robotic soliders after some period of mass destruction (we'll still have them sitting in a bunker just in case)
- Lambdanaut 13y ago
  I don't think so. I don't see them being as destructive as that. I think by the time they get to a level that's bannable, there will be far greater warfare threats, like millions of inch-long artificially intelligent flying swarm syringes(OF DEATH) filled with arsenic. I think they'll be far more useful as support units.
  - adamio 13y ago
    Good point, These Darpa terminators are just the visible threat, its the classified nano robots that control us from inside that we should fear
    - Lambdanaut 13y ago
      I think you're joking, but what you just said would make a great parody of the nuts over in that other thread that are hypothesizing that the NSA is possibly keeping 5D glass hard drive technology a secret from us.
      - MrBra 13y ago
        classified nanorobot technology is no joke.
        eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        I certainly hope not! They're going to need it when Cyber-Cthulhu gets loose.
- lukifer 13y ago
  The difference is that nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, whereas robotic soldiers can theoretically limit targets only to evildoers (or dissidents, undesirables, etc).
mikegioia 13y ago
I think this all hinges on when or if these things can get produced/maintained for less than or close to the cost of a human soldier. Imagine if these got down to $10,000 to produce. Then it would be cheaper to arm a 1-2MM unit militia of humanoid robots than it would actual human marines.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- shubb 13y ago
  The value of a combat robot is in avoiding casualties rather than cost savings. Casualties lose America wars, because it is a democracy, and it fights without an existential threat. However, I think your numbers for the cost of humans are way low. The US army put the cost to train a soldier at $150'000. In addition, there is pay, and veterans benefits. The US will spend 1.5 trillion on veterans between now and 2022.
- adventured 13y ago
  Human soldiers are exceptionally expensive. You can see that in both traditional foot-soldiers and in other areas like ships and planes, where the costs skyrocket because of needing to design around / for the safety of people first. Robot soldiers will be far less expensive than human soldiers in every respect 50 years from now. A robot soldier can be powered down, and stop consuming resources when not needed (which is most of the time). If you could produce a robot soldier that did what humans do, with a 5 year shelf life, and you could sell it for $400k to $500k, they'd sell like crazy. Just match the 5 year cost of a human soldier, then by removing the human soldier casualty angle it becomes well worth it to a government.
speeder 13y ago
One day my dad spotted me playing Mech Warrior, and asked: "Why bipedal war machines? That is stupid, just push them over and they now are useless." After that, I never figured why someone would build a bipedal war machine, even though I still have my nerdgasms watching all the mecha anime, movies and games... Anyone has a idea of why the hell someone would build a bipedal war machine?
- DanBC 13y ago
  > Anyone has a idea of why the hell someone would build a bipedal war machine? People get confused operating other body-forms, and when strapped into a waldo style remote rig they need something close to human for ease of use?
- incision 13y ago
  >Anyone has a idea of why the hell someone would build a bipedal war machine? Off the top of my head... 1.) I'd have think there's something to bipedal locomotion considering the evolutionary success it has had. 2.) We're bipedal. As long as pilots we'd recognize as human are involved, having an analog to the kind of movement they've necessarily trained a lifetime for seems sensible.
  - NegativeK 13y ago
    What are you using to define evolutionary success? Most pedal species aren't bipedal, and the more populous species don't even have legs.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Evolution does not necessarily always find the best solution. It can get stuck in local optima: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_living_systems#Evolutionary_constraints http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_living_s...
- krapp 13y ago
  That is stupid, just push them over and they now are useless. That depends entirely on whether said machines can right themselves after being tipped over. But, the way I see it, human cities and human technology are made for our bipedal forms, two legs and hands with five fingers and such. Having a robot match that form makes it easier to exploit urban terrain and implements in the environment. I mean, which would you theoretically rather have, a robot that is a vehicle, or a robot that can operate any vehicle it comes across?

by lmg643 13y ago

adamio 13y ago

Isn't this a nuclear weapon vs nuclear power type issue? We'll always have the capacity for evil, I'd expect an international ban on the use of robotic soliders after some period of mass destruction (we'll still have them sitting in a bunker just in case)

Lambdanaut 13y ago
I don't think so. I don't see them being as destructive as that. I think by the time they get to a level that's bannable, there will be far greater warfare threats, like millions of inch-long artificially intelligent flying swarm syringes(OF DEATH) filled with arsenic. I think they'll be far more useful as support units.
- adamio 13y ago
  Good point, These Darpa terminators are just the visible threat, its the classified nano robots that control us from inside that we should fear
  - Lambdanaut 13y ago
    I think you're joking, but what you just said would make a great parody of the nuts over in that other thread that are hypothesizing that the NSA is possibly keeping 5D glass hard drive technology a secret from us.
    - MrBra 13y ago
      classified nanorobot technology is no joke.
      - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        I certainly hope not! They're going to need it when Cyber-Cthulhu gets loose.
lukifer 13y ago
The difference is that nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, whereas robotic soldiers can theoretically limit targets only to evildoers (or dissidents, undesirables, etc).

mikegioia 13y ago

I think this all hinges on when or if these things can get produced/maintained for less than or close to the cost of a human soldier. Imagine if these got down to $10,000 to produce. Then it would be cheaper to arm a 1-2MM unit militia of humanoid robots than it would actual human marines.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
shubb 13y ago
The value of a combat robot is in avoiding casualties rather than cost savings. Casualties lose America wars, because it is a democracy, and it fights without an existential threat. However, I think your numbers for the cost of humans are way low. The US army put the cost to train a soldier at $150'000. In addition, there is pay, and veterans benefits. The US will spend 1.5 trillion on veterans between now and 2022.
adventured 13y ago
Human soldiers are exceptionally expensive. You can see that in both traditional foot-soldiers and in other areas like ships and planes, where the costs skyrocket because of needing to design around / for the safety of people first. Robot soldiers will be far less expensive than human soldiers in every respect 50 years from now. A robot soldier can be powered down, and stop consuming resources when not needed (which is most of the time). If you could produce a robot soldier that did what humans do, with a 5 year shelf life, and you could sell it for $400k to $500k, they'd sell like crazy. Just match the 5 year cost of a human soldier, then by removing the human soldier casualty angle it becomes well worth it to a government.

speeder 13y ago

One day my dad spotted me playing Mech Warrior, and asked: "Why bipedal war machines? That is stupid, just push them over and they now are useless." After that, I never figured why someone would build a bipedal war machine, even though I still have my nerdgasms watching all the mecha anime, movies and games... Anyone has a idea of why the hell someone would build a bipedal war machine?

DanBC 13y ago
> Anyone has a idea of why the hell someone would build a bipedal war machine? People get confused operating other body-forms, and when strapped into a waldo style remote rig they need something close to human for ease of use?
incision 13y ago
>Anyone has a idea of why the hell someone would build a bipedal war machine? Off the top of my head... 1.) I'd have think there's something to bipedal locomotion considering the evolutionary success it has had. 2.) We're bipedal. As long as pilots we'd recognize as human are involved, having an analog to the kind of movement they've necessarily trained a lifetime for seems sensible.
- NegativeK 13y ago
  What are you using to define evolutionary success? Most pedal species aren't bipedal, and the more populous species don't even have legs.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Evolution does not necessarily always find the best solution. It can get stuck in local optima: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_living_systems#Evolutionary_constraints http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_living_s...
krapp 13y ago
That is stupid, just push them over and they now are useless. That depends entirely on whether said machines can right themselves after being tipped over. But, the way I see it, human cities and human technology are made for our bipedal forms, two legs and hands with five fingers and such. Having a robot match that form makes it easier to exploit urban terrain and implements in the environment. I mean, which would you theoretically rather have, a robot that is a vehicle, or a robot that can operate any vehicle it comes across?