4 ms·

> sentient robots Stopped reading there. There may be some kernel of truth in there, but trying to get it from a writer with literally zero integrity is pointl

> sentient robots Stopped reading there. There may be some kernel of truth in there, but trying to get it from a writer with literally zero integrity is pointless.

jacquesm 12y ago
That appears to be a quote from a UN conference. Besides that, the article makes a couple of pretty good points. If you label every writer that ever made an error in their writings (or quotations) as having 'literally zero integrity' and then you stop reading because further consumption is pointless you'll throw out a lot of good with the bad. For instance, I wasn't aware of the Russian Robotic Warfare program mentioned in the link gleaned from the article.
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  It is not a quote. In fact it is almost the opposite. It is a sentence fragment the author tagged to the end of an actual quote; the result being, as you demonstrate, that there will be some people who believe that was actually discussed. It is an embellishment which nobody who had done any diligent research on the matter could have come up with. Thus the entirety of the article is suspect, and the flowery writing style does not help in extracting what might be the actual facts.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
oldmanjay 12y ago
Well they led the article with a picture of a terminator. You pretty much have to expect an agenda with a cultural cue like that.
- dm2 12y ago
  Is the real life version less scary? http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/dec/images/640_darpa-atlas.jpg http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/dec/images/640_darpa-atlas... You wouldn't really be able to track a mobile robot with sophisticated evasion skills. It could popup randomly, kill with unmatched precision, then disappear. An army of these robots would be nearly unstoppable. Several robots are being armed these days, with grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and both light and heavy machine guns (as seen on the guard sentries in the article) https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/maars/ https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/maars/ The only real limitation to current robots is the power-source / batteries. Right now we have to either strap a gasoline engine on it, tether it, or create it so that it's efficient enough to run off of existing batteries, which greatly limits their abilities.
  - oldmanjay 12y ago
    Well you kinda already incorporated my reply into your post, yes, the real life version is much less scary, because it doesn't actually exist yet. Obviously it's coming, I won't dispute that, but scare tactics don't make for a reasonable discussion, even when the person using them is absolutely sure they're doing the right thing.
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      >Obviously it's coming, I won't dispute that, but scare tactics don't make for a reasonable discussion, even when the person using them is absolutely sure they're doing the right thing. Seems that if you can see all of that, then you might be able to ignore the bits you don't like and discuss the topic on its merits. It would be much more interesting to read your thoughts on, say, the technology, morality, etc. This, rather than a critique of the author's writing style.
  - JVIDEL 12y ago
    The only real limitation to current robots is the power-source / batteries I doubt it, military standards demand a level of reliability most robots today can't keep up with. Faulty engines, backup systems that can't handle most situations, comms problems that end with crashed drones most of the time, etc... A soldier can compensate for a faulty rifle doing repairs on the field, and pilots have gone as far as landing a plane with only one wing (F-15, google it) something robots can't do and wont be able for a long time.
dm2 12y ago
Current anti-aircraft/anti-missile/anti-mortar systems are already partially "sentient", they can see/heart/detect potential threats and respond appropriately (a human is usually required to press the "ok to fire" button but it's not necessary at all). The article might not be very good, but this topic does need to be discussed publicly.

> sentient robots Stopped reading there. There may be some kernel of truth in there, but trying to get it from a writer with literally zero integrity is pointless.

jacquesm 12y ago

That appears to be a quote from a UN conference. Besides that, the article makes a couple of pretty good points. If you label every writer that ever made an error in their writings (or quotations) as having 'literally zero integrity' and then you stop reading because further consumption is pointless you'll throw out a lot of good with the bad. For instance, I wasn't aware of the Russian Robotic Warfare program mentioned in the link gleaned from the article.

Mithaldu 12y ago
It is not a quote. In fact it is almost the opposite. It is a sentence fragment the author tagged to the end of an actual quote; the result being, as you demonstrate, that there will be some people who believe that was actually discussed. It is an embellishment which nobody who had done any diligent research on the matter could have come up with. Thus the entirety of the article is suspect, and the flowery writing style does not help in extracting what might be the actual facts.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

oldmanjay 12y ago

Well they led the article with a picture of a terminator. You pretty much have to expect an agenda with a cultural cue like that.

dm2 12y ago
Is the real life version less scary? http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/dec/images/640_darpa-atlas.jpg http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/dec/images/640_darpa-atlas... You wouldn't really be able to track a mobile robot with sophisticated evasion skills. It could popup randomly, kill with unmatched precision, then disappear. An army of these robots would be nearly unstoppable. Several robots are being armed these days, with grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and both light and heavy machine guns (as seen on the guard sentries in the article) https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/maars/ https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/maars/ The only real limitation to current robots is the power-source / batteries. Right now we have to either strap a gasoline engine on it, tether it, or create it so that it's efficient enough to run off of existing batteries, which greatly limits their abilities.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  Well you kinda already incorporated my reply into your post, yes, the real life version is much less scary, because it doesn't actually exist yet. Obviously it's coming, I won't dispute that, but scare tactics don't make for a reasonable discussion, even when the person using them is absolutely sure they're doing the right thing.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    >Obviously it's coming, I won't dispute that, but scare tactics don't make for a reasonable discussion, even when the person using them is absolutely sure they're doing the right thing. Seems that if you can see all of that, then you might be able to ignore the bits you don't like and discuss the topic on its merits. It would be much more interesting to read your thoughts on, say, the technology, morality, etc. This, rather than a critique of the author's writing style.
- JVIDEL 12y ago
  The only real limitation to current robots is the power-source / batteries I doubt it, military standards demand a level of reliability most robots today can't keep up with. Faulty engines, backup systems that can't handle most situations, comms problems that end with crashed drones most of the time, etc... A soldier can compensate for a faulty rifle doing repairs on the field, and pilots have gone as far as landing a plane with only one wing (F-15, google it) something robots can't do and wont be able for a long time.

dm2 12y ago

Current anti-aircraft/anti-missile/anti-mortar systems are already partially "sentient", they can see/heart/detect potential threats and respond appropriately (a human is usually required to press the "ok to fire" button but it's not necessary at all). The article might not be very good, but this topic does need to be discussed publicly.