6 ms·

This article doesn't mention the larger gameplan wrt google and military robots, which to me is the real story. In earlier coverage we were told Google would n

This article doesn't mention the larger gameplan wrt google and military robots, which to me is the real story. In earlier coverage we were told Google would not be a military contractor, but: "Since Google has committed to honoring existing robotics contracts, including Boston Dynamics’ $10.8M deal to build and maintain Atlas robots for the DRC (four of which are guaranteed a spot in the finals), its presence will still be felt at the competition" -- http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/zero-moment/google-rumored-be-pulling-its-team-darpa-robotics-challenge http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/zero-moment/google-rumore... Really hoping this remains true. Deepmind + Boston Dynamics + ITA is not something I'd like to see providing military tech around the world.

wahsd 12y ago
Don't worry, it will happen. Just like how we developed ABC weapons and it took the world wars for us to realize that we are insane and have to try to take our meds and calm the hell down; so will we have to go through a phase of robotic warfare, which hopefully does not end up like the Terminator story line, before we realize that we're kind of stupid and need to knock it the hell off for a while.
- 3JPLW 12y ago
  Since it strangely difficult to look up, I'll leave this here for reference: The acronym ABC stands for Atomic, Biological and Chemical. It's a cold-war term that has since been updated twice — first to NBC (nuclear), and then to CBRN (adding radiological). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense
  - bane 12y ago
    and now CBRNE (explosives)
    - Retric 12y ago
      <sarcasm> Soon to be CBRNEP (pointy) Because clearly explosives or pointy sticks are just as bad as nuclear or biological weapons. </sarcasm> PS: I thougt about saying heavy or fast, but that can still be scary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
      - BenTheElder 12y ago
        What about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs
        Retric 12y ago
        A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs is less dangerous than you might think. Lots of energy sure but it’s poorly directed and there is no poison afterward. Cluster bombs’ are generally a bigger threat vs people. (ex: football stadium) Bunker busters are more useful vs. hardened structures. (Command center) I have heard a suggestion that the world trade center would have likely survived a hit from a Father of all Bombs. Though the building would likely need to be condemned afterward. PS: Aparently they are vary useful for cave systems though.
    - s_q_b 12y ago
      Orginally Weapons of Mass Destruction was specifically defined under US and International law (by treaty) as NBC Weapons only (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical.) Gradually, the definition has become a bit wobbly, with some attempting to include any weapon that could be used in a terror attack (domestic law enforcement) and those seeking to include portions of their enemies arsenals (e.g. SCUD missiles) under the term WMD. "In the Butler Review, the official UK report on intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the definition of WMDs included Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities. Thankfully the term WMD has fallen out of favor, but the point the Butler Review makes clear is that it is an inherently Orwellian term. Its Orwellian not in the sense of dystopian, but rather that it is a deliberately ambiguous term used to obfuscate the underlying reality. It is the politician's version of "hook up." Completely descriptive while so ambiguous that it could be describing anything at all. Creating terms like WMD, CBRNE, NBC, only serves to undermine the underlying weapon. Like most people, I believe ordinary explosive ordinance deserves far less attention than rogue nuclear weapons.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >before we realize that we're kind of stupid and need to knock it the hell off for a while. There's nothing stupid about mechanized warfare. Why waste soldiers when cheap robotic soldiers are feasible? If anything, its just a natural advancement of warfare. If we don't do it, the Chinese and Russians will and that will give them an advantage over the democratic nations of the world, and as we have seen both nations are either in the middle of annexations or seem to be planning more. The real question, to me, is why are we bothering with the human form-factor? A insect-like robot or something with wheels or tank treads would outperform legs. Ideally, a robot soldier should be able to move in a way that outperforms people easily. A bit like how the robots in Elysium are so much stronger and faster than humans.
  - adventured 12y ago
    What's the best form factor to be able to go up stairs, or places humans typically go, and to then recover a body from a building or similar? That seems like it would be legs + arms in some arrangement. Powerful wheels could perhaps get you up the stairs (arms + legs can scale and climb, wheels don't do so well there), but legs can fold, and a robot could in theory fold its legs to a significantly smaller size to fit through various spaces. You can't fold large'ish wheels very well without completely disassembling the structure.
    - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
      Probably a spider-like robot, with 8 arms/legs would be the ideal. I could also see a dog-like robot with four legs which give twice the traction with a low center of gravity as well. Or novel designs, like what we saw in the Interstellar movie.
  - bengali3 12y ago
    >why are we bothering with the human form-factor? it's a human world. doorways, windows, cars, sidewalks, elevators > A insect-like robot or something with wheels or tank treads would outperform legs task specific robots will exist and outperform for the predetermined task, but the focus is on replacing humans and being able to complete human tasks, whatever the future task may be. open doors designed for a human? open a window like a human? climb a tree like a human? Check the mailbox like a human? burn a grilled cheese like a human? Do ______ like a human? rather than build for a task, build to match the form that we know can complete these tasks, and viola! you've replaced the need for a human without designing for and testing all tasks that could ever be requested of it
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  It isn't clear how this ends, though. Robots are going to enable a lot of anti-social behaviours that were previously limited by personal risk during the execution and the odds of getting caught. People tend to worry about "robot armies" because we aren't very good at imagining the future, and I'm sure we'll see those. We already are in terms of drones. But a much bigger issue as costs drop and availability increases is going to be freelancers. This is going to be particularly problematic because robots, like computers, are going to be too useful to limit very much in civilian applications. Any dangerous, unpleasant, ugly job is going to have a robot for that. Including assassination and robbing banks. Although there will also be robot security guards to counter such activities. Nor do robots on the battlefield have any of the issues that limited CBN (Chemical/Biological/Nuclear... which is the way I learned it) weapons. None of those are enormously useful in actual combat. Chemical and biological weapons are difficult to control and deploy, and the "Davy Crockett Nuclear Rifle" aside, nuclear weapons are difficult to use for anything other than killing cities, which is rarely a strategically or tactically good thing to do. I'm not saying they're useless, merely that they aren't the be-all-end-all. Military robots, though, pretty much are. There is every reason to expect that they will be used very widely, just like drones. Once upon a time drones were surveillance only. Now it's routine to weaponize them. Soon enough it'll be routine to send them out on autonomous interdiction missions: the economic temptation is just too high. Why send troops to cut off an area when you can have a 24/7 patrol of small, cheap drones that'll kill anything larger than a rabbit that tries to cross a virtual Maginot Line? I'm not saying we shouldn't do any of this--robots are too useful to not develop. I am saying that the robot apocalypse, when it comes, will look a lot weirder than our 20th century fantasies.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    This is significantly overhyped. Terrorists can already do huge amounts of data anonymously. E.g. putting bombs in the mail, dumping poison in the water supply, etc. And the vast majority of bank robbers are not that well planned or organized. Plus you can just turn on a cellphone jammer and protect the entire area from robots.
  - mc32 12y ago
    Once perfected I can see the going into firefighting and policing duties. For the most part,aside from employment issues, this will result in positives -fewer people hurt fighting fires, more people rescued from previously inaccessible places and robots can brute force people into arrest while being shot at -without having to shoot back or pre-emptively --again to people's benefit
melling 12y ago
Google should just try to build soccer playing robots. That would allay people's fears. After they're perfected then they can be weaponized by anyone. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time with the military paying for the R&D. They've got the money and desire. The research is going to be done directly or indirectly.
bengali3 12y ago
ITA? I know of them being air travel software acquired by google - can you elaborate?
- mooneater 12y ago
  ITA were world leaders in path planning systems. Yes for air travel originally, but IMO deep expertise in that area should inform path planning for autonomous robots. Its been years since acquisition, no doubt they've had time to generalize and extend.
sabalaba 12y ago
Conducting warfare with autonomous robots seems preferable to having human soldiers on the front lines. Technology like this will not only reduce costs but more importantly reduce the number of human lives lost in war.
- mooneater 12y ago
  If it drives down the financial and human costs of war (at least in terms of rich country soldiers lost), why should we not expect more war as a result?
laxatives 12y ago
Conversely see https://www.google.com/ideas/projects/ https://www.google.com/ideas/projects/ Not exactly military tech, but clearly defense related.

wahsd 12y ago

Don't worry, it will happen. Just like how we developed ABC weapons and it took the world wars for us to realize that we are insane and have to try to take our meds and calm the hell down; so will we have to go through a phase of robotic warfare, which hopefully does not end up like the Terminator story line, before we realize that we're kind of stupid and need to knock it the hell off for a while.

3JPLW 12y ago
Since it strangely difficult to look up, I'll leave this here for reference: The acronym ABC stands for Atomic, Biological and Chemical. It's a cold-war term that has since been updated twice — first to NBC (nuclear), and then to CBRN (adding radiological). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense
- bane 12y ago
  and now CBRNE (explosives)
  - Retric 12y ago
    <sarcasm> Soon to be CBRNEP (pointy) Because clearly explosives or pointy sticks are just as bad as nuclear or biological weapons. </sarcasm> PS: I thougt about saying heavy or fast, but that can still be scary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
    - BenTheElder 12y ago
      What about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs
      - Retric 12y ago
        A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs is less dangerous than you might think. Lots of energy sure but it’s poorly directed and there is no poison afterward. Cluster bombs’ are generally a bigger threat vs people. (ex: football stadium) Bunker busters are more useful vs. hardened structures. (Command center) I have heard a suggestion that the world trade center would have likely survived a hit from a Father of all Bombs. Though the building would likely need to be condemned afterward. PS: Aparently they are vary useful for cave systems though.
  - s_q_b 12y ago
    Orginally Weapons of Mass Destruction was specifically defined under US and International law (by treaty) as NBC Weapons only (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical.) Gradually, the definition has become a bit wobbly, with some attempting to include any weapon that could be used in a terror attack (domestic law enforcement) and those seeking to include portions of their enemies arsenals (e.g. SCUD missiles) under the term WMD. "In the Butler Review, the official UK report on intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the definition of WMDs included Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities. Thankfully the term WMD has fallen out of favor, but the point the Butler Review makes clear is that it is an inherently Orwellian term. Its Orwellian not in the sense of dystopian, but rather that it is a deliberately ambiguous term used to obfuscate the underlying reality. It is the politician's version of "hook up." Completely descriptive while so ambiguous that it could be describing anything at all. Creating terms like WMD, CBRNE, NBC, only serves to undermine the underlying weapon. Like most people, I believe ordinary explosive ordinance deserves far less attention than rogue nuclear weapons.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>before we realize that we're kind of stupid and need to knock it the hell off for a while. There's nothing stupid about mechanized warfare. Why waste soldiers when cheap robotic soldiers are feasible? If anything, its just a natural advancement of warfare. If we don't do it, the Chinese and Russians will and that will give them an advantage over the democratic nations of the world, and as we have seen both nations are either in the middle of annexations or seem to be planning more. The real question, to me, is why are we bothering with the human form-factor? A insect-like robot or something with wheels or tank treads would outperform legs. Ideally, a robot soldier should be able to move in a way that outperforms people easily. A bit like how the robots in Elysium are so much stronger and faster than humans.
- adventured 12y ago
  What's the best form factor to be able to go up stairs, or places humans typically go, and to then recover a body from a building or similar? That seems like it would be legs + arms in some arrangement. Powerful wheels could perhaps get you up the stairs (arms + legs can scale and climb, wheels don't do so well there), but legs can fold, and a robot could in theory fold its legs to a significantly smaller size to fit through various spaces. You can't fold large'ish wheels very well without completely disassembling the structure.
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    Probably a spider-like robot, with 8 arms/legs would be the ideal. I could also see a dog-like robot with four legs which give twice the traction with a low center of gravity as well. Or novel designs, like what we saw in the Interstellar movie.
- bengali3 12y ago
  >why are we bothering with the human form-factor? it's a human world. doorways, windows, cars, sidewalks, elevators > A insect-like robot or something with wheels or tank treads would outperform legs task specific robots will exist and outperform for the predetermined task, but the focus is on replacing humans and being able to complete human tasks, whatever the future task may be. open doors designed for a human? open a window like a human? climb a tree like a human? Check the mailbox like a human? burn a grilled cheese like a human? Do ______ like a human? rather than build for a task, build to match the form that we know can complete these tasks, and viola! you've replaced the need for a human without designing for and testing all tasks that could ever be requested of it
tjradcliffe 12y ago
It isn't clear how this ends, though. Robots are going to enable a lot of anti-social behaviours that were previously limited by personal risk during the execution and the odds of getting caught. People tend to worry about "robot armies" because we aren't very good at imagining the future, and I'm sure we'll see those. We already are in terms of drones. But a much bigger issue as costs drop and availability increases is going to be freelancers. This is going to be particularly problematic because robots, like computers, are going to be too useful to limit very much in civilian applications. Any dangerous, unpleasant, ugly job is going to have a robot for that. Including assassination and robbing banks. Although there will also be robot security guards to counter such activities. Nor do robots on the battlefield have any of the issues that limited CBN (Chemical/Biological/Nuclear... which is the way I learned it) weapons. None of those are enormously useful in actual combat. Chemical and biological weapons are difficult to control and deploy, and the "Davy Crockett Nuclear Rifle" aside, nuclear weapons are difficult to use for anything other than killing cities, which is rarely a strategically or tactically good thing to do. I'm not saying they're useless, merely that they aren't the be-all-end-all. Military robots, though, pretty much are. There is every reason to expect that they will be used very widely, just like drones. Once upon a time drones were surveillance only. Now it's routine to weaponize them. Soon enough it'll be routine to send them out on autonomous interdiction missions: the economic temptation is just too high. Why send troops to cut off an area when you can have a 24/7 patrol of small, cheap drones that'll kill anything larger than a rabbit that tries to cross a virtual Maginot Line? I'm not saying we shouldn't do any of this--robots are too useful to not develop. I am saying that the robot apocalypse, when it comes, will look a lot weirder than our 20th century fantasies.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  This is significantly overhyped. Terrorists can already do huge amounts of data anonymously. E.g. putting bombs in the mail, dumping poison in the water supply, etc. And the vast majority of bank robbers are not that well planned or organized. Plus you can just turn on a cellphone jammer and protect the entire area from robots.
- mc32 12y ago
  Once perfected I can see the going into firefighting and policing duties. For the most part,aside from employment issues, this will result in positives -fewer people hurt fighting fires, more people rescued from previously inaccessible places and robots can brute force people into arrest while being shot at -without having to shoot back or pre-emptively --again to people's benefit

melling 12y ago

Google should just try to build soccer playing robots. That would allay people's fears. After they're perfected then they can be weaponized by anyone. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time with the military paying for the R&D. They've got the money and desire. The research is going to be done directly or indirectly.

bengali3 12y ago

ITA? I know of them being air travel software acquired by google - can you elaborate?

mooneater 12y ago
ITA were world leaders in path planning systems. Yes for air travel originally, but IMO deep expertise in that area should inform path planning for autonomous robots. Its been years since acquisition, no doubt they've had time to generalize and extend.

sabalaba 12y ago

Conducting warfare with autonomous robots seems preferable to having human soldiers on the front lines. Technology like this will not only reduce costs but more importantly reduce the number of human lives lost in war.

mooneater 12y ago
If it drives down the financial and human costs of war (at least in terms of rich country soldiers lost), why should we not expect more war as a result?

laxatives 12y ago

Conversely see https://www.google.com/ideas/projects/ https://www.google.com/ideas/projects/ Not exactly military tech, but clearly defense related.