4 ms·

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 execut

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
- mc32 12y ago
  Don't be so pessimistic. I'm sure we can use these kinds of robots for our benefit --not just sending them to war for us.
gknoy 12y ago
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 sounds like an automated smart minefield, which can be mobile. I'm sure we will see that soon, because the usefulness of such things (if they work) will be too hard to pass up. I hope that Philip K. Dick's Second Variety [1] is not the way that ends up, though. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Variety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Variety
rorykoehler 12y ago
They will send a robot to steal my bitcoin wallet?
orbifold 12y ago
The positive part is that along the way they will have to solve a number of very tough engineering problems to be able to realistically perform the tasks you outline. For example to my knowledge the efficiency of robotic movement is still far below that of humans, the same goes obviously for image recognition, autonomous planning, energy storage, etc.. I think as long as the US manages to scare the american public into funding those huge military projects, because they need to be protected from someone, be it communists or terrorists, and not actually use the results all that much for military purposes the world at large will be fine and eventually benefit tremendously.
classicsnoot 12y ago
Given that the only time they were used in a war it was directed at cities, many people believe that nuclear weaponry is cumbersome, strategic, and massive in effect. This is hype; barring terrorism, the most likely use of nukes in the future are will be attacking data/ energy infrastructure on the surface and in space. One does not need multiple megatons to render whole satellite constellations useless from a relatively long distance. Nukes, while sexy on film as city leveling fire pillars, are at their most useful as a disparity leveler in terms of force count. This is all conjecture, of course. I think/hope nukes really come into their own as mining and propulsion resources.

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

mc32 12y ago
Don't be so pessimistic. I'm sure we can use these kinds of robots for our benefit --not just sending them to war for us.

gknoy 12y ago

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 sounds like an automated smart minefield, which can be mobile. I'm sure we will see that soon, because the usefulness of such things (if they work) will be too hard to pass up. I hope that Philip K. Dick's Second Variety [1] is not the way that ends up, though. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Variety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Variety

rorykoehler 12y ago

They will send a robot to steal my bitcoin wallet?

orbifold 12y ago

The positive part is that along the way they will have to solve a number of very tough engineering problems to be able to realistically perform the tasks you outline. For example to my knowledge the efficiency of robotic movement is still far below that of humans, the same goes obviously for image recognition, autonomous planning, energy storage, etc.. I think as long as the US manages to scare the american public into funding those huge military projects, because they need to be protected from someone, be it communists or terrorists, and not actually use the results all that much for military purposes the world at large will be fine and eventually benefit tremendously.

classicsnoot 12y ago

Given that the only time they were used in a war it was directed at cities, many people believe that nuclear weaponry is cumbersome, strategic, and massive in effect. This is hype; barring terrorism, the most likely use of nukes in the future are will be attacking data/ energy infrastructure on the surface and in space. One does not need multiple megatons to render whole satellite constellations useless from a relatively long distance. Nukes, while sexy on film as city leveling fire pillars, are at their most useful as a disparity leveler in terms of force count. This is all conjecture, of course. I think/hope nukes really come into their own as mining and propulsion resources.