6 ms·

Ugh, I really dislike this sentiment. Even assuming the most extreme possibility -- that we create a powerful, sentient machine -- this is no different than wha

Ugh, I really dislike this sentiment. Even assuming the most extreme possibility -- that we create a powerful, sentient machine -- this is no different than what every species on this planet has been doing for a few billion years now. Creating life is what we earthlings do. And yeah, maybe that life form you create goes on to do horrible things. But maybe it goes on to do really good things. You don't know until you try.

nodata 11y ago
> this is no different Creating something with our knowledge and the ability to learn ever faster than us is very different.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Yes, but this robot is not that. It's not even a step in that direction.
  - rokhayakebe 11y ago
    Until you have achieve the desired mobility, then tweak it to walk upright instead of using 4 legs, and insert a Watson enabled chip into it.
ZenoArrow 11y ago
Personally, I'm not concerned with that. I'd be more concerned about powerful robots controlled by governments/corporations/anyonewhohasaninterestincontrollingyourbehaviour. Look at what's happening in Yemen. The population there lives under the fear of drone strikes by the US (that includes the civilian population). If governments are prepared to do that with drones, what reason is there to suspect they'll turn down using something that's ground-based to impose control?
- icebraining 11y ago
  using something that's ground-based to impose control? I think we have that, they're called soldiers.
  - posnet 11y ago
    Which leads to the appeal of a mechanized infantry that never gets tired, never gets sick, kills without remorse, follows orders invariantly, doesn't eat or drink, has an upgrade path but most importantly can't be killed only destroyed or broken. Sure the first generation won't replace all soldiers and they may never replace them all. We will need logistics and support people of course. Its not a perfect solution. But the second it becomes cheaper to put a robot in the place of a human on the battlefield. They will.
    - sdoering 11y ago
      I do believe, that it is first not a question of money (being cheaper). You do not have images of flag covered coffins returning home. You have no insubordination. You have the possibility to do economic promotion without being labeled as doing such (regarding international treaties (at least here in the EU)). You do not need all these training facilities. Just to name a few. So they will even do it, if it is not cheaper to do (imho). And logistics can be automated as well (delivery by drones, something like fueling done by other drones, and so on). I believe we will see drone-carriers analog to aircraft-carriers being at least semi autonomous as well within our lifetime.
      - SuddsMcDuff 11y ago
        Flag covered coffins are a powerful image which help to galvanize the people and maintain public support for a campaign. It's hard to imagine that people will care much if all they see is a pile of scrap metal being shipped home. It'll be extremely difficult for a government to use robotic infantry whilst having public support for such an action. Rather than appealing to a sense of "brotherhood/camaraderie against a common foe" in order to support a campaign - propogandists will likely have to exploit the peoples sense of fear to garner support. This is a shift we have already started to see with the "war on terror".
- xixixao 11y ago
  I wish there was no reason for stupid warfare, but: Aren't they better off than the Vietnamese who lived under the fear of Napalm bombardment? (or, for that matter, Japanese fearing the atomic bomb) I don't think that robotics has significant negative impact on warfare (and I wonder whether it has a positive impact).
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Yes, in one sense people are better off with drones than they would be with land mines or cluster bombs or "shock and awe" style area-bombing. Those are (pretty clearly, IMO) war crimes. But still, it's useful to be worried about the potential "desensitising effect" of remote warfare. Is someone operating a drone subject to the same psychological pressure to avoid killing other humans as someone pulling a trigger? (Turns out that yes, that person probably is, but that their political superiors possibly aren't).
    - ForrestN 11y ago
      I think war is pretty desensitized, at least in the US, already. The military is so disconnected from the general public that there's no difference— if we hear that X civilians were killed by a drone or that X civilians were killed from a bomb or crossfire or whatever, I would argue that the response is generally the same. And the people who make decisions don't really seem to care at all about this sort of killing except insofar as it creates backlash or has some other operational implication, which means the mode of killing doesn't really matter.
    - jmagoon 11y ago
      Drone operators have the same type of psychological pressure and results as ground troops: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-get-stress-disorders-much-as-those-in-combat-do.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-g... In terms of their superiors, isn't that how warfare has always been? My guess would be that ground troops replaced by robots would likely still have a pilot with a "finger on the trigger" for a long time. If the reaction is this mixed Hacker News, how do you think extremely conservative military commanders would feel about "AI" controlled soldiers?
codeshaman 11y ago
The main issue is that this advanced tech creates a powerful lever for mad leaders. 1 clumsy cheetah robot at MIT may not be that scary, but 100.000 fully armed and armoured killing machines, which can avoid obstacles and track humans with all kinds of sensors, under the control of leaders wanting to 'right' the wrongs of history scares the shit out of me. At the same time, this progress cannot (and shouldn't) be stopped, but we need to quickly 'evolve' our moral and ethical standards in order to accommodate for these new powerful tools. Just like giving a loaded Ak-47 to a monkey is a bad idea, making this tech freely available to everyone is similarly stupid. And that's because a lot of monkeys are wiser than a lot of humans. Give those humans a button which controls an army of robot killers and they'll press it just to see what happens.
- snops 11y ago
  Your going to need some pretty advanced manufacturing to be able to make these for the forseeable future. I certainly can't see it being cheaper than humans with AKs for a long while, especially in the kind of environment where your "mad leaders" operate. Besides, the majority of "gain" is being able to fight wars without putting yourself at risk of casualties. A "mad leader" would not care about such losses. The moral issues in this are no different to those of the use of drones, which are very well discussed.
  - kamaal 11y ago
    If there is sufficient demand, advanced manufacturing will just follow. Just see how much smart phone tech has grown over years and where it was before that.
- paulmd 11y ago
  At least at the moment, the limitation is power. Sure, they built a robot that can run and avoid obstacles, but its battery is probably dead in 10 minutes tops. There's a reason it's running on a power harness in the treadmill test. Unless they invent the Arc Reactor to along with it, those are a long way from the battlefield.
  - 11y ago
bendtheblock 11y ago
Like the way drones are used? I think this is an optimistic view of human nature. I suppose these animal robots could help with same-day deliveries.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>this is no different than what every species on this planet has been doing for a few billion years now. You might want to ask those species how that worked out for them. Also, consider how slow the change use to be compared to the life expectancy of the species.
ryanx435 11y ago
life both creates and destroys life. to humans, cats are awesome. to mice, cats are monsters. ai and killer robits have a strong potential to be monsters.
Panoramix 11y ago
How on Earth is it not different? Wolves/Lions have no machine guns, thermal sensors, armor, chemical weapons, and more importantly, are not controlled by a human third party. This research is funded by DARPA. Not because of its potential to help the elderly, mind you.

nodata 11y ago

> this is no different Creating something with our knowledge and the ability to learn ever faster than us is very different.

icebraining 11y ago
Yes, but this robot is not that. It's not even a step in that direction.
- rokhayakebe 11y ago
  Until you have achieve the desired mobility, then tweak it to walk upright instead of using 4 legs, and insert a Watson enabled chip into it.

ZenoArrow 11y ago

Personally, I'm not concerned with that. I'd be more concerned about powerful robots controlled by governments/corporations/anyonewhohasaninterestincontrollingyourbehaviour. Look at what's happening in Yemen. The population there lives under the fear of drone strikes by the US (that includes the civilian population). If governments are prepared to do that with drones, what reason is there to suspect they'll turn down using something that's ground-based to impose control?

icebraining 11y ago
using something that's ground-based to impose control? I think we have that, they're called soldiers.
- posnet 11y ago
  Which leads to the appeal of a mechanized infantry that never gets tired, never gets sick, kills without remorse, follows orders invariantly, doesn't eat or drink, has an upgrade path but most importantly can't be killed only destroyed or broken. Sure the first generation won't replace all soldiers and they may never replace them all. We will need logistics and support people of course. Its not a perfect solution. But the second it becomes cheaper to put a robot in the place of a human on the battlefield. They will.
  - sdoering 11y ago
    I do believe, that it is first not a question of money (being cheaper). You do not have images of flag covered coffins returning home. You have no insubordination. You have the possibility to do economic promotion without being labeled as doing such (regarding international treaties (at least here in the EU)). You do not need all these training facilities. Just to name a few. So they will even do it, if it is not cheaper to do (imho). And logistics can be automated as well (delivery by drones, something like fueling done by other drones, and so on). I believe we will see drone-carriers analog to aircraft-carriers being at least semi autonomous as well within our lifetime.
    - SuddsMcDuff 11y ago
      Flag covered coffins are a powerful image which help to galvanize the people and maintain public support for a campaign. It's hard to imagine that people will care much if all they see is a pile of scrap metal being shipped home. It'll be extremely difficult for a government to use robotic infantry whilst having public support for such an action. Rather than appealing to a sense of "brotherhood/camaraderie against a common foe" in order to support a campaign - propogandists will likely have to exploit the peoples sense of fear to garner support. This is a shift we have already started to see with the "war on terror".
xixixao 11y ago
I wish there was no reason for stupid warfare, but: Aren't they better off than the Vietnamese who lived under the fear of Napalm bombardment? (or, for that matter, Japanese fearing the atomic bomb) I don't think that robotics has significant negative impact on warfare (and I wonder whether it has a positive impact).
- DanBC 11y ago
  Yes, in one sense people are better off with drones than they would be with land mines or cluster bombs or "shock and awe" style area-bombing. Those are (pretty clearly, IMO) war crimes. But still, it's useful to be worried about the potential "desensitising effect" of remote warfare. Is someone operating a drone subject to the same psychological pressure to avoid killing other humans as someone pulling a trigger? (Turns out that yes, that person probably is, but that their political superiors possibly aren't).
  - ForrestN 11y ago
    I think war is pretty desensitized, at least in the US, already. The military is so disconnected from the general public that there's no difference— if we hear that X civilians were killed by a drone or that X civilians were killed from a bomb or crossfire or whatever, I would argue that the response is generally the same. And the people who make decisions don't really seem to care at all about this sort of killing except insofar as it creates backlash or has some other operational implication, which means the mode of killing doesn't really matter.
  - jmagoon 11y ago
    Drone operators have the same type of psychological pressure and results as ground troops: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-get-stress-disorders-much-as-those-in-combat-do.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-g... In terms of their superiors, isn't that how warfare has always been? My guess would be that ground troops replaced by robots would likely still have a pilot with a "finger on the trigger" for a long time. If the reaction is this mixed Hacker News, how do you think extremely conservative military commanders would feel about "AI" controlled soldiers?

codeshaman 11y ago

The main issue is that this advanced tech creates a powerful lever for mad leaders. 1 clumsy cheetah robot at MIT may not be that scary, but 100.000 fully armed and armoured killing machines, which can avoid obstacles and track humans with all kinds of sensors, under the control of leaders wanting to 'right' the wrongs of history scares the shit out of me. At the same time, this progress cannot (and shouldn't) be stopped, but we need to quickly 'evolve' our moral and ethical standards in order to accommodate for these new powerful tools. Just like giving a loaded Ak-47 to a monkey is a bad idea, making this tech freely available to everyone is similarly stupid. And that's because a lot of monkeys are wiser than a lot of humans. Give those humans a button which controls an army of robot killers and they'll press it just to see what happens.

snops 11y ago
Your going to need some pretty advanced manufacturing to be able to make these for the forseeable future. I certainly can't see it being cheaper than humans with AKs for a long while, especially in the kind of environment where your "mad leaders" operate. Besides, the majority of "gain" is being able to fight wars without putting yourself at risk of casualties. A "mad leader" would not care about such losses. The moral issues in this are no different to those of the use of drones, which are very well discussed.
- kamaal 11y ago
  If there is sufficient demand, advanced manufacturing will just follow. Just see how much smart phone tech has grown over years and where it was before that.
paulmd 11y ago
At least at the moment, the limitation is power. Sure, they built a robot that can run and avoid obstacles, but its battery is probably dead in 10 minutes tops. There's a reason it's running on a power harness in the treadmill test. Unless they invent the Arc Reactor to along with it, those are a long way from the battlefield.
- 11y ago

bendtheblock 11y ago

Like the way drones are used? I think this is an optimistic view of human nature. I suppose these animal robots could help with same-day deliveries.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>this is no different than what every species on this planet has been doing for a few billion years now. You might want to ask those species how that worked out for them. Also, consider how slow the change use to be compared to the life expectancy of the species.

ryanx435 11y ago

life both creates and destroys life. to humans, cats are awesome. to mice, cats are monsters. ai and killer robits have a strong potential to be monsters.

Panoramix 11y ago

How on Earth is it not different? Wolves/Lions have no machine guns, thermal sensors, armor, chemical weapons, and more importantly, are not controlled by a human third party. This research is funded by DARPA. Not because of its potential to help the elderly, mind you.