How many times do sentient killer robots have to turn against and enslave the human race in science fiction books and films before we realize that building killer sentient robots is generally not a good idea? The guy quoted in this article thinks half the U.S. military will be "half machine, half human" by 2015. Haven't the people working on this technology watched The Matrix? Terminator? I, Robot?
"We are at a point of revolution in war, like the invention of the atomic bomb," Singer said. "What does it mean to go to war with US soldiers whose hardware is made in China and whose software is made in India?"Robotics designer David Hanson offered hope when it comes to making robots a little more human. Hanson builds robots that have synthetic flesh faces and read people's expressions in order to copy expressions.
"The goal here is not just to achieve sentience, but empathy," Hanson said. "As machines are more capable of killing, implanting empathy could be the seeds of hope for our future."
On a more serious note, there's something disturbing about going to war with robots. Yes, it can reduce casualties, but the technology is going to very one-sided for a very long time. Rich nations will spare their sons and daughters the horrors of war while the poor fight against each other and killer machines. Except when it's done remotely it seems more like slaughtering than fighting.
Like this post? Get updates via|
Comments (2)
I think you hit on a big point that is more closely related to contemporary warfare.
"Yes, it can reduce casualties, but the technology is going to very one-sided for a very long time. Rich nations will spare their sons and daughters the horrors of war while the poor fight against each other and killer machines. Except when it's done remotely it seems more like slaughtering than fighting."
How different is this from using unmanned drones to drop bombs on villages in Pakistan/Afghanistan? How different is it from holing soldiers up in fortified compounds, only leaving when inside tanks and blackhawk helicopters?
Our major theaters of war now - Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan - seem to have already moved in this direction. We are technologically superior, able to reduce casualties to a minimum (in fact, we are able to almost eliminate the exposure of our soldiers to harm).
So what are the poor/resistant/insurgents supposed to do? We complain that they "hide among the civilian population," but should they instead sit out in the open and wait for the superior armaments to stop by and wipe them out in one precision-guided smart bomb attack?
We have effectively eliminated legitimate targets - which means that the enemy has little choice but to strike back wherever possible - which often means our own civilian population. Modern warfare holds some responsibility for creating conditions that are conducive to "terrorism."
Robots may be a thing of the future, but your comment about how this will affect world warfare have already come to pass.
Posted by Wil Robinson | February 5, 2009 9:01 PM
So, I guess you would rather we fight the Islamist with swords, just to make it fair. What a crock of sh...
Posted by jimmyk | February 10, 2009 10:45 PM