The Last Post Game!!!!

[Swatopluk]

Modern communication tools make it possible.
Once robots get cheaper than human soldiers, the grunts will be off the battlefield too.
Drones are already semi-autonomous and there is serious discussion about reducing the human role to supervising. That is, the drone would even choose targets itself and just ask for final clearance from the operators. For (still experimental) guard robots even that last part may get dropped soon => licence to kill.

Last Post

[Griffin NoName]

What is the penalty for drunk in charge of a drone?

Last Post

[Swatopluk]

I doubt there are regulations yet for the civilian use of drones that extend far enough to cover that. If the courts would have to deal with a case they'd have to apply more unspecific laws and thus there'd be no clean-for-all answer. In the military it would be general rules about showing up for work under the influence of mind-altering substances. Cynic that I am I's think it would be more about the endangering of very expensive equipment than the mere DUI (droning while uncontrollably intoxicated).

Last _{That was no turbaned terrorist Afghani, it was the general's wife after washing her hair and putting on the cucumber mask, you fool. Do you know how costly both she and the Hellfire missile you wasted are?} Post

[Aggie]

For (still experimental) guard robots even that last part may get dropped soon => licence to kill.

Like these?
[youtube=425,350]3ygFeywrvjc[/youtube]

I could see this type of system being mounted on an armoured patrol vehicle; it could be used with human oversight during patrols, and switched over to a fully autonomous mode in case of attack, to free up personnel.

An analogous system on tanks (optimized for targeting enemy armoured vehicles for tank/tank battles) or fighter aircraft would make quite of bit of sense, allowing the operators / pilots to concentrate on evasive action and letting the guns do the killing. In these situations, there'd be less risk of the robot killing civilians.


Last _{who is responsible if that happens?} Post

[Swatopluk]

I have seen automotive robots intended to patrol autonomously the perimeter of US military installations. The experimental models were (yet) unarmed or the weapon could only be fired by remote, not on the robot's decision. But the goal obviously is to go for full autonomy once feasible.

As far as drones are concerned, the legal implications are already under discussion. The two basic legal positions are:
1.a really autonomous drone can be used to commit war crimes without danger of being held responsible because a machine cannot be brought to trial and (because it is autonomous) neither can the people deploying it ('that drone acted unauthorised').
2.The person that has programmed the drone is the one who has to be charged for all misdeeds the machine commits (again, the commanders and their civilian superiors might get off the hook).

One can see why autonomous killer robots have such an appeal.

Last Post

[Aggie]

Companies such bots would likely want to cover their liabilities, and so might require military engineers and programmers to add the weaponry and program the killing commands. This would suit the military just fine, as low-level geeks would then be responsible for the actual weaponizing and automation.

Killing civilians is starting to be worse and worse for image now that recording devices are ubiquitous, so I would think that robots will be very carefully programmed to avoid accidents as far as possible. Hopefully such technology will not be deployed until the technology is good and cheap enough to do so.  Better to lose a couple of (cheaper than human) robot soldiers than to err on the side of killing non-combatants. Robots will not kill based on emotions (fear, anger, panic), and they will have a complete record of their observations and actions with accurate recall, unlike human soldiers. Expect robots to be 'accidentally' destroyed beyond recovery by friendly fire when things go badly, if this is true.

iRobot (who manufactures those little Roomba robot vacuum cleaners) already has military robots for surveillance and bomb disposal, IIRC. I think these are actually in production and commercially available to the right buyer.  

Last _{the downside is that I think there will be active civilian resistance to military robots... no guilt in smashing them} Post

[Swatopluk]

Robot soldier would lack a conscience and would not likely testify in court. Perfect for unscrupulous use. How do we know of many atrocities? Soldiers with loose lips, pangs of conscience and uncontrolled recording devices. Killer robots would not post pictures of killing towelheads and their families on the net. Mercenaries are used today to do what normal soldier cannot do in a deniable way. But mercenaries are even more prone to bragging.
Practically it would be impossible to embed reporters with robot units, humans would be simply out of place on a battlefield were one side employs a pure robot force, they could only be on the receiving end.

Last Post

[Aggie]

Ayuh, but robots see through electronic sensors, so all sensory input could be recorded, as could program run processes. This would take some serious legislation being put into place, and of course the military would fight tooth and nail to prevent data release. The best case scenario would be a civilian oversight body which was allowed access to all robot-soldier data.

Last _{good luck with that} Post

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Serious legislation is the key word here, it would require some serious retooling of the Geneva Convention to determine responsibilities, although it is indeed very handy when the determination of guilt is evenly spread from designer, manufacturer, technician, supervisor and the happy guy who gave the order to deploy the weapon (and who should be the only one responsible).

Last _{coming to a street near you} Post

[Swatopluk]

I just say: destroyed torture tapes.

I am not saying that robot soldier will automatically lead to nazi behaviour but the inhibition threshold will be significantly lower.
Btw, there is precedent about proposed accountability recording: mandatory helmet cameras for the police. Cops hated the idea (and I assume those that had the most to hide hated it most). And the already mandatory taping of police interrogations is still a notorious area of circumvention.

Last Post

[Aphos]

I didn't do it.  No one saw me do it.

Last _{interrogation recording} Post

[Swatopluk]

Biggles, fetch the cushions

Cardinal Fang, fetch the comfy chair

Last Post

[Griffin NoName]

<< Killer robots would not post pictures of killing towelheads and their families on the net. >>

actually that would be a prime target for drone viruses - a trojan to upload recordings to YouTube.  

Last _{should we start writing the trojan code now?} Post

[Swatopluk]

I doubt that the killbots will get normal net connections (exactly in order to prevent that, less so to prevent them from watching roboporn)

Last Post

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Last _{roboporn is not for robots} Post