SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Recently, Russian arms manufacturer Kalashnikov Concern has unveiled their work on a fully automated combat machine. It looks like a drone, but the neural network that controls it allows for some autonomous ability, which is going to make for some very interesting conversation at the upcoming ARMY-2017 forum. Did somebody say war robots?
For that matter, now that neural networks are basically being weaponized, I'm sure there will be some important moral debates about their use in a field of battle. Not the least of which will be: "Isn't this exactly what Skynet wants?"
But, and we've said this many times before, technology is a tool.
It isn't inherently good or bad; that depends entirely on the intentions of the user. In this case, the technology is a weapon, but that is the purview of a military, and I think we can judge them according to their actions instead of their tech.
Plus, the robot is really freaking cool. We'd be doing it a disservice by ignoring that. Let's take a closer look.
We all know that drones are already used in combat, but this robot is no drone.
Drones require operators, and while modern drones do have elements that can acquire targets without human control, they aren't fully autonomous. By using a neural network to control the drone, full autonomy is possible.
So far, there's no word on whether the module will fire without human authorization. What information we do have suggests that the use of a neural network is intended to quickly acquire many targets–something well within the capabilities of modern AI technology.
Source: https://edgylabs.com/war-robots-automated-kalashnikov-neural-network-gun/
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:44PM (22 children)
People in power should never be given the impression that war can be made easy or clean, for it's the mess which holds them back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:48PM
Homer: "I won't feel guilty until I can put a human face on this."
Lisa: "Mom! Dad! Someone stole my Malibu Stacy collection!"
Homer: "Marge, doesn't Lisa have a human face?"
Marge: "Yes, and she's crying."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:17PM (7 children)
"Death. Destruction. Disease. Horror. That's what war is all about. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided." - James T Kirk
Sometimes, he had the right idea.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:28PM
Let's not let the enemy order our people into suicide booths. Let's just lie and say they're dead instead.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:00PM (1 child)
Or at least the writers who were putting words into his mouth did.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by Weasley on Tuesday July 18 2017, @09:54PM
The statement is not inaccurate. The character James T Kirk said that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:23PM (3 children)
He was a surgeon. The book was called "Rats Lice And History". It was all about how public health problems determined the outcome of famous battles.
I've never read it. I looked at one page then realized I would vomit if I read the whole book.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:17AM (1 child)
Add infection to that title. Until very recently, more soldiers died of infection than ever died of actual wounds. Stinking, rotten, sacks of puss, lying around, moaning and groaning, begging for death - that was the aftermath of combat. Rather than being an act of savagery, the coup de grâce was an act of mercy.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:46PM
Waddaya mean, "was"? It still is in a lot of places, because the warring armies frequently lack either the ability or inclination to rescue the wounded.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25 2017, @11:50PM
It was written by Hans Zinsser [wikipedia.org] in 1935.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:20PM
That was a big part of the "evil" of Gulf War I - Bush Sr. made it look so clean he erased some of the bad name that Vietnam and Afghanistan had given to War.
Luckily, his son rectified that with the whole post-Mission Accomplished demonstration.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday July 19 2017, @08:15AM (11 children)
War has mostly been easy or clean for people in power (in the U.S. at least) for quite a while. Quite profitable too. That's why we had Vietnam, and still have Afghanistan and Iraq.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:47PM (10 children)
Something I always liked about historical war was that it was common for kings to be in the front lines. I suspect that made kings think twice about whether it was really a good idea to get into a fight.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:15PM (9 children)
Was this really the case, or does it just look good in movies?
I can see "leading your men into battle" being one way to motivate them, but there are many others, and I'm sure they all have been used over the centuries.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 19 2017, @08:36PM (8 children)
Not infrequently, yes, they really did, at least according to historical sources. Some examples: Henry V of England took a hit to the helmet at Agincourt, Charles XII of Sweden was killed in action, Alexander the Great was front-and-center of a cavalry charge at Gaugamela, Richard I of England was in the middle of quite a few battles during the Crusades.
Part of the reason for this is simply that the king was likely to be the best-equipped and possibly the best-trained guy on the field. Also, with limited signalling capabilities and unclear-at-best command structures, the king (or any other leader) wasn't going to be able to influence the battle much once it got going by issuing commands, which means wading in with a sword or axe might in fact be their best way of helping to win. A king who didn't do his best to fight during a battle was likely to be branded a coward for much of this period.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 20 2017, @02:49AM (7 children)
While I don't doubt that some of these tales are true - remember that history was written by not only the victors, but often the rulers on the victors' side. If King Coward the third motivated his soldiers into battle by holding their children hostage, it was actually possible back then to rewrite history and make him appear much more noble.
Having a leader on the field has some value, but if you fight wars like I play StarCraft, simply building a bigger army is a very good way to win - even if you can't micromanage your units very well.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 20 2017, @03:31AM (6 children)
That's just it: There are huge differences between real warfare in, say, the 1400s CE and playing Starcraft. For example, in real battles:
1. You couldn't communicate with your troops unless you're within earshot or within eyesight and somebody is looking your direction.
2. Your troops typically placed a premium on surviving the battle, unlike many Starcraft units that seem to have near-suicidal tendencies.
3. Because of the communications problems, you don't know everything your troops know.
4. Your bigger army may be outmatched in technology or training or tactics and lose. Numbers don't always win.
5. Real-life humans on both sides tend to be adapting to the situation. For instance, in Starcraft, if you're hitting zealots with mutalisks, the zealots will run around like idiots getting killed unless their commander sends some help that can actually deal with the mutalisks, whereas real soldiers would find some kind of cover and/or find a way to shoot back.
Also, history was not always written by the victors. Using the 100 Years' War as an example, just because the English won a bunch of fights didn't mean France didn't exist anymore or nobody in France knew how to write anything down.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 20 2017, @11:33AM (4 children)
Agreed on all points, except perhaps the ratios.
1000 farmers, given decent hand axes and a promise of spoils should they conquer (and perhaps death of their children should they lose), should do quite well against 100 "soldiers" with slightly better equipment and leadership.
And, while there is some written history coming to us from both sides of the 100 years war, if you roll back to the 1200s or so, very little was written and what was written was no doubt "edited" by anyone with power who could find the books, edited by removal of objectionable books and probably objectionable authors - and the authors were no doubt aware of this tendency...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 20 2017, @01:10PM (3 children)
Counterpoint: Battle of Watling Street.
The Romans were thoroughly outnumbered by the British forces: It's unclear exactly by how much, but they were facing an army that had just sacked 2 Roman cities in Britain, and Roman sources claim a ratio of 23 Britons per Roman legionary. However, the Romans had advantages in weapons, armor, training, and tactics. The Roman general chose the place of battle well to minimize the effects of the numbers disadvantage, got his guys up in nice organized lines with what would later be called a shield wall in front. The Britons charged in more-or-less a disorganized mob with their best fighters in front. The Romans threw their pila (basically, javelins), and probably wiped out 5,000 or so of the front lines with each of their two volleys. Then they formed their shield wall, which was the standard Roman tactic, and now the Britons were running up against a disciplined solid wall with pointy short swords sticking out. That did not work out well for them, at all.
Also, I don't get why you're assuming that peasants armed with hand axes are on anything remotely similar to an equal technological footing with trained soldiers. If you've got a hand axe and not much else, and I have full plate mail, a halberd, and a side sword, you're already at a considerable disadvantage because you have to get by the pointy parts of my halberd to get even close enough to hit me, and even if you do hit me that's maybe going to bruise me a bit whereas if I hit you you're in a world of hurt. Even if I have chainmail with padding under it with a helmet (a very common armor choice), I'm still at a considerable advantage.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 20 2017, @02:05PM (2 children)
Well, that's not hand axes vs short swords and farmers vs occasional soldiers. The Romans were full-time soldiers with generations of development behind their tactics and equipment. Similarly, GWI put a small US force against "much greater numbers, on their home soil" and the results were just sad for the larger army.
And, to counterpoint the king in front: the Romans certainly didn't put the emperor in front, and with their training they didn't need much of a big leader in front, either.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 20 2017, @03:22PM (1 child)
Roman emperors did occasionally find themselves in the front, and a few were KIA. Julius Caesar definitely claimed he was in the fray on multiple occasions.
Culture definitely played a role: a Celtic or Norse king who wasn't near the front lines would likely be branded a coward and lose his support. Also, sometimes kings fought on the front lines more due to necessity than anything else. Alfred the Great and Robert the Bruce are two examples of this: When you're fighting with only a few dozen guys, and there's no way to accept defeat without being killed, you do what you have to.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 20 2017, @04:28PM
Like StarCraft ;-) Though, I sincerely wish you could somehow train the units to micromanage themselves - even if it's at cost of battle experience or something, it's just annoying to have to do some of those obvious things on a unit by unit basis.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 20 2017, @11:40AM
Oh, and to pull on the StarCraft thread - that's why I build carriers (when I can) - Zealots are more efficient in many applications, but nothing says "you're gonna die no matter what you do" than a dozen carriers coming at you when you only have ~100 supply of whatever kind of forces.
🌻🌻 [google.com]