Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:19PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong dept.

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/


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:43PM (11 children)

    by BsAtHome (889) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:43PM (#541050)

    Soon we will hear about the EMP gun to counter the AI. Well, maybe just drop an A-bomb in the atmosphere.

    It looks like Rise of the Machines is inevitable with the military pursuing this so vigorously.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:33PM (5 children)

      by c0lo (156) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:33PM (#541088) Journal

      Soon we will hear about the EMP gun to counter the AI. Well, maybe just drop an A-bomb in the atmosphere.

      Fry the electronics, spare the humans: explosively pumped flux compression generator [wikipedia.org]

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:41PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:41PM (#541092)

        Nuke em back to the stone age. On the plus side the survivors will be too busy banging the rocks together to care about why we haven't found alien life yet.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:08PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:08PM (#541132)

          Even better if the survivors are many, they'll devolve faster during the ensuing chaos.
          Just wipe out their electronics and the electricity grid+generators, I say; back to pumping your water using your muscles, good luck with this suckers.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Tuesday July 18 2017, @09:29PM (2 children)

            by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @09:29PM (#541171)

            My grandparents pumped water with a windmill even into the mid 50s in west Texas. I think that technology is still used in many places today. Civilization seemed to get along just fine before we developed electrical devices about 120 years ago.

            --
            “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” Thomas Edison
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @03:15AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @03:15AM (#541300)

              But just think of how low property values were with those windmills everywhere! And all the birds that were killed!

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:08PM

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:08PM (#541556)

              All the high speed communication technologies are electrical (or photonic) based. Instant global communications help with a lot of things, including keeping wars less widespread.

              We got along O.K. with a population of 2B or less without electricity, at 7B and rising it would be a lot harder.

              --
              Україна не входить до складу Росії.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:21PM (4 children)

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:21PM (#541139) Homepage Journal

      An Air Force pilot who served during the cuban missile crisis had one on his airplane:

      A nuclear antiaircraft missile.

      It gets better. In 1984 the US unilaterally disarmed itself of all its nuclear depth charges and nuclear mines. Drive a tank over one and your whole battalion gets vaporized.

      I expect someone clued into that if these weapons were ever used, they would wipe out all life on earth forever.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:23AM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:23AM (#541264) Journal

        A nuclear antiaircraft missile.

        It's the stupidest weapon ever until you need to use it to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people from a squadron of incoming strategic bombers. Total nuclear war is its own reality.

        In 1984 the US unilaterally disarmed itself of all its nuclear depth charges and nuclear mines.

        Nuclear mines don't make so much sense (they'd be detonated remotely to take out large military units which you can take out in other ways with nukes), but nuclear depth charges do. Nuclear armed subs often have enough firepower to kill millions of people.

        I expect someone clued into that if these weapons were ever used, they would wipe out all life on earth forever.

        Sorry, I don't buy that. Kill billions of people either directly or through destruction of relatively delicate infrastructure? Sure. Kill all life? You need a bigger bomb than that. It's not impossible with enough nukes, but you need a fair number more than were present in the arsenals at the peak of the Cold War.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @03:27AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @03:27AM (#541307)

          I don't buy that. Kill billions of people either directly or through destruction of relatively delicate infrastructure? Sure.

          About 5 billion actually beginning on N-day until after the year from hell ended. A global census of sorts was only able to be organized a few years after reconstruction had started, so that number is a lot more reliable than what we guess about the total number of deaths on N-day itself. That still leaves over 2 billion humans on the face of the planet, but birth defects have become a lot more common. People also can't expect to be able to live into their 80s and 90s any more.

          I expect that safety precautions and recommendations will keep getting better all the time, and maybe our great grandchildren's children will enjoy the kind of life most people take for granted in this era.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 19 2017, @05:02AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 19 2017, @05:02AM (#541333) Journal
            That's the sort of scenario, I'm thinking of here. It would massively suck, but it wouldn't be the end of humanity much less the end of life on Earth.
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:30PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:30PM (#541567)

          > Nuclear armed subs often have enough firepower to kill billions of people.

          FTFY. The Ohio class (from wikipedia) carries:

          24 × Trident I C4 SLBM with up to 8 MIRVed 100 ktTNT W76 nuclear warheads each, range 4,000 nmi (7,400 km; 4,600 mi)

          That's 192 warheads. A single determined, fully armed submarine commander sitting somewhere near Iceland could pretty much erase civilization in the US and Europe.

          If you're just going for max population cull, look at everywhere those missiles can reach from the just offshore Mumbai...

          --
          Україна не входить до складу Росії.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:44PM (22 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:44PM (#541051)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:48PM (#541053)

      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)

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:17PM (#541080)

      "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.

      --
      Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:28PM (#541084)

        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)

        by fadrian (3194) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:00PM (#541098) Homepage

        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

          by Weasley (6421) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @09:54PM (#541189)

          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)

        by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:23PM (#541142) Homepage Journal

        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)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:17AM (#541248) Homepage Journal

          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.

          --
          Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:46PM

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:46PM (#541406)

            that was the aftermath of combat

            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.

            --
            Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25 2017, @11:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25 2017, @11:50PM (#544363)

          It was written by Hans Zinsser [wikipedia.org] in 1935.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:20PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:20PM (#541138)

      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.

      --
      Україна не входить до складу Росії.
    • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday July 19 2017, @08:15AM (11 children)

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @08:15AM (#541374)

      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.

      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)

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:47PM (#541407)

        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.

        --
        Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:15PM (9 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:15PM (#541559)

          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.

          --
          Україна не входить до складу Росії.
          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 19 2017, @08:36PM (8 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @08:36PM (#541633)

            Was this really the case, or does it just look good in movies?

            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.

            --
            Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 20 2017, @02:49AM (7 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday July 20 2017, @02:49AM (#541768)

              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.

              --
              Україна не входить до складу Росії.
              • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 20 2017, @03:31AM (6 children)

                by Thexalon (636) on Thursday July 20 2017, @03:31AM (#541781)

                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.

                --
                Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 20 2017, @11:33AM (4 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday July 20 2017, @11:33AM (#541877)

                  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...

                  --
                  Україна не входить до складу Росії.
                  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 20 2017, @01:10PM (3 children)

                    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday July 20 2017, @01:10PM (#541894)

                    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.

                    --
                    Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 20 2017, @02:05PM (2 children)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday July 20 2017, @02:05PM (#541909)

                      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.

                      --
                      Україна не входить до складу Росії.
                      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 20 2017, @03:22PM (1 child)

                        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday July 20 2017, @03:22PM (#541931)

                        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.

                        --
                        Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 20 2017, @04:28PM

                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday July 20 2017, @04:28PM (#541967)

                          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.

                          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.

                          --
                          Україна не входить до складу Росії.
                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 20 2017, @11:40AM

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday July 20 2017, @11:40AM (#541878)

                  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.

                  --
                  Україна не входить до складу Росії.
  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:44PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:44PM (#541052)

    When a tricycle isn't safe enough, fit some more wheels on there. The retarded kids might fall down and skin a knee. You need the best talent for your project. Best means cheapest. The only kids you can afford are the retarded kids, and you know they can't be trained to be careful.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by meustrus on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:48PM (4 children)

      by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:48PM (#541054)
      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:55PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:55PM (#541063)

        When a drone isn't safe enough, fit an aimbot on there. The retarded soldiers might fall down and skin a knee. You need the best soldiers for your army. Best means cheapest. The only soldiers you can afford are the retarded kids, and you know they can't be trained to be careful.

        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:06PM (2 children)

          by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:06PM (#541072)

          No, still doesn't work. Unless I'm missing something, nobody is claiming that drone operation is too hard or unsafe. In fact, the common criticism here is that "aimbot" is less safe, not more.

          Further, I take issue with your "retarded soldiers" assertion. It's classist and dehumanizing, and it disrespects the sacrifices soldiers everywhere have made in the name of their countries.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:14PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:14PM (#541077)

            The point is you don't need to train soldiers to be drone operators. If the drone can operate itself and the only input needed is yes/no to fire then even a retarded soldier can use it. So if retarded soldiers are good enough, why bother recruiting anyone smarter.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:50PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:50PM (#541125)

              No the point is we don't want to read your copy pasta every article. Get bent.

  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:00PM (5 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:00PM (#541069)

    The imagined danger of AI has always been about strategic decisions. If you build an AI to win a war, it might decide that culling your own population will aid in that objective. If you build an AI to reduce suffering, it might decide to mercy kill everyone who is suffering. I could keep going.

    An AI controlling a drone, however, has about as much power and impact as a human drone operator. Which is to say, not much. It's still scary; it could make a mistake in identifying its target. But its goal is still probably pretty narrow: identify and destroy enemy combatants.

    The real risk here is in the control software. Who tells this thing what the enemy is? How susceptible is it to cyber warfare? And how long before somebody decides they need an AI to run the control software and make the real Skynet-level decisions?

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:09PM (#541076)

      The aimbot picks targets, the human operator decides whether the aimbot was correct, and gradually Skynet will be trained to terminate all humans just because Russia wanted to cut costs. The race to the bottom will be the death of us all.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:23PM (2 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:23PM (#541141)

      The AI decides what you allow it to decide. If mercy killing or population culling are highly undesirable options, they must be costed as such in the evaluation.

      When the first AI drone mistakes your wife or child for an enemy combatant and "neutralizes the threat" you'll start to put more importance on the responsibility assigned to single unit operators - man or machine.

      --
      Україна не входить до складу Росії.
      • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:49PM (1 child)

        by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:49PM (#541156)

        I said it's still scary. The point is that it isn't Skynet.

        --
        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 19 2017, @02:29AM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @02:29AM (#541281)

          No, we won't need Skynet - the coming destruction of financial markets by quant algorithms should be enough to make life seriously painful in the closer term.

          --
          Україна не входить до складу Росії.
    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:48PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:48PM (#541408)

      Of course Skynet is the wrong movie reference here. The right one is ED-209.

      --
      Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:05PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:05PM (#541071)

    Read the summary as a gun that automatically and rapidly creates neural networks. The actual thing seems more like glorified cold-war era tech.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:18PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:18PM (#541081)

      Yeah, didn't they have radar-lock in Top Gun? That was 30 years ago.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:05PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:05PM (#541101)

        Pretty sure they had radar lock in ww2, some 70 years ago.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:08PM (2 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:08PM (#541102)

          No.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:18PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:18PM (#541106)
            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:38PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:38PM (#541120)

              Although the precise origins of the concept are unknown, on 8 March 1941 Bertrand Lovell recorded the concept of lock-follow in his notes for the first time.

              Two sections further on they explain it wasn't actually deployed until January '44. It sounds like the Mark X actually went into use before the Mark IX?

              The first SCR-720 was delivered on 12 July for fitting to Mosquito HK195, which was turned over to the FUI on 11 August and flew for the first time two days later. Small batches were completed on various marks of Mosquitos before the production was turned over entirely for installation on the NF.XIX, which featured Rolls-Royce Merlin 25 engines and a strengthened wing allowing them to carry external fuel tanks. Unfortunately, deliveries of the Mk. X proved to be greatly delayed, with the first 40 arriving in late autumn and found to be lacking many of the requested upgrades.[89] Once these were finally adapted, they were found to interfere with the radio sets in the aircraft,[m] and it was not until January 1944 that the first Mk. X sets were sent to squadron use.[90]

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:16PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:16PM (#541079)

    The tech that gets hacked and literally kills those it is supposed to protect. Nope, nothing can go wrong here!

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Absolutely.Geek on Tuesday July 18 2017, @09:17PM

      by Absolutely.Geek (5328) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @09:17PM (#541166)

      Its all good remember the Russians are running the latest version of Kaspersky Anti-Virus

      --
      Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:20PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:20PM (#541082)

    This could change the equation for military coups. If you are a military dictator now, you have to keep the army on your side. In the future, you might buy a million killer drones and command them directly. The army can be disbanded.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:32PM (#541086)

      But military service is valuable make-work in the kinds of impoverished countries that have military dictators. If you're going to disband the army you'd better be ready to slaughter your former soldiers since otherwise they'll turn against you and smash your drones.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:36PM (2 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:36PM (#541089)

      congratulations, you're now the dictator of a bunch of robots who have to keep a gun aimed at their own repairmen, and might murder you if some 12 year-old script kiddie figures out that someone forgot to patch some old bug at the factory.
      I hope the Bond girl was worth it.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @06:59PM (#541097)

        I have to keep a gun aimed at the Bond girl while I rape her, and I don't trust her to blow me since she could bite my dick off. And there's the whole ordeal of searching her ass and pussy every time to make sure she hasn't hidden a knife anywhere.

        Totally worth it to lose my virginity!

      • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:27PM

        by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:27PM (#541113)

        I'll take your Bond reference and raise you:

        In United States, John Conner fights Skynet's Armageddon.

        In Soviet Russia, Skynet welcomes our 12 year old script kiddie overlord in the war against the Formics.

        Queue in the Terminator 2 theme \ The international Anthem \ Combat Rescue Aliens theme mash-up as brought to you by the producers of Iron Sky 2.

        --
        compiling...
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:26PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @08:26PM (#541144)

      Begun the drone wars have, already.

      --
      Україна не входить до складу Росії.
  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:01PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:01PM (#541099)

    Pretty sure it was RDR. There was a mode where time slowed down, you could designate as many targets as possible in a second or three, then time goes back to normal and you shoot all your targets in a second or so.

    I can see this being useful for snipers. Put a few servos on a rifle, let the operator select the targets, push a button, and boom boom boom. The sniper team can then withdraw before the targets know where the shots came from.

    --
    I hate when I put something off to tomorrow, and tomorrow arrives.
  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:26PM (3 children)

    by looorg (578) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:26PM (#541112)

    While it could be both a legal and moral question as it is know, as far as I know, it's not legal for drones to decide for themselves of where to drop the Hellfire, a human must make the kill command or decision -- as noted in the submission. How about if you feed the killbot (or whatever we like to call them) a list of targets? Would that be ok? Or will Clippy-the-angel-of-death have to come up as some kind of popup window to ask permission before wasting someone in a hail of bullets? Perhaps legal grounds can be found in the ban of landmines (or at least anti-personal landmines, but then neither the USA, Russia or China signed the Ottawa Treaty on land mines either so they could just not give a fuck? After all landmines are an autonomous weapon, of sorts, dropped or planted somewhere that act on it's own, sure it doesn't have some fancy AI neural network to make decisions but usually just requires pressure to work.

    I guess until ED-209 comes along there might not be much talk about it. Lets just hope they have slightly better prototype testing for this warbot.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:36PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:36PM (#541118)

      Does the human player need to know the drone is killing real people or can we get some Call of Duty trolls to work the controller remotely?

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by looorg on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:57PM

        by looorg (578) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @07:57PM (#541128)

        I'm sure the Pentagon can afford to hire one or two philosophy major(s) to argue what is real and not.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:52PM (#541582)

      as far as I know, it's not legal for drones to decide for themselves of where to drop the Hellfire

      Hahahaha... legal? You do realize that the laws are written by those who have won the war, don't you? And besides, when has legality ever been an issue if the State really wants to fuck someone up?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @09:19PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @09:19PM (#541167)

    This article makes me think of great AI vs AI war between two armies of drones. Assuming that they would definitely not operate like Humans in battle, due to supply lines and boredom being a factor, I wonder which side would win if one side programmed the AI to always seek out enemy actively, while the other told the AI to always seek out more optimal firing position and only track enemy passively. Definitely something to simulate.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @02:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @02:32PM (#541433)

      Better to just tell them to win and let them figure out those details for themselves.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:39PM (#541405)

    But they sure as hell make it really easy!

    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.

    We can, indeed...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0P3eFw5Qco [youtube.com]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @04:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @04:25PM (#541489)

    Put these on the Mexican border.

    The nice thing about autonomous systems is that they are not vulnerable to cuteness. It won't matter if the criminal is a 50-year-old male or a 15-year-old girl. Computers don't care.

(1)