Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday July 18 2017, @05:19PM   Printer-friendly
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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (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.