Jump to content
Forbin

The threat of Big Dog

Recommended Posts

So, I don't know if this is just a weird personal thing or not, but despite the terrifyingly violent purposes these things seem suited for, I am, as a tornado impact area experienced guy, am really excited for the possibility of a number of unmanned, untiring robots searching for my possible friends and family trapped underneath rubble with greater speed and accuracy than normal humans.

I get that it's not "Big Dog" style commentary, but it's really hard to come to an opinion on such creepy robots for me when I can imagine one of them either finding/and or recovering my sister or parents in the rubble of my old house or school just as easily as them gunning down protesters that the gov't would rather not be protesting. Or military things or whatever.

Robot news is not so cut and dried bad, I guess is my point, and also that it's strange that people from the Bay Area, who are even more at risk from natural disasters than me are so afraid of such things. Not that they're serious or anything, necessarily.

I'm the guy cheering on the robots as they stomp on our heads in the interest of our safety, I suppose. I'm okay with it. Humans suck anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I can't wait for the police to get phased out and replaced with robots. Robots don't shoot unarmed black teenagers because they're scared or torture people for fun.

 

For as much as I like to play up the "future is horrifying" aspect of this thread, I don't think there's any horrible act that a robot could commit that humans in their same position wouldn't also try (and, in every single case, have already tried).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robots don't shoot unarmed black teenagers because they're scared or torture people for fun.

 

Wouldn't be so sure. Someone has to come up with their operating guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be so sure. Someone has to come up with their operating guidelines.

This is why we need more unarmed black teenagers building robots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why we need more unarmed black teenagers building robots.

 

How are they going to build robots without arms?  :getmecoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason I started laughing really hard during that. And then stopped as I realised the machines had probably noticed, and that I would suffer in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the line between a robot trained to tenaciously track down hidden survivors and then beep or whatever to bring over human rescuers or whatever and a robot trained to tenaciously track down hidden survivors and then explode or whatever is a thin one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In trying to find the source of this gif (full disclosure, found from here):

 

tumblr_inline_nkryu0WhBI1r79k32.gif

 

I discovered this video, which basically describes a method for genetic algorithms which "discover" the correct natural and stable gait for different body and muscle structures: 

 

Dear God, I hope the Boston Dynamics guys never see this video and input Petman's skeletal and muscle data.

 

Anyway, just for fun and to distract you from your impending doom, have this (from the same video):

 

VJB3xIS.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I can't wait for the police to get phased out and replaced with robots. Robots don't shoot unarmed black teenagers because they're scared or torture people for fun.

 

For as much as I like to play up the "future is horrifying" aspect of this thread, I don't think there's any horrible act that a robot could commit that humans in their same position wouldn't also try (and, in every single case, have already tried).

On that first point, weird political scientists have you covered. The same groups, people and governments that already engage in gov't supported oppression are totally ready and able to use robots to achieve those *same abusive goals. Racism could trivially be a part of robot cops' programming anyway. It all depends on the programmer/engineer at that point.

(*sorta coldly and academically trigger warning worthy I would guess.)

On the second, yeah, no, robots could only ever be even more efficient at the same sort of horror that humans so readily engage in personally. They could also be pretty amazing at the sort of selfless shit people get up to personally. They literally, definitively, don't care at all what they are doing. It's a weird question.

I still love the robots. People do horrible shit everywhere, always, and often times just for the opportunity to do it. Robots have to be made, expensively (for now) and are thus more useful for the stuff it's harder to get people to do willingly, like risk their lives, but are still worthwhile. I'll bet the first robot pulls a person out of rubble before the first robot shoots a person. It's way easier to get a person to shoot a person. (Anecdata: I know one firefighter, one EMT and around 10 or 20 soldiers in my HS class alone. I literally cannot imagine a more "SERVE YOUR NATION, RISK EVERYTHING FOR AMERICA, BE A HERO" place to grow up in than mine. It's super-duper easy to get someone to want to shoot people, way harder to want to get them to spend hours digging to find a single trapped person. People will be shooting all sorts of people for decades to come. We love it apparently.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I don't know if this is just a weird personal thing or not, but despite the terrifyingly violent purposes these things seem suited for,

 

They are suitable for nothing as of now.  It's just R&D into unexplored territory with no practical result yet.  Very cool R&D, but nothing practical.  Nor is anything terrifying even suggested... I mean it's a vehicle.  Nothing about that should be terrifying.  It just looks creepy cause of uncanny-valley-esque motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are suitable for nothing as of now.  It's just R&D into unexplored territory with no practical result yet.  Very cool R&D, but nothing practical.  Nor is anything terrifying even suggested... I mean it's a vehicle.  Nothing about that should be terrifying.  It just looks creepy cause of uncanny-valley-esque motion.

Drones. Semi-autonomous, potentially directly controlled weapons platforms. Being flown, literally right now, somewhere. We clearly have no issue with machines doing fighting for us.

'Big-dogs'. Mobile, heavy-lifting, all-terrain, stable and self-guiding platforms, already modeled and displayed as combat vehicles at weapons shows.

Bomb-defusal and recon machines. Currently in use by pretty much every police dept. and military force who can afford it.

R&D of human shaped robots is irrelevant. Lots of robots look nothing and act nothing like people. The uncanny valley is irrelevant because of that. The fact that it's a vehicle is irrelevant. Anything non-living that moves under its own power is a vehicle. A bottle cap from a twisted water bottle is a vehicle for crying out loud.

Robots, either autonomous or controlled (A pointless and idiotic distinction people make by the way. A program is just an asynchronous, predetermined action by a person. A remote control, AI or a pre-programmed response differ only in when a decision is made and how; either right now on purpose by a person or a while ago by a person.) are super obviously currently serving a number of active, violent and serious purposes. Some of those involve bombs, placing bombs, identifying people to kill and killing people. I can't imagine your point, literally everything about it is either untrue or lacking in information, at least to me.

Even cars SHOULD be terrifying. It's, after all, just a vehicle, and even under the direct control of a person. Yet they kill thousands every year, more than many other 'scary' things.

I'm really quite drunk, so I might be a bit too harsh here, but man, it's like reading the robot version of a Russian gov't employed troll. And here I thought I loved the robots too much. I guess I flip-flop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drones. Semi-autonomous, potentially directly controlled weapons platforms. Being flown, literally right now, somewhere. We clearly have no issue with machines doing fighting for us.

'Big-dogs'. Mobile, heavy-lifting, all-terrain, stable and self-guiding platforms, already modeled and displayed as combat vehicles at weapons shows.

Bomb-defusal and recon machines. Currently in use by pretty much every police dept. and military force who can afford it.

R&D of human shaped robots is irrelevant. Lots of robots look nothing and act nothing like people. The uncanny valley is irrelevant because of that. The fact that it's a vehicle is irrelevant. Anything non-living that moves under its own power is a vehicle. A bottle cap from a twisted water bottle is a vehicle for crying out loud.

Robots, either autonomous or controlled (A pointless and idiotic distinction people make by the way. A program is just an asynchronous, predetermined action by a person. A remote control, AI or a pre-programmed response differ only in when a decision is made and how; either right now on purpose by a person or a while ago by a person.) are super obviously currently serving a number of active, violent and serious purposes. Some of those involve bombs, placing bombs, identifying people to kill and killing people. I can't imagine your point, literally everything about it is either untrue or lacking in information, at least to me.

Even cars SHOULD be terrifying. It's, after all, just a vehicle, and even under the direct control of a person. Yet they kill thousands every year, more than many other 'scary' things.

I'm really quite drunk, so I might be a bit too harsh here, but man, it's like reading the robot version of a Russian gov't employed troll. And here I thought I loved the robots too much. I guess I flip-flop.

 

So WTF was your point again?  I'm sober and you are rambling about how robots are scary but that they are not and how I'm reading like some troll...  The bits about "uncanny valley is irrelevant" well no shit.  Only thing that remotely connects to what I posted is "Even cars SHOULD be terrifying" to which I feel sorry for you if that's how you feel about the world and modern engineering.

 

"I can't imagine your point"  Maybe cause you are drunk?  I was responding to how you were going on about how robots shown in these videos are scary, and just pointed out they ought to be no more scary than any other vehicles because that's all that's been shown.  Then you pull this rambling BS off.  Hard to be nice to you when you respond incoherently AND accusing that I'm trolling you cause you are too drunk to give a fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you did say that they were purely theoretical and just a vehicle. But would you say a gun is just a tool? Or a nuclear bomb? Drones exist, they are purpose built weaponised robots. They are not theoretical, they are being flown this very day. Automated AI driven technology is rising in fashion and systems are not perfect no matter how much you test them. It seems kind of naive to think that things will be fine when there's significant capacity for harm from misuse, design flaws and negligence. Technology can make things faster, more efficient and cheaper. But nothing about it will inherently be more safe or more effective. With significant dilligence and a genuine desire to avoid these issues then yes, these things can be better with robots. But already plenty of technology is created with the intention of doing harm to people so I don't see why robots would be any different or safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, the R&D is being funded by the Defense Department. I don't think it's a huge leap to project how Boston Dynamics stuff applies to the battlefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But nothing about it will inherently be more safe or more effective.

 

That's my entire point, except also applied to 'scariness'.  The technology shown in these videos are... one of most military neutral (it's a vehicle and it moves) that I'm kinda baffled if anyone feels threatened by what's being displayed.  And about this part

 

 

But would you say a gun is just a tool? Or a nuclear bomb? Drones exist, they are purpose built weaponised robots.

 

Guns or nuclear bombs aren't even comparable because of their limitations for non-lethal applications.  The robots being shown here just move, and fairly slowly at that.  And about drones, what about it?  Only thing that sets it apart from other planes is that it's a plane that's completely unmanned, or it's a cruise missile that can return mostly intact for cost efficiency.  It has no special ethical aspects about it compared to any other warplanes.  The difference is that those who are morally responsible for the killings are now on the ground in control room instead of being in the vehicle, and I fail to see how that either enhances or mitigates the ethical responsibility of the weapon users nor what it means to the basic technology that sets it apart (unmanned vehicle).  Military drones doesn't turn hobbyist RC jets suddenly more scary or ethically questionable, even if they actually employ near identical platform because the base platform is morally neutral (unlike NBC stuff or guns).

 

I mean, the R&D is being funded by the Defense Department. I don't think it's a huge leap to project how Boston Dynamics stuff applies to the battlefield.

 

Yeah, but nothing about this method of self-propulsion is different from any other vehicle.  It moves stuff.  That's it.  This isn't NBC stuff or even basic firearms which do have built in applications due to their limited (almost nil) non-lethal applications.  These BD robotic stuff are literally cars with legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but nothing about this method of self-propulsion is different from any other vehicle.  It moves stuff.  That's it.  This isn't NBC stuff or even basic firearms which do have built in applications due to their limited (almost nil) non-lethal applications.  These BD robotic stuff are literally cars with legs.

 

I think there's a huge difference between something like an Abrams or an F-18 that's a weapons platform built around a human driver or pilot and something like a Reaper or Atlas that is designed to be operated remotely and semi-autonomously (and in time, almost certainly autonomously).

 

Heck, during my time on active duty I was nervous whenever I had to roll our CIWS mounts into their automated mode, and that's a very limited defensive weapon. It's an odd feeling replacing a trigger or a firing button with a "hey robot, you figure it out in the code" button. That transition is well underway in surveillance and strike warfare, and stuff like Atlas and Petman make it clear that we're not that far away from it being introduced to infantry warfare. I'm not sure that "terrifying" is quite the precise term I'd use to describe the uncertainty that such a profound change in warfighting invokes, but for me at least it's not too far off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a huge difference between something like an Abrams or an F-18 that's a weapons platform built around a human driver or pilot and something like a Reaper or Atlas that is designed to be operated remotely and semi-autonomously (and in time, almost certainly autonomously).

 

Heck, during my time on active duty I was nervous whenever I had to roll our CIWS mounts into their automated mode, and that's a very limited defensive weapon. It's an odd feeling replacing a trigger or a firing button with a "hey robot, you figure it out in the code" button. That transition is well underway in surveillance and strike warfare, and stuff like Atlas and Petman make it clear that we're not that far away from it being introduced to infantry warfare. I'm not sure that "terrifying" is quite the precise term I'd use to describe the uncertainty that such a profound change in warfighting invokes, but for me at least it's not too far off.

 

There you are describing automated targeting system for weapons, which again, don't have much utility outside of pointing lethal weapons at things so are different from BD's robotics videos.  What we see in these BD's robotics videos are auto pilots of very slow moving vehicles, more akin to cars parking themselves.  What is it about these BD videos that show you something that's inherently worrisome?

 

Incoming rant.

 

And besides none of what you describe (which again, I would argue is different from BD's videos) isn't anything new in principle.  It's all just another step in the ongoing effort to kill-people-from-as-protected-place-as-possible.  The decision makers are still ultimately humans (it's not like infantry in large scale conflict ever amounted to meaningful decision maker... it's the leaders and these weapons are still being authorized by same leaders), just that they are moving further away from their intended targets.  It's been done from spear to bow to gun to artillery to rockets to missiles.

 

Say 20 years down the road they get a completely autonomous armored vehicle.  And by complete I mean this thing, given mission parameters, will target and shoot people\objects based on its own internal logic.  Even then, I would point out that it's just an extension (and hence principally same) of smart weapons system because someone still set the criteria for targeting and someone still gave the permission to activate the said weapon system.  All arguments against drones are really arguments against wars, and I'm very much sympathetic to the latter.  But blaming the autonomous drones ends up being a distraction from the real source (those who declare wars) and that's why I'm going on this rant.

 

It's like complaining about how terrible drone strikes are in middle east because they are done by drones.  No, they are fucking terrible because someone decided to kill (yes, choosing to launch these automatic weapons system is with complete intent to kill) bunch of other people for some dubious reasons.  All this middle-ware blaming is letting that decision makers go unnoticed.

 

Closest analog that drones (with completely autonomous targetting system, otherwise it's no different from manned flight) could be argued against as specific weapon type would be inaccurate weapons like carpet bombing, cluster bombs or mines.  And all those are ultimately about argument against killing of innocents because wrong tool was chosen.  It's not about how machines are killing people, it's always been about how people choose to use wrong tool for a job that is already morally ambiguous to begin with (why are we bombing area with civilian presence, etc.).  And even in these topics the argument against specific weapons has been a distraction to "why are these people killing others in that part of the world".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the source of war is the bigger problem but I don't think that invalidates the concern that killing seems to be getting much easier to do and more impersonal, that's the part that worries me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×