Beeb again:
"Robots that can decide where to kill, who to kill and when to kill is high on all the military agendas," Professor Noel Sharkey of the University of Sheffield said at a meeting in London. "The problem is that this is all based on artificial intelligence, and the military have a strange view of artificial intelligence based on science fiction."
His main gripe is that the operators are often huge distances away and are not "in at the kill", making them dispassionate. The problem, he said, was that robots could not fulfil two of the basic tenets of warfare: discriminating friend from foe, and "proportionality", determining a reasonable amount of force to gain a given military advantage.
Between January 2006 and April 2009, he estimated, 60 such "drone" attacks were carried out in Pakistan. While 14 al-Qaeda were killed, some 687 civilian deaths also occurred, he said.
Current rules of engagement to which the UK subscribes prohibit the use of lethal force without human intervention.
There's a certain amount of realpolitic here. Technological advances will be made, the military will get in on them and the military will try to protect as many personnel as possible.
Drones help them to do that.
To say this is inhuman is the same argument against war anyway. To eliminate one's armed forces leaves a country at the mercy of foes. To engage with maximum prejudice gives your armed forces an advantage but could be considered inhumane.
There's the bind.
As for the rules of engagement - who really believes that if you can have two thousand of your troops killed in conventional engagement or zero killed by unorthodox methods, then .......
The drone in the picture is not a robot by any means. It is manually controlled from the US and any offensive activity is initiated by a human.
ReplyDeleteIt will be a while before we see any robots out in the field with weapons control. They are undoubtably working on them but the risks are too great to deploy in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Now they could put some patrolling particular, and carefully selected, restricted areas in those theatres.
We are only a short way away from ED209 but a long way away from Gort and until we get true artificial brains it will be too risky for anyone to use.
Well yes but it's a good picture, isn't it?
ReplyDelete"Current rules of engagement to which the UK subscribes prohibit the use of lethal force without human intervention."
I assumed from this that they are still human controlled from a distance although that was not made clear.
"The problem is that this is all based on artificial intelligence, and the military have a strange view of artificial intelligence based on science fiction."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that leftist intellectuals, well represented in the Beeb, have an artificial view of what intelligence is. More common sense is found in science fiction than in these men (and women) 'without chests'.
Thucydides-
A nation that draws too broad a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.
What Thucidides would see today is both fighting and thinking done by warriors, because the scholars have abandoned thinking.
I live a few miles from the room in Southern Nevada from which all drones are operated remotely around the world. A fellow in that room recounted one event where the drone had it's camera upon two fellows planting a roadside bomb in Iraq. The operator did not receive instructions to send the drone missle from his supervisor. The perps, finshed with their work, piled into a pickup and took off, but still there was no autorization. Eventually they arrived at a house, and twenty men came out to greet them enthusiastically. That's when the missle was sent.
Now, whose intelligence is artificial?
No doubt there were women in that safe-house, perhaps children. Al-Queda demonstrably doesn't care a whit, but the Beeb would. Perhaps that is because they see themselves as being helpless in the house of their own making.
For an alternative perspective on robots and their uses, try this recent feature in TIME magazine: What's Behind Japan's Love Affair with Robots?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913913,00.html
Mind you, I do sometimes wonder:
"Japanese scientists have unveiled the most human-looking robot yet - a 'female' android named Repliee Q1Expo.
"She has flexible silicone for skin rather than hard plastic, and a number of sensors and motors to allow her to turn and react in a human-like manner.
"She can flutter her eyelids and move her hands like a human. She even appears to breathe."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4714135.stm
And this Reuters report: Japan's lonely hearts turn to dolls for sex, company
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSSP10422420070718
Yes, I saw some of this. The Japs are certainly right into it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as uses of robots are concerned, the Japanese seem to have taken to heart the hippy message of the 1960s: Make love, not war.
ReplyDeleteHowever, perhaps we should note what has happened to Japan's birth rate:
"Japan is graying and its birthrate is falling faster than any other country in the world, a government white paper warned Friday."
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090418a5.html
For all that, the "love hotel" industry in Japan is evidently booming:
"Japan's love hotels are attracting interest from more than just couples looking for a place to spend a few private hours.
"Investors are also interested; this vast market seems to be proving more resilient to the recession than luxury business hotels. . . Providing privacy is big business in Japan. The love hotel industry is huge, estimated to turn over about £25bn ($40bn) a year."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8137746.stm
For a little flavour of the automation in love hotels in Japan, try this video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_34QIvHKD_U