Another Week, Another Military Robots = Doom Article (Robots Will Damage Your Baby)

Writing by Evan Ackerman on Friday, 6 of March , 2009 at 7:24 am

New Scientist posted an article today by a British philosopher entitled “High time to act on armed robots.” I’m not going to write an essay like last week, but I would like to try and point out why this is just another example of “experts” trying to needlessly scare the rest of us because the media eats it up. I kinda rant a little bit, for which I apologize in advance, but this sort of thing makes me mad.

“We are on the brink, and perhaps to some degree already over the edge, in one hugely important area: robotics. …a coming generation of autonomous combat robots capable of deep penetration into enemy territory raises questions about whether they will be able to discriminate between soldiers and innocent civilians.”

Look, discriminating between soldiers and innocent civilians is always a problem, for humans AND robots. Robots are going to do it the same way humans do it: by looking for indicators. Is someone wearing a uniform? Do they have a weapon? Are they firing at you? And occasionally, humans get it wrong. Bad stuff happens, and mistakes are made. But in many ways, robots will have an advantage over humans. They won’t get scared, they won’t get stressed, and they won’t get upset. I’m not saying robots will ever be more capable than humans. I am saying that I’m confident that it is possible to create a robot that is less effective, but no more dangerous, than a human, and this is where the development of military robotics is currently headed. The developers are acutely aware of the potential for danger, if for no other reason than if anything gets screwed up even to the smallest degree, they can probably forget about whatever military contracts they were working on.

The author of the New Scientist article cites, as an example, the deployment of SWORDS in Iraq: “The manufacturer of these vehicles said the robots were never used in combat and that they were involved in no “uncommanded or unexpected movements”. Rumours nevertheless abounded about the reason why funding for the SWORDS programme abruptly stopped. This case prompts one to prick up one’s ears.” Yes, rumors abounded, because people assumed that something bad had happened and hyped it up. We’ve covered the actual reason why SWORDS wasn’t being used, and in a nutshell, nothing bad happened but the military is being overly cautious with the deployment of even teleoperated armed robots.

In the next decades, completely autonomous robots might be involved in many military, policing, transport and even caring roles. What if they malfunction? What if a programming glitch makes them kill, electrocute, demolish, drown and explode, or fail at the crucial moment? Whose insurance will pay for damage to furniture, other traffic or the baby, when things go wrong? The software company, the manufacturer, the owner?

That’s right, who pays when a robot drowns and explodes your baby? Not “if,” but “when.” This is just ridiculous, and is worded to deliberately scare you. Yes, malfunctions are a relevant concern. But what happens when an airplane malfunctions? A car? A stove? All of these things are semi-autonomous systems, and we trust all of them with our lives. For example, what if the traction control in your car all of a sudden decides to send all of the engine power to one wheel when you’re driving at highway speed? Or what if the power steering decides to rebel? OMG EVERYBODY PANIC CARS ARE GOING TO KILL US!!!

The fact is, we already live alongside autonomous systems. We don’t call them robots because they don’t look like robots. But they’re robots, and we implicitly trust them with our lives, and the lives of our babies. We do this because they have undergone thorough testing, and the chances of something going wrong are small. Not nonexistent, and accidents happen, but on a day to day basis, you don’t worry about your car blowing up and killing you, because it’s specifically designed not to do that. Robots can be, and are, made the same way. Safety is a priority.

And as to the argument that “military robots in the hands of criminals and terrorists would pose a frightening threat,” well, guns in the hands of criminals and terrorists already pose a frightening threat. It’s not the technology that’s the problem, it’s the people using it. Terrorists make car bombs, should we ban cars?

The New Scientist article ends thusly:

There needs to be a considered debate about the rules and requirements governing all forms of robot devices, not a panic reaction when matters have gone too far. That is how bad law is made – and on this issue time is running out.

Um, thanks, but the author of this article is promoting a panic reaction already with dire warnings about robots killing civilians and drowning and exploding babies. Obviously there needs to be a considered debate. This is not a considered debate. This is media scare tactics.

[ New Scientist ]

Comments (5)

Category: Artificial Intelligence, Military

• Add this post to
• Del.icio.us -
• Digg

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>