Comments on: Commentary On Killer Robots Is Mostly Bunk

By: quantum_flux

quantum_flux — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:16:14 +0000

It’s entirely within the realm of possibility to build a robot that indiscriminately kills for the fun of it.

By: Learned Hand

Learned Hand — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 03:35:45 +0000

@winston smith

Actually, part of the point Ackermann was making is that in the Johann Hari’s article these ‘references’ if they can scarcely be called as such are so purposefully vague that it exposes the tract of the entire article. i.e. Misleading information and vague ‘what ifs?’ which are relatively baseless accusations of robots and misunderstandings.

The posting the YouTube video of Koizumi is not ‘the same thing’ because at least it’s some kind of reference that is stated.

One point I would like to have you consider that if in a hypothetical situation a robot *was* pointing a gun at your head you would have to be pretty confident that it is gesturing with intentional hostility. Presumably if it was understood that a robot was programmed to shoot on sight maybe you would logically worry. But that’s no different to orders given to a human soldier.

A mechanical gesture, keeping in mind, for instance, SWORDS is not a ‘humanoid’ robot and consequently may be interpreted to constantly have its armament ‘pointing’ at you. That sort of misunderstanding of hostility is possible. But also, provided one understands that the rules of its programming that the robot will follow it becomes unreasonable to fear it.

By: winston smith

winston smith — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:38:48 +0000

you have done the same thing. “Here’s a video of what I’m pretty sure is the attack:”. you don’t know if that’s the attack, but i’m sure that it prove your point. while the author your attacking may have scared people, you’re are doing the opposite. there nothing to worry about. even if the robot is pointing a gun at your head.

i’d rather be scared for no reason than not scared for no reason.

By: XV-745

XV-745 — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:11:33 +0000

Lucio, I don’t think you have to make either of those assumptions to argue that “it’s better to have a destroyed robot than a dead person.” Ideally, there would be no war ever… but until that time we have to accept that there WILL be war and it makes sense to minimize the risks to your soldiers when you are forced to engage in combat, regardless of what technology your adversary might possess. It doesn’t mean you only care about your side… but yeah, obviously you care MORE about your side than about the other side. I think these days most developed nations enter war with a goal of minimizing human (especially civilian) casualties and I don’t think using robots will change that. Sure, mistakes will be made… but flesh and blood soldiers make mistakes too. If war is unavoidable, using robots for certain tasks makes good sense and might save lives on both sides (e.g. – fear will not cause a robot to open fire on a group of civilians).

By: FelipeChoque

FelipeChoque — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:23:57 +0000

This article from Mr. Hari is a fine example of unprofessional journalism and ignorance.

By: lucio

lucio — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:54:50 +0000

“The point behind combat robots is, of course, that it’s better to have a robot in combat than a human, because if something goes wrong, it’s better to have a destroyed robot than a dead person. So that’s good, right?”

you either assume that both sides will send robots to the conflict or you only care about your side

with robot soldiers and at least one crazy operator Gandhi would have failed.