Drones Blast Balloons With Fireworks, And Why This Isn’t The End Of The World
Writing by Evan Ackerman on Monday, 31 of January , 2011 at 12:02 am
For the 4th of July back in 2009, we saw some PoV video from a robot plane outfitted with remotely launched roman candles. It was pretty sweet, but it’s definitely been put to shame by the above vid, which shows a tricopter UAV doing fireworks battles with hydrogen filled balloons and air defense systems.
While I hate to turn such a cool project into a rant, this video showed up at the end of a TechCrunch article that’s essentially just another flavor of the obligatory “robots are going to kill us all” piece that media who know nothing about robots like to write because it scares people. Since I haven’t in a little while, I’m going to address a couple of these points right after the break.
From the article:
“I immediately start thinking of kit-built UAVs packed with Semtex and targeted via GPS. Voila, poor man’s cruise missiles, available to any hardware hacker with a grudge.”
I won’t deny that this kind of situation is hypothetically possible, but it’s possible in the same way that anybody “with a grudge” can get a car or a gun and be more dangerous than a UAV would be. Singling out robots as being particularly dangerous weapons is intentionality deceptive and unfair.
“Then there’s the smuggling problem.”
While I’m no expert on drug smuggling, my guess is that transporting drugs using unmanned aircraft, boats, or submarines will basically never be cost effective considering the cost to develop the craft, the risks associated with running the craft, the payload that the craft would be able to carry, and the myriad of other lower-tech ways that exist to smuggle drugs in bulk. Again, yes, it’s technically possible that robots could be used in this way, but it’s not realistic.
What makes drones dangerous is that, unlike most technologies, they can and will decouple criminals from their crimes.
After all the hyperbole, this seems to be the relevant point that the author of this article is trying to make. Potentially, an unmanned GPS-guided aircraft could be programmed to autonomously crash into a set of GPS coordinates, and it’s true that this is a capability that’s unique to robots. And potentially, that robot would be very difficult to trace back to its source. Okay, so now what? What are we supposed to do? Stop developing the technology? Make GPS devices illegal? Stop teaching people how to program robots?
Essentially, my point here is that with any new technology, you can come up with worst-case examples of how it can be used that are guaranteed to scare people. Pick anything you want: cars, airplanes, electricity, medicine, the Internet… In each case, it’s possible to take some aspect of that technology and focus on how dangerous it is.
I won’t beat this to death, but let’s use cars as an easy example. Imagine for a sec that it’s 1900 or thereabouts, you’re used to walking around and riding horses, and people are starting to talk about these big metal things that move around super fast by using controlled explosions. I bet it would be pretty easy to convince people that they’re just going to run them over and blow up, especially since to some extent, it’s true, that happens. But imagine what it would be like now if people had believed that stuff and stifled the development of the car. It would have set back society as a whole, not just that technology.
I want to be clear that I’m not trying to minimize the importance of issues like this, and I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be discussed. The thing that gets my goat is when robots and robotics are presented with an intentional bias designed to scare people. It’s bad reporting designed to take cheap shots to illicit a reaction from a generally uninformed audience, but the worst part is that it’s bad for the industry as a whole, an industry that’s focused on convincing the public that robots are a good and important technology with the potential for making all of our lives better.
[ RCExplorer ] VIA [ TechCrunch ]
Comments (5)
Category: General
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Digg
Comment by Joey1058
Made Monday, 31 of January , 2011 at 5:57 am
I went to TechCrunch to read the article. I don’t know what’s more bizarre, the article, or the commentary afterwards.
Comment by bunedoggle
Made Monday, 31 of January , 2011 at 6:49 am
1. Drug smuggling robots could be viable, but not as long as labor is cheaper. I saw a show about 5 guys jammed in a drug submarine huffing diesel fumes for days to move drugs. As long as those guys are in line for that job, robots won’t be employed as drug mules.
2. I doubt this isn’t an automated drone. Looks to me to be remote control, therefore it’s not a robot, it a ROV.
3. The video is awesome.
Comment by Jon Evans
Made Monday, 31 of January , 2011 at 2:33 pm
I wrote the TC piece in question. Just wanted to say, thanks for the thoughtful response.
Comment by Evan Ackerman
Made Tuesday, 1 of February , 2011 at 12:30 am
Thanks for stopping by, Jon. It definitely wasn’t my intent to rag on you personally or anything, but it’s a bit of a sore spot for me, especially since it’s a recurring issue. I’m protective of our robot friends! :)
Comment by Tomas
Made Thursday, 3 of February , 2011 at 5:37 am
I won’t rag on Jon either. I’ll just send my killer drones after him instead.
