×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Killer Robot Policy: Full Speed Ahead

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the set-course-for-skynet dept.

The Military 202

Lasrick writes "Princeton's Mark Gubrud has an excellent piece on the United States killer robot policy. In 2012, without much fanfare, the U.S. announced the world's first openly declared national policy for killer robots. That policy has been widely misperceived as one of caution, according to Gubrud: 'A careful reading of the directive finds that it lists some broad and imprecise criteria and requires senior officials to certify that these criteria have been met if systems are intended to target and kill people by machine decision alone. But it fully supports developing, testing, and using the technology, without delay. Far from applying the brakes, the policy in effect overrides longstanding resistance within the military, establishes a framework for managing legal, ethical, and technical concerns, and signals to developers and vendors that the Pentagon is serious about autonomous weapons.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

202 comments

Cylons (2)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 6 months ago | (#44905691)

or other movie equivalents.

Re:Cylons (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44905705)

dundun- dun, dundun

Re:Cylons (3, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 6 months ago | (#44906457)

I was thinking more along the lines of Bender.

Re:Cylons (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906513)

Now I can get behind the program.

War! With hookers and blackjack! Forget the war - and the blackjack.

Asimov Be Damned (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44905703)

"Damn the Asimovs, full speed ahead!

Re:Asimov Be Damned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44905853)

Torpedoes, drones, it's all good.

Completely insane... (4, Insightful)

GuardianBob420 (309353) | about 6 months ago | (#44905707)

I'm not even sure what else to say here... so much for the Three Laws ;-)

Re:Completely insane... (2)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 6 months ago | (#44905769)

In the US, the Three Laws of Robotics would be as complicated as copyright laws.

Re:Completely insane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44905903)

In the US, the Three Laws of Robotics would be as complicated as copyright laws.

Unfortunately someone owns the copyright on the "Three Laws of Robotics" so we can't use them unless we pay the licensing fees.

Re:Completely insane... (2)

internerdj (1319281) | about 6 months ago | (#44905913)

Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12

Addtional ammendments (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906205)

Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12

You shall not do any harm to a human being unless they are attacking or trying to arrest a CEO/Billionaire.

Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12 a. If CEO is being arrested by armed humans of any sort (including police), you are free to cause said human's harm and even death.

Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12 subsection b. Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and every other Wall street banker shall be protected even if it means killing every other human in the vicinity.

Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12 subsection c. : folks who can pay 100 million dollars per year shall have unlimited protection by said robots.

Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12 subsection d. : Members of Congress are immune forever from actions of said robots.

Re:Completely insane... (5, Informative)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 6 months ago | (#44905859)

The Three Laws were EXPRESSLY invented to show why such a simple system will not work. Asimov spent extensive amounts of time pointing this out to us. It is frustrating people think '3 laws safe'.

Re:Completely insane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906019)

Exactly. There are many stories (and well worth reading) pointing at numerous 'edge' cases where the three laws can get a little ambiguous. I.e. since a robot should never allow a person to come to harm, through action or inaction. However, should a robot allow itself to come to harm (probably through inaction) if the robot determines that the person will come to harm anyway? And how do you tell if the robot breaks Law 1 in this case?

Re:Completely insane... (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about 6 months ago | (#44906169)

Exactly. There are many stories (and well worth reading) pointing at numerous 'edge' cases where the three laws can get a little ambiguous. I.e. since a robot should never allow a person to come to harm, through action or inaction. However, should a robot allow itself to come to harm (probably through inaction) if the robot determines that the person will come to harm anyway? And how do you tell if the robot breaks Law 1 in this case?

That, detective, is the right question. Program terminated.

Re:Completely insane... (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 6 months ago | (#44906059)

The Three Laws were EXPRESSLY invented to show why such a simple system will not work.

The three laws were expressly invented to make a system that works.

He then spent extensive amounts of time exploring them for unintended consequences and corner cases where they did not work.

It is frustrating people think '3 laws safe'.

Its FAR more frustrating that rather than trying to -fix- the edge cases Asimov uncovered with the 3 laws (later 4 laws), we've decided to just go full steam ahead without any laws at all with robots designed for the sole purpose of killing us.

Re: Completely insane... (4, Funny)

JWW (79176) | about 6 months ago | (#44906163)

Ah, but one law is just waaaay simpler than three.

It's just unfortunate that law is -- Kill humans.

Re:Completely insane... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#44906215)

The Three Laws were EXPRESSLY invented to show why such a simple system will not work. Asimov spent extensive amounts of time pointing this out to us. It is frustrating people think '3 laws safe'.

The *early works* show how it wouldn't work in simple robots, while the later works show how advanced humaniform robots such as R. Daneel Olivaw ought be able to resolve difficult situations with increasingly narrower gray area that would prevent them from resolving only the most complex situations (they actually only had problems with resolving the zeroth law issues - I don't recall a humaniform robot getting conflicted over the implications of laws 1, 2, and 3). Reading that sort of like refining a fractal approximation, really.

Re:Completely insane... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#44906145)

I'm not even sure what else to say here... so much for the Three Laws ;-)

The three laws are the Robotic Constitution. And now witness all the exceptions granted by the KillerRobotic Congress of the federal robotic government in Machinegton A.C.

Re:Completely insane... (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about 6 months ago | (#44906373)

Let's balance this out on our options. Option one is three laws from a Science Fiction author who the three laws and the turned around and wrote multiple books about how they inevitably just couldn't work. Option two involves the real world and keep our service members out of harms way from real missiles and bullets.

Let me think real hard about this, obey three fictional laws parodied by the very person who came up with them or protect real human beings from harm? I know that might sound like a tough choice in a science fiction setting, but in the real world most people value human over machines.

How is it different than a bomb? (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about 6 months ago | (#44906407)

If you were going to bomb a building, and thus kill everything in a kill radius, is it significantly different if you send in a kill bot with no off switch. Maybe the AI on the robot makes mistakes as shoots some non-combatants. The bomb doesn't even have AI.

Mission planners have the trade off of, do I send in very selective humans to avoid casualties, but put those humans at risk, or do I drop a bomb and not put my soldiers at risk but have the potential for indisriminate killing. With unclear info it's hard.

What this does is allow more parsimonious missions with the use of more, not less selective force.

The danger here is not the proper use of these, but that they remove the restrain that hard decision was enforcing. Right now often the right choice is do nothing. But here with the prospect of lower casualties and more mission options, this may lower restraint.

Another nightmare sceanrio is that as these things become more and more trusted, police forces start using them in non-warefare environments. then were fucked.

the mid night movie scenario is one of these runs amuck like robocop is probably not going to happen unless these get so common that they enter commerical rent-a-cop domain where every bussiness has one to replace the security guard.

Directive 3000.09 (1)

Forbo (3035827) | about 6 months ago | (#44905721)

"...establishes a framework for managing legal, ethical, and technical concerns..."

If this "framework" even remotely resembles FISA, we're fucked.

Yeah... (3, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | about 6 months ago | (#44905729)

> A careful reading of the directive finds that it lists some broad and imprecise criteria and requires senior officials to certify that these criteria have been met if systems are intended to target and kill people by machine decision alone. [emphasis mine]

(I think I've seen that movie...) What could possibly go wrong?

I wonder if they'd be running Windows for Killer Robots?

Re:Yeah... (2)

Forbo (3035827) | about 6 months ago | (#44905817)

ED-209, anyone? "You now have five seconds to comply."

No.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906015)

BANG!
You now have 5 seconds to comply. 4 3 2 1

Gotta love those mismanaged mutexes :)

Re:No.... (3, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about 6 months ago | (#44906079)

BANG!
You now have 5 seconds to comply. 4 3 2 1

Gotta love those mismanaged mutexes :)

It seems like some human police have already shifted to that algorithm.

Re:Yeah... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 6 months ago | (#44905837)

(I think I've seen that movie...) What could possibly go wrong?

As long as the killbots have a preset kill limit, I think we'll be okay.

Re:Yeah... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 6 months ago | (#44906065)

(I think I've seen that movie...) What could possibly go wrong?

As long as the killbots have a preset kill limit, I think we'll be okay.

Unless there's a rounding error, or another FPU issue, or a counter rolls over.

Re:Yeah... (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 6 months ago | (#44906455)

Yep. Intel FDIV bug, 1994; some prime number calculations are "innaccurate".

Intel Logical Human Interaction Processor anomoly, 2023; a town of 500 is wiped out.

Re:Yeah... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 6 months ago | (#44906075)

In movies you should take care if the robot eyes shine in red light, or maybe yellow one. But for those robots you should take cover if they show Blue Eyes Of Death.

Re:Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906253)

I wonder if they'd be running Windows for Killer Robots?

Let's hope so, because you would be able to press the Killbot's Start button to shut it down.

Re:Yeah... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 6 months ago | (#44906447)

I wonder if they'd be running Windows for Killer Robots?

Let's hope so, because you would be able to press the Killbot's Start button to shut it down.

I hope you're right. On the other hand...

"The killbot has gone berserk! Shut it down! Shut it down!"

"I'm trying! What the hell is a 'charms bar'??"

Re:Yeah... (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 6 months ago | (#44906263)

> A careful reading of the directive finds that it lists some broad and imprecise criteria and requires senior officials to certify that these criteria have been met if systems are intended to target and kill people by machine decision alone. [emphasis mine]

(I think I've seen that movie...) What could possibly go wrong?

I wonder if they'd be running Windows for Killer Robots?

Subject 8572 has initialed combative...

Action: Activate weapons system. Terminate subject

Divide Overflow

Abort, Retry, Fail?

Did you expect something different? (4, Insightful)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 6 months ago | (#44905755)

It would be pretty darned hypocritical of us to indiscriminately bomb people and then say that you shouldn't use A.I. driven robots because it's too impersonal a way to kill people.

Re:Did you expect something different? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 6 months ago | (#44906131)

For they will be operating inside normal parameters to kill 50 civilians [policymic.com] for each terrorist, enemy soldier or robber in US soil. Because police (or at least, swat teams) WILL use them.

Re:Did you expect something different? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906241)

Yeah, no. Most people object to it because fully autonomous killing machines cannot be more reliable than our most advanced fully autonomous non-killing machines are now. The objection is less about indiscriminately bombing people within the designated target area than it is about a glitch causing the "designated target area" to change from the actual target to...oh, I dunno, a lone seagull on the beach? The moon? A city 5000km away from the original target? The base which initially launched the drone and contains the only manual override for the device?

The public at large is ok with atrocities as long as they're pointed as "those people" and not themselves. Fully autonomous means there is even less of a guarantee of it being pointed at themselves.

Re:Did you expect something different? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 6 months ago | (#44906395)

It would be pretty darned hypocritical of us to indiscriminately bomb people and then say that you shouldn't use A.I. driven robots because it's too impersonal a way to kill people.

It's all in the marketing. The killer robots will send flowers and a card within 30 days.

No Worries, Mate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44905759)

No worries, mate. What could possibly go wrong?

We're going to have self driving cars, which will never kill people on purpose. Killer robots? We;;, they may be driving some of those cars one day "Here at Robo-Drive, Our Chauffeurs are Killer!" ;-)

conscience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44905763)

The conscience of a soldier is what protects us. His or her willingness to disobey unlawful or immoral orders.

This is horrifying.

Re:conscience (2)

Nadaka (224565) | about 6 months ago | (#44905951)

Soldiers have qualms of increasing degree when firing on civilians, countrymen, friends and families. AI do not have that problem. This is indeed terrifying.

Re:conscience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44905967)

Those the same soldiers raping and killing women and children?

Re:conscience (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 6 months ago | (#44906157)

The concience of the soldiers that pushed the buttons to send drones to schools? At least with robots you can hope for malfunctions. And the soldiers with a concience already discarding disobeying after Manning.

Frightening thought (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 6 months ago | (#44905783)

It's a chilling thought that the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism is also pioneering drone and robotics technology. I guess some bright spark somewhere decided he can get around international law by just having the machines do the killing, because "there's no law against machines doing it, right?"

Most Americans turn around and say "what law are we breaking?". How about this one, from the UN General Assembly: "No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist, or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State." Don't even get me started on "targeted killing" or "extrajudicial killing", which is just summary execution without trial. Even Goering got a trial. Even Eichmann got a trial. And then you have the nerve to call yourselves a "free country"? Wake up, people, put your shiny iPhones down.

So this is how Skynet starts (4, Interesting)

metrix007 (200091) | about 6 months ago | (#44905825)

Asimov argued against the Frankenstein complex as it applies to robots, and indeed many people have made the point, asking how something like Skynet could happen.

Would we really be stupid enough to build something that is smarter and stronger than us, and designed to kill us without safeguards?

Apparently, yes.

Re:So this is how Skynet starts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906423)

If you thought the answer to this question was no, then apparently you haven't been paying attention to the last infinity years of human history.

Ha, captcha: crusades

Ed 209 says "hello"! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44905839)

Hope they work out the glitches beforehand. Or better yet, test them on the idiot politicians and other perpetrators of the military industrial complex first!

I don't mind (4, Funny)

freeze128 (544774) | about 6 months ago | (#44905845)

Go ahead, make killer robots. I'm pretty sure I can outwit the current state of the art killbots by:
  • - Hiding behind a blanket.
  • - Running around behind the robot to it's blind spot.
  • - Pushing it over on its side.
  • - Ascending some stairs.

Re:I don't mind (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 months ago | (#44905981)

Because what, you expect the killbot to come running after you? It'll have an IR camera and assault rifle, point-and-shoot style. Let's call it more of a moving turret, less of a "robot".

Re:I don't mind (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 6 months ago | (#44905991)

1: you still show up on thermal.
2: you can't outrun an aimbot.
3: it won't be top heavy biped.
4: it calls in air support and levels the building.

Re:I don't mind (2)

lunchlady55 (471982) | about 6 months ago | (#44906011)

- Shooting a blue portal beneath it, and an orange one above it.
- Shooting an orange portal beneath it, and a blue one above it.

Re:I don't mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906047)

But can you do it before the hellfire missile destroy the building you are in from the sky?

Re:I don't mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906083)

Good plan. You should tell the Taliban. They are facing that daily.

Re:I don't mind (1)

invid (163714) | about 6 months ago | (#44906247)

Fortunately killer robots don't just grab people by the head and crush them, they like to throw them around first, and they usually throw people near some conveniently discarded weapon.

Doctor Who made that mistake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906269)

The whole stairs part ...

Just say'in.

They had to RUN!

That only worked with the early Daleks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906375)

- Ascending some stairs.

That only worked with the early Daleks. The later models were deployed with vertical thrusters/anti-grav capabilities.

As you said "current state of the art killbots". There's a video of a robot arm moving perhaps 10x faster than a human possibly can.

It's a nightmarish thought envisioning the future killbots that make a huge racket with the whine from their turbine gas engines, but who run, jump, identify all targets 10x faster than any human.

Imagine hearing the high-pitch whine of an approaching killbot, see a blur out of the corner of your eye three seconds later, only to have your head cut off before you've even fully registered that a killbot is approaching.

Re:I don't mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906485)

Show it a capcha. You want to kill me, well PROVE YOURSELF.

B.B. Rodriguez (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#44905891)

"Hey, baby; wanna kill all humans?"

Bad humor is how I deal with horrifying realities I really don't want to face; the worse the situation, the more bad jokes I want to make.

Now, where did I put that 50,000 page volume of stupid puns?

All for it (1)

NuAngel (732572) | about 6 months ago | (#44905901)

The robot would of course need to be pre-programmed with SOME KIND of target - faces from the FBI's Most Wanted list or something like that. And in a case like that? It's muss less apt to make a mistake than a trigger-happy teenager sent overseas to get stoned and guard sand all day.

Re:All for it (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about 6 months ago | (#44906261)

You detect something that moves? shoot. That, and the ability to be remotely controlled. Normal soldiers will not want to be miles around those bots. And the "remotely controlled" part will be probably exploited [huffingtonpost.com], either by the enemy, or by any of the lot of people that will be around in design/control/manufacture them, or by whoever that hacks them.

On the plus side... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44905921)

...they will probably get hacked and turned against them.

Read Kill Decision (4, Insightful)

timdearborn (645863) | about 6 months ago | (#44905983)

If you have not read Kill Decision by Daniel Suarez, you should. This fictional thriller, written last year, unfortunately seems more like reality than fiction. It portrays a vivid, all-too-real picture of what could be the outcome of these policies. Wikipedia link to book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Decision [wikipedia.org]

Nothing to worry about. I'm sure that . . . (1)

StefanJ (88986) | about 6 months ago | (#44905985)

. . . the targeting algorithms will be vetted by legal teams every bit as diligent and committed to human rights and Constitutional law as the people in FISA courts who have helped keep the NSA from misusing their powers.

In related news, if you have legitimate business in areas of cities frequented by anti-war protestors, you can purchase a RapidPass Trusted Citizen(tm) badge which will eliminate time-consuming drop-and-freeze inspections by SecuriCorps (tm) PeacePal(tm) hover-drones. F%$ing hippies need not apply! (We'll know.)

In a way, it is the beginning of Skynet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906035)

In reality, Skynet is commanded by The Powers That Be (whomever or whatever they may be). Those Powers are currently kept in check by The People. Now, The Powers also have people under their command (military). Most of those in the military signed on to protect The People. If The Powers commanded, "Kill The People", the military would largely refuse. Not so with killer robots.

Necessary safety precaution (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 6 months ago | (#44906051)

Make sure to make your killbots with a pre-set kill limit. That way, they can be defeated by Zapp Brannigan by sending wave after wave of his own men at them.

Re:Necessary safety precaution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906139)

pre-set kill limit == Ammo capacity

Same guys on the trigger (2)

benjfowler (239527) | about 6 months ago | (#44906093)

It's ultimately the same guy on the trigger finger, regardless of whether or not the weapon is a youth fresh out of boot camp, a remotely-operated weapon, or a drone.

People should be looking harder at the people agitating for higher military spending and starting the foreign wars.

Re:Same guys on the trigger (1)

FuzzyDustBall (751425) | about 6 months ago | (#44906353)

It's ultimately the same guy on the trigger finger, regardless of whether or not the weapon is a youth fresh out of boot camp, a remotely-operated weapon, or a drone.

People should be looking harder at the people agitating for higher military spending and starting the foreign wars.

Actually it is not since this about not having anyone at the trigger and allowing the machine to decide who to kill... could be anything from a drone to a smart landmine...

Get the science and technology going first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906127)

It is nice to have a policy directive now so that the science and technology can go ahead, while this policy is refined. This police will need to know what the S&T is capable of before it can be finalised.

Great addition for Grand Theft Auto 6 (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 6 months ago | (#44906143)

Got ahead . . . just try to steal that Robot Killer Car.

The car says that it doesn't want to be stolen . . . and who is going to do it . . . "you, and what army?"

Relax people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906191)

It's the USA here, not some rogue state. We won't use it against you*!

* Unless we really really have to because you are sitting on top of our oil or something.

Intended target = domestic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906237)

Hey, at least you know the robots won't say no when they order attacks against American citizens.

Robots vs anti-personnel mines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906265)

Anti-personnel mines have been around since before WWII. They're not mobile,
but they are machines that are autonomous and target humans.

Some have "intelligent" arming/fusing, so that footsteps, not other pressure wave profiles, set them off.

nuked... (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about 6 months ago | (#44906281)

Auto kill bots are an open invitation to other countries to develop nukes to ensure that they can enforce a demand to keep these things away from their country. Or else.

Why does a robot need to kill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906331)

Soldiers engage the enemy with deadly force to protect themselves; any other means would put the soldier at unecessary risk. But a sufficiently armored robot, with no life of its own to protect, could theoretically just walk right up to an enemy, take away their gun, and march them away peacefully. If that doesn't work, send in more robots. Send in a thousand; it's not like they have families! Everyone is scared of these technologies but they may end up sparing lives for both sides of a war.

Star Trek to the rescue. (1)

tekrat (242117) | about 6 months ago | (#44906371)

Fortunately; Star Trek shows us how exactly to defeat killer robots or computers of any kind. You simply make them explode using illogical arguments.

Captain Kirk: "Everything Harry Mudd says is a lie"
Mudd : "Now listen carefully. I'm lying"

Captain Kirk: "You've murdered hundreds of men"
M5 : "Murder is contrary to the laws of man and God."

And if that doesn't work, try the Chewbacca Defense!

"Must... not... kill... Jews..." (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906413)

That will be the FIRST law of robotics, once these monsters are released...

After all, Jews think that a thousand 'goyim' (that's you and I - 'cattle', in Jewish terms) are worth less than the fingernail of one of 'God's chosen people'... how modest of them...

I am totally against this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906453)

unless of course, we release it in Canada,

A careful reading... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906497)

... actually says that even the development of the capability is forbidden.

Take that Asimov! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#44906527)

We used to think Asimov was writing science fiction. Turns out he was just writing fantasy.

I thought this was a joke (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 6 months ago | (#44906571)

No, evidently this is not a joke, "Killer Robot Policy" is actually the headline. At least it doesn't ask a question. Remember on the Simpsons when we all had a laugh at this one?

Tonight, on "Eye on Springfield": just miles from your doorstep, hundreds of men are given weapons and trained to kill. The government calls it (sarcastically) 'the army", but a more alarmist name would be The Killbot Factory."

First as parody, then as farce. A sad day for intelligent people.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...