Beta
×

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 1 year,10 days | 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 ×

202 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cylons (2)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,10 days | (#44905691)

or other movie equivalents.

Re:Cylons (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#44905705)

dundun- dun, dundun

Re:Cylons (2)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906025)

Exterminate! Exterminate!

Re:Cylons (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906465)

If we're lucky we can buy a few seconds by invoking The Shadow Proclamation...

Re:Cylons (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#44906167)

ED-209

Re:Cylons (3, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906457)

I was thinking more along the lines of Bender.

Re:Cylons (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#44905703)

"Damn the Asimovs, full speed ahead!

Re:Asimov Be Damned (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#44905853)

Torpedoes, drones, it's all good.

Completely insane... (4, Insightful)

GuardianBob420 (309353) | 1 year,10 days | (#44905707)

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

Re:Completely insane... (2)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,10 days | (#44905769)

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

Re:Completely insane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#44905913)

Law 1, article 4, section 53, subsection 12

Addtional ammendments (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#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... (1)

idontgno (624372) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906509)

Directive 4 [wikia.com]

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

spire3661 (1038968) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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... (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906091)

You can keep the laws as is, you just have to redefine 'human.'

Re:Completely insane... (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906201)

So far, meat-sack, corporation, and...

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

JeanCroix (99825) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906475)

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

Re:Completely insane... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#44905721)

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

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

Re:Directive 3000.09 (1)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906021)

Only 49 % fucked.

The robot won't kill you unless it is at least 51 percent certain that you're not a U.S. citizen...

Re:Directive 3000.09 (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906467)

49% fucked

.. would make an awesome band name!

Yeah... (3, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#44905817)

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

No.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#44906015)

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

Gotta love those mismanaged mutexes :)

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

roc97007 (608802) | 1 year,10 days | (#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)

interval1066 (668936) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906399)

Seruiously, cop robots are what, 20 years out? Less?

Re:Yeah... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | 1 year,10 days | (#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)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,10 days | (#44905855)

Will work as well as cell phone data caps.

Re:Yeah... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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?

Re:Yeah... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906425)

Um, lessee... sometimes the only way to win is to not use 8 bit registers... na, I got nuthin'.

Re:Yeah... (1)

Scragglykat (1185337) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906439)

dieOS 8 is my guess

No Problem! (2)

Tablizer (95088) | 1 year,10 days | (#44905741)

Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong...

Did you expect something different? (4, Insightful)

Lucas123 (935744) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#44905967)

Those the same soldiers raping and killing women and children?

Re:conscience (1)

gmuslera (3436) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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.

More efficient conspiracies (1)

Tablizer (95088) | 1 year,10 days | (#44905791)

The military already has the Tillmanator ready.

So this is how Skynet starts (4, Interesting)

metrix007 (200091) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#44906083)

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

Re:I don't mind (1)

invid (163714) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906181)

You forgot "hit weak point for massive damage!"

Re:I don't mind (1)

invid (163714) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#44906269)

The whole stairs part ...

Just say'in.

They had to RUN!

That only worked with the early Daleks (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#44906485)

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

B.B. Rodriguez (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#44905921)

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

Read Kill Decision (4, Insightful)

timdearborn (645863) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#44906139)

pre-set kill limit == Ammo capacity

No Problem! (1)

rlp (11898) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906071)

Changing my name to 'Philip J. Fry'

Same guys on the trigger (2)

benjfowler (239527) | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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?"

I got a lot more worried about this kind of stuff (2)

occasional_dabbler (1735162) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906161)

...after I read some Neal Asher [virgin.net] books. Truly and utterly horrifying, and very believable.

Relax people (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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.

I for one (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906311)

welcome our new murderous robot overlords

Why does a robot need to kill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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!

And the first one will be called... (1)

webdog314 (960286) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906387)

ED 209.

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

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#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 | 1 year,10 days | (#44906453)

unless of course, we release it in Canada,

A careful reading... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#44906497)

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

Who is making them? (2)

amxcoder (1466081) | 1 year,10 days | (#44906517)

Will they be manufactured by Cyberdyne Systems, or OCP (OmniCorp)?

Take that Asimov! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 days | (#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) | 1 year,10 days | (#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 Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?