I highly recommend his book Daemon if you haven't read it. It's fiction, action packed and very cinematic. But the interesing part is that the US government and their security services took note of it, because what he described in it was very much realisticly possible with the current technology at the time (the book came out well over a decade ago). The scenario in the book blew my mind. Check it out. Oh and the sequel Freedom where the story continues. It's not as entertaining, but more thought provoking because it talks about the bigger picture and the social aspect of it all. Brilliant writer.
A strong case for an international treaty banning robotic weapons. A precise, highly effective presentation. I hope we all listen to these arguments and take action.
"Outsourcing" kill decision to a robot is one of the worst things that humans could do, but we'll do it, because results would "look good on a balance sheet". Outsourcing package deliveries to unmanned aerial drones will put plenty of people out of jobs, but we'll do it for the sake of a "balance sheet". Seems like business decisions and humanity are orthogonal concepts.
Great post. It reminds me of the scene from T2 where the T-800 is explaining where fighter jets start operating completely unmanned and fly with a perfect operational record, human decisions are removed from strategic command and Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate.
• Is Suarez just marketing his latest book? Or does he have a legitimate concern about killer robots? • Like the book Daemon. Very exciting and difficult to put down. • Believe that ‘anonymous weapons’ are already in use in classrooms, boardrooms and the workplace in the form of digital devices and social networks. Odd or sad people are harassed and bullied until unfortunately, sometimes the result is a ‘shooting spree’ • Suarez is a former D&D Dungeon Master…powerful story teller.
The only widely accepted definition of terrorism is that of the UN General Assembly, which describes it as: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for...". So, terrorism by definition means targeting people. Since the purpose of a military is by definition to terrorize, by either aggression or threat of aggression, what remains as terrorist targets are civilians.
I also frighteningly had no idea about these advanced DMZ (or otherwise) weapons technologies Daniel described. Kind of odd to know that many of these hi-tech corporations (who make devices we use everyday) are also behind some of the nastiest weapons technologies you can imagine. Again,...money doesn't wait for permission.
This may seem like a strange question, but how would the program tell a real threat from a fake one? For instance, there might be a child with a fake gun or an object shaped like a gun who lives in a war zone. Would the drone fire on sight? Do you believe that a computer has greater reasoning power than a human being?
The automatic machine may not have emotions, but what about the one who programmed it? It's an excellent point that you've brought up, but the soullessness of the drone is what makes it perfect for warfare. Would you rather have a soldier bleeding on the battlefield and even dying for his country, or a programmed robot that will efficiently remove threats without feeling the horror of killing someone else or the PTSD that may come with it?
except that they are tracked, and found to not have those IDs burned in, and removed. The problem would be someone just spoofing the IDs like you can a MAC address.
Don't know if you don't understand or you're just joking. The fact is that in a war of aggression that attempts to conquer another land, the ultimate fight is for control over humans. Regardless of if our machines fight each other, in the act of subjugating a group of people the final fight will always be against them- the humans. The autonomous warriors of the winning side will fight the humans after conquering their machines. It's really a choice between horrible & more horrible.
Disappointed that this does not guarantee that autonomous killing robots are inferior or inefficient or less competitive in war; Delighted that this is not about competitiveness in wars but rather about competitiveness of entire civilizations.
This is a good question! Honestly I think it could get out of hand. It could become a fight or race to see which country could create the most lethal drone/weapon resulting in a lot of senseless deaths. However with every weapon including humans there are risks, people being most risky. Drones are predictable humans aren't, and in the end we have to remember who the creator is and what is the creation. Maybe the most dangerous aspect of drones are those who control them.
I think the purpose was not to promote personal warfare, but to face the inevitability that war will occur and the usage of Autonomous machines would make anonymous warfare a viable and extremely dangerous option.
Just because they aren't civilians doesn't mean they don't terrorize. Kidnapping someone is an act of terrorism, and they can kidnap an office, a soldier and terrorize them. The term of terrorism is not limited as an act towards civilians. In 1998 there was a conflict from Irish and UK and that lead towards a civil war in both sections. Well, it was in United Irish and United Kingdom.
The decision to close the British tidal surge barrier is automatic based on conditions. Ships blocked from the safe haven could be trapped in a storm and sink killing people. Is that "Lethal Autonomy"? Probably not because of the definition phrase "hunt, identify".
Yes these drones can be dangerous, but where as an officer holding a firearm (that like you said can be dangerous) can prevent a death or a few tops from another armed threat (person), a drone can save thousands in war by simply replacing the soldiers we send into battle.
You really think people just send them flying around and launch them? They are tactical missiles that people gave the coordinates. The drones were at fault? Nah, the drones are sent after a strike team is sent and they send the coordinates to nuke the place or people. Not a computer error, that is a human error.
That's a good point. But won't robots fighting wars for us take the meaning out of war? If people don't associate war with sending human soldiers to fight, won't that make war easier to accept?
I favorited this video. You commentators saying Daniel Suarez doesn't know what he talks about, think about this: Everyone should be heard in matters of democracy. I personally think this speech was excellent.
People have emotions and act on them. For example a soldier may see a kid with a gun and not want to shoot because its a kid, but then that kid turns around and kills the soldier. A killer droid wouldn't second guess a gun, they see it as a threat and kill. These droids could save a lot of innocent lives.
1) I concede that there have been wars in Europe. 2) I don't think "kidnapping" a soldier is usually considered terrorism. Also, it's not usually called kidnapping. It's called being a P.O.W. Terrorism is not goal oriented (it may be ideal oriented). Terrorists kill for its own sake, or to show support for an ideal; not in order to: conquer, gain supplies, dominate a country or ethnic group.
A robot's decisions are only as good as the creators make them to be. They are much more consistent than humans if they are programmed and tested to perfection. Things like friendly fire and collateral damage could be eliminated with the use of such robots. This is why I personally support automated cars to prevent human error and save lives.
If the designers didn't program a way to control or give the ability to decipher between who to kill and who not to kill its on them. Suarez said a droid mixed up Iran because of a gps error, gps are programmed by humans, its not the droids fault its the person's fault who sent the wrong coordinates.
awesome and has some good ideas near the end, dunno about having some big international think tank dealing with them we have enough of those. but the license plate idea is cool
That would be beautiful. However, it would also kinda defeat the purpose of war, which is to force someone else to do what you want by threatening to kill them if they don't.
all of the things he lists as negatives are exactly the things the governments think of as positives. the difference between autonomous killer robots and nukes is scale and as he pointed out deniability, the difference with respect to biological weapons is biological weapons have a strong chance of spreading to your troops. this is a case much more like the advent of gun power weapons or aircraft in which who ever uses them first has the advantage.
Sorry for being dubious. The previous commenter said: "any killing of any creature should be made illegal", I think, because this is war on the lowest level, and that is the problem. I didn't think in such sci-fi way like androids or humanoid robots. My way of thinking is more simplistic. I meant the hunting of the predator-species on "self-preserving killing". How could you possibly prohibit to hunt for a lion for example? (sry 4 my bad eng...)
So, this debate has been going well and you've posted a lot to think about. Advances in war technology have made battlegrounds just a bit safer. I just have one last question for you. What do you think will happen to war once every single country only sends in unmanned drones to fight?
I think you underestimate the proliferation of such drones. While they are expensive now, so was the washing machine back in the 40's. The PC wasn't even dreamed of until nearly 30 years after the invention of computers. The original computers filled ROOMS, now they fill drawers, bags, pockets. The same will happen with drones. It is conceivable that you could have a robot do your laundry one day.
Of course. The reaction time of a computer is light-speeds faster than a human. However, do you think a cold, soulless, killing machine would have the same drive or judgement of a human soldier? Would a robot be able to fight in adverse conditions or make split second decisions about firing? With an autonomous drone, the order has to be sent to its system, while a human may instantly pull the trigger.
Nothing was expressed about his support for violence. He accepts human nature as it is and is providing a layout for how technology should or should not be used and developed in violent context.
that is good video only I have something that I disagree with it:It is people who used the weapon, even if it is fully robotic, government can order to kill people, with swords or robotic. Weapons are tools, and it is human being who used those tools.
I've put together possible scenarios from these new large social 'community' databases over the past few years, but Daniel just spelled out the remainder of the consequences and connected a lot of 'robotic' dots. The worst I was able to fathom was the intercontinental automated policing that robots might one day take over...nothing like the image Mr.S painted. Big money doesn't seem to wait for permission, so this is a very chilling possibility. We must remain vigilant and updated.
Convictions like yours are what's keeping this system of power in place. Preemptive warfare instead of defensive military power, "If I don't do it somebody else will". That's what international treaties are for, to ensure that no one will act without consulting the other nations, which, for your information, the USA makes a point of grossly ignoring.
In this way of thinking a regular dumb land-mine is a lethally autonomous killer robot. I don't see a moral difference between laying a minefield and deploying a flying killer robot tasked with killing all humans in a specific defined area. Lethally autonomous robots are not really autonomous, the kill decision was made by the person who wrote the rules of engagement for that robot.
Just because we do it doesn't mean we're defined by it, or that it's "in our nature". Just that, in the past, it has been a successful survival technique (for some).
automated cars is a great idea, but automated weapons is not, it's when you bring about the possibility of death in any form that arguments for automation fall apart. Imagine if one country managed to hack an enemy nation's weapons? Imagine if the weapons malfunctioned? I know you said "tested to perfection" to discount this possibility but this can't actually be done. There is always error that can't be removed. Read about the "Ghost in the machine" for more info
Well I am trying to gasp as much as I could and understand the reasons they start... I was just talking about the resultant of continuous eruption of more wars. It's not that I am against war. not supporting it either. it was just a point of view. I'll try to read more and see about it.
Since that was, frankly, a hypothetheory (a "theory" which wasn't actually based on any evidence, just the "it sounds right" type of reasoning). I think that we can eventually eliminate war. Perhaps not all violence, but I think war between large groups (e.g. countries) can and will be eliminated in the future. I mean, Europe's been doing pretty well at it since WWII
While the main concern is that the guy behind the curtain will be deciding who lives and dies, the better one is the guy behind the curtain deciding who gets to have to robots.
But does a robot know when it doesn't have to kill? Will it kill before being shot at? How can a robot recognize a threat and make a decision like a human can?
when attack drones become as mass produced and as cheap as AK 47s, then we can start worrying about "rival warlords" it takes money to field a whole army of drones.
The castle at 2:00 is a fake - it's a mansion house built by a retired military leader to look like a castle and it never once saw a battle. Just a point of interest! (Bodiam Castle)
I find his premises to be imprecise. For example a mutual human-robot decision would be much better, rather that a robot to supply data and a human to decide (humans prone to be emotional, robots programming can be exceeded). But I do agree with him from about 11:00 on.
Unfortunately, those laws basically require that a robot be sentient to interpret them in any useful way, and we can't even see sentient AI on the horizon yet.
...did you actually just define humanity by having war?! Just because humanity has failed in the past and continues to do so, does not mean it cannot eventually succeed.
how about not killing at all? how about using human intelligence not for warfare and profit, but for solutions for non-war conflicts and classic economy? we dont need war
A robot wouldn't need drive, it just is. I think robots would do better in adverse conditions than a human would. Along with that, they don't need food or water, plus if they are destroyed they're replaceable where as a human obviously isn't. Also where one robot may be destroyed before it can fire another robot near by will register the treat as its taking out the other robot and eliminate the threat.
i wish speaker provided more evidence and data to support his speech, i agree with him, but isnt the programmer(s) of the machine is the real killer robot?
indeed ironic. let's move over to the critical mass, with daniel suarez! our place in space - i think, it will be about how you should take responsibility for society for yourself, rather than handing it over with a vote every couple of years and totaly knock yourself out during the periods.
Europe really do have wars, just cause we don't live in those countries or continent we don't heard them. In europe since 2001 there have been 13 wars and currently 4 out of them are still going. You can't really claim they are doing good.
I disagree in the 'profit' part, warfare is precisely a product of people preventing others from using their intelligence for profit. "Classic economy" is precisely based on making a profit. We don't need war, I agree, because it's expensive and not an intelligent economic decision, unless you're an arms dealer or a third party which would benefit from 2 other parties weakening each other by war. So, we need to find a better way of making war perhaps one without killing.
Robots will NEVER ever fight or replace humans on their own agendas. It is a simple fact that robots will never be self aware, at least not for hundreds of years.
Here's a little scenario here for you. Let's say an officer is attempting to apprehend a suspect using forceful means. If he points the gun at the suspect, but, due to some error, he accidentally fires on an innocent bystander. Sure, the officer is still at fault, but the accident was created by the gun. Drones have much higher consequence for failure than a firearm.. Do you believe that having such dangerous weapons as drones in the hands humans who are prone to accidents a good thing?
The issue isn't necessarily power concentration, nor is it "terrorist" or private industry issues. It's the coming drone arms race. He's right to be warning people about these things, but the reasons are off. The worry is when you have governments, or powerblocks, leap frogging one and other in drone capabilities. Eventually, even we won't be able to fight them. Banning A: Robotic weapons and B: Research into AI need to happen and they need to happen yesterday.
It wasn't meant to address the root of the issue. It was meant to spark discussions and put the issue on the map in the first place, which it succeeds at in my opinion.
While I see the benefit of having friendly fire and collateral damage eliminated, I believe that in the end it would cause more harm than good. Why? Mainly because it would make it easier to resolve to armed conflict. If you knew that you could end a conflict using robots, with no risk of losing any of your men, armed conflict would undoubtedly be a more appealing option than what it is now. In other words, the robots would ultimately cause more wars.
Stopped listening after he said "taking the humanity out of war". Anything else he has to say would just fall on dead ears. I'm not surprised he's an American
I highly recommend his book Daemon if you haven't read it. It's fiction, action packed and very cinematic. But the interesing part is that the US government and their security services took note of it, because what he described in it was very much realisticly possible with the current technology at the time (the book came out well over a decade ago). The scenario in the book blew my mind. Check it out. Oh and the sequel Freedom where the story continues. It's not as entertaining, but more thought provoking because it talks about the bigger picture and the social aspect of it all. Brilliant writer.
A strong case for an international treaty banning robotic weapons. A precise, highly effective presentation. I hope we all listen to these arguments and take action.
"Outsourcing" kill decision to a robot is one of the worst things that humans could do, but we'll do it, because results would "look good on a balance sheet". Outsourcing package deliveries to unmanned aerial drones will put plenty of people out of jobs, but we'll do it for the sake of a "balance sheet". Seems like business decisions and humanity are orthogonal concepts.
@@alexanderkotliarov9569 it would "look good on a balance sheet" if it brings down costs for consumers
"Please put down your weapon, you have 20 seconds to comply"
Okay, can we just acknowledge how good of a talker he is. Great job, he actually got me very invested in the topic.
Why doesn't this have more views? It was a great talk.
This is a challenging problem, but the suggestions this man makes are the best I have seen.
Great post. It reminds me of the scene from T2 where the T-800 is explaining where fighter jets start operating completely unmanned and fly with a perfect operational record, human decisions are removed from strategic command and Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate.
This was a good presentation. Does anyone know wether there is actual progress towards the treaty that was proposed here?
• Is Suarez just marketing his latest book? Or does he have a legitimate concern about killer robots?
• Like the book Daemon. Very exciting and difficult to put down.
• Believe that ‘anonymous weapons’ are already in use in classrooms, boardrooms and the workplace in the form of digital devices and social networks. Odd or sad people are harassed and bullied until unfortunately, sometimes the result is a ‘shooting spree’
• Suarez is a former D&D Dungeon Master…powerful story teller.
surely he wrote the book/gave the talk because he has concerns. just like daemon/freedom this is an anti corporate fascism/capitalism message.
The only widely accepted definition of terrorism is that of the UN General Assembly, which describes it as: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for...". So, terrorism by definition means targeting people. Since the purpose of a military is by definition to terrorize, by either aggression or threat of aggression, what remains as terrorist targets are civilians.
this is one of the most well written and best thought out speeches i have seen on here
I also frighteningly had no idea about these advanced DMZ (or otherwise) weapons technologies Daniel described. Kind of odd to know that many of these hi-tech corporations (who make devices we use everyday) are also behind some of the nastiest weapons technologies you can imagine. Again,...money doesn't wait for permission.
Perhaps one of the best arguments against autonomous drone warfare, the end of democracy. Great talk, and definitely worth sharing.
And he even shared possible solutions.
Hes a great man and his books are inspiring as well.
This may seem like a strange question, but how would the program tell a real threat from a fake one? For instance, there might be a child with a fake gun or an object shaped like a gun who lives in a war zone. Would the drone fire on sight? Do you believe that a computer has greater reasoning power than a human being?
The automatic machine may not have emotions, but what about the one who programmed it? It's an excellent point that you've brought up, but the soullessness of the drone is what makes it perfect for warfare. Would you rather have a soldier bleeding on the battlefield and even dying for his country, or a programmed robot that will efficiently remove threats without feeling the horror of killing someone else or the PTSD that may come with it?
completely agree that no robot should have privacy in a public place. excellent point he made.
"It will take the humanity out of war"
This phrase makes me sad in more ways than I can put into words in a youtube comment.
except that they are tracked, and found to not have those IDs burned in, and removed. The problem would be someone just spoofing the IDs like you can a MAC address.
Don't know if you don't understand or you're just joking. The fact is that in a war of aggression that attempts to conquer another land, the ultimate fight is for control over humans. Regardless of if our machines fight each other, in the act of subjugating a group of people the final fight will always be against them- the humans. The autonomous warriors of the winning side will fight the humans after conquering their machines. It's really a choice between horrible & more horrible.
Disappointed that this does not guarantee that autonomous killing robots are inferior or inefficient or less competitive in war; Delighted that this is not about competitiveness in wars but rather about competitiveness of entire civilizations.
This is a good question! Honestly I think it could get out of hand. It could become a fight or race to see which country could create the most lethal drone/weapon resulting in a lot of senseless deaths. However with every weapon including humans there are risks, people being most risky. Drones are predictable humans aren't, and in the end we have to remember who the creator is and what is the creation. Maybe the most dangerous aspect of drones are those who control them.
I think the purpose was not to promote personal warfare, but to face the inevitability that war will occur and the usage of Autonomous machines would make anonymous warfare a viable and extremely dangerous option.
Just because they aren't civilians doesn't mean they don't terrorize. Kidnapping someone is an act of terrorism, and they can kidnap an office, a soldier and terrorize them. The term of terrorism is not limited as an act towards civilians.
In 1998 there was a conflict from Irish and UK and that lead towards a civil war in both sections. Well, it was in United Irish and United Kingdom.
It depends on how good the technology is. You're right, if it's unable to decipher a threat from a non threat, that can lead to unnecessary deaths.
We need organizations that are economically interested in preventing conflicts and responsible for not preventing them
The decision to close the British tidal surge barrier is automatic based on conditions. Ships blocked from the safe haven could be trapped in a storm and sink killing people. Is that "Lethal Autonomy"? Probably not because of the definition phrase "hunt, identify".
Yes these drones can be dangerous, but where as an officer holding a firearm (that like you said can be dangerous) can prevent a death or a few tops from another armed threat (person), a drone can save thousands in war by simply replacing the soldiers we send into battle.
You really think people just send them flying around and launch them? They are tactical missiles that people gave the coordinates. The drones were at fault? Nah, the drones are sent after a strike team is sent and they send the coordinates to nuke the place or people. Not a computer error, that is a human error.
That's a good point. But won't robots fighting wars for us take the meaning out of war? If people don't associate war with sending human soldiers to fight, won't that make war easier to accept?
I favorited this video. You commentators saying Daniel Suarez doesn't know what he talks about, think about this: Everyone should be heard in matters of democracy. I personally think this speech was excellent.
People have emotions and act on them. For example a soldier may see a kid with a gun and not want to shoot because its a kid, but then that kid turns around and kills the soldier. A killer droid wouldn't second guess a gun, they see it as a threat and kill. These droids could save a lot of innocent lives.
1) I concede that there have been wars in Europe.
2) I don't think "kidnapping" a soldier is usually considered terrorism. Also, it's not usually called kidnapping. It's called being a P.O.W.
Terrorism is not goal oriented (it may be ideal oriented). Terrorists kill for its own sake, or to show support for an ideal; not in order to: conquer, gain supplies, dominate a country or ethnic group.
A robot's decisions are only as good as the creators make them to be. They are much more consistent than humans if they are programmed and tested to perfection. Things like friendly fire and collateral damage could be eliminated with the use of such robots. This is why I personally support automated cars to prevent human error and save lives.
If the designers didn't program a way to control or give the ability to decipher between who to kill and who not to kill its on them. Suarez said a droid mixed up Iran because of a gps error, gps are programmed by humans, its not the droids fault its the person's fault who sent the wrong coordinates.
awesome and has some good ideas near the end, dunno about having some big international think tank dealing with them we have enough of those. but the license plate idea is cool
Always informative
a deep, powerful talk about changing the future of the world we live in
I am shocked this wasn't sent to TedX
That would be beautiful.
However, it would also kinda defeat the purpose of war, which is to force someone else to do what you want by threatening to kill them if they don't.
all of the things he lists as negatives are exactly the things the governments think of as positives. the difference between autonomous killer robots and nukes is scale and as he pointed out deniability, the difference with respect to biological weapons is biological weapons have a strong chance of spreading to your troops. this is a case much more like the advent of gun power weapons or aircraft in which who ever uses them first has the advantage.
Sorry for being dubious. The previous commenter said: "any killing of any creature should be made illegal", I think, because this is war on the lowest level, and that is the problem. I didn't think in such sci-fi way like androids or humanoid robots. My way of thinking is more simplistic. I meant the hunting of the predator-species on "self-preserving killing". How could you possibly prohibit to hunt for a lion for example? (sry 4 my bad eng...)
So, this debate has been going well and you've posted a lot to think about. Advances in war technology have made battlegrounds just a bit safer. I just have one last question for you. What do you think will happen to war once every single country only sends in unmanned drones to fight?
I think you underestimate the proliferation of such drones. While they are expensive now, so was the washing machine back in the 40's. The PC wasn't even dreamed of until nearly 30 years after the invention of computers. The original computers filled ROOMS, now they fill drawers, bags, pockets. The same will happen with drones. It is conceivable that you could have a robot do your laundry one day.
whenever people say something like this i immediately assume they have no idea why wars start in the first place
Of course. The reaction time of a computer is light-speeds faster than a human. However, do you think a cold, soulless, killing machine would have the same drive or judgement of a human soldier? Would a robot be able to fight in adverse conditions or make split second decisions about firing? With an autonomous drone, the order has to be sent to its system, while a human may instantly pull the trigger.
Since i suspect one of my sketches turned into a weapon I've vowed against automated platforms. I'd rather build machines to twist rebar than drones
Nothing was expressed about his support for violence. He accepts human nature as it is and is providing a layout for how technology should or should not be used and developed in violent context.
Well, he just convinced me that the kill decision should belong to a robot. And definitely not a human.
that is good video only I have something that I disagree with it:It is people who used the weapon, even if it is fully robotic, government can order to kill people, with swords or robotic. Weapons are tools, and it is human being who used those tools.
How about a directive that we should not kill anyone, except as a last resort in self defence.
I've put together possible scenarios from these new large social 'community' databases over the past few years, but Daniel just spelled out the remainder of the consequences and connected a lot of 'robotic' dots. The worst I was able to fathom was the intercontinental automated policing that robots might one day take over...nothing like the image Mr.S painted. Big money doesn't seem to wait for permission, so this is a very chilling possibility. We must remain vigilant and updated.
I want to believe it's that simple, but power > principles for most people.
Convictions like yours are what's keeping this system of power in place. Preemptive warfare instead of defensive military power, "If I don't do it somebody else will".
That's what international treaties are for, to ensure that no one will act without consulting the other nations, which, for your information, the USA makes a point of grossly ignoring.
Does that Samsung gun come with a s kill feature
In this way of thinking a regular dumb land-mine is a lethally autonomous killer robot. I don't see a moral difference between laying a minefield and deploying a flying killer robot tasked with killing all humans in a specific defined area. Lethally autonomous robots are not really autonomous, the kill decision was made by the person who wrote the rules of engagement for that robot.
Just because we do it doesn't mean we're defined by it, or that it's "in our nature". Just that, in the past, it has been a successful survival technique (for some).
so it's finally come to this
automated cars is a great idea, but automated weapons is not, it's when you bring about the possibility of death in any form that arguments for automation fall apart. Imagine if one country managed to hack an enemy nation's weapons? Imagine if the weapons malfunctioned? I know you said "tested to perfection" to discount this possibility but this can't actually be done. There is always error that can't be removed. Read about the "Ghost in the machine" for more info
this should be everywhere
Love this guy's books.
Well I am trying to gasp as much as I could and understand the reasons they start... I was just talking about the resultant of continuous eruption of more wars. It's not that I am against war. not supporting it either. it was just a point of view. I'll try to read more and see about it.
Since that was, frankly, a hypothetheory (a "theory" which wasn't actually based on any evidence, just the "it sounds right" type of reasoning).
I think that we can eventually eliminate war. Perhaps not all violence, but I think war between large groups (e.g. countries) can and will be eliminated in the future. I mean, Europe's been doing pretty well at it since WWII
Yeah, it just seems like so much can go wrong. There are already dangerous weapons. There's no need to have killer robots now.
That this is even being spoken of is amazing to an older guy like me
The "three laws" don't actually work, as seen in the movie "I, Robot."
We shouldn't build them in the first place ..
While the main concern is that the guy behind the curtain will be deciding who lives and dies, the better one is the guy behind the curtain deciding who gets to have to robots.
And most front line crimes come from breaking of protocol.
Better to have robots being unquestioning drones than trying to make people into that.
But does a robot know when it doesn't have to kill? Will it kill before being shot at? How can a robot recognize a threat and make a decision like a human can?
Oh Yoshimi, you won't let those robots defeat me.
when attack drones become as mass produced and as cheap as AK 47s, then we can start worrying about "rival warlords"
it takes money to field a whole army of drones.
The castle at 2:00 is a fake - it's a mansion house built by a retired military leader to look like a castle and it never once saw a battle. Just a point of interest! (Bodiam Castle)
That's a good attitude. Now just convince everyone else in the world to not have war, and we'll be safe.
In preserving life of the drone, and the innocent people it protects, the lack of emotion is beneficial.It can react without doubt or uncertainty.
I find his premises to be imprecise. For example a mutual human-robot decision would be much better, rather that a robot to supply data and a human to decide (humans prone to be emotional, robots programming can be exceeded).
But I do agree with him from about 11:00 on.
Unfortunately, those laws basically require that a robot be sentient to interpret them in any useful way, and we can't even see sentient AI on the horizon yet.
...did you actually just define humanity by having war?!
Just because humanity has failed in the past and continues to do so, does not mean it cannot eventually succeed.
how about not killing at all? how about using human intelligence not for warfare and profit, but for solutions for non-war conflicts and classic economy? we dont need war
A robot wouldn't need drive, it just is. I think robots would do better in adverse conditions than a human would. Along with that, they don't need food or water, plus if they are destroyed they're replaceable where as a human obviously isn't. Also where one robot may be destroyed before it can fire another robot near by will register the treat as its taking out the other robot and eliminate the threat.
i wish speaker provided more evidence and data to support his speech,
i agree with him, but isnt the programmer(s) of the machine is the real killer robot?
Yeah, but how? People won't listen to reason.
Let's just hope someone that makes these kinds of decisions hears and listens to what this man has said.
Well this is ironic
indeed ironic.
let's move over to the critical mass, with daniel suarez!
our place in space - i think, it will be about how you should take responsibility for society for yourself, rather than handing it over with a vote every couple of years and totaly knock yourself out during the periods.
This is a situation where Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics need to be implanted in the software of drones.
Those Three Laws take undoubtedly to contradictions, remember I, robot?
Europe really do have wars, just cause we don't live in those countries or continent we don't heard them. In europe since 2001 there have been 13 wars and currently 4 out of them are still going. You can't really claim they are doing good.
Look for TEDtalk: Raffaello D'Andrea: The astounding athletic power of quadcopters
Our chances of survival against such an enemy would be scant.
That IS an answer. Reading. Comprehension.
I disagree in the 'profit' part, warfare is precisely a product of people preventing others from using their intelligence for profit. "Classic economy" is precisely based on making a profit. We don't need war, I agree, because it's expensive and not an intelligent economic decision, unless you're an arms dealer or a third party which would benefit from 2 other parties weakening each other by war. So, we need to find a better way of making war perhaps one without killing.
Yes that is the way it is done to day as well, it is not automatic when they jail/kill the opposition in a state.
Robots will NEVER ever fight or replace humans on their own agendas. It is a simple fact that robots will never be self aware, at least not for hundreds of years.
Here's a little scenario here for you. Let's say an officer is attempting to apprehend a suspect using forceful means. If he points the gun at the suspect, but, due to some error, he accidentally fires on an innocent bystander. Sure, the officer is still at fault, but the accident was created by the gun. Drones have much higher consequence for failure than a firearm.. Do you believe that having such dangerous weapons as drones in the hands humans who are prone to accidents a good thing?
um, no. There has not been a civil war in the UK in the last 20 yrs.
And I don't think having UN troops somewhere counts as war.
His solution, if carried through, would dramatically undermine the rights and freedoms of future sentient robots.
I'm afraid of how true that statement may be
i did not think i would ever in my life time see the day when scifi was real.
Isaac Asimov has a lot more to say on the subject than James Cameron. Look up his three laws of robotics. We're gonna need them.
The issue isn't necessarily power concentration, nor is it "terrorist" or private industry issues. It's the coming drone arms race. He's right to be warning people about these things, but the reasons are off. The worry is when you have governments, or powerblocks, leap frogging one and other in drone capabilities. Eventually, even we won't be able to fight them. Banning A: Robotic weapons and B: Research into AI need to happen and they need to happen yesterday.
It wasn't meant to address the root of the issue. It was meant to spark discussions and put the issue on the map in the first place, which it succeeds at in my opinion.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that there are no unknown foes. Its all manipulated by the same interests. The way forward is non-compliance. Right?
While I see the benefit of having friendly fire and collateral damage eliminated, I believe that in the end it would cause more harm than good.
Why? Mainly because it would make it easier to resolve to armed conflict. If you knew that you could end a conflict using robots, with no risk of losing any of your men, armed conflict would undoubtedly be a more appealing option than what it is now. In other words, the robots would ultimately cause more wars.
Stopped listening after he said "taking the humanity out of war". Anything else he has to say would just fall on dead ears.
I'm not surprised he's an American