Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on February 27, 2008, 02:18:50 PM

Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: JBA on February 27, 2008, 02:18:50 PM
Automated killer robots 'threat to humanity': expert

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080227111811.y9syyq8p&show_article=1

gun-totting robots developed for warfare could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and may one day unleash a robot arms race, a top expert on artificial intelligence told AFP.

Intelligent machines deployed on battlefields around the world --

Washington plans to spend four billion dollars by 2010 on unmanned technology systems, with total spending expected rise to 24 billion, according to the Department of Defense's Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032, released in December.


(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj311/therealJBA/terminator-tpb-original-painting.jpg)
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Bodhi on February 27, 2008, 02:47:34 PM
If they look like this, who will complain?

(http://sarahconnorchronicles.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/sarahconnorchroniclesnewposter.jpg)
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Rollins on February 27, 2008, 03:22:14 PM
I hate to burst your bubble, Bodhi, but without that lower half...:D
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: JBA on February 27, 2008, 03:44:38 PM
AAHHH   Summer Glau:D
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: ChickenHawk on February 27, 2008, 03:52:39 PM
We currently have the technology to send in autonomous armed robots that shoot anything that moves.  The problem is that in an environment like Iraq, not even humans can distinguish between friend and foe, how can you program a robot to?

As for a thinking, self aware robot that could create other thinking robots, we are as close to that as cavemen were to building a 747.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Slash27 on February 27, 2008, 03:54:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
We currently have the technology to send in autonomous armed robots that shoot anything that moves.  The problem is that in an environment like Iraq, not even humans can distinguish between friend and foe, how can you program a robot to?



Who cares?
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: ChickenHawk on February 27, 2008, 04:15:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Slash27
Who cares?


There could be a whole lot of people who care pretty soon.  An indiscriminate killing machine is not that hard to build.  Can you imagine what would happen if a terrorists set loose a squad of these in a high traffic area?
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: AWMac on February 27, 2008, 04:21:19 PM
Al Gore is a Cyborg.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Chairboy on February 27, 2008, 04:29:15 PM
If you use robots to replace soldiers on a 1-1 basis, it's very very very hard.  You'd need to have judgment programmed in and..  it would be very difficult.

Instead of that, simplify the problem and scale up your ideas.  

My idea:

Invasion Mk II
1. Unarmed.  
2. Fully location aware.  GPS when available, inertial tracking when not, gyro stabilized, make every technology available so it knows WHERE it is at all times and records it.
3. Network connected.  When available, use low powered ad-hoc mesh networks to connect to every other nearby IM2 robot to save on power and reduce RFI, at least one is designated to pump bits via satellite or any other infrastructure available back to secure digital storage in the states.  
4. Full sound & video.  Each drone records constantly, and content is either uploaded on demand or when certain triggers are tripped.  
Example triggers: Sound of gunshot, explosion, etc.  Sudden heat, etc.  As bandwidth availability increases, maybe full time recording would be possible for all drones.
5. Mobile.  Through any means necessary, full mobility is needed.  Anywhere a person or goat can go, it needs to be able to follow.  

Usage:
You dump millions of them over a designated area or at the borders.  Each one parachutes or walks in and finds a person, then follows them.  Through whatever technical means is available, it sticks to that person.  If it ever loses them, it finds someone else and keeps going, logging the event.  The end result is that everyone in the target country gets a data trail.  Anytime there's gunfire, there's a log and evidence.  If they shoot the robot following them, that's logged.  If a robot goes into a bunker and never comes out, that's logged.

Everything is pumped into a big database, then the smart boys in IT start processing the information for patterns.  Robots that seem to disapear more often near location X.  Gunfire heard around person Y a lot, etc.  Two car bombs, always when Person Z has walked through the area, etc.

Step 3: Profit.  Send troops/assets/bombs as needed.

You could singlehandedly stifle any unconventional response (ie, terrorist) the same way you scare cockroaches, by shining a light on them.  It's non-lethal on its own, so there's probably a BIG increase in accuracy and the number of innocents caught in the middle is dramatically reduced.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: lasersailor184 on February 27, 2008, 04:31:16 PM
Sounds like a good idea.  Until you are shelling out hundreds of trillions before an invasion even begins.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: trax1 on February 27, 2008, 04:32:52 PM
Could you imagine how many lines of code it would take to accomplish a thinking robot.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: lasersailor184 on February 27, 2008, 04:33:44 PM
It might be possible when they really get into quantum computing.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Tac on February 27, 2008, 04:37:11 PM
Nah, better solution is to make remote operated combat suits.


The real soldiers are home inside 'simulators' , the robots are in the combat zone.

All remote controlled via satellite link.

This would allow a machine to be on duty 24/7 as human operators are rotated out in shifts in the states.

Maintainance / repair can also be done remotely or simply replaced by another unit that is deployed while the damaged one is shipped back to a safe back area for humans to repair it.

No AI involved, no risk of machines getting smart and gung-ho

and finally all that time spent in QUAKE will pay off.

:t
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: trax1 on February 27, 2008, 04:39:10 PM
It's still aways off, it's estimated that computers won't match the speed and power of the human brain until sometime in the 2020's.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: SFCHONDO on February 27, 2008, 04:48:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Rollins
I hate to burst your bubble, Bodhi, but without that lower half...:D



She is still good for ONE thing...     :D
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: AWMac on February 27, 2008, 06:58:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by trax1
Could you imagine how many lines of code it would take to accomplish a thinking robot.


Then everyone would complain that it's not modeled correctly, not enough skins, over perked, under perked....

Not to mention the name calling on Channel 200.
Dweebinator
NOOBorg
Cybervulcher
SkyRock
VansCrew
ect...ect.....ect.

:D

Mac
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: sluggish on February 27, 2008, 07:05:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Tac
Nah, better solution is to make remote operated combat suits.


The real soldiers are home inside 'simulators' , the robots are in the combat zone.

All remote controlled via satellite link.

This would allow a machine to be on duty 24/7 as human operators are rotated out in shifts in the states.

Maintainance / repair can also be done remotely or simply replaced by another unit that is deployed while the damaged one is shipped back to a safe back area for humans to repair it.

No AI involved, no risk of machines getting smart and gung-ho

and finally all that time spent in QUAKE will pay off.

:t


HOLY CRAP!! maybe it's already being done!!  Maybe stuff like AH and AA are real!!!

:noid
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Rich46yo on February 27, 2008, 07:30:54 PM
The female one? Can you program it not to talk?
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on February 27, 2008, 07:53:51 PM
http://www.goingfaster.com/term2029/contents.html


Read his info, kinda interesting even if 8/10th is techno babble.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Meatwad on February 27, 2008, 08:24:01 PM
Everybody knows that if you give a robot a paradox statement, its head will explode

I seen it on a science documentry
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Chairboy on February 27, 2008, 09:19:12 PM
Whatever happened to the Asenian laws?
0. A robot may not harm humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1. A robot may not harm a human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey a human except as where it would conflict with the first law.
3. A robot must try and protect itself except as where it would conflict with the first or second laws.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: xNOVAx on February 27, 2008, 10:25:07 PM
Damn we really do have our minds in the gutter.. I thought the same thing.. lol!

Quote
Originally posted by Rollins
I hate to burst your bubble, Bodhi, but without that lower half...:D
:aok
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Scherf on February 28, 2008, 04:58:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Rich46yo
The female one? Can you program it not to talk?


rich is teh winnar of this thread.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: CptTrips on February 28, 2008, 10:47:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you use robots to replace soldiers on a 1-1 basis, it's very very very hard.  You'd need to have judgment programmed in and..  it would be very difficult.

Instead of that, simplify the problem and scale up your ideas.  

My idea:

Invasion Mk II
.
.
.
 



How do you track them if they are all wearing burqa's?  Or if they all decide to put on those funny glasses with a big nose and mustache?


:rolleyes:
Wab
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Chairboy on February 28, 2008, 11:11:20 AM
Plenty of ways to identify someone for a robot.  Face, heat, height, shape, clothes, and who knows how many other things will be developed over the next few years.  BTW, your rolling eyes are broken, you need to find some other way to express your impotent spite.  ;)

Anyhow, you dump all the data you collect on personnel movements into your DB and let pattern analysis do the dirty work.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: CptTrips on February 28, 2008, 12:09:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
Plenty of ways to identify someone for a robot.  Face, heat, height, shape, clothes, and who knows how many other things will be developed over the next few years.


Lets see....

1. Face:  Hmmm covered by burqa, and underneath that, funny glasses with big nose and mustache.

2. Heat:  Theres one...98.6.  Oh look another 98.6.  Hmm 98.6, 98.6  98.6 99.5 (he must have a cold), 98.6 98.6 and finally 98.6.

3.  Hieght:   Careful.  Some of those burqa's are 2 midgit insurgents one on the other shoulders.

4. Shape:  Frumpy burqa shape.  Another frumpy burqa shape.  Oh look, yet another.  Sort of the purpose of a burqa, eh?

5. Clothes:  Burqa. Burka. Burka. Black wedding gown, no wait, thats a burqa too. Burqa...


You're right though, its a brilliant plan.  Its simply a matter of building "millions" of them now!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rofl :rolleyes:
Wab
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Chairboy on February 28, 2008, 02:39:34 PM
This may startle you, but the failure of your imagination doesn't necessarily mean that the smart guys & gals in the labs won't think of something  (or a combination of somethings) that's effective.

BTW, those horseless carriage guys are crazy, even if those contraptions work, who'd want to buy one?  You can't graze an automobile on free grass, a horse is quite a bit faster, and those spindly tires will never work on our roads of dirt!  Not to mention that they cost the same as a new house!

Don't even get me started on those bird brains the Wright Brothers and their maniacal bicycle shop...
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: moot on February 28, 2008, 02:57:35 PM
There's so many ways to ID people.. Way more than humans can, once a bit of software is written to exploit all the wavelengths etc that bots will have at their disposition.  Think fingerprints x however many dimensions of identity you can fit on the bots.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Denholm on February 28, 2008, 03:09:20 PM
Let me know when the robots arrive. I'll have my EMP and XM214 with a few million rolls of ammo ready by then.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: Chairboy on February 28, 2008, 03:15:29 PM
To quote Jay Leno, 'crunch all you want, we'll make more.'

The economy of scale makes almost anything less expensive by several orders of magnitude.  Plus, there's useful information created even by their destruction.  

"Statistical aberration noted: High incident of failure rate and signal loss at the following grid coordinates, possible hostile contact."  Just because the robots are unarmed doesn't mean the folks that come to see what happened to poor Sparky are too.

It's an invasion, and the idea is to keep our boys safe and cut down on civilian deaths in a world where urban guerrilla warfare is becoming the norm.
Title: Can skynet be far behind?
Post by: AWMac on February 28, 2008, 03:18:41 PM
I have noticed one thing and this is spooky as hell!!!  

When people talk outside in the cold you can see whisps on their words when they speak...

This does not happen with Al Gore!!!!  He can give a speech in Alaska and never have to wear a coat or one in Hawaii and never sweat.  He blinks only twice per minute.

I believe that the term "Global Warming" is a code word for the Mother Ship to proceed with the invasion plans.

Al Gore is a Cyborg.

Mac