Yes. They have to keep a human in there (or appear to) for legal, chain of command reasons. IMO, the most dangerous voices on these topics are those saying '[Insert name of enemy] is building fully autonomous weapons systems that pay no regard to international law, the Geneva conventions etc, so we are obligated to develop similar systems as a matter of security." Noel Sharkey from Belfast has done interesting work on the legalities and ethics killer robots. ICRAC (the group he co-founded) has managed to persuade some countries to get serious about the ethics of it all... talk of moritoriums and such.
AI and its precursors can be found in military platforms. More often than not they still sandwich a human between.
Strange thread. AI generated? :D
Too much to dig into, and I am no fan of lethal autonomous robot systems, but when evaluating them, it's useful to compare killer robots against killer humans:
A survey of US troops in Iraq at the height of the violence there found one-third of marines and one-quarter of soldiers saying that their leaders failed to tell them not to mistreat civilians.
Another army survey in 2007 found that "only 38% of marines and 47% of soldiers said non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect."
More than one-third said torture of civilians was permissible to get information, and 17% viewed all civilians as insurgents.
Attitudes among officers during the Vietnam War were similar.
A survey of officer candidates in 1967 found half willing to use torture to get information, and a very large survey in 1970 found that 15% of officers and enlisted men did not comprehend the rules of war.
Also remember that killer robots don't rape civlians or prisoners.
Regarding humans in the loop it's not either-or, a killer robot can be programmed to operate within a kill limit, for example (max three targets, let's say, then no more).
The military has always been a great source of research funding. They just got another increase to their budget. Often this research discovers and develops non-military inventions and innovations. Killer AI robots may also advance AI for peaceful outcomes.
BBC Click episode https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0012kd2/click-autonomous-weapons-a-threat-to-humanity
AI and autonomous weaponry may be the biggest leap in military technology since the advent of nuclear weapons. Should they be banned? The debate is heating up.
The latest military robots in USA 2021 designed by Boston Dynamics.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOUD-k4tElY
Human-Robot Interaction
Learn about human-robot interaction with edX's online human-robot interaction courses.
Free online classes.
https://www.edx.org/learn/human-robot-interaction
Underactuated Robotics
Algorithms for Walking, Running, Swimming, Flying, and Manipulation.
Free online classes from edX.
https://www.edx.org/course/underactuated-robotics-2?index=product&queryID=ef1fda0338809339be66dc9e44834b1c&position=1
Modern AI in a nutshell.
Killer Robots: Urgent Need to Fast-Track Talks
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/08/02/killer-robots-urgent-need-fast-track-talks#
Robot Development. Free online classes from edX.
https://www.edx.org/course/developmental-robotics
PeeJayIEee wrote: » Science Fiction (not to be confused with the now almost ubiquitous, Science Fantasy) has most often been the reliable predictor of both sides of the coin. Ultimately and unfortunately, history illustrates that it is always too late. Luckily, there are often things that are not predicted, so mitigations can still be hoped for.
The error rates vary across the datasets. In ImageNet, the most popular dataset used to train models for object recognition, the rate creeps up to six per cent.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » During WWII there was project about training pigeons. to guide bombs.
A pigeon in each compartment, trained by operant conditioning to recognise the target, would peck at it continually. Pecks to the centre of the screen caused the missile to fly straight, whilst off- centre pecks tilted the screen which would alter the missile’s course.
smacl wrote: » I think that statement is quite a bit out of date at this point. Generative adversarial networks for example don't need much in the way of training data and are capable of learning new patterns. AIs at this point can create new patterns which in turn can be used to synthesise training for other AIs.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » No AI is capable of learning at all. It's pattern recognition aided by human curated data and human initial labelling.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Killer Robots mean AI Today's AI is just like 1960's AI. It's just database lookups, pattern matching and rules. The databases are way bigger now.
It may be true that AI learns from every single case it sees, the problem is that you don't know what it learned, can't ask it and can't correct it. No doubt it will some times get the right answer, but that just makes it Accidental Intelligence. ...Learns? That's marketing speak. No AI is capable of learning at all. It's pattern recognition aided by human curated data and human initial labelling. But indeed, you don't really know if it's matching (data comparisons) for what you intended or some other feature in the images. We see patterns, familiar objects in clouds, toast, flames in the fire, scattered stones. Because once we understand chair, we can decide to use a crate as a chair. A child that has eaten bread and sausages will assume a sausage-in-a-bun or a hot dog is edible. A two year old can do things easily that are impossible for AI. It's called the AI paradox and it was known nearly 60 years ago. Expert systems were the big thing in AI in the 1980s because they used text. The problem was capturing the expert. Faster cpus, bigger databases and more RAM simply made actually simpler so called image recognition possible. There is no recognition. Just matching. It's all marketing. None use "machine learning" or "neural networks" as those don't mean what they mean outside of AI marketing. Even machine translation has gone backwards. It now uses a brute force approach like a giant Rosetta stone and matching phrases and words. Text to speech isn't much better than nearly 40 years ago and so called smart agents are just voice to text front ends using pattern matching to search engines and chat bots hardly better than Eliza or ALICE. Speech recognition has moved from being a program on your car radio, phone or PC to something creepy running on a 3rd party system, the so called cloud. That's a backward step in privacy and needs the Internet. ...Anti-Tank Dog Another serious training mistake was revealed later; the Soviets used their own diesel engine tanks to train the dogs rather than German tanks which had gasoline engines. As the dogs relied on their acute sense of smell, the dogs sought out familiar Soviet tanks instead of strange-smelling German tanks.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Hmmm, not so sure I trust an article that doesn't mention the actual killer robots already deployed, the sentry guns facing north on the Korean border.
Fathom wrote: » Killer Robots: Survey shows opposition remains strong (Feb 2, 2021).
Notably, a majority opposed killer robots in five countries most active in the development and testing of weapons systems with decreasing levels of human control: Russia (58 percent), UK (56 percent), US (55 percent), China (53 percent) and Israel (53 percent).
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a08d55691d6f78a042612a7aa18ff3ab.svg)
