General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's Time to Stop Talking About Killer Robots and Start Banning Them, NGOs Say
The Campaign to Stop Killer Robotsa collective of NGOs that aims to preemptively ban fully-autonomous deadly weaponsis calling on the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) to stop talking about weapons capable of autonomously seeking out and killing people, and start actually doing something about them.
At the moment, its a talk shop, which we tolerated for the first two years but were becoming less and less patient, Mary Wareham, an advocacy director for Human Rights Watch and the coordinator of the campaign, said at a media briefing Tuesday
Right now, militaries arent using fully autonomous weapons in combat, but theyre getting awfully close. As The Intercepts recent drone document leak shows, the US militarys drones are becoming more and more removed from actual soldiers. Walsh predicted that were only a few years away from technology that could autonomously locate and kill peoplethough the accuracy of this technology would be another matter, and is one of the main reasons why the campaign wants to stop them from ever being created.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/its-time-to-stop-talking-about-killer-robots-and-start-banning-them-ngos-say
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Imagine a drone, but now it's an autonomous killer-robot. It's task is to find a guy and kill him.
Let's say there's a group of people and the target is or is not among them.
Three scenarios:
1. The robot finds him in the crowd and acts accordingly after calculating whether the collateral damage is acceptable.
2. The robot doesn't find him and doesn't shoot.
3. The robot doesn't find him in the crowd but shoots anyways... which is what human operators are already doing with drones.
So how exactly would a killer-robot be worse than a drone operated by a human?
longship
(40,416 posts)And SkyNet is real. Your problems are just beginning then.
Just saying.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The first T-800 would have broken the bouncer's wrist, entered the night-club, killed Sarah Connor, left the night-club. End of movie. As few collateral deaths as possible.
The first T-800 only shoots up the PD-HQ when he has no other options.
The T-1000 doesn't shoot up the mall when he's looking for John Connor in the arcade-section.
He doesn't shoot up the insane-asylum where Sarah Connor is held.
The T-X didn't bring a nuclear bomb along to wipe out everybody who would later become a supporter of John Connor.
longship
(40,416 posts)frizzled
(509 posts)Well done for making my jaw drop in amazement.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)All I said was that the Terminators weren't mass-mudering kill-machines:
Their task is to kill this one person. In a given situation they weigh pros (odds of finally getting him) and cons (collateral damage, like raising suspicion) and act accordingly.
In real-life, you could program a robot to kill any human who enters an area, or you could program it to kill any human carrying a rifle who enters an area.
A robot is only as evil as its programmer.
reflection
(6,286 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)They require minimal input from operators. No way were going to reign this in, we lead the world in robotic flying killing machines.
Javaman
(62,435 posts)killer robots will be top on the NRA's list of 2nd amendment protected rights.
"First they took away my killer robot and I did nothing..."
"You will have to pry my killer robot out of my cold metal hand!!"
MrScorpio
(73,626 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)frizzled
(509 posts)Starvation and disease caused by profit maximization in agribusiness and health insurance.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)and DEEP.