I, Robot , I Soldier.

[Woody girl]

I just find the whole idea scary and demonic.
I don't think tech like this is ethical.
If you don't want to be face to face with your enemy, just don't fight in the first place.
War is over rated and we should be working towards peaceful means of settling differences instead of lobbing explosives at each other.
Yes, many call this unrealistic when the "other side" don't want to play nice.
I think I'm just so fed up with all the aggression we humans have for each other.
Why the heck can't we just live in peace?? It's a race to the bottom sold as a race to the top. Improving kill rates isn't any sort of answer. Not that I'm a coward. I've stood up to some pretty nasty people in my time...and often won the incident.
I just don't want this, it's gonna go bad, just like everything else we humans touch.
Domination of others is a horrible human trait.

 

[plastic-ninja]

To be fair, the next logical step, after “ robot wars “, would be just to let two supercomputers “play” the war like a game of chess. War would be short, as the outcome would soon be inevitable and obvious, so the losing side would surrender early. War would also be cheap, as none of the battlefield tech would be needed any more: just the two big computers.
War would be clean. Nothing destroyed, no one killed.
It’s kind of the perfect solution to war.
But it’s never going to be reality.
Why? Because war is an ongoing super-profitable business which makes the most powerful billionaires on the planet even more obscenely rich. It is in their interests to keep nations at each others throats.
It’s very little to do with governments and everything to do with tycoons. So we will never be free of it.

 

[TeeDee]

To be fair, the next logical step, after “ robot wars “, would be just to let two supercomputers “play” the war like a game of chess. War would be short, as the outcome would soon be inevitable and obvious, so the losing side would surrender early. War would also be cheap, as none of the battlefield tech would be needed any more: just the two big computers.
War would be clean. Nothing destroyed, no one killed.
It’s kind of the perfect solution to war.
But it’s never going to be reality.
Why? Because war is an ongoing super-profitable business which makes the most powerful billionaires on the planet even more obscenely rich. It is in their interests to keep nations at each others throats.
It’s very little to do with governments and everything to do with tycoons. So we will never be free of it.

I think part of the concern for me is a lack of parity - Not two equally technologically advanced sides pitting their 'best' AI elements against each other but when one side far more in advance of the other engages in a more emotionally remote war and possibly some sort of gunboat diplomacy on the edge of the world somewhere that media ( for all their worth... ) are not watching or invited.

If one nation decides its fighter aircraft are better to be unmanned ( quicker , can fly faster , can stay in the air longer , can act independently or as a swarm , and has no human even remotely in the fire/no-fire decision ) goes up against an either less technologically advanced nation or one that chooses to retain a human in the fire/no-fire pathway I think the prediction for which side wins and which side loses is fairly predictable.

But I guess that is what we have been doing as arms races for a very long time.
I think its the lack of 'skin in the game' and decision making process that bothers me .

 

[Nice65]

It will therefore arrive too little, too late and already semi-superceded.

But it will have been paid for. War is literally nothing more than a business. There are far more effective weapons in the background already for actual wars.

 

[Woody girl]

This is partly why they are building these massive ai centres. It's certainly not for our benefit (as they try to convince us
Look at how much electricity and water for cooling they need to function. We are already short of water, and electricity is beginning to be used more and more for cars and all electric houses. How on earth can it make economical sense?
There are plans to build one on the somerset levels. A water rich area, and close to the new hinkly point nuclear power station.
If they extract water from the levels, at the rate they will need to, it will destroy the unique flora and fauna. Peat moors will dry out, the already low lying land will dry out and sink, putting it below sea level, and then we will have sea encroachment, or more infrastructure built to keep it safe, destroying the coastline....it just goes on and on. But the powers that be must make more money and have more control over the plebeian class at all and any costs.
Our wonderful dystopian future awaits.
Wait until the robot dogs patrol our streets with shoot to kill orders if anyone breaks curfew.
I hear you say, don't be daft you conspiracy theorist idiot! But years ago, about the time the channel tunnel started to be built, I predicted a massive invasion of foreign nationals, I was told I was stupid then....
.......I leave the rest unsaid.

 

[HorseGuy]

Yes - I did watch that - IF ( AND thats the big bit... or Big Bot.. ) if the Human oversight decision making part is being removed , even at minor levels we are definitely on the cusp of a new arms race.

Stop Killer Robots – Less Autonomy, More humanity.

www.stopkillerrobots.org

Certainly the the robotics and AI technology has been capable of automation for some time (just look at self-driving Tesla cars a an example). All that is required to make the existing hardware fully operational is a software or command update.

As for a new arms race, I think that has already been happening for some time behind closed doors. If China is developing AI controlled war robots then America and its allies will feel the need to do the same or face the potential of being devastated in any potential future war. I also suspect (but have no proof) that many of the explosions that we've seen in wars over the past couple of years were already being controlled by AI rather than a human being. For the people making these kind of military decisions it just makes the most sense to use AI rather than a human from an efficiency, effectiveness and cost perspective.

 

[HorseGuy]

To be fair, the next logical step, after “ robot wars “, would be just to let two supercomputers “play” the war like a game of chess. War would be short, as the outcome would soon be inevitable and obvious, so the losing side would surrender early. War would also be cheap, as none of the battlefield tech would be needed any more: just the two big computers.
War would be clean. Nothing destroyed, no one killed.
It’s kind of the perfect solution to war.

It's an interesting theory which I first read about in the excellent science fiction book Glory Lane by Alan Dean Foster back in the 1980's.

Will computers ever be powerful enough to 'play out' every possible permutation of every scenario possible? Maybe but I doubt it. Wouldn't that require them to be able to simulate what every single atom is doing at all times to predict every possible variation of all outcomes in the real physical universe? Would the number of ultimate simulated possibilities that it would be required to produce be infinite?

 

[slaine_23]

Wether or not AI weapons systems will be used will depend on how much they cost vs how much a flesh and bone weapons system will cost to provide similar defensive or offensive capabilities, flexibility, support requirements etc. This is already happening in many employment sectors where the operational cost of a human to do a job is compared with AI operational cost, lowest cost wins.

 

[slaine_23]

It's an interesting theory which I first read about in the excellent science fiction book Glory Lane Alan Dean Foster back in the 1980's.

Will computers ever be powerful enough to 'play out' every possible permutation of every scenario possible? Maybe but I doubt it. Wouldn't that require them simulate what every single atom is doing at all times and predict ever possible variation of outcomes possible? Would the number or ultimate possibilities it produced need to simulate be infinite?

I don’t think the supercomputer war has legs myself. If the idea of war is to beat the other party into submission so you can take, or keep, the resources being fought over or otherwise force your objectives, a couple of (very highly) trained chimps playing noughts and crosses will prob not cut the mustard unfortunately.

 

[TeeDee]

Certainly the the robotics and AI technology has been capable of automation for some time (just look at self-driving Tesla cars a an example). All that is required to make the existing hardware fully operational is a software or command update.

As for a new arms race, I think that has already been happening for some time behind closed doors. If China is developing AI controlled war robots then America and its allies will feel the need to do the same or face the potential of being devastated in any potential future war. I also suspect (but have no proof) that many of the explosions that we've seen in wars over the past couple of years were already being controlled by AI rather than a human being. For the people making these kind of military decisions it just makes the most sense to use AI rather than a human from an efficiency, effectiveness and cost perspective.

Maybe I'm being somewhat subtle - I think its a crossing the Rubicon type moment - I don't doubt currently that they DO have the ability to engage that - What I hope is that they haven't

 

[HorseGuy]

Maybe I'm being somewhat subtle - I think its a crossing the Rubicon type moment - I don't doubt currently that they DO have the ability to engage that - What I hope is that they haven't

I bet they already have done. If they can they probably will. Gradually at first but likely it is already becoming more common and is well on its way to progressing into becoming a standard battlefield procedure. That's just my suspicion with no evidence to back it up though.

The Rubicon which seems to be in the process of being crossed at the moment is their making what has likely already been happening for some time official by telling the public about it and putting it into law. This will give them the green light to use AI in war much more in the future as they would no longer need to hide its use. Is it a coincidence that just this week America released a video of Ukrainian soldiers using Palantir AI software on the front line for their ISR (intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance) purposes?

 

[GreyCat]

@Woody girl has a good point about power and water use.

Once AI is "necessary for defence" then the next obvious step is to switch off domestic users to keep power on for AI if there's energy shortages.

That said.....

... history also teaches us that (a) if a hungry mob has nothing left to lose, the sheer mass of warm bodies will overcome the technology and (b) the technology isn't quite as smart as is being presented. On (a), the power of creative thinking coupled to desperation is a massive motivator for an unpredicted approach- as not only Ukraine, but also historical resistance movements such as the Viet Kong demonstrated.

As for (b): well, there's videos on the internet where AI makes car maintenance videos, high visual quality but recommending putting grease on brake pads to stop them squealing, and an AI tool that deleted a company's customer database as the most logical way of removing the inaccuracies.

It appears very difficult for AI to replicate certain thought processes, and that means that true creative thinking (rather than extrapolated thinking) will probably always remain unpredictable. Understanding and taking account of context does seem to be a challenge to AI (thankfully).

The social aspect worries me- the loss of jobs especially for the youngsters, and the "infallible computer says so" reliance on a badly programmed AI instead of believing the human.... just look at the Post Office Horizon scandal

GC

 

[Pattree]

The future of robot armies is here – and it’s not what you think

Robots are becoming more a part of our lives every year, and worries about a robot army rising up have long plagued the technology. But columnist Annalee Newitz talks to nanobot researchers and finds out the real robot army could be a welco

appuk.newscientist.com

Not sure whether this is relevant.
Armies aren’t always soldiers.

On the other hand perverting useful processes and mechanisms to military applications has been one of our species characteristic activities.