ForumsWEPRShould the creation of Military Robots be allowed?

79 8685
shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

I really think we shouldn't make them.

Who knows? The technology can go into the wrong hands and our technology can go against us.

Does anyone have any opinions about this?

  • 79 Replies
314d1
offline
314d1
3,857 posts
0

Or should we put robots on the field so that we'd have more of a reason to just right out start a war?

With robots fighting instead of humans, the death factor is taken out of war, and that factor is what makes a majority of people not want to take part in wars. Without a chance of human fatalities, people would be a lot more prone to approve of a war.

"Why not conquer that country? I know they are perfectly happy with their way of living and ideals, but when we force upon them our way of living and ideals they will learn to love it and be much more happy"



If it takes death out of war...Then what is so bad about war?
shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

Earth is starting to get overpopulated. People need to die (I'm not being cruel) or else it is the end for us...

Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,113 posts
5,600

Personally, I think the terminator scenario IS likely. If you give a supercomputer control over all your weapons and ask it to defend the country, then it will eliminate any and all threats to its safety with its cold and logical mind. BOTTOM LINE: Don't give robots any control of huge sort, keep it as drones.

p.s. although drones are safer, their is still the chance of somebody taking them over and using them against us.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,857 posts
0

Earth is starting to get overpopulated. People need to die (I'm not being cruel) or else it is the end for us...


You are actually being cruel. Why would people need to die, exactly? Especially if we had advanced in technology enough for all our wars to be fought be robots, there are plenty alternatives to murder.

Personally, I think the terminator scenario IS likely. If you give a supercomputer control over all your weapons and ask it to defend the country, then it will eliminate any and all threats to its safety with its cold and logical mind. BOTTOM LINE: Don't give robots any control of huge sort, keep it as drones


It sounds like you have been watching too much TV. Why would that happen, exactly?


p.s. although drones are safer, their is still the chance of somebody taking them over and using them against us.


...No...Not really....
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

If it takes death out of war...Then what is so bad about war?


In my opinion...many wars are that of just escalated disagreements. Instead of trying to essentially "talk it out", the answer to who is right is left up to who wins the war. War doesn't determine who's right - only who's left.

With machines fighting instead of humans, I believe that people would be more prone to escalate a disagreement (between to countries/lands of course) into a war...for instead of risking human lives they are just simply risking lifeless objects

At least, no country with a sound and stable government


And a large number of countries that take part in war do not have sound and stable governments (a big shout out to USA..)

Explain this please.


A very extreme statement on my part..which comes from my hatred of wars started because of different viewpoints.

Like I said before, since no human lives would be risked in the fighting aspect of the war, I believe people would be more prone to start a war out of disagreeing viewpoints. Wars like this (trying to push one's way of life and ideals onto another) have happened many times before, and they were started even with human lives at immediate risk.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,831 posts
1,120

Asimov's laws.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Also, the ones using the robots will still have to kill people, as poorer countries will still use humans. Thus, you are breaking Asimov's laws.

So, in answer to the OP question, no, militaries should not allow fighting robots, but I don't mind robots that don't fight.

Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,113 posts
5,600

Asimov's laws.
Those robots did start doing the same thing they did in the movie I-robot, they killed humans, because they reinterpreted the first law as humanity shall not be allowed to come to harm.

p.s. read "with folded hands"
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

they reinterpreted the first law as humanity shall not be allowed to come to harm.


did they miss the 1st part?

"A robot may not injure a human being"
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,722 posts
20,765

Those robots did start doing the same thing they did in the movie I-robot, they killed humans, because they reinterpreted the first law as humanity shall not be allowed to come to harm.

They did not, and it would never happen that a robot "reinterpretes" a given law. If they have room to "interprete" (say: randomize outcome) a law, it means the programmer is a cretin and the robot is unsafe (but in no way intentionally deceitful).
What happened in the movie is they invented that A.I. that somehow turned bad and used all roboters. The military would be stupid to even attempt at making something like that.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

In my opinion...many wars are that of just escalated disagreements. Instead of trying to essentially "talk it out", the answer to who is right is left up to who wins the war. War doesn't determine who's right - only who's left.

With machines fighting instead of humans, I believe that people would be more prone to escalate a disagreement (between to countries/lands of course) into a war...for instead of risking human lives they are just simply risking lifeless objects


Just wondering but would you be apposed to two people playing a game of chess to settle a difference instead?
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,370 posts
24,395

Why should America be allowed to have them, says the Russian and the Chinese man. We are afraid of such "bogeymen", yet it's the inverse for them. It's a poor reason not to develop such robots.

In any case, we already have them. The Germans had crude ones in WWII, so we can see how far back this has already gone.

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

Just wondering but would you be apposed to two people playing a game of chess to settle a difference instead?


If that difference is a belief in who is better at chess then yes, but in terms of differences that we are discussing I would prefer countries essentially "talk it out".

All war (and chess now) does is show who has a better grasp of war strategy and/or who has a better army, not who is "correct" on the matter. If countries were to instead discuss the issue at hand and attempt to find a peaceful resolution, however, then through such discussions they might possibly find out who was correct on the issue (though, I'll admit a situation like this would be a very rare thing to happen)
superdark33
offline
superdark33
17 posts
10

a homing missle count? because these are the robots you are talking about.

Not the metchas you see in hollywood, but a Hammer jeep who drive without a driver {Made in Israel }, all of these Neutralizing bombs robots, UAV's, these are the robots.
no one will ever count on a machin to aim and shoot. it can reload, it can find targets, but you need a man to push the trigger. you need a man to go manualy some times. like with cars. you can program a car which will drive according to the rules, and you wont have to do anything. but then, when old man jenkins will do a mistake with his old Va, the poor robot wont be able to react, or react properly.

and about war. A war is a situation when two sides try to inforce there Policy on other sides, from hte policy of "this land belong to" to "your ruleing system is wrong".
And afcours, there is the big human factor. I can asure you that talking wont have changed Napoleon mind. He wanted to be the new empire. he had ambitions. these wars are about glory fame and Profit, Warlord, Generals and Dictators who want to won the biggest prize. some times its glory on the battlefield, sometimes its patriotism, sometimes just greed.

Sometimes, Wars are like Business dispute, but in much larger scales {and sometimes not}. Its a battle about power and dominance. like britaines wanted to stay the supreme kingdome in the 100 years war, like Russia did in georgia, like Usa did with mexico. Or when Rome conquard Spain, and when France-England-Holland-Germany and whoever not take parts of china, for profit. soliders died so there nations {and its leader} will get more money.

and some wars are afcours about territory. Kashmir, Israel, New-Mexico, Ethiopia, Elzese-Loraine - again, sometimes for profit, but mainly for the prestige for your nation. wierd things man do for there nation, risking there life for something that in so many ways dont have anything to do with them.

Its like a Alpha Dog, making the other male dog surrender, lie down with his back on the floor. Sure, they can talk about it, but the alpha dog know {or think} that his Muscles will talk better. Two kids who want the same toy will never let the other take it forever. if they wnat it, no trades or promissee will ever work. So does in Wars. Nazi germany wanted Poland. so tehy took it. they talked about it when they took chehoslovakia, but it wasent enough. they didnt wanted just a part of czeh, they wanted the entire area. talking couldnt help.

Peoples says that there could be never a war between two democratic nations. I think that this is wrong. I know some warmongers, who belive that Israel need to be in a total war with all the arabs, and europe if need to, and china and russia. everyone that they dont like its way of thinking or willing to live in peace. they want all the middle east. "two sides have the jordan river, this is for us and this is for us", from the Tigris to the Euphrates. Luckly they are very very very few. but as we learned in history, when bad times come, these people give hope to the ignorant and to the Desperate, and they sometimes like the Idea of being an empire.

wohhh

back to the topic -

I dont think that a fully Autonomous machine is possible. there are so many factors, cover, aiming, wind, noises, smells, and even logic - when you see a rock hit a wall, propbly someone throw it. but yet again, maybe it is a grenade? Im not sure if a robot can handle all of these little trivial things. seeing that there is a fruit garden near a cave, show that the guard is getting bored, so there is a regular secret base. a machine couldnt learn this, and no human is capble of making an Encyclopedia that will include all of these ideas and facts.
But a 'robot on the remote' is much more realistic. human mind, robotic body and spendable. go mechas! go Iron man {Although I hate Robert Downey Jr.}.

Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,113 posts
5,600

They discover that the Machines have generalized the First Law to mean "No machine may harm humanity; or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."
From the wiki article on the evitable conflict.

Superdark, you make a great point, no complete automation, just drones.
shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

You are actually being cruel. Why would people need to die, exactly? Especially if we had advanced in technology enough for all our wars to be fought be robots, there are plenty alternatives to murder.


Do you want the Earth's natural resources to deplete? Having such number would cause massive deforestation and it can lead to the extinction of multiple species. We need to keep our biosphere in balance or else all of us die instead of some.

Just think of the consequences of this... It is more reasonable to kill than to produce.
Showing 16-30 of 79