There is a real company called I-Robot.
It is based in Northern Virginia. It achieved fame through the Roomba. That little disk that runs around your house, vacuuming for you.
But I-Robot did not make its fortune on the lazy man’s vacuum. No. It also makes a nifty little item called the PackBot.
The PackBot is similar to the rugbot. it is small. it is sturdy. but this guy can also carry and fire an M-16 sub-machine gun. Any guesses where the PacBot has been getting play lately? Yup...it is the back-up bot for the roadside bomb detecting and diffusing robot.
And what does it take to make the best soldiers these days? Video gaming abilities are an asset that can ensure the soldier will actually remain far from the battle field while engaging in the war. The drones that we hear about often - little flying machines that can just look, that can look and shoot, or that can look, listen and shoot - are a prime example. The soldiers who operate the drones are actually based in the Nevada desert. They are in the war, but not deployed. Their “boots are not on the ground”.
So, the thing that made me think was, is this ok? Does making a real war, with real human lives at stake, look like a video game desensitize the soldiers? Our soldiers are not in danger of death, while innocent civilians on the front lines are. Is this fair? Does it matter whether or not it is fair?
And then there are a vast range of ethical questions. What happens if a robot goes nuts and just starts shooting? Is it an equipment malfunction, or a violation of the Geneva Convention? If a person were to go nuts and start shooting, he or she could be convicted of war crimes (in the extreme). But a robot? If it survives the mission (which I don’t think many of them do) it might just get a circuit board replaced.
And things get even more interesting (or twisted, depending on how you look at it).
In the US, the general argument is that “we know better.” Our robots won’t do that. We have safeguards in place. However, these types of are being made in 43 countries, and are not classified technology. Anyone (terrorist, student, video game freak) can potentially learn the needed technology.
An anecdote (attributed to the Democracy Now broadcast):
There was a group of college students who wanted to raise money for the situation in Darfur. They far exceeded their expectations, and raised $500,000. So, in deciding how they could “save Darfur”, they investigated whether they could hire their own private military force (mercenaries) to go to Darfur. They asked for bids from a half dozen companies like Blackwater (except probably smaller). They actually got replies. One company offered to lease them some drones with shooting capabilities. These drones can be operated from the US, in the same way as the army does - via satellite uplink and a video game like interface. College students in the USA using deadly weaponry disguised as a real life video game to make their own decisions about who should die in a foreign country? HOLY #$*%
Luckily, cooler heads prevailed and they did not lease the drones.
But many people have 500K at their disposal.
1 comment:
Have you been watching the Daily Show?.... An interview on that illustrious program made the point you alluded to here - that robots do not have the same filters a human combatant would have - can they tell the difference between an insurgent pointing a pistol and a child pointing an ice cream cone?
Maybe instead of trying to decrease the humanity in war, we should be trying to _increase_ it - i.e., putting our efforts into avoiding armed conflict, and remaining cognizant of its widespread impact, and minimizing it, when it cannot be avoided.
Post a Comment