Thank god there is an endless supply of brown people to practice on.
Robots May Replace One-Fourth Of U.S. Combat Soldiers By 2030, Says General | Popular Science
Looks like it'll be fun time with robots in the middle-east starting in the mid 2020s.By the middle of this century, U.S. Army soldiers may well be fighting alongside robotic squadmates. General Robert Cone revealed the news at an Army Aviation symposium last week, noting that the Army is considering reducing the size of a Brigade Combat Team from 4,000 soldiers to 3,000, with robots and drones making up for the lost firepower. Cone is in charge of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), the part of the Army responsible for future planning and organization. If the Army can still be as effective with fewer people to a unit, TRADOC will figure out what technology is needed to make that happen.
While not explicitly stated, a major motivation behind replacing humans with robots is that humans are expensive. Training, feeding, and supplying them while at war is pricey, and after the soldiers leave the service, there's a lifetime of medical care to cover. In 2012, benefits for serving and retired members of the military comprised one-quarter of the Pentagon's budget request.
Thank god there is an endless supply of brown people to practice on.
Originally Posted by Dr. Mario Speedwagon
Set the killbots to maximum kill!
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
We already have drones that can operate nearly autonomously. This is just the next step in that logical progression. Clearly more armed Americans is the answer to any problems that might arise from this.
MWS Natural "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving black people approaches 1."
Imagine air deploying an army of nanites.
UGVs for military has been pretty much my career for the last three years so news like this is exciting but the article is pretty much bullshit. There is a market for IED defusal bots, a huge market for UAVs (recon or combat) and some room for logistics, medical evac etc. The idea that the DOD is anywhere near replacing combat soldiers with some kind of bipedal, quadipedal, tracked or wheeled vehicle with a 50 cal on it is silly.
UAVs have already shaped how we fight our modern wars though, and is pretty much our response to the modern middle east theater. If we ever had to fight in a theater where tunnel warfare was common (Ex: Pacific in WWII) you can bet your ass we'd have an army of tunnel hunting bots like some kind of fucked up Dachshunds.
It's difficult to imagine a way to make our race more prone to resource wars, so containing the devestation those wars cause by whatever means seems like a good thing. How could that not be a good thing?
Of course like all great technological innovations it will require a rigorous testing regimen. Probably on generations of poor people.
Can't make an omlette.
Armed Robots Demo at Fort Benning | Military.com
military robots | Popular Science
south korea already deployed military robots to patrol their border
Samsung SGR-A1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by fanaskin; 01-28-2014 at 09:34 PM.
Heh, that "password" feature could go horribly wrongsouth korea already deployed military robots to patrol their border
Samsung SGR-A1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robo Sentry: Password please
Robo Sentry: Funder is incorrect. Lethal force has been authorized.
They should make something like this
robotic suicide bomber
Last edited by fanaskin; 02-01-2014 at 04:21 PM.
Army tests fully autonomous convoy, US army tank automotive research was involved suggesting down the road they would have a basis of technology to develop driverless tanks.
Last edited by fanaskin; 02-01-2014 at 04:28 PM.
That's pretty good, but I was hoping they'd demonstrate navigating through tight areas, which is a huge challenge for such a long ackermann vehicle.
Wasn't there a Top Gear or something where a presenter raced in a Land Rover or somthing vs. a giant computer controlled military truck thing?
edit: There we go:
Last edited by Zhaun; 02-01-2014 at 04:45 PM.
I bet this sounds like a great idea on paper. Cant wait to see all the ways terrorists think up to fuck with these things. Cue the old loony toons trick of drawing the road lines into a wall.
It is the most technologically advanced war machine yet conceived! How was this mighty triumph of engineering disabled?
Well, you know. It had just rained the other day and... well, they threw some mud at it.
One day they'll add wipers then the turrerists gotta move up from using mud
What we need are big robotic pit bulls that clamp on to the back of the terrorists necks and violently sodomize them to death, streaming the whole thing to live tv. Psychological warfare bitches! After watching a few of their homies getting corn-holed to death by the Fuckatron-9000, the terrorists might re-think their career choices.
If war is going to be fought by robots, what are we going to do with the poor, marginally educated, and immigrants that make up a part of the fighting forces? There are only so many fast food jobs.
The biggest problem I see with drones in the future is hacking their input/output streams. Especially their output. You can only shove so much processing power on a drone to keep it light and using low amounts of battery power. That limits the amount of encrytpion/decryption they can do in real time. Break the output streams of drones and you can tell where they are. Hack the input streams and... welp...
I've heard its already fairly trivial to view the video output of some drones currently in operation.
It's all about matching the weapon to the enemy. Drones are good because it allows you to project force into a huge area with minimal cost and risk and you avoid the primary weapons of the enemy. If the enemy becomes more sophisticated and gets the ability to read data streams or combat them in another way they likely start to have more centralized and high value targets and you can engage them with different tools.
absorptions: Mystery signal from a helicopter
Did you read about this yet? I wonder how easy that kind of stuff would be to do with drones. And I totally agree with you. If America ever gets into a real shooting war with a real enemy ever again, I have a funny feeling drones won't be very useful, at least, not the ones we currently are fielding.
I dunno. At the very least they are high precision guided missiles.
I mean at the absolute least you just pack them with dynamite and kamikazi them into apartment buildings. You don't even have to drive your tank to within 2 miles of the target anymore, and you don't need your battleship parked off the coast to shock and awe the enemy with scuds.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are usually multiple communication streams on a robot, with video being the big one (Or any other high-bandwidth output of a sensor, lidar, time of flight, infrared, whatever). The actual control side of a combat robot should have somewhat sophisticated authentication protocols to prevent someone from hijacking the robot even if they could see the video. A basic research robot someone cooks up with a quick web interface could be hijacked by just using your phone to connect to its web interface, but as you go up in TRL ( Technology readiness level - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) you'll start to see more protection.
The thing that I always wonder about with these completely human-less (i.e. neither a driver nor a passenger) vehicles is how you can dick with it. Take that vid for example, the truck stops when a "guy" crosses the street, but what if he's a duchebag/terrorist and just stands there? If there's a driver/passanger they can get out and clobber the idiot, but if there's no-one, then the truck is stop for as long as the idiot wants, unless you have some sort of automated weapon or something to shoot the bastard with if he doesn't get out of the way ASAP.
I assume that in a real situation either the machine becomes quickly useless and exposed for being another DoD boondoggle... or there is some sort of electronic signalling at work. Truck only stops if you have the red keycard, bro. Otherwise you get splatted.
Which seems to dovetail in with what mist is talking about. It's a pretty big kink to be worked out.
On convoys the truck may drive itself but there's still a human watching the stream and ready to take over if need to. In the case of the asshole in the street the guy monitoring would either take over control or tell the robot to drive over the perceived obstacle.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this. My biggest fear with a robot military is that power is then concentrated into fewer and fewer hands with little standing between them and just deciding that aspects that the civilian population are redundant or that some random country needs some ethnic cleansing. It's hard to convince 20 thousand people to fire on their own people, it's a hell of a lot easier to push a button while robots do it for you.
Plus when the risk of non-action is the loss of a drone and an opportunity to strike you're more able to err on the non-action side vs having the risk of death for you and your friends if you don't act.
How does separating the individuals making the life and death decisions from the actual event influence their choices though?
I've seen many pilot interviews from ww2 bomber pilots to present day talk about the act of being in the air disconnects them from what they are doing to the ground, so I would say that effect has been around for a long time, that being said, apparently drone pilots suffer ptsd at the same rate as regular pilots, I suspect you would see a large divergence from ground forces using robots compared to air forces.
Drone Pilots Found to Get Stress Disorders Much as Those in Combat Do - NYTimes.com
I think relatively cheap, small, disposable, mass produced autonomous weapons will make up the bulk of the military forces in the future. Maybe it will take 20 years or even 50 years before this change occurs, but if you extrapolate the current technical development it seems pretty obvious that humans will be too slow and too squishy for war soon.
Yes and no. If we were to somehow develop a way to power robots w/o having to attend to them constantly, maybe, but that's unlikely. Solar seems unlikely except in the most passive or sedentary application, I don't need to mention nuclear, batteries raises the question of how to recharge them, and the most likely (some sort of combustion) requires refueling and maintenance. Mechanical failures would likely require maintenance by people, and the more complicated and cumbersome the system then the more difficult it will be to recover and then repair those robots. Then you have ammunition concerns...how do you resupply 50,000 robots in the field? If your goal was to keep soldiers out of harms way then forcing soldiers to constantly repair/supply/recover robots in the field brings the entire thing into question.
It's going to either have to be a stupendously gigantic undertaking where almost everything is automated (currently not plausible) or you're going to have to use robots in specific roles (EOD, recon, etc) where they're used only as a tool rather than being used as a wholesale replacement for soldiers across the board. Which is the gist I get from the article, but I imagine even that is probably far too optimistic.
The real rub for me isn't that "people are expensive", though that's true. If that was the only concern they could address that without having to bring robots into the mix. The reality is that in this day and age a draft will almost never happen and they can't get enough people to sign up. Not only that, but when we draw-down between conflicts we then need to recruit unbelievable amounts of people when we do go to war, and as Iraq and Afghanistan showed us, it's impossible to do. When at one point the DOD was forced to make up for the military manpower shortage by hiring so many civilian contractors that there were actually more contractors in theater than combat troops, you know that there is a critical issue with recruitment in general and upsizing/downsizing specifically. And bear in mind that if you think that soldiers are expensive, just imagine how much contractors cost.
Costs are somewhat a secondary concern, as bizarre as that sounds. The gov't doesn't have an issue with spending trillions of taxpayer dollars. They just need to address our endemic manpower shortages that we have when we go to war and they're hoping that robots can do what they last did with hiring contractors. Except instead of hiring contractors to move soldiers out of the rear and into frontline roles, they want to try using robots to move soldiers out of front line roles and into the rear. I don't think it's going to work as well as they hope, though.
I'm still laughing that the OP article mentioned wanting to control costs...ludicrous.
I remember reading a DOD write up about "the future of robots" basically, this was back in the late-90's early-00's, saying part of the reason they aren't very interested in wholly autonomous drone-things is because you need someone to be held accountable when things go wrong. You can't just say "ooops, robot did it" and have people accept that their kids just died to friendly fire from a robot error.
Not saying it still applies, but was interesting.
Video: Successful test flight for Taranis stealth drone - Telegraph
Lessons learnt from the drone will one day help in producing a replacement for the Typhoon and F35 fighters, said Philip Dunne, the minister for defence equipment.
“We need to be thinking now about what the next generation of aircraft will look like,” he explained.
In a lot of cases we are and in some of those cases the institutional racism is even justifiable.
But if you honestly think we are not then research the subject for yourself. Good lord, don't take anyone elses word for it. I'm serious, don't. Not mine not anybodies. It won't take much of your time. Take a look at the list of inmates scheduled for execution, note their skin colors, and ask yourself if you think this is truly indicative of the population. Take a look at drug convictions. Take a look at violent crime statistics and convictions. Just the basic facts of it point to institutional racism.
The argument over justification, justice, effectiveness, and basic decency of these attitudes -- well, that's an entirely different argument. And lets not blow things out of proportion either. That it does happen does not mean that it always happens.
Lol @ a robot thread getting derailed by a racial debate. Its like mankind needs a robotic revolution.
Navys UCLASS Could Be Air to Air Fighter | USNI News
they don't have a supersonic drone to do this but eventually you have to imagine they will.Manazir contemplated the possibility that that the UCLASS, which is primarily being designed for the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike roles, could be used as a flying missile magazine which could supplement the firepower of the F/A-18E/F and F-35C Joint Strike Fighter in air-to-air combat as a robotic wingman of sorts.
“This is not beyond the state-of-the-art,” Pietrucha said.
“The difficulty is always that the aircraft it self has no judgment and no prioritization scheme and isn’t going to have the systems onboard to do all things that a fighter does.”
The solution, Pietrucha said, is to leverage the sensors, situational awareness and inherent human judgment of a fighter pilot in a manned command aircraft. The manned aircraft would detect, track and identify the target, then hand-off the target for the unmanned aircraft to engage the “bandit”—as hostile targets are known.
“The Navy is ahead of the Air Force on this,” Pietrucha said, specifically citing the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) concept where a common air picture would be shared across multiple air platforms via a network of data-links.
Under the NIFC-CA concept, any “shooter” can fire on a target that is being tracked by a “sensor”, so long as the target is within range.
“If you solve that problem, then your missile caddy UCAV [unmanned combat air vehicle] wingman is a going concern,” Pietrucha said. “You can now target his missiles for him.”
Last edited by fanaskin; 02-15-2014 at 10:20 PM.
The biggest reason we don't have unmanned air to air fighters is because there aren't many losses on that front:
Postâ€“World War II air-to-air combat losses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Technically speaking modern air to air fights are fairly conducive to teleoperation and semi-autonomy given the already automated systems that are present with most of the weapons and the reliance of the pilot on onboard and offboard perception. There just isn't a huge need because air superiority isn't difficult or risky for the US to achieve.
Last edited by Tuco; 02-15-2014 at 10:46 PM.
Last edited by Himeo; 02-18-2014 at 07:29 AM.
Motherfucking Robots or something!!
What I have to simulate and then handle tomorrow:
Last edited by Erronius; 02-19-2014 at 06:03 AM.
There is some poor Serbian locked inside that unmanned vehicle.
Something like half of all jobs are supposed to be automated or replaced by robots by 2030. It will be interesting to see that how we as a society deal with the limited amount of jobs available.
Well, I could kinda see it, even if I think it's alarmist and wrong. You might say, "How do you automate a waitress?"
And then you should go to a Wal-Mart self-checkout line.
The trend is to increasing automation. Tax laws which encourage the manufacture and purchase of new hardware over the maintenance of workers don't help that trend a lot. When it's cheaper to buy a new machine than it is to hire and train a new worker... well.
I think bill gates inferred most of the replacement will come at the software level, not the functional robotic level.
Bill Gates: Bots Are Taking Away Jobs - Business Insider
Gates said that within 20 years, a lot of jobs will go away, replaced by software automation
It's not even that I think the trend to automation is a bad thing. On the whole I think it's a very good thing. But I do think that it's causing forseeable consequences in our society (already) which we'd rather ignore than plan for. As the tools get more powerful and intricate, the consequences of the choice will become more severe as well.
Bush talked about it with his whole "Information Economy" thing. I never understood what he actually fucking meant by that.
As it turns out, neither did he. But at least he recognized the political nature of the problem that's brewing.
The Future Of Jobs: The Onrushing Wave - Business Insider
Would love to see a chart for the total number and % of workforce that is a accountant, tech writer, machinist, commercial pilot, actor and firefighter. There's no fundamental changes to automation that I expect in the next twenty years to dramatically increase the ability to automate those jobs (Though improved tech will continue to make those more automatable), so if 94% of the accountant jobs are going away I'd expect the current trend to show that.
also fuck real estate agents, telemarketers and economists
89% technical writers.
ARE YOU MAKING SELF AWARE MACHINES? DO THE WORDS "SKY NET" MEAN NOTHING TO YOU?
Robots Taking Jobs From Every Sector of the Economy
There's links to a bunch of articles that this article references at the bottom of the page
Increasingly sophisticated scheduling software has eliminated the need for many office assistants and secretaries; Labor Department statistics show a loss of 1.1 million such jobs in the decade between 2000 and 2010.
Other job categories were hit just as hard. The number of bookkeepers fell 26%, word processors and typists, 63%; travel agents, 46%; and telephone operators, 64%.
Online services like banking have wiped out many teller jobs; self-service checkout lanes have whittled away at cashier jobs.
Utilities have installed smart meters that eliminate the need for meter readers.
That's kinda bullshit though. I can tell you, automated HR software is bullshit. It honestly is horrible. If you've ever had to deal with actual people and writing an actual schedule you should realize that while it is not difficult, there is a trick to it, and it is more a matter of art than science.
They're saving money by not hiring these people, but they're losing effectiveness and productivity with the terrible terrible bullshit schedules that a make sense to an algorithm. That solution is undeniably cheaper, but it significantly impacts the quality of service.
And to make matters even worse, it validates a sort of laziness among those doing the jobs who aren't replaced.
This is the sort of problem I'm talking about when it comes to automation. There are good implementations, and there are self defeating implementations. It doesn't HAVE to get better. But because the automation is cheaper, it allows bad work to exist for that much longer. It even allows it to propagate.
No way auditors are getting replaced by software. The whole point of auditing is having judgment and rendering an opinion. (auditor here)
you'd still have supervisors to look over the results , but I imagine the grunt work in nearly any paper pushing job is vulnerable to automation.
lol @1:08, what a piece of shit
While we are at it, not technically robots, but the teachers of the 21st century are being phased into online classes. A fucking machine can do the grading. It's staggering the amount of kids that learn through online classes, without any interaction with a teacher.
As a teacher I see the benefits and the many downfalls. Especially the downfalls of online only classes for minors that don't have the initiative of a fucking sloth.
The internet has made most teachers useless for any kid who has a bit of motivation and curiosity.
That's another one of those good/bad implementation problems.
For a lot of subject matter there is no need to require the sheer drudgery that a teacher has to endure to teach it. Hard science doesn't change. Math doesn't change. It helps a great deal to have a human being available to explain the ideas and to show the student how it works. But actually making it work is up to the student. It'll even help teachers more, I would think, to allow them to spend time with the students who are making an honest effort but just don't "get it" yet. One thing can be explained in many different ways. It is the job of the teacher to know those different ways and to be able to find the one which will work for each particular student. In a perfect world.
But then there are other areas of education where trying to divorce the subject from the teacher/student interaction is harmful. You can read history out of a book. I had a lot of history teachers that did exactly that. And replacing that with online education will be no better or no worse. But I also had history teachers that had passion for the source material (shit, I had a chemistry teacher with that sort of passion), and the "inspiration" that they provide is available in only that one specific way. It's not just liberal arts, even if it's mostly liberal arts. When you start getting into the nitty-gritty of biology (and I assume any deep subject, tbh), you NEED that sort of interaction in order for real education to happen.
Ultimately it's always up to the student, but the teacher still has an instrumental role in the process.
I've heard people argue that it will actually be better because eventually everyone will be getting lectures from the best of the best and then just having PAs or whatever correcting their papers. Those passionate, awesome teachers you talk about could teach 100,000 students a day instead of 100. Granted you won't be able to interact with them one on one, but you can't do that with a lot of university professors now.
Also, just in case it hasn't already been posted:
The wars of the future will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today, remember always, your duty is clear: to build and maintain those robots.
Last edited by BrutulTM; 05-07-2014 at 01:37 PM.
However, many undergraduate courses simply cry out for online work with a professor in the background to offer help.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)