1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Killer drones are about to be reality

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by PLC1, Apr 14, 2018.

  1. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,530
    Likes Received:
    578
    Location:
    The Golden State
    [​IMG]

    It's Happening: Drones Will Soon Be Able to Decide Who to Kill

    No kidding. Science fiction is about to become science fact. Can you imagine the implications of this new technology?
     
    The Scotsman and Walter like this.
  2. Walter

    Walter Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,535
    Likes Received:
    164
    Location:
    Heart of Europe
    Sadly that is inevitable. And just the start (e.g. battle robots will replace humans, making wars more likely because no politician has to fear pictures of caskets).

    But another implication is that sooner or later warlords and terrorist will use cheap drones to attack civil and military targets.
     
  3. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,932
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    What happened to 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 orders given 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 Law.
     
  4. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,530
    Likes Received:
    578
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Not everything from science fiction becomes science fact.
     
  5. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,932
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Yeah... I guess the UBER car screwed that idea up...:)
     
    PLC1 likes this.
  6. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,530
    Likes Received:
    578
    Location:
    The Golden State
    I don't think the idea of self driving cars is dead despite that little setback. People will figure out that it's easier to improve technology than it is to improve human behavior.
     
  7. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    1,438
    Location:
    Wandering around
    Humans defeat the computers by being unpredictable.
     
  8. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,932
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Ironically I guess that could be the thought process of the military genius that came up with this proposal!
     
    PLC1 likes this.
  9. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,932
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    True....unless one is operating under rules of engagement
     
  10. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,530
    Likes Received:
    578
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Must have been.

    Take human error out of driving, and we have safer roads.
    Take human judgement out of killing, and you have a more efficient killing machine.
     
  11. Walter

    Walter Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,535
    Likes Received:
    164
    Location:
    Heart of Europe
    And have an AI becoming more intelligent and look some 20 years into the future and you have something you probably don't want.
     
  12. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,932
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    That’s the argument my 86 year old father has of the internet and mobile phones and indeed modern life in general.
     
  13. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,932
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    One hopes there in an “off” switch.
     
  14. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,530
    Likes Received:
    578
    Location:
    The Golden State
    No doubt there is an off switch, but who has control of the switch, and who is the target of the robot? Probably not the same person.
     
  15. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,932
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    so do we trust the programmers?
    Here's an interesting thing... years ago when the Airbus A320 had just came out there was a demo flight organised for a bunch of journalists by Air France over Mulhouse. The aircraft was do do a low pass over the runway and then pull up and continue on its way. As the aircraft followed the ILS approach to the runway the computers (5 independent flight computers) decided the aircraft was going to land and configured the aircraft thus, which was okay for the Pilot (lad called Scanlon I thnk..??) anyway he was happy with the initial approach speed height etc and proceeded on the ILS. As he approached the heisght he wanted to do his fly past he tried to level out the aircraft and applied thrust. The aircraft's computers decided..non! We want to land.! The pilot kept pulling back on the controls and the aircraft compensated by still trying to put the aircraft on the ground so the aircraft became unstable in a stall attitude. Scanlon tried to power out and increased thrust the aircraft still tried to go lower until it got itself into a ridiculous stall attitude and went into what is called a compressor stall - effectively the angle of the aircraft is so high that the airflow into the engines is disrupted and the compressors are effectively starved of air. Upshot is the aircraft crashed.

    There was an investigation and on the behest of Airbus and Air France it was determind that the aircraft crashed because of pilot error...too low too slow etc.. Those of us in the know...wink wink... have another theory in that the flight computers were supposed to be independed of each other. 4 computers were to analyse and apply the instruction of the pilot with the fifth to "vote" that the other four were doing the correct thing. The issue was that fly-by wire for civil aircraft was not that advanced and that there were not enough programmers qualified at Airbus to undertake the such a monumetal program in such a short space of time. Each flight computer was supposed to be programmed by a completely seperate team with no communication or cribbing between teams...effectively they were to be entirely independent. The only problem was that all the programmers underwent training through one team and that training team had flawed applications so each team was taugh the same flaw. The computers all contained the same programming algorythm that decided that if the aircraft was appraoching at a certain speed, height attitude and under ILS control the aircraft would land. The pilot was the victim of a flawed programme which due to political and business reason could bot be made public. The pilot was hung out to dry. Anyway that's my conspiracy theory of the day..

    Upshot...don't trust AI
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice