<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Killer robots and a revolution in warfare</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/</link>
	<description>Just another blogs.reuters.com weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:11:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: desik</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/#comment-19977</link>
		<dc:creator>desik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:59:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3087#comment-19977</guid>
		<description>Geneva Convention or not the terrible truth is we've never been able to fully agree what the rules of war are and we've certainly never really practiced them  so the programs that  run our  increasingly sophisticated and lethal autonomous military robots are likely to be just as ethically flawed as we are as history shows that our belief in our cause and perceived  proximity to victory or defeat generally dictates how our armies or 'freedom fighters' conduct themselves  on the battlefield.  Human beings  are violent animals and if we ever manage to program intelligent autonomous robots to conduct our wars for us more ethically than we do they'd probably end up disarming and pacifying us. I suspect we'll just see the most powerful sections of humanity  merging with more powerful and lethal technology to lord it over the rest of us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Geneva Convention or not the terrible truth is we&#8217;ve never been able to fully agree what the rules of war are and we&#8217;ve certainly never really practiced them  so the programs that  run our  increasingly sophisticated and lethal autonomous military robots are likely to be just as ethically flawed as we are as history shows that our belief in our cause and perceived  proximity to victory or defeat generally dictates how our armies or &#8216;freedom fighters&#8217; conduct themselves  on the battlefield.  Human beings  are violent animals and if we ever manage to program intelligent autonomous robots to conduct our wars for us more ethically than we do they&#8217;d probably end up disarming and pacifying us. I suspect we&#8217;ll just see the most powerful sections of humanity  merging with more powerful and lethal technology to lord it over the rest of us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rhoops</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/#comment-17838</link>
		<dc:creator>Rhoops</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:39:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3087#comment-17838</guid>
		<description>Another weapon system...?
Big Deal.
It's really advanced...
Big Deal.
It has really scary potential...
Big Deal.
Just a small matter of history, a hundred years ago Dreadnought fleets were being launched in numbers.  A huge change in military force levels, a massive revolution in sea power technology.
Result: a large reduction in naval fleet engagements in wars for the next century.
50 years ago, The Bomb. 'We're all gonna DIE!' is a rather widespread reaction amongst the more excitable.  What happens? The longest period of peace in Europe since the Romans.
Certainly didn't see those coming at the time, now did they.
We'll need a proper war where both sides have these systems to see how they'll pan out.  One thing's for certain, no 'expert' or doomsayer currently has the faintest idea what that'll be. Not because people are stupid, but because the predictive information necessary is way too complex to deal with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another weapon system&#8230;?<br />
Big Deal.<br />
It&#8217;s really advanced&#8230;<br />
Big Deal.<br />
It has really scary potential&#8230;<br />
Big Deal.<br />
Just a small matter of history, a hundred years ago Dreadnought fleets were being launched in numbers.  A huge change in military force levels, a massive revolution in sea power technology.<br />
Result: a large reduction in naval fleet engagements in wars for the next century.<br />
50 years ago, The Bomb. &#8216;We&#8217;re all gonna DIE!&#8217; is a rather widespread reaction amongst the more excitable.  What happens? The longest period of peace in Europe since the Romans.<br />
Certainly didn&#8217;t see those coming at the time, now did they.<br />
We&#8217;ll need a proper war where both sides have these systems to see how they&#8217;ll pan out.  One thing&#8217;s for certain, no &#8216;expert&#8217; or doomsayer currently has the faintest idea what that&#8217;ll be. Not because people are stupid, but because the predictive information necessary is way too complex to deal with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SKV</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/#comment-13618</link>
		<dc:creator>SKV</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:29:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3087#comment-13618</guid>
		<description>Ethic... What is it?  

Is it set of values that we apply every day to say good from bad?

I got feeling that in humans it varies greatly. We can give new robot new strong universal values. Well, may be we should we stick with old values?

Here is Bernd test:
"How do you get a robot to tell an insurgent from an innocent". So far nobody can. 16 yrs old dead Taliban becomes dead kid because... he is 16 yrs old. But young fighter's ruthless eclipse adults. 
I can justify and support this war. But emotionally I cannot accept 100’s dead. Just sound: 100’s ethically killed.

My ethic just fails here. Lets step on 'shoulders of giants' and reuse somebody else ideas. Geneva Convention is the pinnacle of War Ethic. 

After first read Geneva Conventions sound like naive pipe dream.  Long "to do" list including cases when POW are eligible for salary. That salary is to match of your arm force.

Read Geneva Conventions again. They meaningless.  They imply such level of interaction between adversaries that you cannot expect even between allies.  Establish safe zone for civilians recognized by both sides.

Read once more... They make any military action against non conventional arm force next to imposable. Who are Taliban/Tamil Tigers/HAMAS and most Africans liberation armies? According to Geneva Conventions they ar either combatants or civilians. Practically they are bands of mercenaries 'living from land'. They tax/racket local population while don't  pledge allegiance to any recognized state.

BTW West/US ethical values are not universal. Back to Afghanistan. I saw General Dustum spoke about Human Right Record of US Army. He is the guy who literally baked 10's Taliban prisoners in Sea Containers under Sun once his prison run out of capacity.

Now I am back on 1930’s Moscow streets and prophesy about 3 ft of horse apples came true.  Bernd please send me good ethical robot :). Or you no please send non-ethical one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ethic&#8230; What is it?  </p>
<p>Is it set of values that we apply every day to say good from bad?</p>
<p>I got feeling that in humans it varies greatly. We can give new robot new strong universal values. Well, may be we should we stick with old values?</p>
<p>Here is Bernd test:<br />
&#8220;How do you get a robot to tell an insurgent from an innocent&#8221;. So far nobody can. 16 yrs old dead Taliban becomes dead kid because&#8230; he is 16 yrs old. But young fighter&#8217;s ruthless eclipse adults.<br />
I can justify and support this war. But emotionally I cannot accept 100’s dead. Just sound: 100’s ethically killed.</p>
<p>My ethic just fails here. Lets step on &#8217;shoulders of giants&#8217; and reuse somebody else ideas. Geneva Convention is the pinnacle of War Ethic. </p>
<p>After first read Geneva Conventions sound like naive pipe dream.  Long &#8220;to do&#8221; list including cases when POW are eligible for salary. That salary is to match of your arm force.</p>
<p>Read Geneva Conventions again. They meaningless.  They imply such level of interaction between adversaries that you cannot expect even between allies.  Establish safe zone for civilians recognized by both sides.</p>
<p>Read once more&#8230; They make any military action against non conventional arm force next to imposable. Who are Taliban/Tamil Tigers/HAMAS and most Africans liberation armies? According to Geneva Conventions they ar either combatants or civilians. Practically they are bands of mercenaries &#8216;living from land&#8217;. They tax/racket local population while don&#8217;t  pledge allegiance to any recognized state.</p>
<p>BTW West/US ethical values are not universal. Back to Afghanistan. I saw General Dustum spoke about Human Right Record of US Army. He is the guy who literally baked 10&#8217;s Taliban prisoners in Sea Containers under Sun once his prison run out of capacity.</p>
<p>Now I am back on 1930’s Moscow streets and prophesy about 3 ft of horse apples came true.  Bernd please send me good ethical robot :). Or you no please send non-ethical one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Parker</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/#comment-13586</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Parker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:36:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3087#comment-13586</guid>
		<description>More robots will mean more wars. No lives will be saved.

In Afghanistan Karzai is implementing some odious laws. That does not really matter. The point is that in a few years the war will be completely robotic. The US will be able to carry on indefinitely with zero casualties. Casualties among the Afghan population will however NOT be non zero.

This is what people do not seem to realise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More robots will mean more wars. No lives will be saved.</p>
<p>In Afghanistan Karzai is implementing some odious laws. That does not really matter. The point is that in a few years the war will be completely robotic. The US will be able to carry on indefinitely with zero casualties. Casualties among the Afghan population will however NOT be non zero.</p>
<p>This is what people do not seem to realise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/#comment-13580</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3087#comment-13580</guid>
		<description>A very thought provoking article.
AI is near impossible ? when one considers that even a lower lifeform than man in nature can be dangerous.  AI is possible and the discussions about this need to commence ahead of the curve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very thought provoking article.<br />
AI is near impossible ? when one considers that even a lower lifeform than man in nature can be dangerous.  AI is possible and the discussions about this need to commence ahead of the curve.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BDebusmann</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/#comment-13540</link>
		<dc:creator>BDebusmann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:13:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3087#comment-13540</guid>
		<description>SKV: Moscow streets buried under three feet of horse manure is a very funny image. It obviously would have required robots to clean that up!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SKV: Moscow streets buried under three feet of horse manure is a very funny image. It obviously would have required robots to clean that up!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SKV</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/#comment-13529</link>
		<dc:creator>SKV</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:06:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3087#comment-13529</guid>
		<description>My apology Bernd,
I lack your talent to put complex thoughts in simple form :).
My aim was at common perception:"harking back to the time when computers were simpler and their programs could be written and understood by a single person".
- There is always single person.
- This single person never fully understands what is going on because he/she reuses components/technologies/devices created by may other people/teams.
Now and then all programs stay on ’shoulders of giants’ makes use of components written by others. Programmers usually rely on components descriptions rather than go into implementation details. Despite common scene this approach makes systems more robust and single person today handles times more than 10 yrs ago. That brings us complexity of scale… Well, While I explain my point I understood yours :).
I hope my 3 main points stay:
1. Today combat robots just overblown RC toys… But they kill for real. No immediate danger to US public. I cannot escape that sound very unethical even to my non-liberal taste.
2. We stay hostages of technology for at least 30 yrs. Complex automatic/semi automatic system controlling factories/plants/ballistic shields/ballistic missiles.
3. Any progress in technology to the scale that machine would be able recognize/identify/object and make conscious decision would change society to the point that we cannot foresee now.
Let me offer my favorite example on far reaching prognoses:
Back in 1890’s in booming Tzar’s Moscow. Somebody ran time series of growing number of horses vs. lagging number of street cleaners. In report, he extrapolated that by 1930 Moscow would be under 3ft of horse apples. I still cannot find any errors in his math...


Sorry for multiple post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My apology Bernd,<br />
I lack your talent to put complex thoughts in simple form :).<br />
My aim was at common perception:&#8221;harking back to the time when computers were simpler and their programs could be written and understood by a single person&#8221;.<br />
- There is always single person.<br />
- This single person never fully understands what is going on because he/she reuses components/technologies/devices created by may other people/teams.<br />
Now and then all programs stay on ’shoulders of giants’ makes use of components written by others. Programmers usually rely on components descriptions rather than go into implementation details. Despite common scene this approach makes systems more robust and single person today handles times more than 10 yrs ago. That brings us complexity of scale… Well, While I explain my point I understood yours :).<br />
I hope my 3 main points stay:<br />
1. Today combat robots just overblown RC toys… But they kill for real. No immediate danger to US public. I cannot escape that sound very unethical even to my non-liberal taste.<br />
2. We stay hostages of technology for at least 30 yrs. Complex automatic/semi automatic system controlling factories/plants/ballistic shields/ballistic missiles.<br />
3. Any progress in technology to the scale that machine would be able recognize/identify/object and make conscious decision would change society to the point that we cannot foresee now.<br />
Let me offer my favorite example on far reaching prognoses:<br />
Back in 1890’s in booming Tzar’s Moscow. Somebody ran time series of growing number of horses vs. lagging number of street cleaners. In report, he extrapolated that by 1930 Moscow would be under 3ft of horse apples. I still cannot find any errors in his math&#8230;</p>
<p>Sorry for multiple post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SKV</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/#comment-13525</link>
		<dc:creator>SKV</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3087#comment-13525</guid>
		<description>My apology Bernd,
I lack your talent to put complex thoughts in simple form :).
My aim was at common perception:
"harking back to the time when computers were simpler and their programs could be written and understood by a single person".
- There is always single person.
- This single person never fully understands what is going on.
Now and then all programs stay on 'shoulders of giants' make use of components written by others. Programmers usually rely on components descriptions rather than go into implementation details. Despite common scene this approach makes systems more robust and single person today handles times more than 10 yrs ago.  That brings us complexity of scale... Well, While I explain my point I understood yours :).


I hope my 3 main points stay:

1. Today combat robots just overblown RC toys... But they kill for real. No immediate danger to US public. I cannot escape that sound very unethical even to my  non-liberal taste.

2. We stay hostages of technology for at least 30 yrs. Complex automatic/semi automatic system controlling factories/plants/ballistic shields/ballistic missiles.

3. Any progress in technology to the scale that machine would be able recognize/identify/object and make conscious decision would change society to the point that we cannot foresee now.

Let me offer my favorite example on far reaching prognoses:
Back in 1890’s in booming Tzar's Moscow. Somebody ran time series of growing number of horses  vs. lagging number of street cleaners. In report, he extrapolated that by 1930 Moscow would be under 3ft of horse apples. I still cannot find any errors in his math...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My apology Bernd,<br />
I lack your talent to put complex thoughts in simple form :).<br />
My aim was at common perception:<br />
&#8220;harking back to the time when computers were simpler and their programs could be written and understood by a single person&#8221;.<br />
- There is always single person.<br />
- This single person never fully understands what is going on.<br />
Now and then all programs stay on &#8217;shoulders of giants&#8217; make use of components written by others. Programmers usually rely on components descriptions rather than go into implementation details. Despite common scene this approach makes systems more robust and single person today handles times more than 10 yrs ago.  That brings us complexity of scale&#8230; Well, While I explain my point I understood yours :).</p>
<p>I hope my 3 main points stay:</p>
<p>1. Today combat robots just overblown RC toys&#8230; But they kill for real. No immediate danger to US public. I cannot escape that sound very unethical even to my  non-liberal taste.</p>
<p>2. We stay hostages of technology for at least 30 yrs. Complex automatic/semi automatic system controlling factories/plants/ballistic shields/ballistic missiles.</p>
<p>3. Any progress in technology to the scale that machine would be able recognize/identify/object and make conscious decision would change society to the point that we cannot foresee now.</p>
<p>Let me offer my favorite example on far reaching prognoses:<br />
Back in 1890’s in booming Tzar&#8217;s Moscow. Somebody ran time series of growing number of horses  vs. lagging number of street cleaners. In report, he extrapolated that by 1930 Moscow would be under 3ft of horse apples. I still cannot find any errors in his math&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BDebusmann</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/#comment-13511</link>
		<dc:creator>BDebusmann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3087#comment-13511</guid>
		<description>skv:

"Why does he focus only on one team that write the actual program???"

Where in the column is there a mention of one team that writes the actual program? Here's the quote. Note "teams" (plural). 


“Unfortunately, such a belief is sorely outdated, harking back to the time when computers were simpler and their programs could be written and understood by a single person,” the study says. “Now programs with millions of lines of code are written by teams of programmers, none of whom knows the entire program; hence, no individual can predict the effect of a given command with absolute certainty since portions of programs may interact in unexpected, untested ways.”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>skv:</p>
<p>&#8220;Why does he focus only on one team that write the actual program???&#8221;</p>
<p>Where in the column is there a mention of one team that writes the actual program? Here&#8217;s the quote. Note &#8220;teams&#8221; (plural). </p>
<p>“Unfortunately, such a belief is sorely outdated, harking back to the time when computers were simpler and their programs could be written and understood by a single person,” the study says. “Now programs with millions of lines of code are written by teams of programmers, none of whom knows the entire program; hence, no individual can predict the effect of a given command with absolute certainty since portions of programs may interact in unexpected, untested ways.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SKV</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/22/killer-robots-and-a-revolution-in-warfare/#comment-13510</link>
		<dc:creator>SKV</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3087#comment-13510</guid>
		<description>I spent &#62; 15 yrs in IT/R&#38;D/Technology.

 Sorry guys, Mr. Bernd Debusmann story based on 'Terminator' movies rather than on real facts.

1. For the begging all computer systems are created by many many teams not single person. 100's teams are involved with CPU/storage/display etc. Software at least involves operation system (huge number of people) and actual application software. Why does he focus only on one team that write the actual program???

2. No field weapon system makes firing decision without human interaction. Nothing even comes close to such system. Even the most complex targeting systems can 'keep eye on the ball' but cannot pick a ball. All robots are nothing more as remote controlled toys with autopilot capabilities at best. Ballistic/cruise missiles have much high level of automation. The most dangerous systems are US/Russia 'Ballistic shields' that fielded for last 30 yrs. They have record of issued false alerts. Yet they escape Debusmann attention.

3. Debusmann story robotic of 'rebellions' in S.Africa is  nothing more than misfiring. It has nothing to do implied machine conscious decision to harm human.

4. Current CPUs can crunch 1,000,000,000,000 arithmetic ops per second... but don't suited well for fussy pattern recognition.  That what humans do the best. Modern CPUs are at the level of insect/fish.

May be we will come to the point when machines recognize real life objects and make ethical decisions. But on this way world changes so dramatically that I would consult Asimov rather than Debusmann.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I spent &gt; 15 yrs in IT/R&amp;D/Technology.</p>
<p> Sorry guys, Mr. Bernd Debusmann story based on &#8216;Terminator&#8217; movies rather than on real facts.</p>
<p>1. For the begging all computer systems are created by many many teams not single person. 100&#8217;s teams are involved with CPU/storage/display etc. Software at least involves operation system (huge number of people) and actual application software. Why does he focus only on one team that write the actual program???</p>
<p>2. No field weapon system makes firing decision without human interaction. Nothing even comes close to such system. Even the most complex targeting systems can &#8216;keep eye on the ball&#8217; but cannot pick a ball. All robots are nothing more as remote controlled toys with autopilot capabilities at best. Ballistic/cruise missiles have much high level of automation. The most dangerous systems are US/Russia &#8216;Ballistic shields&#8217; that fielded for last 30 yrs. They have record of issued false alerts. Yet they escape Debusmann attention.</p>
<p>3. Debusmann story robotic of &#8216;rebellions&#8217; in S.Africa is  nothing more than misfiring. It has nothing to do implied machine conscious decision to harm human.</p>
<p>4. Current CPUs can crunch 1,000,000,000,000 arithmetic ops per second&#8230; but don&#8217;t suited well for fussy pattern recognition.  That what humans do the best. Modern CPUs are at the level of insect/fish.</p>
<p>May be we will come to the point when machines recognize real life objects and make ethical decisions. But on this way world changes so dramatically that I would consult Asimov rather than Debusmann.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
