Darpa Unveils Upgraded Atlas Robot, Now Completely Unplugged
spectrum.ieee.org
spectrum.ieee.org
http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2015/01/20.aspx
Most troubling is the new pump, which means "the teams can actually operate this robot without the need for hearing protection."
Before, I pictured the robocalypse accompanied by the combined buzz of a thousand BigDogs, but now apparently it's just going to be the sound of well-oiled actuators — mingling, of course, with screams.
Back in the late 80s I remember working on what we termed the "Lost in Space" computer. I think it was one of the first models Burroughs created that did not use tubes; the military loved to keep things forever; and it just made all sorts of interesting sounds.
As for robots and silence, oh I am quite sure that some military planners have ideas for giving some special sounds just to inspire fear
In earlier coverage we were told Google would not be a military contractor, but:
"Since Google has committed to honoring existing robotics contracts, including Boston Dynamics’ $10.8M deal to build and maintain Atlas robots for the DRC (four of which are guaranteed a spot in the finals), its presence will still be felt at the competition" -- http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/zero-moment/google-rumore...
Really hoping this remains true. Deepmind + Boston Dynamics + ITA is not something I'd like to see providing military tech around the world.
People tend to worry about "robot armies" because we aren't very good at imagining the future, and I'm sure we'll see those. We already are in terms of drones.
But a much bigger issue as costs drop and availability increases is going to be freelancers. This is going to be particularly problematic because robots, like computers, are going to be too useful to limit very much in civilian applications. Any dangerous, unpleasant, ugly job is going to have a robot for that.
Including assassination and robbing banks. Although there will also be robot security guards to counter such activities.
Nor do robots on the battlefield have any of the issues that limited CBN (Chemical/Biological/Nuclear... which is the way I learned it) weapons. None of those are enormously useful in actual combat. Chemical and biological weapons are difficult to control and deploy, and the "Davy Crockett Nuclear Rifle" aside, nuclear weapons are difficult to use for anything other than killing cities, which is rarely a strategically or tactically good thing to do. I'm not saying they're useless, merely that they aren't the be-all-end-all.
Military robots, though, pretty much are. There is every reason to expect that they will be used very widely, just like drones. Once upon a time drones were surveillance only. Now it's routine to weaponize them. Soon enough it'll be routine to send them out on autonomous interdiction missions: the economic temptation is just too high. Why send troops to cut off an area when you can have a 24/7 patrol of small, cheap drones that'll kill anything larger than a rabbit that tries to cross a virtual Maginot Line?
I'm not saying we shouldn't do any of this--robots are too useful to not develop. I am saying that the robot apocalypse, when it comes, will look a lot weirder than our 20th century fantasies.
Why send troops to cut off an area when you can have a
24/7 patrol of small, cheap drones that'll
kill anything larger than a rabbit ...?
I hope that Philip K. Dick's Second Variety [1] is not the way that ends up, though.
This is all conjecture, of course. I think/hope nukes really come into their own as mining and propulsion resources.
I think as long as the US manages to scare the american public into funding those huge military projects, because they need to be protected from someone, be it communists or terrorists, and not actually use the results all that much for military purposes the world at large will be fine and eventually benefit tremendously.
Plus you can just turn on a cellphone jammer and protect the entire area from robots.
The acronym ABC stands for Atomic, Biological and Chemical. It's a cold-war term that has since been updated twice — first to NBC (nuclear), and then to CBRN (adding radiological). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense
"In the Butler Review, the official UK report on intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the definition of WMDs included Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities.
Thankfully the term WMD has fallen out of favor, but the point the Butler Review makes clear is that it is an inherently Orwellian term. Its Orwellian not in the sense of dystopian, but rather that it is a deliberately ambiguous term used to obfuscate the underlying reality.
It is the politician's version of "hook up." Completely descriptive while so ambiguous that it could be describing anything at all.
Creating terms like WMD, CBRNE, NBC, only serves to undermine the underlying weapon. Like most people, I believe ordinary explosive ordinance deserves far less attention than rogue nuclear weapons.
Because clearly explosives or pointy sticks are just as bad as nuclear or biological weapons. </sarcasm>
PS: I thougt about saying heavy or fast, but that can still be scary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
Cluster bombs’ are generally a bigger threat vs people. (ex: football stadium) Bunker busters are more useful vs. hardened structures. (Command center)
I have heard a suggestion that the world trade center would have likely survived a hit from a Father of all Bombs. Though the building would likely need to be condemned afterward.
PS: Aparently they are vary useful for cave systems though.
There's nothing stupid about mechanized warfare. Why waste soldiers when cheap robotic soldiers are feasible? If anything, its just a natural advancement of warfare. If we don't do it, the Chinese and Russians will and that will give them an advantage over the democratic nations of the world, and as we have seen both nations are either in the middle of annexations or seem to be planning more.
The real question, to me, is why are we bothering with the human form-factor? A insect-like robot or something with wheels or tank treads would outperform legs. Ideally, a robot soldier should be able to move in a way that outperforms people easily. A bit like how the robots in Elysium are so much stronger and faster than humans.
I apologize, but I'm now reading this comment in the voice of Gen. "Buck" Turgidson from Dr. Strangelove.
"Mr President, we cannot afford a roomba gap!"
it's a human world. doorways, windows, cars, sidewalks, elevators
> A insect-like robot or something with wheels or tank treads would outperform legs
task specific robots will exist and outperform for the predetermined task, but the focus is on replacing humans and being able to complete human tasks, whatever the future task may be.
open doors designed for a human? open a window like a human? climb a tree like a human? Check the mailbox like a human? burn a grilled cheese like a human? Do ______ like a human? rather than build for a task, build to match the form that we know can complete these tasks, and viola! you've replaced the need for a human without designing for and testing all tasks that could ever be requested of it
I mean, our drones aren't in the shape of men using gliders.
They are in the shape of manned aeroplanes, though -- they need to land on carriers and runways, they need to refuel, and they sometimes need to have weapons mounted on them.
I agree that we can generally improve on the human form in some cases -- "eyes at the front of a head with limited rotation" is an easy fix, for example -- but most things are going to be loaded with tradeoffs, not just functionally but in how their public use might become accepted.
That seems like it would be legs + arms in some arrangement.
Powerful wheels could perhaps get you up the stairs (arms + legs can scale and climb, wheels don't do so well there), but legs can fold, and a robot could in theory fold its legs to a significantly smaller size to fit through various spaces. You can't fold large'ish wheels very well without completely disassembling the structure.
Drones make us far more enemies than they kill. US soldiers have gone the way of the US cop (all utility belt; no substance) and the casualty counts being low is a bad thing. It is the equivalent of a person to high to receive signal from the nerves in their extremities telling them to quit whatever activity is causing the pain.
I'm not sure why people have such a hard time with the military paying for the R&D. They've got the money and desire. The research is going to be done directly or indirectly.
Not exactly military tech, but clearly defense related.
The Schaft robot (also now owned by Google) is all-electric. That's probably the future direction.
The other advantage of diesel engines is that they'll run on a wide variety of fuels: kerosene, heating oil or even vegetable oil.
1. http://www.theroboticschallenge.org/content/drc-finals-annou...
Please don't tell me this is for 'humanitarian' purposes.