Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#121

Post by ric2b »

phkahler wrote: post #98
hans_mueller wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to develop countermeasures is always way harder than developing an assaulting technology. like firing a rocket is easy, but catching it mid flight is very difficult.

That's funny, I already have anti-drone technology in my kitchen. Take the magnetron from the microwave and use a Wok as a dish to create an approximately directional 1kW microwave energy weapon. Aim it at the swarm of drones and sweep back and forth. They'll all fall out of the air up to some range.

So you're going to walk around with a massive metal plate and a huge battery strapped to your back? Nevermind the fact that you probably couldn't react quickly enough to use it even if you carried it everywhere.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#122

Post by rqs »

robotresearcher wrote: post #112
rqs wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you still remember The Three Laws of Robotics[0]? Not too many people still mentions it now days. Killing AI is not the same problem with nuclear weapon. Because AI weapon is far easier to make compare to nuclear one. Technically, you can do it right now with your DJI drone, all it takes is just to program it to do some automatic control. So I'm not quite optimistic about any attempt on limit those kind of weapons…

The three laws are a literary device, not a serious engineering proposal. The stories they were introduced in described exactly why they have such serious problems.

> they were introduced in described exactly why they have such serious problems.

Yet, people stopped mentioning this kind of warning even it was already there for way over half of a century.

Reason of we successfully limited use of nuclear weapon is because, well, the US tested it on Japanese, saw the devastating result and thinking "What if the Japanese (Or Russian, Chinese etc) one day use it on us?".

I would guess only similar event can trigger everyone on earth stand in line and effectively ban those AI weapons all together. That's AFTER we all actually be seriously hurt by it.

It's just like the warning of globe warming, the math is there, proved by observation, somebody out there still believe we will be fine because the whole globe warming thing is just a conspiracy made by China.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#123

Post by nine_k »

jstanley wrote: post #99
jononor wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could forbid weapons to take kill actions themselves, each instance having to be activated by a human operator. Could also forbid self-replication of weaponized robots.

Why not go one step further and say that nobody is allowed to take a kill action? Killing is murder. Not sarcastic.

The first force to break the rule will prevail.

Pacifism is an unstable configuration; non-aggression is.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#124

Post by nine_k »

l0b0 wrote: post #42

Just the availability of this kind of tech would scare anybody sane shitless. From that day, you'd better hope you don't ever piss off anybody within a 1000 km radius enough to find your photo and address online (easy in most countries) and drive to within drone distance of your house. Want to obliterate anyone's family completely? Done. Kill anyone in session at the government of a country - any country? Done.

Try flying a drone next to a major governmental building. In the best case, you'll be politely ordered to stop and leave. In worse cases, e.g. if you tried to conceal yourself, the drone might be shot down, and you face charges.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#125

Post by jrochkind1 »

robotresearcher wrote: post #111
jrochkind1 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can make it considered unacceptable and against international law. Like chemical weapons. Which still happen, but not as much as they would if the U.S were, say, planning on using them all over the place, doing heavy R&D into them, and selling them to other people. Like, you know, robot kill bots.

It’s already against the law to murder people.

It's not in fact against international law or the laws of war to kill people, cause, you know, war.

I guess you could think if we can't just get rid of war (which is always terrible), there's no reason to have international laws and agreements limiting certain kinds of killing and other harm as off limits and unacceptable.

Apparently our current leaders agree with you.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#126

Post by robotresearcher »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #125
robotresearcher wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s already against the law to murder people.

It's not in fact against international law or the laws of war to kill people, cause, you know, war. I guess you could think if we can't just get rid of war (which is always terrible), there's no reason to have international laws and agreements limiting certain kinds of killing and other harm as off limits and unacceptable. Apparently our current leaders agree with you.

I deliberately used the word 'murder', not 'kill'.

The position of the Canadian government is that the development of autonomous weapons is already illegal under Article 36 of the 1977 Extended Protocol 1 to the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#127

Post by wnkrshm »

int_19h wrote: post #120
wnkrshm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's trivial to figure out where a ranging laser comes from, it's just that asymmetric warfare enables you to use them with impunity

And we already use lasers heavily because of this. Ever noticed those square things mounted to the forends of M16 and M4 rifles in Iraq and Afghanistan? E.g. this photo from 2001 - notice how literally every guy in it has one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Marines_humping_in_A... That thing is called AN/PEQ-2, and it is an near infrared (NIR) laser/illuminator. The reason why it's infrared, is because the e…

Interesting, didn't know about this 'race to thermal IR'. But what I do know is that op optical components suitable for thermal imaging systems are under export control in the EU. So at least as a corporate entity you cannot easily export them.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#128

Post by int_19h »

wnkrshm wrote: post #127
int_19h wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we already use lasers heavily because of this. Ever noticed those square things mounted to the forends of M16 and M4 rifles in Iraq and Afghanistan? E.g. this photo from 2001 - notice how literally every guy in it has one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Marines_humping_in_A... That thing is called AN/PEQ-2, and it is an near infrared (NIR) laser/illuminator. The reason why it's infrared, is because the e…

Interesting, didn't know about this 'race to thermal IR'. But what I do know is that op optical components suitable for thermal imaging systems are under export control in the EU. So at least as a corporate entity you cannot easily export them.

In US, as well. In fact, all kinds of things that have to do with both active IR, and protection against it, are regulated.

For example, there's a popular firearm (and other things, technically, but it's mostly used for firearms) coating called Cerakote. Comes in a bunch of colors, including those commonly used for camouflage - indeed, you can mix and match to create some very impressive patterns. Example:

http://i64.tinypic.com/21bw5lc.jpg

This is available to civilians, and pretty popular - mostly for aesthetics, but it does work well as a camouflage. The catch is that, being an epoxy polymer coating, it reflects NIR really well - so for someone observing through a night vision device, these things basically glow, especially if an infrared illuminator is also used.

But Cerakote also does have a version that was specifically designed to reduce the near-infrared signature to the point where it works just as well as camo in NIR, as it does in visual spectrum. Except it's only available to military and police - and I believe this is, in fact, because of some law that restricts them from offering it on civilian market.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#129

Post by int_19h »

wnkrshm wrote: post #127
int_19h wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we already use lasers heavily because of this. Ever noticed those square things mounted to the forends of M16 and M4 rifles in Iraq and Afghanistan? E.g. this photo from 2001 - notice how literally every guy in it has one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Marines_humping_in_A... That thing is called AN/PEQ-2, and it is an near infrared (NIR) laser/illuminator. The reason why it's infrared, is because the e…

Interesting, didn't know about this 'race to thermal IR'. But what I do know is that op optical components suitable for thermal imaging systems are under export control in the EU. So at least as a corporate entity you cannot easily export them.

As for the "arms race" in IR, here's one specific example:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/10/12/swir-mawl-clad...

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#130

Post by oliwarner »

int_19h wrote: post #120
wnkrshm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's trivial to figure out where a ranging laser comes from, it's just that asymmetric warfare enables you to use them with impunity

And we already use lasers heavily because of this. Ever noticed those square things mounted to the forends of M16 and M4 rifles in Iraq and Afghanistan? E.g. this photo from 2001 - notice how literally every guy in it has one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Marines_humping_in_A... That thing is called AN/PEQ-2, and it is an near infrared (NIR) laser/illuminator. The reason why it's infrared, is because the e…

I won't discount the other utilities of NIR night vision but for the purposes of detecting incoming infantry, it's overkill.

Give me a cheap-ass webcam, a rapsberry pi 3 and a day or two to cobble together an OpenCV beam-detecting program in Python. A day or two more —perhaps with better hardware— and I'll give you GIS-aided positioning. That seems like it would be enough to defend a position.

Even at other wavelengths, the sensor equipment is out there. I'm not sure what the SNR would be like on a varied focus 0.4μm (~bluray) sensor though.

Post reply on HN