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

US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

defensenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#21

Post by krapp »

downer83 wrote: post #17
ChuckMcM wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I am sure you know John, nuclear policy is a bit more nuanced than that. It is completely valid that by having a nuclear arsenal that can destroy any nation, a nation does not need to have a standing army that can repel an invasion (after all if you invaded, you're home country would get obliterated). The discussion referenced by Defense News though is policy around the deployment of Squad and Battalion level forc…

The funny thing about policy wonks is that they believe policy, diplomacy and international law are the only way things get resolved, even amidst the state of nature that persists between international actors. The reason stock markets have black swans is because legal transactions can never account for illegal activity. Sure, you can buy replacement insurance against theft, but you cannot actually build theft into an…

The devil's advocacy response would be that because robots lack the capacity for malice, racism or cruelty, they can be trusted to bring to bear the force of law more so than human cops. Also that robot soldiers, lacking fear or the clouded judgement that comes from fatigue or moral conflict, and having enhanced sensory and physical capabilities, would cause less collateral damage than human troops. This is a similar (though not the same) argument to the one employed by advocates of self-driving cars - humans are less morally capable than machines by virtue of their organic technological and logical inadequacy.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#22

Post by arethuza »

krapp wrote: post #21
downer83 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing about policy wonks is that they believe policy, diplomacy and international law are the only way things get resolved, even amidst the state of nature that persists between international actors. The reason stock markets have black swans is because legal transactions can never account for illegal activity. Sure, you can buy replacement insurance against theft, but you cannot actually build theft into an…

The devil's advocacy response would be that because robots lack the capacity for malice, racism or cruelty, they can be trusted to bring to bear the force of law more so than human cops. Also that robot soldiers, lacking fear or the clouded judgement that comes from fatigue or moral conflict, and having enhanced sensory and physical capabilities, would cause less collateral damage than human troops. This is a similar…

"The devil's advocacy response would be that because robots lack the capacity for malice, racism or cruelty"

What makes you think that a robot couldn't be programmed to show malice, racism or cruelty?

NB I am not implying that the US would actually do this, just questioning whether there are really any fundamental barriers stopping the creation of machines with such malign goals.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#23

Post by NAFV_P »

georgemcbay wrote: post #20
downer83 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing about policy wonks is that they believe policy, diplomacy and international law are the only way things get resolved, even amidst the state of nature that persists between international actors. The reason stock markets have black swans is because legal transactions can never account for illegal activity. Sure, you can buy replacement insurance against theft, but you cannot actually build theft into an…

"Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?" Basically exactly the same as I'm interested in being arrested and imprisoned by a meat-cop. And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason.

> And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason.

Concerning the film "Robocop", it was interesting that you discover most of his character traits after he has been transformed into a cyborg, and my opinion is that he was a brutal copper.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#24

Post by krapp »

arethuza wrote: post #22
krapp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The devil's advocacy response would be that because robots lack the capacity for malice, racism or cruelty, they can be trusted to bring to bear the force of law more so than human cops. Also that robot soldiers, lacking fear or the clouded judgement that comes from fatigue or moral conflict, and having enhanced sensory and physical capabilities, would cause less collateral damage than human troops. This is a similar…

"The devil's advocacy response would be that because robots lack the capacity for malice, racism or cruelty" What makes you think that a robot couldn't be programmed to show malice, racism or cruelty? NB I am not implying that the US would actually do this, just questioning whether there are really any fundamental barriers stopping the creation of machines with such malign goals.

I suppose they could be, it depends entirely on their capabilities and AI, but it wouldn't have to be as intrinsic to their nature as it's assumed to be for human beings in that role. Why would you bother creating an immoral robot soldier or a racist robot cop?

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#25

Post by NAFV_P »

A long quote from the article:

It’s hard to see such a radical change to the makeup of the brigage combat team as anything else than a budget move, borne out of the necessity of cutting the personnel costs that eat up almost half of the service’s total budget.

Cone used the Navy as an example of what the Army is trying to do.

“When you see the success, frankly, that the Navy has had in terms of lowering the numbers of people on ships, are there functions in the brigade that we could automate — robots or manned/unmanned teaming — and lower the number of people that are involved given the fact that people are our major cost,” he said.

If the army goes down this route, it will still have a high cost of personnel. It will require engineers and programmers to build and maintain these systems, and many of these personnel will be required to work on the front line.

Well, a ship has a decent power supply. The Nimitz run on nuclear reactors that keep them going for months. A factor in their success is their sheer size, boasting a displacement of 92,000 tons.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#26

Post by cinquemb »

Kind of interesting that there wasn't a head nod to potential attack surfaces opened with using robots in the article or comments here so far. It was the first thing I thought about before reading the article.

Makes you wonder especially in the 21st century urban combat where someone on some rooftop out of view (or across the world) could exploit/take over such machines and that force multiplier will starting to not look like one. But also seeing the trend of armies facing off people of the general populace (regardless of their "enemy combatant" status) and not other standing armies in general, I wouldn't say I'm bothered by the studies/movement in this direction, I might even welcome it.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#27

Post by eropple »

krapp wrote: post #9
pmorici wrote: post #7

Sounds like they are talking about automating supply chain convoys. Robotization of the military is kind of a mixed bag. One one hand it is great if it makes for a more cost efficient and effective military. On the other hand if it sanitizes the costs of war in the eyes of the public (does anyone care when a drone gets shot down?) or just funnels more money to beltway bandits then we'd be better off w/o it.

It could be argued that advances in the technology of warfare have sanitized war to a degree, as well as made combat more survivable, than in the past. Surely the more machines and fewer humans the better?

Fewer humans and more survivability on one, predominantly aggressive, side. I don't think that's necessarily a plus.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#28

Post by downer83 »

georgemcbay wrote: post #20
downer83 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing about policy wonks is that they believe policy, diplomacy and international law are the only way things get resolved, even amidst the state of nature that persists between international actors. The reason stock markets have black swans is because legal transactions can never account for illegal activity. Sure, you can buy replacement insurance against theft, but you cannot actually build theft into an…

"Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?" Basically exactly the same as I'm interested in being arrested and imprisoned by a meat-cop. And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason.

When your accusers are provided the luxury of never having to face you, how confident are you that "the law" will be carried out fairly, and that the "laws" themselves will not be arbitrary? Just as confident as you are now of the law?

This is about power differential. Imbalances of power contribute to instability. The kinds of power discussed in this equation are vast, and not to be trifled with. Errors made with the toys of modern warfare can be unforgiving to the point that submarine personnel might be the only survivors.

When you scale up conflict beyond the individual concept of arrest and imprisonment, there is a volatility to open warfare that is whithering, when compared to civil society. If you're that eager to thwart some cops in their activities, then vote a draft into law, advocate mandatory military service and then go rob a bank and shoot some tellers while you're at it. I dare you.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#29

Post by krapp »

eropple wrote: post #27
krapp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be argued that advances in the technology of warfare have sanitized war to a degree, as well as made combat more survivable, than in the past. Surely the more machines and fewer humans the better?

Fewer humans and more survivability on one, predominantly aggressive, side. I don't think that's necessarily a plus.

It is if you're on the side with the robots.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#30

Post by TrainedMonkey »

cinquemb wrote: post #26

Kind of interesting that there wasn't a head nod to potential attack surfaces opened with using robots in the article or comments here so far. It was the first thing I thought about before reading the article. Makes you wonder especially in the 21st century urban combat where someone on some rooftop out of view (or across the world) could exploit/take over such machines and that force multiplier will starting to not…

I do not think that is a real possibility unless there is a deliberate sabotage or engineering control interface left open. I mean tanks, planes, and drones already contain large amount of "hackable" hardware. Has not happened yet.
Post reply on HN