electronrun.com

Terminator movies have always struck this sensitive human chord. We are the creators and masters of machines, so what would happen if machines one day became intelligent enough and rebelled against us? It is a scary scenario but I am not a pessimist and believe that such a day is still a long way ahead of us. As usual, things are usually in that grey area where we cannot tell exactly how things will develop.

As robotics are slowly creeping into children’s toys, a similar (but faster) trend is happening in military equipment. Air, land and sea vehicles that are controlled from a distance or are completely independent are starting to appear at an alarming rate. All recent attacks on Pakistan soil are from unmanned US drones, the results are so accurate that there is now enthusiastic plans for the multiplication of robotic projects. Recently in Iraq we saw the first successful attacked from an unmanned Reaper drone that was not piloted by a human but by its own (target preprogrammed) software.

But is all military robotic projects derived from military research? Hardly. A lot of this technology is civil and then adapted for its lethal version. Automated civil aircraft landings are common for years. Nobody criticises them since it is a use that can save lives. But when a military aircraft can take off, fly its mission and then land automatically, we are very worried. It is simply the way technology is used, and not what technology is employed.

Another example is the 600 tonne 797B truck from caterpillar. 600 tonnes! It is like a moving apartment building and will be used to move material of presumably flattened mountains. It is a robot but is it threatening? No, because its use is civil. There are more complaints about its size and environmental aspect than anything else.

Now take the 60 tonne IDF bulldozer of the Israeli army. It is the robotic, armor-plated version of a (large) standard Caterpillar model. 10 times smaller than the Caterpillar earth moving truck but designed to not only protect from mines, but also demolish houses. Is it deemed threatening? Ask its victims that have lost their houses.

It is all down to the use of technology. And the more we are worried by the loss of lives (our troops that is) there is more and more robotic projects coming and less willingness to risk human lives in the battlefield. A good example is the Yugoslavian conflict in the 1990s. NATO never risked a battle on the ground. Whenever UN ground forces were used, they were either humiliated or reduced to event spectators. It was only after extensive air raids that used “safe” air superiority that any results were achieved. The more developed countries are less willing to risk human losses the more armies will become hybrids of humans and robots. Preferably robots for the frontline dangers, humans for control ans support.

So although we are not in for an all out war between machines and humanity, I believe there is three types of conflicts in the near future:

1. Military robots against military robots, all sides having high enough technology to employ remote controlled or autonomous weapons. How much humans would have to be involved is an unknown factor. In drawn out conflicts higher human interference is probably unavoidable, mainly from the unlucky losing side.
2. Extensive use of military robots against a mainly human based army. This is a very likely future scenario, especially between a “weak” and a “strong” opponent. Although it would be nice to not have such a conflict at all, I am afraid that we will know at some point how much percentage of robots could be successfully used in a future army.
3. Use of a human/robotic mix against a shadow enemy, like the Taliban in the current Afghan war. Here there is clearly a need for humans to take care of sensitive missions. A robot cannot replace a human when enemy forces are mixed among the general population.

Especially in cases 2 and 3 above, there will be extensive contact of robots with people that are not in the military. And there we have the question of ethics that was very well covered in a recent q&a article at Cnet. At the moment we have rules about conflicts involving just humans. There is rules about civilians, prisoners, urban areas and so on. When robots are involved, we get in the grey area that I mentioned earlier. There, nothing applies. Who is responsible for the accidental death of civilians? The remote operator several thousands of kilometers away? The person that gave the order? And what if we are talking about a 100% autonomous robot?

At the moment there is simply no rules and no ethics (if such a word can be used for war). Like in the case of camera surveillance for example, the use of modern technologies is not in stride with law and its enforcement. We have arrived at the point where all the technologies exist, their military use is already extensive but we have not realised what is happening. Sadly, most technological ingredients are already in civil use. Wireless, GPS, satellite communications, vision devices, etc., are already in our homes and cars. For military applications, all these ingredients are admirably integrated in unprecedented fashion that is unnecessary in civil life. I have to repeat again that I am hoping that military action has to be avoided unless where absolutely necessary, unfortunately sooner or later we will see the extent to which robotics is a very lethal weapon. And then it will be time for the tough part, to talk about ethics…