Robots! Finally!

[wabmester]

Four robot vehicles finish desert race:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051009/ap_on_hi_te/robot_race

I don't know about you, but I am floored by this milestone.    Here's info about the Stanford VW, one of the four to win:

http://stanfordracing.org/

I want one.   Robots this smart have been an unattainable goal for over 50 years now.   This could finally be the age of robotics.

 

[Marshac]

Indeed.

Personally, I don't like the idea of an autonomous robot with the ability to use deadly force...

 

[wabmester]

Yeah, I guess the NRA will have to update their bumperstickers: Guns don't kill people; people and robots kill people and, umm, robots.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Indeed.

Personally, I don't like the idea of an autonomous robot with the ability to use deadly force...

HAL would have approved.

JG

 

[laurence]

Hey, my team is putting plenty of safeguards on skynet, it's not really self aware, anyway...er nevermind.

 

[TromboneAl]

I think that race was a fun thing, and a great way to improve technology, but there's something I'm missing here.

...hope that robots could one day wage battles without endangering soldiers.

You do not need a robot for that.  You can just use a remote control vehicle, possibly with virtual reality control, to avoid endangering soldiers.  That is, the pilot sits safely in a bunker a drives the car.  

It's true that robotic vehicles may someday perform better than human-controlled vehicles.  That's a valid reason for this research. It would be great to say "Drive me to Aunt Martha's while I take a nap." 

But the above "protect the soldier" reason that all the newscasts mention makes little sense if you think about it.

 

[wabmester]

There's one big difference between an autonomous vehicle and a remote-controlled military vehicle. The autonomous vehicle doesn't involve a COLA'd pension after 20 years of playing video games.

Anyway, as you alluded to, I think the Big Win here is that we finally have technology that can reduce car-related deaths. We all know that drunk people will continue to try to drive home, and soon they'll be able to without T-boning you.

 

[MJ]

It's true that robotic vehicles may someday perform better than human-controlled vehicles. That's a valid reason for this research. It would be great to say "Drive me to Aunt Martha's while I take a nap."

And no need for land roads, just use the multi-layered airways, safely controlled by robots. Of course, there goes the beautiful view of the sky, until they develop teleporting.

 

[Repairmanjack]

"Personally, I don't like the idea of an autonomous robot with the ability to use deadly force... "

That's why we must have the 'Three Laws'.....

"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."

 

[laurence]

Ya, but even Isaac Asimov wrote later that the logical conclusion to the three laws is for Robots to take over the Earth to save humanity from itself. "To not harm humanity, or thrugh inaction, allow humanity to come to harm" so to speak....

 

[Michael]

But the above "protect the soldier" reason that all the newscasts mention makes little sense if you think about it.

Protect our soldiers, not theirs. You can't win a war unless you kill the enemy, and lots of them. Similarly, the enemy can't conquer us, if he can't kill our soldiers.

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04summer/peters.htm

 

[sgeeeee]

How did Stanford win?

Stanford spent $500,000 on the race, . . .

Don't believe the press nonsense for a minute. The government black communities could do this kind of thing 20 years ago. It doesn't take new technology, it just takes infinite money. And DARPA doesn't fund this kind of nonsense to gain new technology, they fund it to find new geeks to recruit.

In 6 more years I can tell you more without having to kill you.

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

I have a friend, former marine, who insists that video games are a plot by the government for early training (hand-eye coordination) for the next generation of soldiers.

SG would know.

Ed

 

[Gone4Good]

Protect our soldiers, not theirs.  You can't win a war unless you kill the enemy, and lots of them.  Similarly, the enemy can't conquer us, if he can't kill our soldiers.

. . . and as prophesized by one of the original StartTrek episodes, wars would become endless.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

. . . and as prophesized by one of the original StartTrek episodes, wars would become endless. 

I think we are already there and have been for some time.
IMHO, there is always a war/revolution/insurgency
going on somewhere, and looking backward in history, it seems pretty
endless.

JG