My new weekly idea.

[bill corcoran]

DaleDoe wrote:
  I'll put it this way:  Would you want a robot whose software was written by Microsoft to be the one to distinguish whether you were hostile or just a civilian?

Uh, yeah quite possibly.  If the process includes scanning me for registered weapons, some sort of electronic ID, biosigns, using infrared and enhanced optics, etc. etc.  I honestly believe a computer could make a more informed, accurate, and quicker decision.  Versus someone fearing for their life, eager to shoot anything that looks like a person with a gun for fear they are shot first.

Besides, what the hell kind of question is that?  Would you rather have a person run your computer hardware than an OS written by Microsoft?  Sure, we're imagining a human vs. a computer identifying and exterminating a human, but they would be doing it in completely different ways.  People make mistakes too, mostly because they don't know or have time to think about things they need to.  Computers are known to be able to process much more data much faster.  Here's yet another friendly-fire story: Pilots charged in friendly-fire deaths of Canadian soldiers (af.mil)

Obviously, to really approve or disapprove of robotic technology, I think we have to see it implemented.  I know computers have the potential, and I'm sure we'll see what people can come up with.  Let's not just say "people write buggy code".  People ARE buggy code.

[Tyler]

This gives a whole new connotation to Human Computer Interaction (HCI).   :-P

[DaleDoe]

what the hell kind of question is that?

A smart-ass remark.

a whole new connotation to Human Computer Interaction (HCI)

:lol:

I know there are plenty of examples of "friendly fire".  Maybe the millitary just needs a better way of identifying their own before shooting at them.  Something like a device to "ping" a group of soldiers to see if they are friendly.

I agree that we'd have to see it implemented to know how well it would work.  That takes me to another point.  Even if it did work well at destroying enemy targets, there is still a problem:

Whoever controls this technology is given the power to wage war and kill with no threat to his life whatsoever (that's the way things are heading now).  Just pause and think about this for a minute.


How many more unprovoked wars do you think we would be waging right now if we could do so without risking the life of a single American soldier?  Iran?  North Korea?  We'd be on a bigger crusade to spread "democracy" than the Soviet Union was to spread "communism".  Can anyone say WW3?

And don't anybody give me this "If we had the technology, we would only use it for good" BS.  If any of you believe that you should study some history.

[William Grim]

But... "If we had the technology, we'd only use it for good."  We don't use technology for bad... EVAR!  :shocking:

Sorry, I had to say it.