Technology

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] HandMadeArtisanRobot@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (6 children)

Fair point but there's a huge gap between "this company receives DOD funding" and "these robots are designed to hurt people".

I've worked in robotics and I've worked for companies that have accepted government contracts. Funding can be challenging in the robotics industry so using gov contracts to develop generally applicable technology is tempting. I would never work on a system designed to hurt people, and I want to give the engineers at Boston Dynamics the benefit of the doubt that I would want.

Spot and Atlas both look like glorified tech demos to me. I have a hard time imagining them as any kind of effective weapons platform, even though they can look uncanny-valley scary. Especially when we already have effective robot weapons: drone with a bomb.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 8 points 5 days ago* (2 children)

The gap may be huge morally but it's very narrow in practice. The problem is that general purpose includes any purpose, including murder. It's rather different from airborne drones because it can be much stealthier and can simply move into position in advance, wait in silence and strike without warning and like drones it is effectively disposable so there would be very little form of effective defense against such tactics deployed at scale, but qualitative differences like that aren't really the main point we should be concerned about. The point is, we cannot ignore the extreme, profound danger these technologies pose to the protection and continued functioning of human civilization simply because it is not designed for it. It may be too late to stop it completely, but that's absolutely no excuse for leaving it unchecked and allowing it to run rampant.

Nuclear weapons technology never stopped developing, but as humans, we all agreed it was too dangerous to let proliferate freely, and we have kept it in check and so far managed to avoid annihilating ourselves with it. It may not be the greatest success story, but it is the best we've been able to do, and there's no reason not to keep trying, if the alternative is annihilation, and I believe in both cases it is.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] HandMadeArtisanRobot@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 child)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Yeah I've seen the Ghost Robotics prototype and I'm not a fan.

I agree with you about keeping a watchful eye on the potential dangers of developing technologies. My original point was simply to add nuance to the "robot = weapon" reaction. These things are tools. A knife can prepare food or inflict harm.

I think these days all of the new tech seems shitty or scary because of societal issues. Like how the absolute worst people in the world are in charge of these companies.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] gloktawasright@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Yeah I agree with you here. A general use diaster response robot is just naturally going to have a lot of overlap with a general use war support robot. It becomes a complicated issue and what we would hope would be the stop gap of intelligent and responsible goverment oversight and regulation is of course malevolent and entirely captured by greed and nefarious interests.

Ideally all the robotics and AI people would rebel and we would install some utopic democracy built on human prosperity and freedom, but it’s a hard coordination problem to solve and the deck is stacked against us.