DOD's "Sentient" World Simulation

Apparently the US military is looking into developing a massive simulation of the entire geopolitical canvas of the Earth, with a node representing "every man, woman and child." Although I'm sure it involves lots of data and some serious computation, I sincerely doubt the predictions made by this system will be any better than that of a seasoned human analyst.

I suppose you could turn over strategic nuclear decisions to this thing and just wait for Judgment Day...

While articles of this type are often titillating, I know from first-hand experience that most far-out projects involving the military don't live up to the hype. For one thing, the military plays fast & loose with commonly used terminology. The word "sentient" actually means something; it shouldn't be used as a vacuous buzzword designed to woo congressional funding.

Maybe they should call it WOPR 2.0?

(Sometimes I just can't help myself with the cultural reference one-liners!)

THREAT TO HUMANITY!!!!!1

In another (yes, another) sensationalist attempt to attract readers and sell ads, we find an AFP article entitled Automated killer robots 'threat to humanity': expert.

Just some more fear-mongering from our wonderful media if you ask me.

So we can add psycho killer robots to the list of things to be worried about in this troublesome modern age. But I thought Hollywood already taught us that? In fact, the article even refers to The Terminator.

The Future of Warfare

Wired recently covered Israel's plans to develop a powerful artificial intelligence to take over military command & control in the event of an emergency, leading to some nervous thoughts about Skynet.

This is where all global human conflict is heading. We've built machines to replace many jobs humans don't want to do. Thinking and fighting are the next logical steps.

Every modern military should be working towards this. Maybe they already are in secret...

Roll up the score, Navy, Anchors Aweigh

DefenseTech has an article featuring a profile on a standard aircraft carrier-based mission for the X-45B (now an entirely Navy-controlled project). The mission sounds almost identical to that of any manned naval aircraft, except in this case the bird is completely autonomous.

When the USAF decided to stop funding and supporting the X-45 project (the pilots in charge felt threatened), I feared that our development of UCAVs would remain stillborn until we were eclipsed by a rival military power. Fortunately, the USN has demonstrated the vision and willingness to push American technology forward, ensuring continued air superiority.

For shame, Air Force...

On the Frontline

Slashdot points to a roundup of some DARPA technology on display. I've seen the robotic surgeon before, which is designed to extract and treat wounded soldiers in combat environments. Really nothing new among the rest either, just the same small walking robots and hovering recon UAVs from the DARPA website.

I’m looking forward to robotic surgeons designed to repair robotic super-soldiers...

Attack of the Drones

The editors of DefenseTech.org are covering the Unmanned Systems Demo sponsored by NAVAIR and AUVSI with a series of articles regarding the current and future states of naval UAVs. Here are the first two:

The Robot Plane Lives - As earlier reported by DefenseTech, the US Navy has selected the Northrop Grumman X-47B as their platform of choice for future unmanned combat air systems development. Notwithstanding the lukewarm announcement by Navy leadership, hopefully the USN will prove not to be as shortsighted as the USAF.

War Shaping Drone Plan - As to be expected, current use of unmanned systems in support of the Global War on Terror by special ops and other forces are affecting the short-term development of UAVs.

Looking for a Few Good ‘Bots

Wired and National Defense Magazine report that M249 rifle-equipped combat robots have finally been deployed to operational units in Iraq. Known as SWORDS, these robots have been promised for some time now, and although there are no reports of actual combat use yet, are expected to eventually engage the enemy at close range with lethal force if necessary.

I’m slightly surprise that the mass media hasn’t picked up on this yet. It could easily generate a firestorm of controversy surrounding the “dehumanizing” of war and the ethical issues concerning armed robots.

via KurzweilAI.net, Slashdot and Defense Tech

What’s Next in Defense Tech

Government Computer News has a good round-up of ongoing defense research, some of which (as we all know) is related in one way or another to AI. Nothing too Earth-shattering, but a nice collection of news for the casual reader (GCN is not known for hard-hitting technical content). The coverage includes the DARPA Urban Challenge, machine translation and cognitive computing initiatives.

via AAAI.org News

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em

Apparently unable to replicate insect flight using ultra-small micro uavs, DARPA is now funding research that seeks to control moths using implanted computer chips. The chips will be implanted in the larva while still in the cocoon, and once the moth has matured, should allow a pilot to control the flight of the creature, beaming back photos and video. These cyber moths will be designed to infiltrate terrorist training camps and other enemy strongholds to gather intelligence without detection.

I suppose they’re building on the success of the remote-controlled pigeon and are seeking to miniaturize the technology.

Son of Stanley

Stanford has unveiled their successor to Stanley, the driverless car that won the DARPA Grand Challenge two years back. Junior is an upgraded version of the champion autonomous vehicle, sporting several new enhancements. These include many additional sensors, optical trackers designed to follow road markers, and a 360-degree camera system--all controlled by seemingly COTS computer equipment. The software powering Junior has been upgraded as well, allowing it to tackle a much more complex urban environment, unlike its desert-bound forbearer. Junior’s 500 probabilistic algorithms take less than 300 milliseconds to make critical navigation decisions.

Junior is currently undergoing tests to qualify for the DARPA Urban Challenge on November 3.

A Field Study in Human-Robot Relationships

The Washington Post published an intriguing article about the emotional connection forged between U.S. soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan and their robot companions. It seems many soldiers attribute personalities to the machines they interact with on a daily basis, and are considerably upset when one is damaged or destroyed. While many critics are quick to point out the vast differences between mankind and its robotic creations, our frontline troops prefer to treat them as valuable team members worthy of praise & honor.

AI as a Moral Agent

The Ottawa Citizen takes a closer look at the ideology behind South Korea's initiative to draw up ethical guidelines to govern intelligent machines (as previously covered here). The article predictably examines the influence of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, but also dismisses the "hype" surrounding the proposals as much ado about nothing. The author correctly points out the weaknesses in the Three Laws, as relating to military and sentry applications of robotics. However, despite describing himself as an optimistic Luddite, he betrays an anthropocentric egoism that human intelligence will never be surpassed, therefore, these proposed guidelines will ultimately serve no purpose.

When Will It End?

Yet another article has appeared in a British newspaper forecasting the dire consequences of AI as a result of a recent public debate at the London Science Media Centre. The Daily Mail chimes in again, repeating most of what's previously been covered, with concerns that robotic caregivers could "dehumanise" patients, and citing an uneasy relationship with technology.

One ray of coherent thought shined through, however, as it was revealed that the original intent of the debate was for scientists to dispute the "silly report" on robot rights released by the UK Department of Trade and Industry. Unfortunately, all of the media outlets covering the debate chose instead to focus on vague worries of out-of-control robots running amuck. Gotta sell papers I suppose...

Here's a gem from this latest article:

I certainly wouldn't want to be a British squaddie on the sands of Iraq with robot-controlled American gunships patrolling overhead.

Umm...too late?

More Fear Mongering over Robots in UK

Now it seems the “West Britons” are jumping on the bandwagon, with the Belfast Telegraph being the latest UK media outlet to spread FUD about the coming robotic menace. The article has a decent layman’s overview of the current state of robotics, but can’t avoid inciting worry over the increasing use of military robots, “robot rights,” and robots replacing humans providing care for children and the elderly.

It doesn’t get much more ominous than this:

So are these machines a threat?

Yes...

Sounds like those scientists at the London Science Media Centre really frightened the journalists in attendance...or perhaps the less-than tech-savvy reporters misunderstood much of the discussion and wrote sensational articles in order to attract readers.

More coverage of this debate:
Artificial Minds: British Wary of AI
Artificial Minds: Robo-FUD from the BBC

I just wish I could get my hands on some transcripts or other source material from the actual event to see for myself what really went on...

British Wary of AI

More doom & gloom from the UK as a result of a "forward-looking" debate on robot ethics at the London Science Media Centre.

The Financial Times is concerned that robots designed for urban warfare could be misused for policing purposes. The Daily Mail fears robots making wrong decisions and warns of vague "consequences." To me these seem more to be matters of posse comitatus and accountability rather than cultural issues exclusively pertaining to AI.

The old saying "We fear that which we do not understand" rings awfully true...

Robo-FUD from the BBC

The BBC generally has much better articles about AI than their latest piece about the questions posed by autonomous robots. Plenty of misplaced fear-mongering about the coming distopia with machine enslaving man, sprinkled with a bit of socialist concern for robots' rights to health care.

A single quote captures my feelings about this article rather succinctly:

"It's poorly informed, poorly supported by science and it is sensationalist," said Professor Owen Holland of the University of Essex.

The author is concerned with determining who to blame should an autonomous military robot kill someone in error. The proper answer, of course, would be the operator and/or chain of command, as appropriate. Additionally, just like any bit of military hardware, the defense contractor should also be investigated, and similar models inspected and re-tested.

Robotic rights are also addressed in this article, and again, another quote from a professor is needed to steer the discussion in the right direction:

"The more pressing and serious problem is the extent to which society is prepared to trust autonomous robots and entrust others into the care of autonomous robots."

We have a long way to go to counter Hollywood's negative portrayal of robots & AI, and it seems to me that most reporters are only interested in playing off of and propagating these sentiments. Certainly, there needs to be "informed debate" in order to give careful consideration about safeguards regarding human-machine interaction, but vacuous drivel such as this is not a good start.

An Artificial Conscience for Artificial Warriors

The Economist has more on the U.S. military's attempt to build an ethical decision-making framework for autonomous weapon systems. This particular initiative seeks to map out all possible actions & outcomes in order to select the most appropriate or "ethical" behavior. It sounds a bit like Deep Blue's brute force calculation of all possible moves & consequences, however, the decision space of a battlefield is slightly more complex than a chessboard...to say the least.

Let the machines target machines - not people?

Not to be outdone by her allies, the US military has decided to draft some proposals regarding the proper use of robots and other autonomous systems in combat. The basic idea of the guidelines suggested by the Naval Surface Warfare Center is that machines should be allowed to freely engage other unmanned systems and weapons, but must require human interaction for permission to fire on enemy personnel manned systems. The researchers point to precedence of this concept in the automatic engaging protocols of the Patriot Missile Battery, Aegis Auto Special "hands-off" mode, and the Phalanx ship defense system.

An interesting suggestion, but it puts an awful lot of reliance on the autonomous systems' abilities to discriminate and positively identify the enemy, leaving allies unharmed. Many video game developers can't even get simple collision detection working. So while this may be an easier pill to swallow for those who criticize the "de-humanization" of warfare (giving lethal decision authority to a machine), those folks will be the loudest to complain as soon as the first error leads to a friendly fire incident. And, of course, all bets are off as soon as we face a symmetric adversary who's systems are not bound by these same guidelines. Overly-restrictive rules of engagement created by lawyers and politicians in the "ivory tower" can be quite the disadvantage for soldiers at the front lines in a shooting war.

(via Slashdot)

Boeing Brings the Magic

Major defense contractor Boeing displayed several very impressive advanced technologies at the annual Airlift/Tanker Association convention in Orlando last fall...

Following on the (eventual) success of the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, Boeing is currently developing a quad-tiltrotor design--that is, a VTOL aircraft with four rotating turboprop engines that convert from helicopter to airplane mode. The Boeing QuadTiltRotor was recently awarded a contract for the US military's Joint Heavy Airlift study. Replace those turboprops with turbofans and we're getting close to the flying "Hunter-Killer" design from T2...

Perhaps the most impressive technology showcased by Boeing was its work in pulse jet lift thrusters. This system groups together a number of very small, simple & highly efficient pulse jet engines to provide powerful, controllable & fault-tolerant VTOL ability. Boeing claims to have overcome the poor fuel economy issues that have plagued pulse jets since their first principal use in the V-1 rocket. Future applications include the Light Aerial Multi-purpose Vehicle (LAMV) concept, in which a (patented) pulsejet ejector thrust augmentor provides VTOL capability, while traditional jet engines allow for standard flight like an ordinary fixed-wing aircraft. Scale it down a bit, and perhaps we'll all be riding hoverboards someday...

Not shown at the A/TA Convention but prominent on the Boeing Integrated Defense Systems website is the A160 Hummingbird helicopter UAV. The Hummingbird's first test flight was in 2002 and is currently in development under contract with DARPA.

The Proliferation of UAVs

Once limited to military operations, private companies and domestic governmental agencies are becoming increasingly interesting in surveillance UAVs for non-defense applications.

MTC Technologies, Inc., for example, offers its Airborne Security Monitoring System (ASMS) for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operations. Already holding a contract to provide "SpyHawk" reconaissance UAVs to the US Marine Corps, MTC is now looking to supply similar systems with autonomous flight operations for the real-time monitoring & inspection of large-scale infrastructure, transportation hubs and other facilities.