Chris Csikszentmihályi warns about killer robots in yet another article, this time in Good magazine: “Engineering Politics: What killer robots say about the state of social activism”:
Among the many changes in U.S. policy after 9/11 was one that went unnoticed by everyone except a few geeks: The military quietly reversed its longstanding position on the role of robots in battlefields, and now embraces the idea of autonomous killing machines. There was no outcry from the academics who study robotics—indeed, with few exceptions they lined up to help, developing new technologies for intelligent navigation, locomotion, and coordination. At my own institute, an enormous space is being out-fitted to coordinate robotic flying, swimming, and marching units in preparation for some future Normandy.
Yes, I'm fascinated with the speed with which the military robot has assumed a significant role in actually fighting wars, its potential for soon playing a revolutionary role, and the relatively small amount of public discourse on that potential revolution. And that's why I'm glad to see Chris Csikszentmihályi writing these articles.
But I don't get the weirdly literal reference to robots turning against their creators or the out-of-left-field positioning of open source as the savior that will prevent us from creating killer robots in the first place.Posted by jjwiseman at August 19, 2007 11:11 PM