| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Firm cheers loss of robot in Iraq |
| 2004-04-13 |
| All sorts of new systems are being pressed into use & evaluated A U.S. robot manufacturer Monday hailed the destruction of one of its units in Iraq and said it showed how valuable the machines have become for the U.S. military. iRobot Corporation learned last week from the Pentagon that one of its units, called a PackBot, was "destroyed in action" for the first time. Its destruction meant the life of a U.S. soldier may well have been saved, the company said. "It was a special moment -- a robot got blown up instead of a person," said iRobot CEO Colin Angle. The company, based in Burlington, Massachusetts, declined to provide further details on how the PackBot was destroyed in Iraq. "The U.S. military is ... concerned that if they release too many details, insurgents will be able to take action (against the robots)," said Osa Fitch, program executive at iRobot’s Government and Industrial Robotics division. Gee ... ya think? Between 50 and 100 PackBots are now being used in Iraq and Afghanistan for battlefield reconnaissance, search-and-destroy missions of explosives and ordnance disposal, while the soldiers who control them keep out of harm’s way. The 42-pound base unit, known as the PackBot Scout, costs around $50,000 and operates in adverse conditions such as navigating steep terrain, exploring mountain caves, falling off cliffs and fording streams. When fitted with a special arm, a PackBot can reach and disrupt booby traps that have emerged as a weapon of choice among Iraqi insurgents. On Monday, iRobot signed a contract worth an estimated $32 million to develop a smaller, more advanced form of the PackBot for the U.S. military. The company will develop the robot as part of the U.S. Army’s Future Combat Systems program. Lots of robotic systems under study, development and now use. In 3 or 4 years, these will really change the possibilities for surveillance, reconnaisance and other activities. |
| Posted by:rkb |
| #14 I think the criteria for being a robot should include the ability to swear like Winston Churchill's parrot and the ability to flip people off like the orangutan in Every Which Way but Loose. The grandmother in that flick was pretty good at swearing also. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-13 10:37:29 PM |
| #13 Well, although my research area is intelligent software agents making decisions, and although I've been briefed on a number of military robots, I'll certainly defer to those who have more direct experience on these issues. [smile] |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-04-13 8:51:49 PM |
| #12 rkb I agree with you that these things are remotely operated vehicles, and real robots require autonomous action. However, the Turing test and AI are largely irrelevant to the problem of developing robots. I consider AI a particularly meaningless term as we don't know what real intelligence is. So talking about an artificial variant is not very helpful. The robots we have seen to date and will continue to see are task specific and over time the number and range of tasks performed will gradually increase. There aint no 'Silver Bullet'. Otherwise CJ identifies an important issue, which is how you distribute the problem is key to how you solve it. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-04-13 7:45:36 PM |
| #11 here's the link to Kurzweil's article |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-04-13 6:45:16 PM |
| #10 swarms are a research area of mine. Very interesting concepts. Basically a distributed ai system where each element is relatively dumb but follows certain open ended behavioural rules. By amassing a significant number of these you get what is called emergent behavior. This emergent behavior shows characteristics that are greater than the sum of the parts. Brave new world indeed. We are approaching Ray Kurzweil's singularity. The rate of change of rate of change of new technology will enable the US to fight absolutely ridiculous odds. |
| Posted by: Capt Joe 2004-04-13 4:30:26 PM |
| #9 PETR LOL! Way funny John. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-04-13 4:17:01 PM |
| #8 Man... don't go pissing off Spirit. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-04-13 4:16:23 PM |
| #7 I'm with rkb: these things are not "robots", they are remotely operated machines. Big difference. (I was always bugged by the portrayal of Comedy Central's "BattleBots" program as a match between robots, too.) |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H 2004-04-13 3:18:09 PM |
| #6 People for the Ethical Treatment of Robots |
| Posted by: john 2004-04-13 2:16:19 PM |
| #5 Not until the artificial intelligence software in these things passes the Turing test (can pass as human in a remote conversation). We have a few years for that. Right now these things are mostly tele-operated, as are our UAVs. However, a LOT of work has been and is being done on autonomous robots, ones that can find their way around obstacles, identify mines, etc. A different area of research are swarms of smart mini-missiles. Imagine sending off 25 or 30 missiles, each with its target but also in communication with each other. As a missile is lost - or a target is otherwise destroyed - the missiles negotiate with each other, agree on a different assignment of targets and as needed, change course. Project on that is already underway ... |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-04-13 2:15:53 PM |
| #4 Robbie the Robot, Robot B-3, and Mr. Data, starring in: "They Were Expendable!" |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-04-13 2:13:08 PM |
| #3 "How long until someone calls the use of robots a "war crime"?" Whenever that happens, it will be quickly followed by cry to "End the robot slavery!", and then we'll get into the law suits for reparations... |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-04-13 1:54:00 PM |
| #2 How long until someone calls the use of robots a "war crime"? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-04-13 1:49:00 PM |
| #1 oh i thought this going be about chainey but it not. my bad. |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2004-04-13 1:38:24 PM |