Robot Dogs Armed With AI-aimed Rifles Undergo US Marines Special Ops Evaluation (arstechnica.com) 74
Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike shared this report from Ars Technica:
The United States Marine Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) is currently evaluating a new generation of robotic "dogs" developed by Ghost Robotics, with the potential to be equipped with gun systems from defense tech company Onyx Industries, reports The War Zone.
While MARSOC is testing Ghost Robotics' quadrupedal unmanned ground vehicles (called "Q-UGVs" for short) for various applications, including reconnaissance and surveillance, it's the possibility of arming them with weapons for remote engagement that may draw the most attention. But it's not unprecedented: The US Marine Corps has also tested robotic dogs armed with rocket launchers in the past.
MARSOC is currently in possession of two armed Q-UGVs undergoing testing, as confirmed by Onyx Industries staff, and their gun systems are based on Onyx's SENTRY remote weapon system (RWS), which features an AI-enabled digital imaging system and can automatically detect and track people, drones, or vehicles, reporting potential targets to a remote human operator that could be located anywhere in the world. The system maintains a human-in-the-loop control for fire decisions, and it cannot decide to fire autonomously. On LinkedIn, Onyx Industries shared a video of a similar system in action.
In a statement to The War Zone, MARSOC states that weaponized payloads are just one of many use cases being evaluated. MARSOC also clarifies that comments made by Onyx Industries to The War Zone regarding the capabilities and deployment of these armed robot dogs "should not be construed as a capability or a singular interest in one of many use cases during an evaluation."
While MARSOC is testing Ghost Robotics' quadrupedal unmanned ground vehicles (called "Q-UGVs" for short) for various applications, including reconnaissance and surveillance, it's the possibility of arming them with weapons for remote engagement that may draw the most attention. But it's not unprecedented: The US Marine Corps has also tested robotic dogs armed with rocket launchers in the past.
MARSOC is currently in possession of two armed Q-UGVs undergoing testing, as confirmed by Onyx Industries staff, and their gun systems are based on Onyx's SENTRY remote weapon system (RWS), which features an AI-enabled digital imaging system and can automatically detect and track people, drones, or vehicles, reporting potential targets to a remote human operator that could be located anywhere in the world. The system maintains a human-in-the-loop control for fire decisions, and it cannot decide to fire autonomously. On LinkedIn, Onyx Industries shared a video of a similar system in action.
In a statement to The War Zone, MARSOC states that weaponized payloads are just one of many use cases being evaluated. MARSOC also clarifies that comments made by Onyx Industries to The War Zone regarding the capabilities and deployment of these armed robot dogs "should not be construed as a capability or a singular interest in one of many use cases during an evaluation."
Well, now when D-800 is ready... (Score:2)
we only have to wait a bit for the T-800.
Re: (Score:2)
we only have to wait a bit for the T-800.
This thing is more like a K-900 and, having seen Elon's Optimus robot, I expect we'll have to wait quite a while for the T-800.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, although the only K900s I see in a cursory search are a Japanese vacuum cleaner robot and a Kia car :)
Re: (Score:2)
once we get to defcon 1 the missile silos go into fail launch mode so the can still complete the mission if the command system is knocked out.
News from the (Score:3)
âoeWhat could possibly ho wrong ?â Dept
Re:News from the (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't there a Black Mirror episode about exactly this?
Won't somebody please (Score:2)
Opposed to this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really think the Chinese and Russians aren't working on it? Hell Kim Jong Un is probably working on a fat version of it too. You want to face a fat robot-pug version of Kim Jong Un coming at you with no defense? How do you think that will turn out? Do you reckon you're Liam Neeson at the end of the movie The Grey? Don't be an idiot, or if you insist on being one, don't drag the rest of us down with you.
Re:Opposed to this? (Score:4, Insightful)
You think that's scary? It's the megacorps who will build and design the autonomous killbots, paid for by your tax dollar... and they will have security flaws and backdoors.
Re:Opposed to this? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you propose we do nothing and let the megacorps develop that stuff anyway in China and elsewhere? You reckon that will keep you safer than our military and government which has to at least pretend to care about us? You believe Xi Jinping and Putin care about your wellbeing than fellow Americans in the military and government? Try immigrating there then instead of wasting your time here.
Re: Opposed to this? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that ban on nuclear weapons really worked out. Some references proving it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23... [cnn.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Opposed to this? (Score:1)
And the only way to make sure people did not use them was to develop them and refine them and once in a while demonstrate that you were willing to go all the way. The best way so far to make sure you do not get invaded every so often is to keep a nuclear or biological weapon in stock, even Saddam who ended up not having anything pretended to have them and while he maintained that lie, he was safe.
Re: Opposed to this? (Score:2)
The world sort of collectively agreed certain weapons of mass destruction are so horrible no one should develop or stockpile them. Robotic machine guns on legs should be one of those weapons.
So test and stockpile them over several decades and pinky promise not to use them before the other guy, check.
Robotic machine guns do not even begin to approach how awful nuclear and chemical weapons are. After actually testing and stockpiling them for a few decades this will become obvious and we'll just skip the second part. Cut the doomsday crap, it's going to end up another common fixture of warfare like aerial bombing. Awful, like all war is, but you can't wish it away.
Re: (Score:2)
A problem with robotic weapons bans is that even in the unlikely event that every government on the planet goes along with a ban corporations won't give a flying flip about it. Blackwater Xe demonstrated at least a decade ago a tracked vehicle with a heavy belt-fed machine gun mounted on it, pointed by human-motion sensing camera. I believe that they were deployed doing perimeter patrol at petroleum sites in Nigeria, and possibly elsewhere. It still needs a human in the loop to press the 'Fire' button, b
Re: (Score:3)
Grow the heck up! Yes, the world can be scary, no, sitting on your ass doing nothing won't make it better. We might not be able to stop the development of killbots, but the next best thing is to make sure they are developed by those answerable to the people. That means not cheering on the military-industrial complex to hurry up no questions asked because you're scared of China. Even if it means demanding their project gets cancelled if they can't give an answer as to how you can be mostly sure the killbots
Re: (Score:2)
So you propose we do nothing and let the megacorps develop that stuff anyway in China and elsewhere? You reckon that will keep you safer than our military and government which has to at least pretend to care about us? You believe Xi Jinping and Putin care about your wellbeing than fellow Americans in the military and government? Try immigrating there then instead of wasting your time here.
LoL... North Korea have secret robot dogs...
China and Russia are still working on the basis that they'll have an endless supply of cheap humans to fill their ranks. It really is a western problem that we're not getting people to fill the lower ranks, mainly due to loads of pointless wars for oil.
Re: (Score:1)
Just wait until these "dogs" are given to the cops and swat.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's scary? It's the megacorps who will build and design the autonomous killbots, paid for by your tax dollar... and they will have security flaws and backdoors.
Hey, I've seen this before [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Hell Kim Jong Un is probably working on a fat version of it too. You want to face a fat robot-pug version of Kim Jong Un coming at you with no defense?
It'll probably even have one of those government-approved haircuts [time.com].
Re: Opposed to this? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't convince a fellow American, you think you can get Xi Jinping to not build up their militaries? Let's assume Xi Jinping is a nice guy, or that Kim Jon Un is (reference, Kim Jon Un is the dude who showed "empathy" to this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] ) think they will even believe us?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We cannot allow a killer-robot-dog gap!
Re: (Score:3)
China already had robo dog prototypes which are armed so they are ahead. We are responding.
And I'm sure nothing will go wrong putting weapons in robots. There won't be any bugs or hacking or mistakes.
After all, I just left the Cruise accident thread where I was told robo cars are perfect and only make an error 1 in 100 million times that humans would make every time. Total edge case for robo AI to fuck up. So yeah let's give robots guns and replace the police with them too. Robots are so much safer tha
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to head over to the thread about how the mainstream car companies are sabotaging the rollout of electric vehicles. A company backed by the likes of GM and Walmart can probably expect a high error rate, if not deliberate sabotage. They're not nimble startups able to pivot to new technologies, they're old corporate fossils who don't want the world to change because they can't adapt to it.
Re: (Score:1)
I was reading that thread.
My take on it is just because a huge company opposes something doesn't automatically make the company wrong and the policy they oppose right.
Each policy and corporate response needs to be judged case by case.
Cigarette companies saying smoking is healthy? People already knew otherwise. My mother told me when she was a little girl they called cigarettes "coffin nails". People knew they were bad no matter what the companies said.
EVs are great and everyone should have one? No. Thi
Re: (Score:2)
Where the frack do you live where "the nearest airport" is 150 miles away? Since that's obviously bullshit (like all your posts tend to be) I'll just ignore the rest of your drivel.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why are you criticizing our government for beoing terrible human beings when Russia and China want to do the same?"
There's a very simple answer for that, get ready: because we (at least in theory) control what our own government does, and not the governments of Russia and China. You're advocating that we should emulate the ruthlessness of others rather than leading by example.
What scares me about these (Score:1, Insightful)
This in turn means there are tens of millions of Americans who we can't just abandon to the horrors of late stage capitalism, and they do a lot to drive the economy for the rest of America.
It's not exactly a *
Re: (Score:2)
So we should have a weak-ass army? How did that turn out for the Incas and the Aztecs?
Re: (Score:2)
The Inca and Aztec were destroyed by diseases bred in the filth of Medieval Europe, possibly the most unsanitary culture in history. Around 90% of the population between Tierra de Fuego and Point Barrow died within a century and a half after their arrival. The Inca could, and did, field armies of over 100,000 men for a campaign, and keep them fed and supplied for months of marching. Then the European barbarians brought influenza, smallpox, cholera, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, etc. and a new religion, a
Bullshit alert (Score:1, Insightful)
Anytime you see someone use the phrase "Late stage capitalism" you can be sure they have no idea what capitalism even is, because they think government-controlled and supported corporatism is capitalism.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from the "merchant class", we have a unique agent for everyone in America to "watch" over them. I've talked to your handler. Jesus, are you that boring you must make shit up to keep yourself amused?
Re: (Score:3)
is that we have kind of an uneasy truce between the military and the ruling merchant class right now. We take care of large swaths of the population who are ex-military because if we don't a General will come along, give 'em guns and a mission and turn the country into a military dictatorship.
Good Lord, you really believe all this stuff that you spout, don't you?
Meanwhile, it's you and yours who actually do the dictatorship thing. Everything from the insane beliefs, to the speech and thought control, to the control of the universities, right down to to the government by street thug and mob thing.
That said, I'm sure that you do have a sort of instinctive fear of the normals that you still depend upon to staff the military.
Re: (Score:2)
What? You mean all those vets are mindless drones just waiting for a queen to spray them with the right pheromones to activate their warrior ant mode and destroy democracy?
Why am I not surprised this got a +5 mod in slashdot. *eye roll*
What author wrote this scfi dystopian plot?
mistakes (Score:5, Funny)
"Here Boy!"
blam blam blam
"Bad Dog!"
Re: (Score:2)
And that's not a danger with humans?
1. List_of_friendly_fire_incidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
2. Fragging Notable_incidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And where did that dog learn to handle a rifle? (Score:2)
Sir! In the Marines, sir!
Re: (Score:2)
I think the reality is much more like this one...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
not to worry.
I've developed a robot-cat to mock and distract them; the dogs will have no choice but to chase them endlessly!
And if that fails, each has four launchable tennis balls!
Re: (Score:2)
Robo-cat didn't feel like playing today and wandered off somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
but, see, therein lies the genius: the absence will bother robot-dog, who will feel compelled to track robot-cat . . .
Re: (Score:2)
https://wallpapercave.com/wp/w... [wallpapercave.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And snakes! And poisonous frogs too!
And to pacify civilian populations they can fire teddy bears, hello kitty, and chocolate bars!
In Soviet America (Score:5, Funny)
Dog shoots YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
Can we send one to Kristi Noem?
This is nothing! (Score:2)
You do realize this is just an RC robodog right? (Score:5, Informative)
If you look into details, it has a human controlling where the dog goes, and if/what it shoots.
Yeah maybe it has an aimbot to help hit a marked target, but I see nothing wrong with making a remote extension of a soldiers will. You can imagine saving a lot of guys from getting hurt with remote robot dogs, like for urban building clearing. Is it really any different than other kinds of drones with remote feeds, which are used today?
It's only when you hit the point where it's not a human deciding to fire that things get even questionable at all to my mind. But we are not at all close to that point because the military is unwilling to go there anytime soon.
Re:You do realize this is just an RC robodog right (Score:4, Insightful)
"The human is too slow and sometimes makes mistakes. Let's put an AI in control for the next version".
Why not already then? Time is irrelevant is why. (Score:1)
"The human is too slow and sometimes makes mistakes. Let's put an AI in control for the next version".
Nope. That is what I am telling you is a GIANT step the military is unwilling to take. Not a giant step technically, but a giant step in terms of effect and possible negative consequences.
We have proof, because this robot dog exists and it does not work that way, even though it obviously could have.
And what does "human is too slow" even mean? The robot itself can only move so fast, the decision time of t
Re: (Score:2)
They're already testing AI fighter jets. Why is an AI dog-with-gun so beyond the pale?
Re: (Score:1)
They're already testing AI fighter jets. Why is an AI dog-with-gun so beyond the pale?
VASTLY less dangers of friendly fire in the areal space, super easy to isolate valid targets. *And* you would only activate that in a hot war Zoe with zero other valid air presence for hundreds of miles. And also there the ability to withstand high-gs matters, and also there in fact time does matter in a way that simply does not on the ground, and never will.
The robot dog can and will be used in mixed civilian population
Re: (Score:2)
Stealth is an old movie you might want to see. The lightning part is silly but a rogue AI fighter attacking friendlies, including civilians is a very realistic possibility and as I said they're already very seriously working on it. They're already at the point where human vs AI dog fights have happened in simulators. It's a small step to giving the AI a real jet or a fleet of jets to control.
And while we're at it why not have AI fired navy missiles n guns and AI fired tank rounds and the rest. The only
Re: You do realize this is just an RC robodog righ (Score:2)
"The human is too slow and sometimes makes mistakes. Let's put an AI in control for the next version."
Reality is the opposite though. Shortening the lag between actionable intelligence and putting rounds on target is definitely a concern but they way it's done is not by shortcutting all decision chains.
That's too easy, and you can do that with yesterday's tech, fully automated AA missiles, easy, motion activated machine guns, piece of cake. Reality is more complex, what is the target? Are friendlies expected in the general area? Could this be a friendly where there wasn't supposed to be any? Were enemies ev
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing new here (Score:3)
Better be prepared (Score:2)
point a strong IR light to the camera to blind it
wear clothing that mangles it's object recognition (or dress up as a tree)
Banned Weapons (Score:2)
I can't really fault the US for developing this since it's obvious that the Ukraine v Russia conflict is going this direction, and if you don't keep pace you're going to get screwed in a real conflict.
However, what they can do is push for an International treaty that bans the use of autonomous weaponry*. Such a ban wouldn't be foolproof, after all chemical weapons still get deployed [bbc.com]. But chemical weapons are relatively easy for a nation to build at scale on short notice, while autonomous weapons take a dece
I'm not worried (Score:4, Interesting)
If an AI-controlled robot dog w/ a gun comes after me, I'll just hide in a cardboard box. [wpde.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Jfc, don't forget to poke air holes in it!
Firmware updates (Score:2)
Autonomous fire is a minor OTA upgrade that could be applied in the field. Unless fire control is handled by a separate computer with a separate communications system, which I'd bet a lot of money it isn't.
I'd put this out there and the 'fire' switch would be geofencing. Have an operator define an area known to contain enemy forces, and then let the drone handle target acquisition and firing. Humans can't react quickly enough, and the military that ditches the 'human in the loop' will be victorious if th
AI image rec, not fully autonomous (Score:2)
"detect and track people, drones, or vehicles, reporting potential targets to a remote human operator that could be located anywhere in the world. The system maintains a human-in-the-loop control for fire decisions, and it cannot decide to fire autonomously"
That last part is important. Though I do wonder, how much of this is 'testing waters' until they decided they can let it off the leash, so to speak.
On a side note, we know that the Chinese constantly steal IPs (like Boston Dynamics Spot, and there's been
Reality at last! (Score:2)
At last my childhood fantasies become reality! [wikipedia.org]
The project needs a name (Score:2)
Not worried (yet) (Score:2)
Would you cooperate with an armed robot dog? (Score:2)
Would you cooperate in assembling a second robot dogs from parts if a first robot dog pointed a gun at you and barked an order to do so? And would you allow an armed robot dog to recharge from an AC outlet in your home if it threatens you with a gun? If you -- or someone else -- answered yes, then these dogs can be essentially self-replicating and self-powering.
Related Black Mirror episodes (BM is sadly all too darkly prescient, this is the third time I have cited a different episode in about a week):
https: [wikipedia.org]