ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:50:40 -0400
Message-id: <330E3C69AFABAE45BD91B28F80BE32C9019BDD65@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Pat wrote in response to Sean:    (01)

Sean>>Autonomous military systems require significant "separation of
>concerns", especially including separation of the concern for humanity
>as a whole from concern for the success of a narrowly-defined military
>>mission.    (02)

Pat>It is very unlikely indeed that autonomous military systems will
have 
any ability to think about humanity as a whole. I think it likely 
that this is often true for autonomous biological military systems, 
especially when under enemy fire.    (03)

Sean>>A robot that fetches claret is amusing, but an autonomous target
selector/destroyer is monstrous.    (04)

Pat>Better get used to the idea. Prototypes are being built as we speak.    (05)

Already there are devices deployed in Iraq which return fire from a 
humvee completely automatically (and with deadly precision.) They can 
extrapolate back to the firing point by listening to the attacking 
bullets. Personally, I have no problem with this, >myself.    (06)

Well then I hope that we can come up with a REALLY good definition for
"free fire zones" for these agents.
 :-)    (07)

We can put off the fuzzier topic of "concern for humanity".  But really,
as a semantic agent community, shouldn't we give some more thought to
"target selection" constraints?  Humans have distaste for certain
things/actions as result of a long evolution and cultures enhance some
of our possible selection.  Building in such constraints seems like a
good strategy...but of course combat lowers the barriers to such
things....and that's perhaps a problem for development of our early
autonomous agents.    (08)

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
Spatial Ontology Community of Practice (SOCoP)
http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/socop
Executive Secretariat
Semantic Technology
EM&I 
Suite 350  455 Spring park Place
Herndon VA  20170
703-742-0585    (09)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 1:29 PM
To: Steve Newcomb
Cc: [ontolog-forum] 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep    (010)

>Sean Barker wrote:
>
>>      At what level of complexity do I need to start concerning
>>  myself with Semantics rather that just Pragmatics? At what point
>>  would one say the robot "understands concepts", rather than behaves
>>  according to particular pragmatics?
>
>>      I should add that as we develop increasing complex autonomous
>>  systems, we need to create architectures that provide proper
>>  separation of concerns, so this is primarily a question about
>>  engineering, rather than philosophy.
>
>Autonomous military systems require significant "separation of
>concerns", especially including separation of the concern for humanity
>as a whole from concern for the success of a narrowly-defined military
>mission.    (011)

It is very unlikely indeed that autonomous military systems will have 
any ability to think about humanity as a whole. I think it likely 
that this is often true for autonomous biological military systems, 
especially when under enemy fire.    (012)

>A robot that fetches claret is amusing, but an autonomous target
>selector/destroyer is monstrous.    (013)

Better get used to the idea. Prototypes are being built as we speak. 
Already there are devices deployed in Iraq which return fire from a 
humvee completely automatically (and with deadly precision.) They can 
extrapolate back to the firing point by listening to the attacking 
bullets. Personally, I have no problem with this, myself.    (014)

>  If we must have such things, then it
>might be a good idea to insist that their behaviors reflect deep
>"concerns" about many things other than their narrowly-defined
>missions.    (015)

Not a chance. The best we can do is to make sure that they are not 
*completely* autonomous, but that human advisors are still in their 
decision loops. This at least passes the buck to something that can 
be prosecuted in a military court, in order to protect its 
commander-in-chief.    (016)

Pat    (017)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (018)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>