You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

NancyLebovitz comments on Open thread, September 15-21, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: gjm 15 September 2014 12:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (339)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 18 September 2014 10:17:24AM 1 point [-]

Because warfare is complicated? Are you talking about drone robots?

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 September 2014 10:30:12AM 2 points [-]

The word drone refer to something that flies. You could miss flying and non-flying robots.

What's the bottleneck, where robots don't perform?

Comment author: bramflakes 18 September 2014 03:53:15PM 9 points [-]

What's the bottleneck, where robots don't perform?

  • Rough terrain
  • Adverse weather conditions
  • Dealing with civilians
  • Going up and down flights of stairs
  • Taking prisoners
  • Medical care
  • Being underground

probably a lot more

Comment author: Lumifer 18 September 2014 04:19:59PM 9 points [-]

Prolonged functioning at high energy levels far from usable energy sources.

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 September 2014 04:11:50PM 1 point [-]

To what extend are those issue likely to be resolved in 10 to 20 years to an extend that they change the geopolitical situation?

Comment author: Lumifer 18 September 2014 04:31:38PM 8 points [-]

Not very likely. In 10-20 years we might get a self-driving car which is a MUCH easier problem than a battlefield robot.

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 September 2014 09:54:33PM 2 points [-]

Google already has self-driving cars. The issue is more about making them safe enough that they don't get sued to the ground when the cars get into accidents. Additionally you need to pass laws that make them legal.

Military technology doesn't suffer from the same hurdle.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 September 2014 02:07:08AM 12 points [-]

Google already has self-driving cars

Kinda sorta maybe not really.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 22 September 2014 12:25:37PM 5 points [-]

Dammit, I've got to pay more attention to those feelings of "really?" Driverless cars at current levels of tech seemed faintly implausible, but I ignored that in favor of "I keep hearing it in the news" and "google=magic".

On the other hand, self-driving cars might make sense for slow-moving traffic jams.

Comment author: Furcas 22 September 2014 05:27:27AM 2 points [-]

Huh, looks like I've been fooled by journalists again. Thanks!

Comment author: Azathoth123 19 September 2014 03:29:32AM 6 points [-]

On the other hand, they have to drive through terrain that has been intentionally modified to be difficult for their algorithms.

Comment author: CronoDAS 18 September 2014 11:03:33AM *  2 points [-]

I'd guess that communications are a problem - you'd need more bandwidth to send enough video back to drive a car remotely than to fly a plane, and it's probably easier to lose contact, too. Not to mention the difficulties of fighting inside a city you don't want to simply destroy: can your robot open a door and go up a flight of stairs?

This is the kind of thing that's being researched by the dreaded Military-Industrial Complex, though.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 18 September 2014 12:08:56PM 2 points [-]

This is the kind of thing that's being researched by the dreaded Military-Industrial Complex, though.

This is where they've got to (scroll down to the archive link). It isn't yet anywhere near good enough for the task.

For remote rather than automonous operation, there would be major humanitarian applications as well, but the technical problems are still huge. There's latency and reliability of communications, terrain that would be challenging even for people on the spot, dexterity in confined spaces, and the problem of refuelling. None of this is a Simple Matter Of Engineering.

Comment author: hyporational 19 September 2014 02:02:45AM 1 point [-]