The catchphrase from the picture above is forever ingrained into my childhood memory. Taken from an antiquated game show, the weakest contestant is ultimately eliminated, and the show continues on. With the advancement of technology, new robots seem to be becoming threateningly prevalent in how war is waged. If history is any indicator of technology's ability to replace, humans may be in trouble in their established roles fought in wars. Before too long, we may be the weakest link in the modern warfare.
As humans, we are limited. Our bodies are only physically capable of so much. Singer makes a great argument as to why robots are more capable than humans. On long spy flights, the duration is able to last close to 20 hours with refueling. However, we, as humans, "lose effectiveness after ten to twelve hours" (63). Even if fatigue doesn't set in, I do not want to stare at endless grains of sand for that long. Do you? Robots have no problem doing so and find it equally "as exciting as partying at the Playboy Mansion" (63). Our attentiveness can not match up to robots over extended periods of time.
Unmanned systems can also operate and complete missions in much dirtier conditions that humans can. While we are prone to infections and poisoning, robots do suffer this same weakness. In a place where smog is thick or poor weather sets in that day, the human eye can only see so far into the distance. Robots, however, have systems such as infrared to rely on (63). Whether we would like to admit defeat or not, our bodies do fail us, even in times of war.
If we are prone to such weaknesses, why not turn to robots? They are able to "offer a path around [our] limitations" (64). I will acknowledge that this has certain ethical issues. However, when looking at this decision from an efficiency standpoint, robots are physically capable of much more in a war. Are human really the weakest link? If the answer is yes, goodbye!
Only in warfare am I okay with the idea that humans are "the weakest link." Turkle's examples of robots replacing humans were much more disturbing to me, because they were using robots to stand in for human interaction. In most cases--I hope!--the warm touch of a fellow human as a babysitter, nurse, or friend is highly preferably to the emptiness of a robot. For war, though, emptiness is just what is needed.
ReplyDeleteWarfare itself is terrible and destructive, and so if robots are preferable warriors to humans, so be it. More power to that idea. I recognize that machines are oftentimes better than humans in warfare because they don't get hungry, they don't disobey, and other examples of human weakness, but these are not the arguments that make me prefer robots to humans in warfare. My preference comes out of wanting safety for humans.
Out of "Dull, Dirty, or Dangerous," (63) the key argument for me is "Dangerous." War is risky, war brings us close to death. The more robots that enter the war, the fewer of our men die. There is, of course, the counterargument that, if robots are better at fighting than humans, there will be more casualties on the other end. I don't yet know what to say to that. War is evolving in such a way that, if humans truly are the weakest link and are beginning to be eliminated from warfare, what will war become? Will people still die? What would be the point of war if people didn't continue to die. We are the weakest link, but we are also the target. And if the target is out of the fighting equation, what becomes the purpose of war?
I don't think Humans are the weakest link at all even at war, I think robots would not be able to distinguish between civilians, children, elderly people, etc.. during arm combat, as mentioned in another post. Robots could also attack people from their own army, so is the risk worth it? Which laws would apply to Robot-War? I dont think Geneva Conventions would do it.... And if so who would write those laws?? There are so many questions around using robots for war and not to many answers.
ReplyDeleteAlso that human Instinct, that humanity that is just not possible to install in a robot is what makes the difference, how many lifes have not been save because a soldier did not follow his orders and instead he did what he thought it was right??? The fact that war is has so many human cost is the reason why empathy occurs and why people do anything to try to solve it, instead if we sent robots to war, I believe wars could extend for longer periods of time and could cause even more damage than ever before.
I am really skeptical about robotic warfare. It’s possible that robots would ensure the safety of the human population and wouldn’t be held back by emotions that humans find inescapable. Robots would also probably be better at strategizing and predicting the other side’s moves during battle. However, people wouldn’t feel honor or pride for beating their opponent, which is one of the reasons why most men and women want to fight. People would instead fight over how well they create robots and will then try to make them indestructible and super advanced or even create an unlimited supply. Wars would go on for years and they wouldn’t care about what they destroy because they aren’t programmed to be emotionally attached to anything.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, we can’t technically be the weakest link if we’re the ones who create the robots and will potentially establish the laws that these robots must follow. We have the power to produce the type and number of robots and to program them in the way we desire. Humans generate the ideas for the robots and without the human mind, these robots couldn’t exist.
Singer makes quite a compelling argument when he tries to show how we can be the weakest link in war zone. Later in the book, however, he also acknowledges some of the limitations that characterize robots. According to him, robots lack the common sense of a toddler. They are designed to perform a certain task and admittedly they do it with great efficiency, but they lack the ability to multitask and respond to changes to the environment in the manner human beings do. Although they have proven mightier in strength and endurance, i believe we still have the upper hand as we excel in adapting to dynamic environment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy has this question has not come up before? Mankind has had tools for the past 60 years that surpass it where it is weak for example the car. It is faster, more robust, and more versatile than the human beings. Yet, we do not compare our abilities with that of the car. We do not consider ourselves ‘weak’ in front of the car. Why? Because we are behind the steering wheel. Similarly, in the case of robots, we are behind a joystick. The difference is that we can be sitting in a cozy room, with our coffee, controlling a monster thousands of miles away. So does this mean it is the disconnection that exists between us and the robot that makes us feel feeble?
ReplyDeleteHadi brings up an important distinction (as will Singer).
ReplyDeleteAre we talking about fully autonomous robots for ones that still have a human to "pull the trigger"? I'm much more comfortable with that sort of system that a fully autonomous one. I've spent time around some Army tanks, but never got to ride in one, alas. To me these big metal beasts seem like robots. What would be the difference between today's crewed vehicles and unmanned ones, with the AI doing the mundane tasks such as driving, and the difficult ones such as picking targets in a confusing battlefield? Only then would a human authorize my hypothetical robotic tank to fire.
Again, as noted in my reply to an earlier post, timing with supersonic aircraft may mean we'd have to go fully autonomous for air-to-air combat. For bombing runs, a human would enter the loop. The system is not perfect. Our current ones, with humans doing the firing, can result in tragedy. A US ship shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988 after US crew members mistook the airliner, never seen visually, for an Iranian fighter-bomber.
My emotions are conflicted on using robots of any sort in combat, because if one side can fight a bloodless war, won't that encourage that side to use MORE robots and ramp up the killing? This is very argument brought against he US by drone strikes against Pakistani and Yemeni targets...often the wrong target at the cost of civilian deaths.
I don't think humans are the weak link, or at least yet. Until warfare comes to a point where it becomes entirely mechanized, humans still play a significant role. Yes, robots are willing to engage in the more long winded tasks like surveillance which people do not have the endurance for, but it is the input that people put in in the end, that are truly significant. the robot can last longer in the menial tasks, but can it make the right decision in the mission control of what to do with the information? until all soldiers are mechanized, the human element still has its advantages
ReplyDeleteI think that while humans remain in control we have nothing to worry about. Today all the judgement calls are being made by humans not the robots themselves.Great deal of trouble is being put up with to ensure humans remain at the top. The day that robots are permitted to operate without human oversight is what we have to be worried about.Robots can't make ethical decisions like we can.
ReplyDelete