OT Dry humor. Robocop 1987 Ed 209 has a "glitch" - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2015, 08:37:23 pm
content: Don't watch if your offended easily.The line at the end, "You call this a glitch.".

author: German_EE
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2015, 08:51:28 pm
content: Older board members may recall Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics':1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.Obviously ED-209 fails the first two laws and therefore should be decomissioned. In the remake of Robocop(and it's not too much of a spoiler here) you see the ED-209 in action so maybe these issues have been addressed.Anyway, any good engineer would have designed a secret kill switch into the operating software.

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2015, 08:58:27 pm
content: .... and for a warbot you simply define a human being as any bipedal lifeform dressed in any of your side's uniforms. []

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2015, 10:22:55 pm
content: Quote from: German_EE on June 10, 2015, 08:51:28 pmNSA approved!

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2015, 09:27:27 am
content: Where do you draw the line on systems you will not work on?I was asked about the possibility of an intruder detection and auto tracking camera system that could auto-zoom faces for warehouse/yard security. I found out it would be going to an unstable country on the US strategic export control list and declined. Beef up the servos, mount an automatic rifle and it could have been a killbot.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2015, 09:36:24 am
content: actually that movie scene is a illogical piece of shit... who the hell would spend 30+ rounds to eliminate a person ? and why the hell would someone use a pair of huge cannons against persons ? in "real" world it would be a single barrel gun with gauge less or equal to 0.50.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2015, 09:59:08 am
content: Even so the sequel was really bad I liked the Magnavolt car security system the best. "And it won't even run down your battery"

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2015, 10:43:02 am
content: I think I prefer theTrunkmonkey!

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2015, 02:08:49 pm
content: In a real killbot, the control algorithm would be validated against an appropriate library of assumptions. Those could include terminal ballistics against soft targets.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2015, 08:00:49 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on June 11, 2015, 01:58:28 pmi know it malfuctioned - so a real killer robot would fire a single bullet and kill the person - with a "normal" sized bullet. not firing from a pair of cannons sized for fighting airplanes (no sane person would design a killer robot with such cannons).

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 14, 2015, 08:07:11 am
content: Quote from: German_EE on June 10, 2015, 08:51:28 pmI have a problem with Laws 1 and 2. Given that ED-209 is fitted with firearms, what if ED-209 is required to intervene in a situation where harm would come to one human (i.e.: a victim, another Police officer etc...) unless lethal force was needed against another (the offender)?If ED-209 did not kill the offender, it would violate Law 1 by allowing injury or harm occurring to the other person through inaction.If ED-209 ignored requests by the 'victim' to intervene, it would violate both laws.Back to the drawing board!

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2015, 08:32:04 am
content: Quote from: Homer J Simpson on June 10, 2015, 08:37:23 pmWhat about the line "Somebody wanna call a god damn paramedic" lol pretty sure they don't get much more dead than that.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2015, 08:45:13 am
content: Quote- WikipediaWe have all been in situations were we were ultimately screwed by someone working as a government official, policeman, or even some company personnel. And when you are asking about why are they doing it, they just answer: "I'm just doing my job/what I was told/ordered".Usually this is where I would put the equation between them and soldiers committing genocide for orders. But it is always like no-one is responsible for it, because the decision was made by some committee, parliament, undefined entity consisting more than one person.And here is the deal, if a robot kills someone, no-one is responsible, no-one will feel guilt, takes the blame. They are the perfect killing machines (pun intended). And denying the participation of creating those will not prevent it from happening.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2015, 08:53:41 am
content: Hayclon. Fire at the other gun to either take it off point, or cause the guy to drop the gun from surprise / impulse, either way gives it sufficient time to get in the middle of the confrontation,

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2015, 02:37:57 pm
content: Quote from: German_EE on June 10, 2015, 08:51:28 pmNot so old members could be thinking ED209 knew that that guy would somehow bring about the end of the world so killing him was the only way to fulfill the Zerorh lawOr maybe just OCP don't really have the same ethics as the USRMMC.

author: con-f-use
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 14, 2015, 04:23:51 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on June 11, 2015, 08:50:02 amI see another more fundamental problem: Given these machines can be assembled in fully automated factories. What stands between people and a dictator? It's hard enough as it is to revolt against corrupt leadership (successfully). But if a small number of people can manufacture and control a large amount of absolutely obedient machine soldiers, how can the rest defend against them? Accidents and accountability are one thing, but the enslavement of humanity by just a few of its members is infinitely more scary.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2015, 04:57:31 pm
content: Funny enough speaking about this you might want to listen to Tony C Smith and Starship Sofa, where this week's episode is eerily prescient.http://www.starshipsofa.com/blog/2015/06/10/starshipsofa-390-allen-m-steele/http://www.allensteele.com/

author: nitro2k01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2015, 05:36:03 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on June 14, 2015, 08:07:11 amThe way I interpret the laws, the mandate to protect against "harm through inaction" doesn't include harming another human being, but means the robot has to do something like walk into a house that's on fire to save a person, even if the robot knows it will be harmed. To me, the simple answer is that a miltary/police robot that is allowed to kill isn't compatible with Asimov's laws at all.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2015, 03:15:07 am
content: you could make it compatible, if you tweaked it to "a robot must not kill or through inaction lead to the death of a human" that would allow police bots carrying either lethal or non lethal weapons to go nuts, sure that guy might have lost his trigger finger, and that jaywalker may never walk again, but hes not dead (i'm being over the top on purpose)Lets not forget that those 3 laws are very abstract, and like the materialization of the zeroth law in his novels, there are ways to get around it, e.g. law one, its left vague enough that a robot could deliberately lead a human to hurt them self, its action rather than inaction, and the robot is not injuring the human,Back to the real world, a wideband RF jammer would prove effective against most, even if they are programmed to hunt down and murder a person from a crowd, the people writing the software would hopefully not be dumb enough to make it act without a current data connection, to keep it from picking the wrong target, and to save on processing power consumption,