Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Fri Jul 12, 2013, 05:21 AM Jul 2013

Meet Atlas the military's latest robot.






The Atlas robots, which are made from aircraft-grade aluminum and titanium and each weigh 330 pounds, will take part in the Pentagon contest.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/science/modest-debut-of-atlas-may-foreshadow-age-of-robo-sapiens.html?pagewanted=2&hp


DARPA unveils Terminator-like Atlas robot


Atlas looks like the prototype for a future robot infantryman, and it can tackle rough terrain and carry human tools. Can you say "Skynet"?


If you're short of nightmare fuel, say hello to Atlas.

On Thursday, DARPA unveiled this hulking, 6-foot robot developed by Boston Dynamics, creator of the infamous BigDog and other scary creatures. Surprisingly, the 330-pound terror is designed to help us meatsacks.
Atlas is a testbed humanoid for disaster response, but it looks like it knows its way around a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range. Fortunately, it comes from Massachusetts, not the future.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57593396-1/be-afraid-darpa-unveils-terminator-like-atlas-robot/
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Meet Atlas the military's latest robot. (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter Jul 2013 OP
Well hello dipsydoodle Jul 2013 #1
That's no Atlas. This is an Atlas: DetlefK Jul 2013 #2
That's no Atlas. THIS is an Atlas: NuclearDem Jul 2013 #22
Is a human resembling robot really the most efficient warrior design? Renew Deal Jul 2013 #3
They have to make it "human-like"... Javaman Jul 2013 #10
I would make it more like a cockroach. Those mo-fos simply HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #16
Is that a target on its chest? FSogol Jul 2013 #4
It's a flux capacitor... JHB Jul 2013 #6
A bit more like these fellows... JHB Jul 2013 #5
I would be less concerned if one Science Fiction writer has a robot that didn't try to kill everyone Savannahmann Jul 2013 #7
The only problem I see with them being used in combat is cost justiceischeap Jul 2013 #8
Indeed.... KoKo Jul 2013 #9
Ian Banks' "Culture" novels telclaven Jul 2013 #14
IIRC, Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics included a first absolute: that no robot HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #17
Asimov's I Robot Savannahmann Jul 2013 #21
Try Asimov. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jul 2013 #20
Robo Sapiens Berlum Jul 2013 #11
Not too practical being tethered by vacuum-cleaner-hose sized cabling. Owl Jul 2013 #12
It's not a real robot if it has a cable hooked to it's ass snooper2 Jul 2013 #13
Is that a cable or a tail? Hard to know from the picture as presented. But HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #18
DARPA always ahs the cool tech. Blackford Jul 2013 #15
They should have named it Daneel. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2013 #19

Javaman

(62,534 posts)
10. They have to make it "human-like"...
Fri Jul 12, 2013, 09:42 AM
Jul 2013

otherwise the prols won't fall in line.

putting a human face on subjugation is what it's all about.

coming soon to a future near you.

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
7. I would be less concerned if one Science Fiction writer has a robot that didn't try to kill everyone
Fri Jul 12, 2013, 08:07 AM
Jul 2013

Human Arrogance will never fail us. We learned about the atom, and how an atom of U-235 released neutrons when it was split. So human arrogance came up with a bomb. A huge bomb that wipes out entire cities. Then we figured out a way to make it an even bigger bomb, by adding Hydrogen. That was enough to make a bomb that was so large it scared us for a bit. Then we decided we could add another element, and make a neutron bomb, an even more powerful weapon. Human arrogance keeps coming up with things that can wipe us all out, and at no point do we wonder if we should do such a thing.

Warnings of science fiction, who envisioned huge zeppelins that would bomb cities into rubble before the first world war, didn't scare us or stop us from making fleets of bombers during the second world war that turned cities to rubble. That didn't stop us, we bombed the cities again and again making the rubble jump and dance.

So now we're going to make a humanoid robot. It will be awesome, and no it can't aim a weapon yet. But wouldn't it be awesome to have a million of these in storage somewhere ready to dash out and rescue people who are trapped because of a disaster, or ready to fight a war should we be attacked?

Yeah, it would be awesome all right. I've seen this movie. I've read this book, I know how it ends.

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
8. The only problem I see with them being used in combat is cost
Fri Jul 12, 2013, 08:14 AM
Jul 2013

Are they cheaper in the long run than a human being? You can bet they'll do cost/benefit analysis on that.

 

telclaven

(235 posts)
14. Ian Banks' "Culture" novels
Fri Jul 12, 2013, 11:06 AM
Jul 2013

We make our machines so much more intelligent than us, we end up handing over the task of running civilization to them. People end up living lives of total idleness. People are little more than pets, indulged by the hyper intelligences that run society. The people are very content, happy to let the machines do the heavy lifting, and spend their days in games, social parties, hobbies, and enjoying life as nigh-immortals.

 

HardTimes99

(2,049 posts)
17. IIRC, Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics included a first absolute: that no robot
Fri Jul 12, 2013, 11:30 AM
Jul 2013

may harm a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

On edit: good to see that encroaching senility has not yet wiped out my Sci-Fi memories:

The Three Laws of Robotics (often shortened to The Three Laws or Three Laws) are a set of rules devised by the science fiction author Isaac Asimov. The rules were introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround", although they had been foreshadowed in a few earlier stories. The Three Laws are:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

These form an organizing principle and unifying theme for Asimov's robotic-based fiction, appearing in his Robot series, the stories linked to it, and his Lucky Starr series of young-adult fiction. The Laws are incorporated into almost all of the positronic robots appearing in his fiction, and cannot be bypassed, being intended as a safety feature. Many of Asimov's robot-focused stories involve robots behaving in unusual and counter-intuitive ways as an unintended consequence of how the robot applies the Three Laws to the situation in which it finds itself. Other authors working in Asimov's fictional universe have adopted them and references, often parodic, appear throughout science fiction as well as in other genres.

The original laws have been altered and elaborated on by Asimov and other authors. Asimov himself made slight modifications to the first three in various books and short stories to further develop how robots would interact with humans and each other. In later fiction where robots had taken responsibility for government of whole planets and human civilizations, Asimov also added a fourth, or zeroth law, to precede the others:

0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

The Three Laws, and the zeroth, have pervaded science fiction and are referred to in many books, films, and other media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
21. Asimov's I Robot
Fri Jul 12, 2013, 05:57 PM
Jul 2013

Not the movie, the book. In the end, the Thinking Machines were allocating assets and determining production. The Humans were harmed in that they had lost the ability to think for themselves, or to run their own lives. Those who questioned the brilliance of the machines, were harmed by failures. The overproduction of food stuff in one case, a cave in on a canal on the others.

Then there was the power transfer station, the Robots contained the humans in a little room, where they would not be able to interfere with the superior abilities of the androids. Robot means following directions, your RC car for example. Robot is wrong, android would be better.

So yes, even in that story, Humans became dependent upon the Robots, the thinking machines, who decided that by not taking over and controlling the daily activities of man, benignly to be sure, that Humanity would harm itself.

I'm not sure that is doing harm or not, but I'm not in favor of losing control of my own life.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
13. It's not a real robot if it has a cable hooked to it's ass
Fri Jul 12, 2013, 10:52 AM
Jul 2013

That's fail...


That's like saying you got your kid an RC car for Christmas, but it has a wire from the controller to the car LOL-


Robot FAIL

 

HardTimes99

(2,049 posts)
18. Is that a cable or a tail? Hard to know from the picture as presented. But
Fri Jul 12, 2013, 11:32 AM
Jul 2013

loved your analogy anyway

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Meet Atlas the military's...