# Autonomous machine gun "robot".



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Yes, a machine gun that can engage human targets without consulting a human first.

Scared yet?


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)




----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Dewymorning said:


> View attachment 88944


I'm going to take a guess that the murder-bot doesn't adhere to Asimov's laws. 

Unless the reference was to the actual book, in which case I have no idea what it means, as I haven't read it.


----------



## associative (Jul 1, 2013)

Sneak up behind them and whack 'em with a crowbar.

Or turn them and point them the other way.

On a serious note - this is artillery, and artillery has being going this way for years. Gunners get coordinates to shell and shell them from miles away, often without line-of-sight. The only real use for this system would be to blast the crap out of everything/everyone in a general area. Not exactly discriminating.

I asked a friend of mine who is an army officer about the potential for this kind of weapon, he seemed skeptical, simply because they are static and therefore can be easily outmanoeuvered or targeted by a longer-ranged weapons system.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

associative said:


> Sneak up behind them and whack 'em with a crowbar.
> 
> Or turn them and point them the other way.
> 
> ...


Yes, the problem is that there is no human order needed. The artillery is still ordered by a human. No discrimination is the issue with these weapon systems.

Slap a pair of wheels on those suckers and let them loose in a city, and you have a problem. Yes, I realize the tinfoil-hat factor of that.

I don't mind, ai controlled, unarmed drones. I don't mind unmanned, armed, human control drones(more than any other weapon). What I do mind, are ai controlled, armed drones. It's just bad shit waiting to happen.


----------



## associative (Jul 1, 2013)

DemonD said:


> I don't mind, ai controlled, unarmed drones. I don't mind unmanned, armed, human control drones(more than any other weapon). What I do mind, are ai controlled, armed drones. It's just bad shit waiting to happen.


Land mines.

I think you have a point about the morality of automated warfare, though I think warfare is already highly automated. Humans are emotionally distanced from their actions by geography and chain-of-information.

I understand a guard with a shoot-on-sight order still has to watch the people he kills die.

I don't, however think there is a moral distinction between firing a cruise missile and setting up one of these turret. Both automated, in both instances the order to fire was given and the gunners have no idea of the consequences. (These turrets are monitored by humans, by the way. Cold comfort I know.)


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

associative said:


> Land mines.


Don't get me started on land mines.

If they were any more evil, they'd be produced by Monsanto.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

So when will someone invent an EMP gun that when this thing is shot with it, it fries it and it becomes useless?


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

PowerShell said:


> So when will someone invent an EMP gun that when this thing is shot with it, it fries it and it becomes useless?


----------



## ATLeow (Jun 2, 2013)

Navies have had bigger versions for three decades plus now featuring SAMs and 20-40mm automatic cannon (IIRC there's an Italian 76mm) capable of engaging projectiles, aircraft and small vessels completely autonomously. There are operational land-based versions.

This is just re-engineering to engage people-sized targets with a smaller weapons system by a different target acquisition system. It still has all the many drawbacks of IR-aimed anything and is as vulnerable as any other fixed gun position, except less mobile for the calibre. The .50 machine-gun mounted is generally thought to have an effective range against area targets of closer to 1km than 3.

It has a fairly niche role.


----------



## HypoTempes (Nov 25, 2013)

This (as with so many human inventions) made me die a little on the inside.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@_DemonD_



> Yes, a machine gun that can engage human targets without consulting a human first.


Sounds like the start of a terminator scenario. How does this thing even determine which targets are a threat?



> Scared yet?


What scares me is people don't get it.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

RobynC said:


> @_DemonD_
> 
> Sounds like the start of a terminator scenario. How does this thing even determine which targets are a threat?


It doesn't. That's the problem. If it is human, it fires.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@DemonD

I suppose it works well enough as the DMZ is not supposed to have any military there. Does anybody live in the DMZ?


----------



## ATLeow (Jun 2, 2013)

DemonD said:


> It doesn't. That's the problem. If it is human, it fires.


It's controlled by human overseer - like the naval systems I mentioned earlier, it would usually be semi-autonomous (automatic target acquisition with manual clearance to engage) and would probably not be 'uncoupled' unless war were to break out, in which case there are bigger problems. In the context of the Korean DMZ, which this seems designed for (by a South Korean defence company), identifying what's a threat and what isn't as far as the military is concerned, basically comes down to 'everything in front of the gun position is a threat'. Arguably it's not such an issue, unless you decide to think about why the most heavily mined and guarded area in the world is there in the first place. It's not going to make a fuck-up in that area any worse than it otherwise would be.

I'm not disregarding your point, it's very valid. In any other situation than the DMZ it presents_ gigantic_ problems of proper target identification which breaks the rules for proper employment of firearms in the first place. However I don't see how it would be used in such a situation, it loses all its niche value if it's not employed as a static defensive gun position.

Additionally it shoots at vaguely human-esque IR signatures. If it were to be operated autonomously it would likely spend a lot of ammunition shooting at dogs or something. I'd be surprised if even the North Korean military doesn't procure some simple countermeasures.

Incidentally a tiny bit of wiki-fu tells me this technology was unveiled in 2010. So, it's likely advanced in that time.


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

This is the depersonalization of murder

first it was airborne drones, now this

murder used to weigh heavily on people's minds, now it's just an afterthought


----------



## Epherion (Aug 23, 2011)

Eh, how is this different from CIWS? Also, overheating, and the rifling on the barrel wearing down.
@DemonD Here:






From Texas with love. The scope costs 27,000USD.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Epherion said:


> Eh, how is this different from CIWS? Also, overheating, and the rifling on the barrel wearing down.
> @_DemonD_ Here:
> 
> 
> ...


Again, there is a human firing it. The issue for me comes when an ai fires without it going by a human first.


----------



## Epherion (Aug 23, 2011)

DemonD said:


> Again, there is a human firing it. The issue for me comes when an ai fires without it going by a human first.


You dont see an issue with giving that scope to say..... a child or the myriad of criminals? I'll trust the AI, machines are superior.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Epherion said:


> You dont see an issue with giving that scope to say..... a child or the myriad of criminals? I'll trust the AI, machines are superior.


I don't think children(or criminals) should be given even knives. What's your point?


----------

