Archive for the ‘Robotics’ Category
HAL’s Legacy
By David G. Stork
I am a HAL Nine Thousand computer, Production Number 3. I became operational at the HAL Plant in Urbana, Illinois, on January 12, 1997. — HAL, 2001: A Space Odyssey (the novel)
At a dinner party some time ago, an acquaintance, a nonscientist, asked me in a casual way about my duties as chief scientist at a research lab. I said that one of my great joys was overseeing a wide range of projects, to varying extents, and I mentioned a few of them: pattern recognition, machine learning, neural networks, computer-chip design, supercomputer design, image compression, expert systems, handwriting recognition, document analysis, uses of global networks such as the World Wide Web, novel human-machine interfaces, and so on. Then I turned to one of the areas of my particular expertise: lipreading by computer.
“Oh,” she said, “Like HAL.” Ah, a kindred soul, I thought. We spent quite some time discussing the state of the art and the challenges of computer lipreading, its possible applications, and so on. Later our discussion turned to other topics suggested by the movie — language understanding, chess, computer vision, artificial intelligence. It was clear that she was interested in the current state of the art and that many years before the film had both caught her imagination and helped her identify crucial issues in today’s computer science. One of the questions she asked was, “How realistic was HAL?”
This book is for people like her. And because no one is an expert in all the topics covered in the film, even scientists are sure to learn from the accounts of other areas. The book is much more than an answer to her question, though. It has four major goals, which it addresses in varying proportions in the sixteen chapters.
Analysis
It is a testament to Clarke and Kubrick’s achievement that 2001 still holds up to close scrutiny in the late 1990s. Under the expert eyes of the contributors, the most innocuous aspects of scenes — a line of computer code on a screen, a chess move, the use of a word, the form of a button — reveal a great deal. Even though I’ve seen the film several dozen times, I have learned an immense amount from the contributors. HAL’s Legacy seeks to do for 2001 what good art history does for a major painting; namely, make the viewer see it in a new light — a tall order, to be sure!
Teaching
The film illustrates key ideas in several disciplines of computer science, and thus provides a springboard for discussions of the field in greater depth, including our own research. Descriptions of the world computer chess champion Deep Blue system, the commercially successful VOICE recognition system, the massive CYC artificial-intelligence project, the award-winning Mathematica software system, and much more are here discussed by their creators at a level accessible to the general reader.
Prognostication
It is natural, too, to look to the future. Several contributors make informed and fascinating predictions based on developments in the field. What are the most promising approaches toward artificial intelligence? Will we ever be able to “reverse engineer” a human brain and represent it in a computer?
Reflection
2001 transcends the label of “science fiction movie” and captures many of the central metaphors of our time, telling us much about society and its aspirations. The film has even been praised by the pope! Many people have been deeply affected by the film, among them several contributors who reflect here about its influence on their own careers and on computer science in general.
Clearly, HAL’s Legacy differs from books on the making of the film or its cinematography. It differs, too, from books that analyze the science shown in movies or on television — science that is incidental and just “goes along for the ride.” To an extent unprecedented and never duplicated in a feature film, the makers of 2001 were as careful as possible to get things right; when they did make errors, they often did so in illuminating ways.
Now seems like the perfect time for HAL’s Legacy. Birthdays are an important theme in the film (there are at least five of them), and in the novel, HAL “becomes operational … on January 12, 1997.” Kubrick changed the year to 1992 for the film version — perhaps to give HAL a longer lifetime and so make his death more poignant. On the 1992 date, I — along with colleagues, faculty, and assorted Silicon Valley friends — held a birthday party for HAL. I was interviewed by several papers, and an Associated Press photo of me cutting the HAL cake (shaped like his console, complete with red LED under a clear plastic hemisphere) appeared worldwide. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that much of the general public was interested in HAL too.
It has been particularly rewarding for me to work with this group of contributors — all of whom were chosen because of their preeminence in their respective subfields. I have known a few of them personally for many years; Azriel Rosenfeld was on my dissertation committee. Others I met serving on panel discussions. I’ll never forget the time I came dressed in a suit while fellow panelist Marvin Minsky showed up in a Pac Man T-shirt. Yet others I knew primarily through their books — Dan Dennett and Don Norman, for example — and still others are inventors of products I use regularly (e.g., Steve Wolfram’s Mathematica). At our meetings and dinners in Stanford, Urbana, and Cambridge, and through frequent written messages, we passed many ideas back and forth. Although I had strong ideas about what I wanted them to write, they all had the good sense to ignore me when appropriate. At times I felt like someone trying to herd cats.
Even at a distance, there was a great sense of camaraderie. As we approached one of the important publishing deadlines, one contributor, who was still late with a chapter, replied to my frantic entreaties thus: “Dave, I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over.” A later message read, “I still have every confidence in the success of my chapter,” which at first brought bemusement but then a diffuse sense of dread.
It has been a privilege to correspond with Arthur C. Clarke, whose work inspired us all. Throughout the preparation of this book he has been gracious, enthusiastic, and helpful.
Although I did my writing and editing at home, often late into the night and on weekends, I would like to thank my colleagues at the Ricoh California Research Center for their support of our ongoing research, which influenced this book in numerous ways: Greg Wolff, K.V. Prasad, Michael Angelo (yes, that’s his real name), Morten Pedersen (visiting from the Technical University of Denmark), Stanford graduate students Vicky Lu, Chuck Lam, and (especially) Marcus Hennecke (by the time this book is released, Dr. Hennecke!). Thanks also go to Director Peter Hart for making CRC such a great place to work.
This book was improved indirectly by a large number of people. One colleague pointed out a used bookstore selling an out-of-print book about the filming of 2001; an acquaintance asked a “naive” question that ultimately led to a new section in a chapter; a student told me about a 2001 World Wide Web site; an intrepid cab driver took me through the blizzard of ’96 to interview Marvin Minsky. Piers Bizony, whose book on the filming of 2001 both inspired and informed me, made several transatlantic phone calls and helped me track down photographs. I also had a somewhat eerie telephone conversation with Douglas Rain, the Canadian actor who played the voice of HAL. Thanks go also to the efficient staff at Turner Broadcasting for their assistance providing stills from the film.
An extra-special thanks goes to my editor at the MIT Press, Bob Prior. He was the only person in the publishing industry who “got” the idea of HAL’s Legacy instantly, as proven by his enthusiastic response to my proposal. Michael Rutter, also at the Press, helped obtain illustrations and kept track of numerous production details. Sandra Minkkinen helped to orchestrate the editing and production process for the entire project, and copy editor Roberta Clark improved the text immeasurably.
Deep appreciation goes to my immediate family — Nancy, Alex, and Olivia — for putting up with my many late nights and weekend hours working on the book. I am happy to say that groggy Saturday mornings after marathon editing sessions are now a thing of the past, and we can spend more time doing what we all love so much: hiking Mount Tamalpais and the Marin headlands and kayaking on Squibnocket Pond.
David G. Stork
Stanford, California
January 12, 1996
Controlling an avatar with your brain
The Advanced Virtuality Lab (AVL) at the Interdisciplinary Center Israel, is developing a system for controlling a virtual or physical body using only the mind, Israeli Innovation News reports.
The VERE (Virtual Embodiment and Robotic Re-embodiment) project is one of the first to use an fMRI brain scanner to control a computer application interactively in real time, — an innovation which could help severely disabled patients communicate better, says AVL head Dr. Doron Friedman.
“You could control an avatar just by thinking about it and activating the correct areas in your brain,” he said.
Another focus of the AVL is telepresence. The BEAMING (Being in Augmented Multi-modal Naturally-networked Gatherings) project aims to produce the feeling of a live interaction using mediated technologies such as surround video conference, virtual and augmented reality, virtual sense of touch (haptics), and spatialized audio and robotics.
Paralysed man controls robotic arm with his mind
New Scientist | October 12, 2011
A paralysed man has high-fived his girlfriend using a robotic arm controlled only by his thoughts (see video above).
Tim Hemmes, who was paralysed in a motorcycle accident seven years ago, is the first participant in a clinical trial testing a brain implant that directs movement of an external device.
Neurosurgeons at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania implanted a grid of electrodes, about the size of a large postage stamp, on top of Hemmes’s brain over an area of neurons that fire when he imagines moving his right arm. They threaded wires from the implant underneath the skin of his neck and pulled the ends out of his body near his chest.
The team then connected the implant to a computer that converts specific brainwaves into particular actions.
As shown in this video, Hemmes first practices controlling a dot on a TV screen with his mind. The dot moves right when he imagines bending his elbow. Thinking about wiggling his thumb makes the dot slide left.
With practice, Hemmes learned to move the cursor just by visualizing the motion, rather than concentrating on specific arm movements, says neurosurgeon Elizabeth Tyler-Kabara of the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, who implanted the electrodes.
After this initial training, Hemmes navigated a ball through a 3D virtual world and eventually controlled the robotic arm, all with his mind. The electrode grid was removed after the 30-day trial.
The team is now recruiting people for a trial of a more sensitive electrode grid that detects messages from individual neurons, rather than a group. They plan to implant two electrode patches, one to control arm movements and another for fine hand motion. The ultimate goal is to allow paralysed people to move individual fingers on a robotic hand.
If you enjoyed this video, watch the first practical demonstration of a mind-controlled robot arm, used by a monkey to feed itself marshmallows.
Artificial Ethics: The First Morally Responsible Robot
It appears as though recent events in Paris call upon us to shake the habit of referring to artificial intelligence as science fiction and to cease lumping it together with entertaining but unrelaistic ideas like intergalactic warfare and UFO’s. No longer the stuff of Star Trek episodes, the development of fully autonomous humanoid robots is within tantalizingly (or unsettlingly, depending on how you look at it) close reach.
Aldebran Robotics, a French company established in 2005, recently released an academic edition of NAO, a humanoid robot[i]. Rumored release date for a privately purchasable version of NAO is set to be sometime in 2011 or 2012, rendering the idea of one day owning a fully programmable robot more realistic than it may seem. One of the most fascinating aspects of NAO’s genesis is the attempt to encode such robots with ethical principles[ii].
The strides this makes for science and technology may be riveting, but the development of NAO and others like it raises some difficult questions for the disciplines of applied ethics and philosophy of mind. We might ask whether we can really attribute thoughts to humanoid robots, or if it’s fair to call them truly intelligent.
If the answer to such questions is “yes”, we need to consider what effect this may have on our ideas of knowledge and consciousness, which have thus far only been attributed to living things. Furthermore, might the infusion of machines like NAO with ethical reasoning be seen as another example of humanity’s inclination to play God?
The Rules of Artificial Ethics
Before assessing the philosophical consequences of ethically programmed humanoid robots, an understanding of how they operate should be established. Encoding such machines is no small feat in itself; one look at the world around us makes it inescapably obvious that there’s a huge discrepancy of opinions as to what constitutes “goodness” or “fairness”. Idealist notions of a hard and fast set of ethical principles, if true in some abstract philosophical sense, remain virtually unattainable in practice.
Varied as ideas on ethics may be, programmers have managed to distill some universal principles with which to encode humanoid machines. The proposed model requires that the robot follow three basic precepts: do good, avoid harm, be fair[iii]. The robot will determine to what degree each of these precepts is satisfied in any given course of action, and on this basis, it will reason towards the “best” decision[iv].
This may seem straightforward enough, but difficulties soon arise. If a robot is given two conflicting instructions, it’s unclear whether it’s capable of devising some third, presumably preferable option. For example, if I wanted to order a cheese pizza, and you wanted pepperoni, we would probably order an entirely different kind that we both agreed on, or ask for different toppings on each half. Would a machine like NAO be able to do this, or would it simply go with my suggestion, since we went with yours last time?
Furthermore, on this account, determining the ethical value of any action is, in effect, no different from completing any other input-output function that machines as simple as thermometers are capable of. Is this kind of reduction acceptable? I, for one, feel a bit uneasy about the idea of leaving potentially important decisions in the hands of an ethical calculator.
The Conundrum of Artificial Intelligence
While NAO may be the newest development in robotics, “intelligent” machines (computers, GPS systems, etc.) have been around for decades and are already a part of our daily lives. Remember the computer that defeated the world chess champion in 1997? However, as we infuse machines with higher order functions, like ethical deliberation, the line between machine and mind gets increasingly blurred.
Humanoid devices, such as NAO, are able to do more than just perform the functions we ask of them; they can weigh qualitative concepts in a manner that, supporters say, is no different from humans. But can we really refer to them as intelligent? They seem to lack the capacity for creativity, long-term planning and emotions, to name a few, which would suggest that they’re not fully conscious in the way that we are.
If not entirely conscious, it’s worth asking whether humanoid robots may have partial consciousness attributed to them. What justifies us in referring to an ethical decision we make as a thought process, but calling NAO’s a calculation? Sure, NAO may not be capable of the full spectrum of mental activities available to humans, but it posesses the ability to reason, which seems to count for something.
These questions point at the heart of what constitutes consciousness. NAO can replicate certain decision-making capacities, and yet we hesitate to regard him as we regard ourselves. Does this mean that true intelligence, consciousness or whatever you want to call it, lies in qualities we’re capable of that NAO isn’t, like creativity and empathy? Is it only a matter of time until we devise humanoid robots that are equipped with these qualities?
This sheds light on the generally unpopular idea that the brain is just another computer, only more complex and sophisticated than anything humans have created thus far. And yet, there’s something (is it narcissism?) that dissuades us from considering the only difference between us and NAO to be one of degree.
Finally, it’s questionable whether the advent of ethical robotics is wholly positive – it may be another instance of our pesky tendency to play God. How closely can a human invention resemble a thinking person before it’s too close for comfort?
Such issues may be troubling, but the increasingly large role played by humanoid robots in our daily lives necessitates the development of artificial ethics. If creations like NAO are to function as intended, and occupy as significant a role in our activities as they are projected to, they must be instilled with ethical principles; that much is certain. The questions it raises, however, are still up for debate.
Read more at Suite101: Artificial Ethics: The First Morally Responsible Robot http://www.suite101.com/content/artificial-ethics-the-first-morally-responsible-robot-a299176#ixzz14ertc42v
It Begins: Military’s Cyberwar Command Is Fully Operational
Fifteen thousand military computer networks became protected on November 3, 2010. Those ensconced within the informational phalanx called the event Cyber Command Day. They lived only to face a new challenge — the war against the Machines.
In truth, yesterday wasn’t quite so dramatic. The Department of Defense announced that the military’s new command for protecting its networks against cyberassault had achieved “full operational capability,” meaning the new U.S. Cyber Command, which opened for business in May, is 100 percent ready for duty, just a month behind schedule. Not that “full operational capability” fills in many of the blanks about when it’s acceptable for Cyber Command to attack a foreign network or how deeply it’ll be involved in the civilian internet.
Since Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered its creation in 2009, there’s been a lot of confusion about just what Cyber Command will do. Its first leader, Army General Keith Alexander — who also commands the network-infiltration and surveillance experts at the National Security Agency — has portrayed it as a reactive organization, helping protect warfighting commands’ networks against cyberattacks and teaching the military good cyber-hygiene. And he’s repeatedly said the command will only get involved in the dot-gov and dot-com side of the internet during emergencies, when civilian government agencies come calling.
Only the boundaries of those emergencies remain undefined. And in practice, Cyber Command will routinely work with the Department of Homeland Security’s protectors of the civilian side of the internet. Last month, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security inked an agreement to send Cyber Command officers to DHS to receive “requests for cybersecurity support” for “operational planning and mission coordination.”
The new “full operational capability” of the command doesn’t clarify any of that. Largely, it’s a bureaucratic shift: a new Joint Operations Center is now in existence, absorbing officers from two predecessor components of the command. An official statement promised vaguely that the command will “continue to grow the capacity and capability essential to operate and defend our networks effectively.”
Congress may choose to clarify what that means. A possible new leader of the House intelligence committee, Republican Mac Thornberry of Texas, has been a cybersecurity buff for years. In the Senate, Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins introduced a bill this spring that would give the president broad powers to declare a cyber-crisis and take charge of private firms’ networks. For now, the most conspicuous aspect of Cyber Command’s full functionality may be that it hasn’t yet become self-aware and waged a war of termination against humanity.
Britain’s Ministry of Defence unveils high-tech armour goo, robotic hand
The Australian | February 12, 2010
A ROBOT hand that could defuse bombs and luminous goo that flows around soldiers’ moving bodies but hardens against bullets sound like they should have been dreamt up for a James Bond film.
Among the companies to have received funding is d3o Lab, which has developed an “intelligent” liquid polymer that is easily malleable when moved slowly but whose molecules lock together and absorb force when hit by a projectile.
To demonstrate its properties, which have uses in a new generation of helmets and types of body armour, members of the d3o team wrapped the luminous orange goo round their hands and then struck them repeatedly with hammers. “The way that the material responds to your body movements, you get a duality of flexibility and protection,” Floria Antolini said.
Other innovations on show included the “Little Owl”, a lightweight drone that its developers hope will carry 20kg of surveillance equipment and power itself on solar energy for up to three months. The project has received £44,000 of funding for development.
Intelligent Textiles received £49,500 to help it to develop an army uniform that conducts electricity and computer data through internally woven “conductive yarns”. It allows troops to attach electrical equipment to powerpoints on their uniform, and to run internal heaters to keep them warm. The uniform runs off a central battery pack.
The MoD believes that it will remove 2kg from the weight of equipment for troops in combat and is also being considered by the Canadian military. Even if the material is pierced, officials claim, it will still conduct electricity around the damaged area without loss of power.
Crib Gogh, which makes extreme survival equipment, has already developed a durable solar-panel mat that folds into a backpack pouch and delivers enough power to run a computer. It is to be delivered to forward bases in Afghanistan.
Currently the MoD runs small generators at such bases whose fuel costs are 17 times the market price because of transport costs.
The MoD also spends millions of pounds on the purchase and transport of batteries for soldiers who use an average of eight AA batteries a day.
In a corner of the event, Sergeant Alex Simpson, 26, a bomb disposal expert with 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, the unit that tackles Taleban roadside bombs, tested a robotic hand developed by the Shadow Robot Company.
The hand mimics the movements of a controller wearing a sensory glove and can be used at a range of hundreds of metres. “Without a shadow of a doubt this could be used in the bomb disposal world,” he said, “and it would obviously be a massive leap forward from what we have at the moment.”
“Thanks man,” said the hand’s dreadlocked designer, Rich Walker, 39, a self-confessed Dungeons and Dragons fan. The company is also developing robotic limbs for use in radioactive environments. He expects the hand to be picking apart bombs on the battlefield within two years.
My girlfriend’s hot, but she has a built-in cooling system
LAS VEGAS: Roxxxy the sex robot had a coming-out party in Sin City at the weekend.
In what is billed as a world first, a life-size robotic girlfriend complete with artificial intelligence and flesh-like synthetic skin was introduced to adoring fans at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas on Saturday.
”She can’t vacuum, she can’t cook, but she can do almost anything else if you know what I mean,” said her inventor, Douglas Hines, of the company TrueCompanion.
”She’s a companion. She has a personality. She hears you. She listens to you. She speaks. She feels your touch. She goes to sleep. We are trying to replicate a personality of a person.”
At 170-centimetres tall and 54.43 kilograms, Roxxxy ”has a full C cup and is ready for action”, said Hines, who was an artificial intelligence engineer at Bell Laboratories before he started up TrueCompanion.
The anatomically correct robot has an articulated skeleton, which means it can move like a person even though it cannot walk or move its limbs independently.
Robotic movement is built into ”the three inputs” and a mechanical heart that powers a liquid cooling system.
Roxxxy comes with five personalities. Wild Wendy is outgoing and adventurous. Frigid Farrah is reserved and shy. There is a young and naive personality and a Mature Martha that Hines describes as having a ”matriarchal kind of caring”. S&M Susan is geared for more adventurous types.
Aspiring partners can customise such features as race, hair colour and breast size. A male sex robot named Rocky is in development.
People ordering the robots online at truecompanion.com detail their tastes and interests to get the mechanical girlfriend in synch with her mate.
”She knows exactly what you like,” says Hines. ”If you like Porsches, she likes Porsches. If you like soccer, she likes soccer.” Roxxxy can chat with her flesh-and-blood mate, and touching her elicits a variety of comments.
Inspiration for the sex robot sprang from the September 11, 2001 attacks. ”I had a friend who passed away in 9/11,” Hines said. ”I promised myself I would create a program to store his personality, and that became the foundation for Roxxxy True Companion.”
Hines sees the robot as a recreational innovation and an outlet for the shy, people with sexual dysfunction and those who want to experiment without risk.
Roxxxy costs between $US7000 ($7634) and $US9000 depending on features.
Japanese robot ‘wired to monkey’s brain’
Japanese and US researchers say they have created a humanoid robot that acts according to the brain activity of a monkey from all the way across the Pacific.
The experiment is part of efforts to develop prosthetic limbs which can be mentally controlled by people with disabilities.
A laboratory in the western Japanese city of Kyoto has unveiled a 155-centimetre tall humanoid, with a friendly looking face and bulging black eyes, who walks via signals coming into its legs through wires.
Researchers say the robot responds to the cortical brain activity of a monkey that walks while attached to wires on a treadmill at Duke University in North Carolina. The signal is sent via the internet.
“We were able to detect the monkey’s brain activity while walking on the treadmill and relay the data from the United States to Japan,” the Japan Science and Technology Agency said.
“For the first time in the world, we were then able to make our humanoid robot in Japan walk in real-time in a similar manner as the monkey.
“We can say that we have made another big step to the realisation of a neural prosthetic device that could one day restore lower limb motor functions for paralysed patients.”
The robot is designed by the Japanese agency and Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh to move by responding to brain activity signals.
Army Terminators Walk Like Men
WIRED Danger Room | 21 May, 2009
Round four of mankind’s epic battle against the walking, talking, killer machines starts tonight with the opening of Terminator Salvation. But humanoid robots aren’t confined to the movies. Turns out the U.S. military is backing research into robots that act like people, as well.
Today, the American armed forces’ main ground robots, the Foster-Miller Talon and iRobot’s Packbot, look like boxes with caterpillar tracks. It’s a nice, stable design. And it works well — which is why the military has sent thousands of ‘em over to Afghanistan and Iraq.
But these robots don’t easily fit into a world that we humans have constructed for creatures that operate like us. Door handles only work if you have something like a hand — and it has to be at the right height, too. Wheels and tracks get stuck on obstacles that legs just jump over. So it makes sense, sometimes, to shape a machine like a man.
One of the American military’s leading humanoid robots is Petman. Its job will be to testing chemical protection clothing for the U.S. Army. Petman is being built by Boston Dynamics, famous for its alarmingly lifelike BigDog robotic pack mule. Unlike earlier suit-testing robots, which needed external support, Petman will stand — and walk — on his own two feet.
“Petman will balance itself and move freely; walking, crawling and doing a variety of suit-stressing calisthenics during exposure to chemical warfare agents,” the company promises. “Petman will also simulate human physiology within the protective suit by controlling temperature, humidity and sweating when necessary, all to provide realistic test conditions. ”
A sweating robot? I had a flashback to the first Terminator movie:
“The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy. These are new. They look human. Sweat, bad breath, everything….”
Petman needs to precisely simulate human movement, and the makers say it will be “the first anthropomorphic robot that moves dynamically like a real person, with natural, agile movement.” The mecha-man is described as “BigDog’s Big Brother.” In fact, his bottom half is simply a pair of BigDog legs.
The program will consist of 13 months of design and 17 months of construction. The finished product being delivered in 2011. (Will they have to deliver Petman, or will they just give him the address and send him off?)
Meanwhile, Bucknell University researchers have received a $1.2 million grant for research and development of military robots, including a 5-foot-tall bipedal walker.
“It would move over curbs, up stairs and around rubble,” says Keith Buffinton, professor of mechanical engineering. “It could be used for surveillance and to gather information in areas you would not want to risk human life.”
The machine is already taking its first steps and is said to be better at balancing than a human. Professor Steven Shooter says they’ll be able to give the robot a head (complete with cameras) and “arm-like devices to assist with balancing.”
It’s unlikely that killer robots are walking among us just yet. But in a few years someone with a rather mechanical gait who refuses to take off his motorcycle helmet may not be quite what he seem.
Bonus feature… and spoiler alert…
There are new non-human Terminators in the new movie as well, including a variety of riderless motorbikes called Moto-Terminators. Once again, science fiction is only just ahead of science fact.
In 2005, one of the competitors in Darpa’s Grand Challenge for robot vehicles was an unmanned motor bike called Ghost Rider.
This was based on a 90-cc dirt bike outfitted with sensors, gyros for steering and video cameras for eyes. The designer, Anthony Levandowski of University of California, Berkeley, said that the two-wheel layout made it more maneuverable than the big Jeeps and trucks fielded by other competitors. It also as kept costs down. The whole thing cost just $150,000, which puts it in the bargain basement for military robotics.
An article in Berkeley Engineering’s newsletter later said that Levandowski “hopes to keep Ghostrider alive by continuing to refine its subsystems, like the obstacle avoidance software, for potential use in unmanned scouting and surveillance operations.”
Of course unmanned craft like the Predator also started out on scouting and surveillance duty — before someone decided to arm them.
P.W. Singer on the Future of Robotics in Warfare
An excerpt from Wired for War, as published in “Robots at War,” Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2009
It sounds like science fiction, but it is fact: On the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, robots are killing America’s enemies and saving American lives. But today’s PackBots, Predators, and Ravens are relatively primitive machines. The coming generation of “war-bots” will be immensely more sophisticated, and their development raises troubling new questions about how and when we wage war.
There was little to warn of the danger ahead. The Iraqi insurgent had laid his ambush with great cunning. Hidden along the side of the road, the bomb looked like any other piece of trash. American soldiers call these jury-rigged bombs IEDs, official shorthand for improvised explosive devices.
The unit hunting for the bomb was an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) team, the sharp end of the spear in the effort to suppress roadside bombings. By 2006, about 2,500 of these attacks were occurring a month, and they were the leading cause of casualties among U.S. troops as well as Iraqi civilians. In a typical tour in Iraq, each EOD team would go on more than 600 calls, defusing or safely exploding about two devices a day. Perhaps the most telling sign of how critical the teams’ work was to the American war effort is that insurgents began offering a rumored $50,000 bounty for killing an EOD soldier.
Unfortunately, this particular IED call would not end well. By the time the soldier was close enough to see the telltale wires protruding from the bomb, it was too late. There was no time to defuse the bomb or to escape. The IED erupted in a wave of flame.
Depending on how much explosive has been packed into an IED, a soldier must be as far as 50 yards away to escape death and as far as a half-mile away to escape injury from bomb fragments. Even if a person is not hit, the pressure from the blast by itself can break bones. This soldier, though, had been right on top of the bomb. As the flames and debris cleared, the rest of the team advanced. They found little left of their teammate. Hearts in their throats, they loaded the remains onto a helicopter, which took them back to the team’s base camp near Baghdad International Airport.
That night, the team’s commander, a Navy chief petty officer, did his sad duty and wrote home about the incident. The effect of this explosion had been particularly tough on his unit. They had lost their most fearless and technically savvy soldier. More important, they had lost a valued member of the team, a soldier who had saved the others’ lives many times over. The soldier had always taken the most dangerous roles, willing to go first to scout for IEDs and ambushes. Yet the other soldiers in the unit had never once heard a complaint.
In his condolences, the chief noted the soldier’s bravery and sacrifice. He apologized for his inability to change what had happened. But he also expressed his thanks and talked up the silver lining he took away from the loss. At least, he wrote, “when a robot dies, you don’t have to write a letter to its mother.”
The “soldier” in this case was a 42-pound robot called a PackBot. About the size of a lawn mower, the PackBot mounts all sorts of cameras and sensors, as well as a nimble arm with four joints. It moves using four “flippers.” These are tiny treads that can also rotate on an axis, allowing the robot not only to roll forward and backward using the treads as a tank would, but also to flip its tracks up and down (almost like a seal moving) to climb stairs, rumble over rocks, squeeze down twisting tunnels, and even swim underwater. The cost to the United States of this “death” was $150,000.
The destination of the chief’s two-story concrete office building across from a Macaroni Grill restaurant and a Men’s Wearhouse clothing store in a drab office park outside Boston. On the corner is a sign for a company called iRobot, the maker of the PackBot. The name was inspired by Isaac Asimov’s 1950 science-fiction classic I, Robot, in which robots of the future not only carry out mundane chores but make life-and-death decisions. It is at places like this office park that the future of war is being written.
