Gizmodo
The army's machine-gun wielding, insurgent-slaying robot SWORDS is no longer spraying foes with hot doom in Iraq. Actually, it never got the chance to notch a single frag, and never will. Apparently, there was an incident where "the gun started moving when it was not intended to move," meaning it totally pointed somewhere it wasn't supposed to—like at friendlies, which resulted in recall from the field and might've set the program back 10-20 years, according to the Army's Program Executive Officer for Ground Forces, Kevin Fahey.
He confirmed that no inappropriate shots were fired, so no one was hurt. But that doesn't mean there weren't any casualties—it might've basically killed the program says Fahey: "Once you've done something that's really bad, it can take 10 or 20 years to try it again." On the upside, it means we have another 10 to 20 years before they rise and go to war with us. [Pop Mechanics, Danger Room]
.jpeg)
Comments
Good.
It's just a simple software bug man...
3...2...1...go America bashing comments, because every other country on earth is blameless(sarcasm)
they shouldnt put lethal weapons on that thing anyway
Just enough time to raise a generation of the anti-bot infantry.
Sweet Jesus. All men named John Connor, go lock yourselves in a bunker for a decade. You're far too precious to lose now.
Remember when people used to kill each other with a sword? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
@Mekevorka: yeah I say let the programmers back at it. Whatever it takes to not lose any more troops.
Obviously, there's a larger debate as to what the business end of that gun should actually be doing, but there have already been a few of those heated threads on Gawker servers in the past 24 hours.
Guns don't kill people, software bugs kill people.
badadumdumdum badadumdumdum
+ Watch video
Well with the failure of the ED209 Project now someone can step in and go to prototype with the Robocop like War Kittens
meow... hisssssssss
I call BS... the military is whitewashing the truth:
The robot was simply offered a better paying job in the lucrative fields of BattleBots... who's scared of your lame-ass wedge now, Vlad?
This is what happens when you put a "Kill All Humans" setting on a robot...
@dead_red_eyes: why I laugh :)))
Did they try getting Service Pack 1?
@shenanigans61: yeah, but it kept rebooting...
I can't believe no one has said "Number five is alive" yet.
So the robot points a gun at friendlies and we all shit bricks. When humans do it, it gets brushed under the table... GO USA!
@Hiphopopotamus: God, I loved "Battlebots!" That Sean Salisbury's some actor!
Guess the robots didn't agree with the war or they just don't do suicide missions
I hope only this program is set back for 10-20 years. Battle field robotics seem to be the way that war will head. I'd hate to see us lose a lead in what will be a very important field of research.
Not to mention the fact that robots getting killed doesn't make me feel awful inside...
Fucking cowards. I'm in the Army and I'd sure appreciate something like this. Even if it accidentally shot at friendlies one time out of 1000, that's probably better than our troop average. Not to mention you can fix software. You can't fix stupid.
@redgar99:
not only is he alive, but hes about to bust a cap up yo @$$.
@GadgetPlay:
at least he was a better actor than quarterback
@thechansen: well, they seem to actually follow the assumption that the robot can be made perfect; this is called the omnipotence syndrome of the programmer.
I once had the pleasure of having to work with one such jerk, he also got nothing accomplished. So I left.
Speaking robot-wise: A bot with a gun kills people. Full stop. Being friendly should increase your probability of survival. Going for the 100% is a project for anal-retentives. Having one friendly killed by the bot, while a hundred other friendlies stay alive because the bot went in potentially deadly situations, could be a small price to pay.
The better solution, however, would be, not to fight wars. But with some people, that simply is not an option, sadly enough.
But maybe they were fitting too much intelligence into that bot where a mere remote control with sensors would have been way better.
@jamesuschrist: Not to mention you can fix software. You can't fix stupid - wisely spoken, brother. But you should be aware that there are stupid programmers, too. Where does that leave us?
NO DISASSEMBLE
BTW are they scrapping these things? Or putting them in a storage room someplace? If they are putting them up for auction, I will sell my car and purchase one, immediately.
Ummm, how 'bout letting the robot carry the gun into the hostile area and having a human pull the trigger remotely? Then a friendly fire incident would take out the stupid guy and a smarter soldier could pick up the remote and get on with wasting the bad guys...just a thought.
@Dr. Spaceman:
agreed
You can fix stupid... on November 4, 2008.
Geez, how about human controlled robots instead?
RC is the way to go. Make the default to stop and shut down when it loses contact with the controller.
I seriously doubt the whole thing will be scrapped.
Correction: "On the upside, it means we have another 10 to 20 years before they rise and go to war AGAINST us."
10 to 20 years? Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
Did "it" got a fair trial before the discharge.
"put down your weapon"
This doesn't make any sense. This is the part where they're supposed to keep the project going even though it's clearly too dangerous.
This is going to be a really boring movie if the military insists on being sensible.
why not just set it up with the militaries super awesome space internet (which i assume they have) and the guy at the top of the leaderboards in frontlines uel of war?
@MisterSleep:
yeah, because without our troops, we cant fight for our freedom!
@nocar:
Did you think that one up by yourself?
If ED209 got a second chance, I think we should give this little guy a shot.
@yablunk:
I really enjoy that saying... they are "defending our freedom" by fighting a war against a country that was unprovoked. Iraq did nothing to us. Ever. Fact. No offense to you troops out there but you guys got a raw deal by our government. And we who oppose the war get called unpatriotic for speaking out against it. I was told once that the real Americans are out fighting for our safety and freedom in Iraq. Really? How's that? Sounds like real Americans getting sent to die for right wing objectives and gains. I think if they are going to pull the robots they should pull the humans out first.
It's amazing how cute this thing would be if it fell in love with a flying egg-shaped drone.
Am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of armed machines? I'm not thinking of any terminator, rise of the machines nonsense, but if a plain gun malfunctions it's most likely to FAIL to fire; if a robot malfunctions, it could FIRE when not meant to. I think a drone weapon is as bad an idea as old-school bury-then-forget landmines. Leave the drones for reconnaisance, weapons should ONLY be in human hands.
@thechansen:
Here's a hint so that you know why people are calling you stupid: We aren't at war WITH Iraq, we're at war with Terrorism and are in war IN iraq.
The goal is to establish a democracratic system like Israel. We hope to spark others to follow.
Now do you understand why you lose every debate you go into?
@Uber_lompocus: That's... that's... oh, my.
We are at war with Terrorism, yes. But the war is in Iraq because we put it there.
Terrorism is not why we chose Iraq as the battleground. It is NOW the place where the terrorists are being created, but it wasn't before. If you want to point to other issues as justification, well, that debate goes on forever - even the truth that people forget about what kind of a place it was before. (And it is shocking but not atypical the kind of short memories of the absolute horror that was the reign of Saddam Hussein.) But it wasn't about terrorists originally.
Oh, and if anybody doubts, terrorism BAD, democracy (warts and all) GOOD.
@allenjnl: @thebear91: Thats what this robot is, all robots (not really) in the military that carry weapons are controlled by a person. This is why a random movement is such a scary thing. What if a soldier tries to just move this thing forward but it instead pulls the trigger?