Israel deploys remote-controlled robotic guns
abcnews.go.comA few thoughts:
- Operation of the gun can be used as training data for AI
- Eventually we won't know when the gun becomes completely guided by AI
Is that going to make the operators less remorseful?
An anime called Psycho-Pass comments on this. A system existed to replace the remote view with a cartoonish environment with chicken characters so the operators would not receive psychological harm from operating a violet instrument.
There was a Black Mirror episode with a similar concept where footsoldiers were implanted with a chip that made them see enemies as literal monsters
Its also the plot of a 90s star trek tie in novel for children where they had kids play a censored video game but were really exterminating the native population https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Highest_Score
Anyways, its a reasonably common sci-fi plot.
Ender’s Game comes to mind
I’m rather more worried about those that get shot.
Duplicate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33629496 47 points - 32 Comments
I'll start by saying that we all hope for the end of violence, don't let internet trolls that spread hate blind you to the possibility of respectful co-existence, but I just wanted to share a "Fun fact".
There is an entire branch of the IDF responsible for border sensor and control systems, and operation is done mostly by women.
Be truthful, you imagined a man being behind the trigger.
Just because they're women doesn't mean they aren't "the man".
I’d think that IDF having a lot of women in its ranks (compared to other countries) is one of the better-known things about it, so it’s not that surprising.
What form do you imagine that respectful co-existence would take, considering that the occupation has continued so long?
Maybe one of the billion peace deals Israel has offered and the Palestinians have rejected
Which one do you have in mind in particular?
As I understand it the peace proposal of 2000 gave the Palestinians only 66% of the West Bank, with those displaced previously thus being deprived of the property from which they had been displaced.
Other proposals have been of the same sort, and I do not see how the Palestinian Authority could accept such an agreement in a way that is in accordance with their duty to those displaced.
"Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap).[8][10] From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank.[8]"
"Israel would retain around 9% in the West Bank in exchange for 1% of land within the Green Line."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
The issue for the Palestinians is way way deeper than 9% of the 67 lines. Hammas doesn't hide its will to turn Israel proper into an Islamic state. PLO never actually forfeited the right of return which is considered a "sacred" right. If only the issue was as simple as offering 9% more percent.
If you're representing people whose property rights have been infringed you can't agree that some of those people are to have to give up their property rights-- then you aren't representing them any more, so you are no longer their legitimate representative. Framing in terms of a sacred right is strange, and it's possible that the project will fail, but the PLOs legitimacy for those it represents must obviously hinge on actually representing them.
I very strongly dislike Islam, but to say that Israel has done as it has due to the Muslims seems difficult to support, since Christian Palestinians do exist, even if they're few and have been treated in the precise same way as the Muslims despite their lack of association with terrorism etcetera.
Is this literally the "hire more women guards" meme?
It’ll probably be fully automated in decades, if not years. It doesn’t really matter if it’s a man or a woman pulling the trigger tbh
there must be some discriminatory attitude within israeli military which women are thought unsuited for certain jobs so they direct them to indoor jobs in which they can safely participate in killing christians and muslims
The Palestinians there are probably the most heavily surveilled people in the world. These remote controlled turrets are the next level of the panopticon. Whether they are are being manned or not, the effect is chilling if I put myself in their shoes. I would not be surprised if these become targets of rebels.
Also Elbit System released a promotional video on Lanius drones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4McPHBQ9pNw
I find it very intersting how AI can augment modern warfare. Drones + AI wins wars with minimal damage.
> Drones + AI wins wars with minimal damage.
Or in Israel's case, according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, maintain an apartheid system in a cost effective and efficient fashion. Kudos to them, they are pushing the state of the art here...
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/isra...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apart...
Amnesty International lost its credibility after accusing Ukraine in war crimes while saying nothing on Russia. I group it with the BDS and other fake human rights movements.
All human rights group are fake after they criticize your side. It is the rule right???
"minimal damage": https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/israels-non-lethal-spo...
Sensationalist heading. The guns are not robotic, only remote controlled and they "only fire sponge-tipped bullets and tear gas".
"only"
Israel has killed babies with tear gas and maimed children with sponge-tipped bullets before. This will continue as there wont be any consequences at all for the sadists operating these guns. Previously they could at least be caught on film and the outcry would force some kind of investigation. Now there is not even that and no one will be held responsible for maiming children. This is precisely why the Israeli academy should be boycotted. Because it helps the Israeli regime develop these kind of extremely disturbing weapons.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/7/10/palestinian-baby-di... https://www.dci-palestine.org/sponge_tipped_bullet_fired_by_...
Tear gas and sponge-tipped bullets are used by police everywhere, including New Zealand of all places.
Al Jazeera is literally Qatari government propaganda and there’s substantial evidence that DCI Palestine is tied to terrorist groups (https://www.reuters.com/world/finnish-christian-charity-cuts...). Don’t let propagandists blow tragic accidents out of proportion to scapegoat the Jews
It’s possible to be critical of Israel’s approach without being antisemitic, or as you put it, “scapegoating the Jews”.
Remote controlled munitions, “less than lethal” or not, are deeply concerning no matter who operates them.
On the topic of safety of LLMs, from the discussion of the study:
“In one report [25], over 13% of the cases resulted in moderate to severe injuries with surgical intervention being required in 8% of the cases and another 18% sustaining a traumatic brain injury. ”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41314-022-00045-0
Not something I’m keen to see used anywhere. Much less in a robotic deployment situation.
If killer robots are inevitable, it makes sense to start with less than lethal robots. Just change the weapons or ammo.
edit: Please don't read this as an endorsement of violence of any kind. Thanks.
What makes Israel somewhat unique is the readiness with which it deploys “less lethal” weapons. I don’t think New Zealand regularly tear gasses large areas under its control, or fires sponge-tipped bullets into crowds.
And, as a Jew: Israel is not “the Jews.” They’re a country, one that does not represent my interests, or the interests of millions of other Jews.
It does. Also New Zealand, the land of the Māori. You could construct here a narrative of "large areas under its control", i.e. European settlers vs. Māori. Israel is not a special country here.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/this-is-a-mome...
What does? Are you saying that New Zealand regularly tear gasses the Māori? I’ve never heard that before.
I have no doubt whatsoever that New Zealand’s colonization was violent, inhumane, and broadly under-accounted for. This doesn’t somehow excuse Israel, which is unique by virtue of the recency of its founding and actions.
Besides, things don’t need to be special or unique to be wrong. Everything I’ve said would apply equally even if Israel does not stand out in its contemporary applications of violence (which it does), and still bears unique relevance by claiming to represent people like me (which it doesn’t) through blanket claims of antisemitism.
> which is unique by virtue of the recency of its founding and actions.
Israel's founding is 74 years now - that's not super recent. When does something like this becomes OK in your eyes? Or is simply exterminating 99% of the natives as was done in Australia, Canada, U.S and New Zealand what makes it OK? Not much of a problem if almost all of them are dead and the remains live in reservoirs right?
> Tear gas and sponge-tipped bullets are used by police everywhere, including New Zealand of all places.
This is odd though, right? Using tear gas in war is a war crime, for almost a hundred years now. It's very strange that we permit its use on civilian populations.
If the Geneva convention wasn't a blanket ban on chemical weapons, tear gas wouldn't likely be covered by it.
Guessing at intent, because obviously I wasn't involved in writing it, It was written to be as blanket as possible to avoid future uses of mustard gas or anything remotely like it, and to avoid quibbles of "Well it's not Exactly mustard gas which is the only thing explicitly banned".
Not saying that using tear gas on civilians is awesome and we should tolerate it, but tear gas isn't really at that level.
Now I'm actually wondering if pepper spray would be considered a war crime too
There’s an escalation risk in using tear gas and that’s why it’s a war crime.
It isn’t odd, you just don’t understand the motivation for inclusion on the banned list. It was outlawed due to the threat of miscalculation. Scenario: You see me launch tear gas, but think it’s mustard gas, you launch mustard gas in return.
> Don’t let propagandists blow tragic accidents out of proportion to scapegoat the Jews
Similarly, be careful that you don't let decades of propaganda bias you towards thinking that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
If their actions and cause is just, I would think they would have no aversion to free and honest speech about it.
I'll be polite and assume this is not an attempt to start some anti-semitic flamewar to diverge conversation from topic, but it sure looks like one.
Israel as a state would like to be seen as western democracy and approached accordingly, which brings inevitable requirements on the behavior of any such state. What they do, and how they do it often leaves a lot to desire, or even hold some basic human rights threshold.
There is a reason why West bank is for decades often called 'biggest concentration camp in the western world'. How they often shoot to kill civilians throwing rocks (or unarmed female journalists), how they use these 'non-lethal' weapons in a very lethal way against innocent bystanders, and yes including babies. How these crimes go completely utterly unpunished due to rampart camaraderie (I mean former/future PM is former spec-ops team leader, so lots of things get a pass)
“Sadists”? Please, can you sensationalize this more?
There is evidence that a not insignificant number of Israelis (European settlers) participating in the frequent state sponsored massacres of the indigenous Palestinian population are sadistic. E.g., The Israeli snipers wearing t-shirts during the Cast Lead massacre of Gaza civilians which pictured a pregnant women in the cross hairs of a rifle with the caption, "One shot two kills".
No. Israel is not unique in the horrors it inflicts upon innocent people. But, it is unique both in the recency of their colonialist project (the Palestinian's land was stolen from them, by the European settlers, within the lifetimes of some Palestinians), and in how Israel has weaponized historical European massacres of Jews to deflect criticism of its horrific practices. People should not give this a free pass.
It is not anti-Semitic to criticize, the state of Israel, the actions of its soldiers, its apartheid laws which grant rights to Jewish citizens that are not extended to non-jews (even the minority of Palestinians who did not flee their homes when the Jews forcibly were taking homes at gunpoint, and so are now considered Israeli citizens do not get the same rights as Jewish Israeli citizens), their extreme far-right government with theocratic influence which periodically engages in massacres of civilians, their racist Knesset (parliament) members who e.g., threatened one of the very few Palestinian-Israeli representatives with rape and murder for opposing their sadistic illegal (per international law) group punishment of Palestinian civilians. Remember when Netanyahu said, he was going to, "put the Palestinians on a diet"? This was a euphemism for Israel was going to starve them, since Israel controlls all borders into their open air prison-- sadistic?
Historically being horribly oppressed does not excuse horrible violent oppression of a population that had nothing to do with your own oppression. It would be like the Apache rounding up, at gunpoint, the Belgians into concentration camps, and settling into their former homes. Then, periodically engaging in massacres of unarmed Belgian civilians confined in the camps-- all the while referring to the historic massacres by the United States of Apache as an excuse for their violence against the Belgians (Yes, if it were Congolese, and not the Apache, they would have every justification to retaliate violently against Belgium, just as if world Jewry decided to retaliate against Germany, there would be justification, but to attack an innocent third party is simply not justifiable).
Only 10% of Israelis did not support Cast Lead, in a poll by Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper). So, sadly, it appears the massacres have the support of the vast majority of the settler population in spite of general knowledge of civilian (including child) casualties before the poll. Some might consider this sadistic too.
https://imeu.org/article/operation-cast-lead
https://www.deviantart.com/restorative/art/Israeli-Fashion-1...
https://www.haaretz.com/2009-01-15/ty-article/poll-shows-mos...
> E.g., The Israeli snipers wearing t-shirts during the Cast Lead massacre of Gaza civilians which pictured a pregnant women in the cross hairs of a rifle with the caption, "One shot two kills".
So this anecdote (one not large group of soldiers) proves somehow the majority of Israelis are sadists? That's not evidence, that's your opinion coupled with a nice story.
> Only 10% of Israelis did not support Cast Lead, in a poll by Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper). So, sadly, it appears the massacres have the support of the vast majority of the settler population in spite of general knowledge of civilian (including child) casualties before the poll. Some might consider this sadistic too.
Guns that fire rubber-tipped bullets can also fire lethal munitions. Of course they'd advertise the "non-lethal" version, but the implications are clear.
Furthermore there has already been at least one Mossad operation where they assassinated someone with a lethal remote controlled gun.
Fair enough that it's not robotic, but the idea of an unmanned sponge-bullet turret in my neighborhood that would fire without notice is pretty sensational anyway.
For whoever it's shooting at, it has the same psychological effect as a robot shooting.
They're manned, the man is just somewhere else.
Worked well for the Milgram experiment.
The Milgrim study was not quite as bad as it seemed or was reported. A substantial proportion of the "torturers" had figured out that it was not real. Several more protested that it was wrong. Those who did continue were convinced by the researchers that what they were doing was for the greater good.
However it did show that the separation of the executioner or torturer from the victim seemed to enable more viciousness.
Collateral Murder video leak from Wikileaks may better exhibit this effect.
> the idea of an unmanned sponge-bullet turret in my neighborhood that would fire without notice is pretty sensational anyway
Isn’t it objectively better than lethally-armed soldiers?
That was the idea behind cops carrying tasers. The reality wound up being that cops still use guns in the situations where lethal force was previously warranted, but they go for the taser in situations they'd previously have had to non-violently deescalate.
I imagine that's a complicated question. Do people remotely controlling weapons naturally make the same kind of decisions as those looking right at people?
> Do people remotely controlling weapons naturally make the same kind of decisions as those looking right at people?
I'm not sure. I could see it going both ways: de-humanised killers unleashed, or a lack of fight-or-flight prompted panics. Absent information on that, though, non-lethal is better than lethal.
non-lethal is still lethal.
There are plenty of US military drone operators that can answer that.
I'm not sure that's the best comparison. Regular pilots are even somewhat detached from the effect of their weapons. It's hard to compare directly to handling a gun.
I think it just adds to dehumanization of both sides.
No.
First, it dehumanizes the target. You're effectively playing a video game.
Second, it obfuscates the operator and makes culpability harder to assess.
Why was this downvoted? Seems a honest opinion. I even agree with such opinion.
Unmanned weapons have always been called "robotic":
https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/
Many industry welding robots are also not exactly autonomous. There are bomb disposal robots that are remote controlled. We don't need to reserve the term for the T1000.
How are they remotely-controlled if they're not robotic? A system of ropes and pulleys?
I think you mean to say they're not AI, but they are still robotic.
I am pointing out that the author is going for effect by writing "remote controlled robotic" when remote controlled would be sufficient. Something beyond remote controlled is implied by adding "robotic".
They’re still going to be used against children though.
Thank god they invented a unique gun that can only fire sponge-tipped bullets at the occupied population.
No way ever ever ever that this could be used in a slightly different, more deadly manner.
Maybe they can even add sensors that shout "ow" when hit with rocks by children so they can document the reason for a use of force.
I'm a little confused by this comment. What is your definition of robotic?
The writer means something beyond remote controlled, otherwise it would be redundant in the headline. That makes it sensationalist in my book.
What title should people working on such systems bear? Apartheid Automation Engineer?
What do you call American weapon industry workers - Arab Exterminating Engineers?
Isn't that just what a drone is? Hardly breaking news.
Edit: seems like the headline burried the lead, that they are using this for non leathal force crowd control, which i can understand how that could be controversial.
I find it interesting that such a small country and population can create the most devastating Offensive Kinetic and Cyber weapons… Is this due to conscription and the revolving door with the Military/Civilian sectors? There have been multiple Cyber Security Companies “created” by ex-military personnel. Any insight / conversation on the topic is welcome.
I’d guess it’s due to the nature of the unrelenting violent opposition they face. Necessity is the mother of invention.
And to be fair (making both sides equally pissed off here), from the Palestinian perspective, the violent opposition is seen to be necessitated by the violent oppression and other injustices.
But for Israel it’s not just about their internal opposition. They are surrounded by enemies near and far interested in their violent demise. So of course they are highly motivated to develop effective weapons.
> I’d guess it’s due to the nature of the unrelenting violent opposition they face. Necessity is the mother of invention.
It would be one thing if these types of weapons were used for defense versus offense. Then selling off that offensive weapon to fund more offensive weapons. These weapons that were created as you said to combat violent opposition, enables Nation States and Authoritarian Regimes to target journalists and whistleblowers.
Their history, their location, while being an advanced country. It only makes sense it's top of mind and taken seriously where it's not really in many other parts of the known world. Feels like the few Israeli programmers and engineers I've met all have some story of that one time they worked on a military project while it's pretty uncommon in general.
I really hope these get hacked and used against their makers with maximum brutality.
Odd, I recall reading a book about 10 years ago, published a few years before that, about Israel using these sort of systems.