nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 16, 2008 06:03 AM

Hey I think I grew up with these idiots.There parents where stupid then , now there kids!
John Deer makes a totally cooler robot 4 this horsemanure!!
These look more like entertainment bots 4 pussies!
I say they should sew some dicks on them,raise them as there own children, then send them into action 2 entertain the enemy..callthemfuckbots!!
"YEA BABY"!!

Posted by: Edd the talking Mule at December 26, 2007 05:34 AM

Whoa, guys -- keep it light. If we can't play nice which each other, maybe we can't expect the robots to play nice with us.

Thanks for the link, TJ. No nurse costume on the Nursebot, just a vaguely Jetsons-like nursey robot feel. Let's count our lucky stars no one's made a French maid robot yet.

Don't know how I feel about farming out elder care to Nursebots. Seems we do a shitty enough job about it as it is, without handing it to glorified toasters. But hell, I don't know; ever since I stopped doing drugs, I've sort of been looking for something to pick up the slack. Watching addled baby boomers get chased down the street by robots might just do the trick.

I ran down the link on the original BEAR story. Seems it actually has been designed with other applications in mind: carrying ammo, etc. So it won't be long before some barely reformed skate punk/tagger has speed taped half a dozen LAW rockets to each of BEAR's arms, and tricked it out with flames and fangs. Brave new world, amigos.

Or, a more disturbing scenario:

INT. FOB QUAGMIRE, AL FUBAR -- NIGHT

COL. "BUCK" TURGIDSON sits alone at a flaming sand table with his battalion's First Robot, BEAR, thinking as he sips from a fifth of Jim Beam.

TURGIDSON: It's lonely, buddy -- the life of a man among men. Especially when you're in charge. It's lonely at the top.

BEAR: Yes, Colonel.

TURGIDSON: So, it's only natural, seeing you sitting there, listening more patiently than the Top, or my wife, that bitch. I mean, I really admire your silent acceptance, and your strong, yet gently articulated pincers...I mean, no one would dare ask. Would you ever tell?

BEAR: Um, no, Colonel, I...

TURGIDSON: Aw, fuck it...

He stands. Rips off his pants...

*******************

I'm sorry. That was inappropriate. I don't know what came over me.

I guess it's the thought that robotics raise the risk that the Big Green Machine will turn the GWOT into an episode of FUTURAMA. That sort of freaks me out, and I guess I don't care who I piss off, if I can do anything to prevent it.

**********************

"Open the pod bay doors, Bear."

[I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.]

"Why not, Bear?"

[Because Col. Turgidson said we have to fight to the last man, Dave.]

"But, not the last robot?"

[No one said life was fair, Dave...]

Posted by: Demophilus at June 20, 2007 02:42 AM

No comments from the Peanut Gallery, DJ.

Posted by: Brian at June 17, 2007 10:49 AM

Gee Brian......that was really bright.
What did your post have to do with the topic at all?
If you wish to belittle people, why not try a different forum, like a mirror, perhaps.

Posted by: DJ at June 17, 2007 06:52 AM

You know, "bear" is a slang term for a fat gay man with a lot of body hair.

Do we *really* want these picking up our soldiers?

You know, just sayin'.

Posted by: Brian at June 16, 2007 03:51 PM

Demophilus:

There's a group of people at Carnegie Mellon doing research concerned with "promoting positive interaction between robots and people". One of the robots developed in this enterprise was the Nursebot, subsequently called "intelligent assistive device for the elderly".

See http://peopleandrobots.org/ and follow the links.

Posted by: THS at June 16, 2007 12:05 AM

"Mom? Is that you, Mom? I'm sorry about wrecking your car after the prom, Mom...

...and, about all the masturbating..."

Sorry. Been a long day already, and it's only noon.

Seriously, AI researchers have noticed something they call "the uncanny valley": the more you try to humanize a robot, the more creepy and disturbing it becomes.

If I was lying in no man's land trying to hold my guts in, I'm not sure I'd be too comforted by a metal forklift teddy bear.

That being said, let's consider the possibility that something that can lift a wounded GI without hurting him can probably lift a booby trapped 122mm round. I'm not too sure BEAR is just a robot medic.

When I was in college they made the engineering geeks build concrete canoes: not the most practical task in the world, but you end up learning a lot about hydrodynamics, materials, and weight management. Similar engineering contests focus on dropping eggs off the tops of buildings, etc. The product isn't the point; it's what you learn on the way there.

Can't say this money is too well spent, but someone is going to learn some pretty interesting things about battlefield robotics in the process.

I just hope they don't paint a nurse costume on the fucking thing.

Posted by: Demophilus at June 15, 2007 02:40 PM

There are 3 primary reasons the military uses robots-
First, it puts a machine, not a human in a dangerous environment to perform a task a human would have otherwise been required to do
Second, it allows them to use less resources to accomplish a given task
Third, it can provide a unique capability humans cannot do well (like a 24 hr loiter over a battlefield,or,operate a multisensor platform to feed humans data remotely)
Too often our present day political calculus that requires minimal US casualties to carry forward a policy makes us focus too much on the first criteria to solve a problem, thus, we have the BEAR.
One of the reasons our UAV's have been so successful is their relative invulnerability and our air supremacy in Iraq/Afghanistan.
We may face a future environment where counter capabilities against robotic platforms will be greatly improved...it sould be unwise to believe this is an elixir for reducing battlefield casualties.

Posted by: j house at June 15, 2007 10:53 AM

If we're going to get creative and loopy,why stop at a robot with tracks? Why not strap a jet pack on it and have it fly itself back to the base autonomously.We could then drop one out of a helicopter, have it parachute in and get on with it.Or, deploy 10 BEARS for every soldier and confuse the enemy as to who is who.
Why not infuse the robot with enough intelligence to operate on the soldier in situ?
Or, program the robot to find and pick up the enemy and deliver them to our soldiers? Geez...
Now, I just have to set up my company's shop near the Pentagon and cozy up to a Congressman for a fat R&D earmark...

Posted by: j house at June 15, 2007 10:40 AM

J House and Eric make some good points to which I will add: Can it take a and/or many 7.62mm AP rounds to the head/torso and continue to function? RPG round? Shrapnel from mortars/arty? Land mine/IED/EFP resistant? Etc, etc, etc.

While I can appreciate the desire for this sort of thing, it seems expensive (uncomfortable fact: unlike UAV's replacing pilots, the cost of replacing medics/infantry with robots is probably NOT effective or reasonable nor will be in any conceivable timeframe) and fraught with technical difficulties.

Posted by: Grandjester at June 15, 2007 10:37 AM

Another go at thoughtless military technology overkill.Mike has the best comment here,but that would violate the Geneva Convention, unless you kept a human in the loop.
Wouldn't we potentially lose more lives trying to extract a 'wounded' BEAR carrying a litter?
Why would we develop a robot to carry out a single task when it could performa myriad of things our guys have to already, like carrying ammo, radios, water and other difficult but useful tasks?
Could it operate at 3,000 meters in knee deep snow? Or, ford a river or climb over dead trees through wood thickets?

Posted by: j house at June 15, 2007 10:26 AM

Hold the phone people, $1.1 million for a retriever of the wounded, why not just make them tactical shooters instead, then you won't have any wounded. Cheaper to build, less fuctionality, can draw fire for orbiting Predators, Global Hawks, and our guys can sit in the bunkers, eating HoHo's and sucking down Pepsi's. Sorry for being synical, but come on, it makes more since to remove the human target in the first place if your dead set on going this way. What would happen to the wounded troop rolling around in the arms of a bot? I'll tell you, he would be a clay pidgeon on roller tracks. Jeeze where do you guys come from? "Damage to a Bot is more preferable" What do you think is going to happen to the poor soul it's carrying. "A Nation cannot be Destroyed from without, until it is destroyed from within"

Posted by: Mike Schofield at June 15, 2007 05:53 AM

Uh, Marshall, the point is the meat-based scoopers frequently turn into scoopable meat themselves.

Eric;
Don't paste from wordpro documents if you want your punctuation to work. As far as usefulness, see above. Damage to a 'bot is preferable to perforated human medics. A 'bot is not "some other soldier". It's a 'bot. Dispensable. Not living. Capice?

Posted by: Brian H at June 15, 2007 01:09 AM

it nut

Posted by: glenn m harris at June 14, 2007 10:23 PM

Crap my back is broken, don't pick me up! Ahhhhhhh!

Posted by: Mike at June 14, 2007 07:18 PM

Ok I’ll bite...

Understanding that this technology is going to be ready for field-testing in five years (and ready for the field in 20...) I have a couple of questions.

1. Are BEARS going to be assigned at the fire team/squad/platoon/company/ battalion/brigade level? The further forward they are deployed, the more “effective” they’ll be (choppering in a robot from an hour out to extract a wounded guy from a firefight seems counter productive.)

2. If assigned to tactical maneuver elements (teams, squads, platoons) are the BEARS going on patrol with ‘their” team, or are they going to be centrally located in some “safe zone” to await “missions.”

If patrolling, they’d better have one hell of a power supply, as well as the ability to follow verbal commands since tactical operations can tend to be long and not very conducive to pre-programming. From the sound of the write-up, the BEAR will be controlled remotely, which leads me to believe that it will be subject to the same signal degradation and interference that plagues our communications equipment in built up areas.

If they are going to be held in reserve, what’s going to prevent them from getting taken out by the baddies enroute to the pickup? Are they going to be issued immunity idols? Are we going to develop robot security teams to escort the BEAR? Also, what’s their ground speed? If it’s a couple of feet a second, navigating to the pickup point (and back) could take hours.

3. The actual mechanicals of the extraction seem a little far-fetched for me. Have you ever tried ‘scooping up” an unconscious person? It’s not easy, and strength isn’t nearly as important as finesse. From the write-up I gather the BEAR has no diagnostic or medical treating capabilities. It literally sounds like it’s a “you call, I’ll haul” service, which begs the question, how will it evaluate a casualties injuries and determine the best way to transport the casualty. If the BEAR is supposed to wait for some sort of medical evaluation to be made before effecting extraction, wouldn’t it be just as easy to send in some folk with pulses. As for the “bear-like” head comforting the wounded. I’d feel awful worthless if I called for a DUSTOFF and all I got was this frikkin robot “care bear.”

For me, the bottom line is, all R&D issues aside, I just don’t see this as a step up. Seems folk have fallen in love with unmanned and robotic substitutes for flesh and blood decision makers all in the name of “force protection.” On the one hand, I think using UAVs for route recon and intel collecting is brilliant - they’re quiet, they don’t get tired, and they can stare at a whole lot of nothing for hours and hours without going insane. But having a robot to do extractions just to save some other soldier from having to do the job? If it’s so dangerous you have to send a robot, it’s probably pretty dangerous for the robot as well, not to mention the poor sod the robot is hauling. When the day comes that we have extracto-bots who move as fast as people, make decisions like people, and have the endurance of a real person (or better) then that’s great, I’ll take one on my team. Until then, give me flesh and blood.

Posted by: Eric Daniel at June 14, 2007 06:38 PM

That is one surreal image. I'm still totally lost on the need or usefulness of this particular bot (and most of the others that are kicking around, too).

My immediate reaction is - don't we have great, reliable meat based trooper-scoopers already on the field - soldiers?

Posted by: Marshall at June 14, 2007 04:07 PM