HOME / life and art: What really happened.

Gaming the Robot RevolutionA military technology expert weighs in on Terminator: Salvation.

Terminator: Salvation. Click image to expand.Terminator: Salvation, the fourth installment of the Terminator franchise, takes place in 2018, a number of years after an artificial-intelligence network devised by the U.S. military, called Skynet, has turned on its masters and set off a nuclear war. The sentient computer now controls an army of killer robots tasked with hunting down and killing every last member of the human race. It's Hollywood popcorn at its best, if not for the scary fact that the movie touches on some very real trends in modern military technology.

At about the same time that producers started working out how to make a Terminator movie without the governor of California, I set out to study what was happening as the machines of science fiction started to be used on our real-world battlefields. I interviewed scientists, generals, insurgents, and human rights activists for my book Wired for War and along the way discovered that our use of robotics in war is already surprisingly extensive. The U.S. military went into Iraq in 2003 with only a handful of unmanned systems in the air. We now have more than 7,000 drones in the force, including the famed Predator drone now gaining notoriety for its near-daily visits to Pakistan. Similarly, the invasion force that went into Iraq used no unmanned ground vehicles. The military now has more than 12,000 of them—including the lawnmower-sized Packbot, which is made by the group behind the Roomba robot vacuum cleaner but hunts for roadside bombs instead of dust bunnies. The next generation of machines now at the prototype stage are being armed with everything from machine guns to rockets.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers who are alive today because of robotics, so in many ways this triumph of technology should be celebrated. Many of the people I talked with described robotics as being equivalent to the rise of the steam engine or the computer in terms of its massive military, political, social, and economic ripple effects, making the Predators and Packbots of today akin to the Wright brothers' Flyer or the Model T Ford. Bill Gates described robots as being parallel to where computers were in 1980 and said we're "on the verge of a new era." But many others describe robots in the same way we now discuss the atomic bomb—as an invention we might one day wish we could take back. According to military robots pioneer Robert Finkelstein, the new technology "could end up causing the end of humanity, or it could end war forever."

This is important stuff that necessitates a debate in the here and now. But in our world, it is often pop culture that reigns supreme. So Slate has asked me, a guy with a Harvard Ph.D. in security studies and who helped write the new president's defense policy agenda, to answer whether Terminator's robot revolt could ever come true. Fortunately, I am also an admitted sci-fi geek, so I am somewhat well-equipped to wrestle with the question of whether the metal ones might come for you.

Essentially, four conditions would have to be met before a Skynet-like entity could take over the world.

First, the machines would have to have some sort of survival instinct or will to power. In the Terminator movies, for instance, Skynet decides to launch a nuclear holocaust against humans in self-defense after the frightened generals attempt to take it offline. Yet most of the focus in military robotics today is to use technology as a substitute for human risk and loss. We use the Packbot in Iraq because, as one U.S. military officer tells, "When a robot dies, you don't have to write a letter to its mother." It would serve the very opposite goal to give our robots any survival instinct.

Second, the machines would have to be more intelligent than humans but have no positive human qualities (such as empathy or ethics). This kind of intellectual advancement may be possible—eventually—given the multiplicative rate at which computer technology progresses. But an explosion of artificial intelligence that surpasses humanity (sometimes referred to as the Singularity) is by no means certain. My Roomba vacuum, for example, still can't reason its way out of being stuck under my sofa, let alone plot my demise. There's also an entire field, called "social robotics," devoted to giving thinking machines the sort of positive human qualities that would undermine an evil-robot scenario. Researchers at Hanson Robotics, for example, describe how their mission is to build robots that "will evolve into socially intelligent beings, capable of love and earning a place in the extended human family."

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
P. W. Singer is the director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution. In his personal capacity, he served as coordinator of the Obama '08 defense policy task force. He is the author of Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century (Penguin, 2009).
Still from Terminator: Salvation from the Halcyon Company, May 2009. All rights reserved.
COMMENTS

No, no, worry about gray goo instead.

I don't see any way we could end up having a skynet-style robot enemy on our hands. This scenario is based upon Artificial Intelligence being developed and "choosing" to destroy us. This probably won't and can't happen. What CAN happen, is we could create a fleet of robots that accidentally destroys us because we type in the wrong command.

Maybe a billion trillion self-replicating nano-robots designed to clean up an oil spill get the wrong message and start consumer anything with carbon in it. But I highly doubt we will see a robot ever make a sentient decision to fight humanity.

That's because nothing non-organic has ever been the slightest bit sentient. There's a lot of misleading info about artificial intelligence that gives people the impression that machines are "learning to think." No, they are learning to compute equations faster which makes their reaction time and deductive capabilities appear to be thought-based. But they aren't, they are program based. What is more sentient; a pocket calculator, or a supercomputer? They're both equally un-thinking machines.

But if computers can work ever faster, won't that come to mimic human thought? Or some kind of thought? No, because everything a computer does is predetermined by its programming. The smartest computer in the world will not be able to tell you how to tie your shoes if it isn't programmed to. If the slightest bug hits its programming, the rest of it screeches to a stop. Machines have static programming, and can't appraise situations outside of that. This applies to 100% of all "artificial intelligence" programs or machines that have ever been created.

Real intelligence is the ability to absorb and process new information. No computer in history has ever processed something that it wasn't specifically designed to. Because it can't, and because artificial intelligence is far more artificial than it is intelligent.

In thinking about this, there is only one way I see that such "thought" could emerge. Perhaps is computers were given the ability to constantly reprogram themselves, then perhaps, maybe, some new sort of evolutionary process could spontaneously generate real decision making capability. But that doesn't seem very scientifically sound to me.

-- jwschmidt
(To reply,
click here)

Jw,

I think we all agree that computers are not even close to a human level awareness, (even if we knew exactly what software we needed, the calculations per second aren't there yet). However, you seem stuck on this idea that computer programs are inflexible. In fact there are many, many examples of functional "narrow ai" that have "learned" to find patterns from complex inputs sometimes independently. The genetic algorithms I linked above are just one way that programmers do this. Another is with artificial neural networks. Obviously we are still at the point where humans create the parameters, but the results are not always predictable even with the same initial hardware and inputs.

I don't know where along the animal kingdom we could classify the current generation of AI's, and in a way it's meaningless right now. However, as someone else said if the exponential rise of capacity continues, there is no theoretical barrier to software that is smarter than us.

-- blueshift
(To reply,
click here)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
Hallo, Berlin.55/091106_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on gay rights.17/091106_TC.jpg
About face.4/091106_TD.jpg