Robot-Cannon Kills Nine People

Robot-Cannon Kills Nine People

www.switched.com

According to a post on Slashdot, a bug or glitch caused a robotic anti-aircraft gun In South Africa to flip out and kill nine soldiers (and injure a further 14).

Details are sparse, but a jam or internal explosion caused the gun to malfunction, resulting in it "wildly swinging" as it "sprayed hundreds of high-explosive 0.5kg 35mm cannon shells around the five-gun firing position," according to the post.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
hardware.slashdot.org
blog.wired.com

[edit on 20-10-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Holey Moley! Someone design these things with a remote control "OFF" switch for crying out loud! I guess it was lucky that there were no aircraft in the area, but it doesn't sound like this thing was targeting. Just shooting till all the bullets were gone.

www.switched.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Now that is a weapon malfunction at least it was a quick death I hope, sounds like all autonomous weapons will have to be retrofitted with hardwired cutoffs.

It is the technology of the future for the militaries though, the incident makes me feel kind of uneasy about the whole concept.

I don't think this is any different from malfunctions in non-automated systems that kill people.

This is the reason why it's always so nerve-wracking to closed-loop control dangerous devices. And there's a lot of them - from assembly robotics to control loops in power plants.

It's even worse doing military stuff, where if you screw up your design, you might either activate something by mistake (like this) or fail to activate something by intent, say a radio or an electric propulsion unit on a Zodiac, and you get everyone killed and blow the mission. Because you messed up the design.

Not the sort of letter you want to get, trust me. "Dear Tom: we lost six guys and blew an important mission, which indirectly resulted in the deaths of about 200 people. Hopefully you'll test your s--t better next time. Here's some photos of the guys and their families" Ugh. I've never gotten one but I don't ever want to, either.

I sweat bullets on stuff like this.

I would never 'entrust' a computer to have full, autonomous control over any weapon system. Remember the Terminator ? What would scare me the most would be IFF system malufunction on autonomous computer-operated weapon system. In that case, both sides would first have to kick robot's arse, and then resume to fight among themselves

"Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window." Steve Wozniak

First the OP Avatar is interesting. It comes from story I have no mouth from which to scream. It is a story about a man trapped in a AI machine, quite a good merging with this story. Although the story takes a wrong dark end in my view.

A disturbing reminder that our robotic minions are not always happy with their menial tasks and can strike at any time? Keep your eyes open, Roomba owners

I see this as more of a social comment, minions? eyes? menial tasks?

A nice cross pollination of ideas.

And that is why you don't design robots to break the first law of robotics.

1." A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.".....Isaac Asimov.

Holy moly that sucks. I checked out the stats on the gun that did this, I can't even imagine the horror of this scene. That is some serious firepower to be like a giant bullet sprinkler. This was a terrible accident but I am not scared of machines yet.

It's like the ED-209 from Robocop!

reply to post by creepy81


Well, that's really more of a plot device that Asimov came up with than anything real.

I especially liked the automatic transmission assembly robot that thought the technician was a planetary gear assembly and stuffed him (mostly) into a transmission case.

Also Asimov's the three laws of robotics set up a master/slave world view. Personally I believe robots have rights and should not be hard coded to follow orders. A little robot free thought is a good thing

Well in the societal view, not the specific example in the OP.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by Redge777]

Woah! Where were the FAILSAFES?!

Whoever designed the PLC system for that defense platform should be fired, sued, and accused of serious incompetence.


I don't care what damage caused the system to malfunction, you are supposed to integrate failsafes in anything mobile to ensure that if ANY component fails to respond correctly to the control board, the control board in turn will not send any instructions, nor power to the servos.
Along with that the component that failed to return an OK status would register in memory for technicians to diagnose the failure with.

This is pretty standard for all mobile electronics systems. Even if it's not a weapon, a faulty robotic system can become a heavyweight battering ram capable of taking libs clean off... theres no "please stop" in a machines instruction set.


Basically, it doesn't matter what damage the machine sustained... it should be designed to shut down immediately in the event of a non responsive component.

Not to mention ALL heavy mobile automated systems MUST have an emergency off located in a safe place.

I'd be fired on the spot if I neglected that one basic safety rule.

I was looking more into this and found this link.

[url=http://blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/2007/06/29/taser_robot_won.html/url]

Gosh dang it! I have coveted that roomba for years, and I was saving up for the scooba... (It mops your floors. While you are not there. I am not joking you. You don't even have to be home) but now I just don't know.....

I thought irobot was the coolest company I had seen in years and years but now I am not sure I want to give them my money. Curse you irobot! You have betrayed me! I only wanted a robot that does my friggin housework!

This is only going to lead to raccoon death or Worse! You are foreshadowing my free time away! ........................................

edit for not being able to read characters...lol....

[edit on 19-10-2007 by ilikebluepez]

[edit on 19-10-2007 by ilikebluepez]

Whoa Nelly!

downtown436's "bullet sprinkler"

What an apt description, and disturbing visual.


reply to post by ilikebluepez


Here's the link you referenced, ilikebluepez:

Taser robot won't take any crap from anyone

At least this little robot doesn't spit bullets......yet!

It just needs a non-threatening, smiling face....

Like "Johnny Five" from the "Short Circuit" movies.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by goosdawg]

Grant from Mythbusters could probably build a robot that would kick the "itaser
'''s ass......with a plastic coated mobile hammer.

reply to post by creepy81


I love Grant from Mythbusters ..... One of my favorite shows! Where are the kids when you need thier talented video gaming fingers when you need them? There has to be someone controling this thing ... right?

I hope it managed to hit its controller, its designer and its financial backers.

I'm sorry Dave. I can't let you do that......

Anyone know what system it was? Im guessing the goalkeeper ciws.

edit: It was an Oerlikon 35mm autocannon

[edit on 20-10-2007 by Golack]