Better Robby the Robot Than Me?

Why are people so terrified of robot soldiers?

First, lets discuss what various observers mean when they say “robot.”

If you’re an average American raised on a steady diet of Hollywood fantasy, the term probably conjures up images of either C3PO or R2D2 from Star Wars, or any of the Terminators from the eponymous series of movies.

If you’re a Toyota Motor Company engineer, you may think of these:

If you’re honchoing a massive corporate conglomerate like Amazon or Wal-Mart you’ll think of this:

Selling burgers?

How about…oh, using ChatGPT to help you write an essay for your Substack? Is ChatGPT a robot? Let’s go to the source:

No, ChatGPT is not a robot. ChatGPT is a computer program powered by artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP) technologies. It's a software-based chatbot that can generate human-like text responses to text inputs but doesn't have a physical presence or a robotic body. It runs on computer servers and can be accessed through various applications or interfaces, but it doesn't have the physical embodiment or mobility associated with robots.

via ChatGPT 3.5

It’s just being coy, though, since it admits to being a chatbot.

So I asked whatever is fronting for Bing (I think it’s some version of ChatGPT), what it thinks.

Question: what does "bot" in the term "chatbot" stand for?

Bing:

The term “bot” in “chatbot” is short for “robot”. In the context of software and the internet, a bot is an autonomous program that can interact with systems or users1. It performs automated, repetitive, pre-defined tasks2. Bots often imitate or replace human user behavior and can operate much faster than human users2. They can be used in various applications, including chatbots that simulate human conversation, web crawlers that scan content on webpages, and even malicious bots that perform harmful activities3.

Everything clear now? No? Let’s try it this way, then.

While robotics applications vary greatly—giving directions, stocking shelves, welding metal in dangerous environments, and much more—today’s robots can generally be grouped into six categories.

Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs)

AMRs move throughout the world and make decisions in near real-time as they go. Technologies such as sensors and cameras help them ingest information about their surroundings. Onboard processing equipment helps them analyze it and make an informed decision—whether that’s moving to avoid an oncoming worker, picking precisely the right parcel, or selecting an appropriate surface to disinfect. They’re mobile solutions that require limited human input to do their job. Learn more about AMRs.

Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs)

While AMRs traverse environments freely, AGVs rely on tracks or predefined paths and often require operator oversight. These are commonly used to deliver materials and move items in controlled environments such as warehouses and factory floors.

Articulated Robots

Articulated robots (also known as robotic arms) are meant to emulate the functions of a human arm. Typically, these can feature anywhere from two to 10 rotary joints. Each additional joint or axis allows for a greater degree of motion—making these ideal for arc welding, material handling, machine tending, and packaging. Learn more about articulated robots and robotic arms.

Humanoids

While many mobile humanoid robots may technically fall under the domain of an AMR, the term is used to identify robots that perform human-centric functions and often take human-like forms. They use many of the same technology components as AMRs to sense, plan, and act as they carry out tasks such as providing directions or offering concierge services.

Cobots

Cobots are designed to function alongside or directly with humans. While most other types of robots perform their tasks independently, or in strictly isolated work areas, cobots can share spaces with workers to help them accomplish more. They’re often used to eliminate manual, dangerous, or strenuous tasks from day-to-day workflows. In some cases, cobots can operate by responding to and learning from human movements.

Hybrids

The various types of robots are often combined to create hybrid solutions that are capable of more complex tasks. For example, an AMR might be combined with a robotic arm to create a robot for handling packages inside of a warehouse. As more functionality is combined into single solutions, compute capabilities are also consolidated.

Fixed Vs. Nonfixed Location Robots

Robots can also be broadly categorized into two groups: those that move around their environment and those that do not.

No mention of netbots, however. Which to me as a science fiction writer seems more than strange. Netbots are often autonomous, highly mobile within their networked environment, and are probably considerably smarter than your average Amazon articulated shelf stocker, especially the malign viral varieties. Which gives a whole new dimension to the old mind-body problem. If we are still arguing over whether a man’s mind is something apart from his body, (and we are) then what are we to make of the question as to whether a robot is simply the metal and silicon that make up its body, or is it the combination of metal and the digital software “mind” that makes the metal move?

We are liable to have answers to both questions sooner than we imagine, as the possibility of artificial general intelligence becomes ever more likely, but that is a discussion for another day. The point I make here, however, is that robots, however you define them, fill our everyday environment in vast numbers, shapes, forms, capabilities, and purposes. And nobody seems much bothered by this. Possibly because I suspect most aren’t even aware of it. But let somebody bring up the topic of robot soldiers and the fainting towels come out.

I have a lot of problems with this attitude, at least as far as understanding the attitudes underlying it. What frightens people? That robots would die instead of humans? That the fact that humans die is a deterrent to war? Historically that certainly doesn’t seem to have been the case.

I personally suspect that it’s just plain old robophobia. People, especially older folks, are scared of them because they know very little about them. Humanoid robots act weirdly human, just enough for real humans to anthropomorphize them into figures of terror. “They will replace us,” people think. “And you want to arm them up, give then weapons, create Terminators? Are you insane?”

In the end, humans always fear the other, and, frankly, there isn’t anything much more otherlike than something like this:

I empathize, I guess, although as a SF writer, I’ve been familiar with the robot soldier notion for more than sixty years. A more poignant argument against them, though, is that they could take the blood out of war, at least below the level of massive nation-killer weaponry. Take the current conflict in Ukraine, for instance.

A great deal of current commentary on that matter turns on how many human casualties each side has suffered, and how long each combatant can endure whatever those losses happen to be. If it were robots being destroyed, however, the question would be no more biting than asking how much ammo each side has left, or can make.

By definition, any conflict employing massive numbers of robot soldiers would be an industrial war, and victory would likely go to whomever could put enough of them into the field, just as with tanks, plains, artillery, and ammo. In the end, the only way a lesser industrial nation could hope for victory would be to destroy a superior nation’s industrial base. Given that they wouldn’t be able to do it with robots, other means would have to be employed.

Some horrifying possibilities spring immediately to mind: attacks on the human capital - civilians, in other words - of the superior opponent, or massive destruction of plant, perhaps with nukes.

I’d expect to see robot wars eventually degenerate into plague wars, given that weaponized diseases are the cheapest way to wreak mass destruction on civilian populations, and heavily industrialized nations, including their industrial plants, are particularly vulnerable to such assaults. In a way, you can make a case that battlefield robots are hostages to the fortunes of their human masters. The theory is that they would “die” so we wouldn’t have to.

Unfortunately, so long as the destruction of robot soldiers moves us no more than the destruction of Bradleys or Abrams tanks, their abilities will serve to protect us only to a certain point. Once that point is reached, it becomes open season on mommy and little Bobby and Janey Sue back home in Valparaiso, Indiana.

The ultimate downside, of course, is a global graveyard in which our robotic protectors have nobody left to protect.

You may not be thinking about such things, but I’m fairly certain they are being discussed in war colleges and military think tanks around the world. Maybe you should think about them as well.

If you enjoyed this post, why not share it with others who might enjoy it as well?