Machine Gun Sentry Robot Unveiled

mpthompson writes "Samsung has partnered with a Korean university to develop a robotic sentry equipped with a 5.5mm machine gun. Meant for deployment along the DMZ between North and South Korea, the $200,000 robot employs sophisticated pattern recognition software for targeting humans. No three laws here, but the robot does include a speaker that can be used to politely issue a warning before taking the target out. The promotional video is both scary and funny at the same time."

Interesting if used a little different...

[mkettler]

I could very much see something like this being very useful in the US if the armament was different. I'm picturing something armed with essentially a paintball gun loaded with balls of marker dye... Might be very useful for places like prisons, etc. It might even be useful as a part of a bank security system. Have it mark them with paint as they leave..

Of course, the liability of it hitting someone in the eye would be a killer, but it is at least interesting to think about what could be done with such a system if armed with non-lethal weaponry.

Modern Version Of Landmines

[Heir Of The Mess]

So I guess these bots will pretty much serve the same purpose as landmines did: If you enter a certain zone you are likely to die.

There are some nicities though, such as being able to turm them off if required, as well as them being a little bit more visible. It would be cool if these things had a skeet shooting mode where you could rapidly throw targets into the air and watch the bots shoot them down. Sayyyy! I wonder if you could use them for rabbit shooting? That would have been cool here in Australia a few years ago, sure beats running around killing rabbits with your bare hands or trying to pick them off with a .22 rifle.

Re:I WANT ONE!

[Daniel Dvorkin]

He's not talking about murdering people because of their religious beliefs. He's talking about murdering people because they come to your home, annoy the living shit out of you, won't take no for an answer, and occasionally shout threats at your children (true story.) While murder may be a little harsh for such an offense, I don't think there's anyone who hasn't been bothered by these nutcases who hasn't felt the urge now and then.

I hate war... ALL of them, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

I never liked the idea of non-human troops being sent to fight our wars. The whole point of war is that it's the last resort. However with this sort of technology, the country or countries using said machines have less of a moral objection to "sending in the troops" so to speak.
War is supposed to be discouraging, not a literal video-game. This is sick.
If you're going to declare war, your life better be on the line, too, otherwise it's evil and and sadistic for you to do so...
Though I guess this is also a possible GOOD thing. So that instead of corrupt bastards sitting in their offices sending men and women to their deaths, they're sending in hunks of metal. But then they're just going to attack whatever the hell they want to attack.
So no. This will not have my support. Ever.

Long List of Problems

[Wes Janson]

As others have pointed out, this concept has a tremendous number of issues that would have to be overcome for it to be worthwhile. First off, these units would be incredibly vulnerable to long-distance fire from heavy-caliber anti-material rifles. It's practically the most ideal target imaginable for a .50 BMG shooter: large, immobile, limited lethal range, and no human suffering upon destruction. Anyone else notice that those prototypes look to have M249 SAWs in them? You can see the tail end of a belt feeding in during part of the video, and it's the most likely possibility for a small 5.56 belt-fed. Except there doesn't seem to be any provisions for decent ammo storage. That tiny box that the weapon sits in isn't nearly large enough to hold more than a hundred rounds or so at most, and it doesn't really look like the weapon is designed to be fed from the base (ammo exposed to the elements; feeding issues; turret rotation and elevation interfering with feeding). Overall, it looks pretty well useless.

Mexican border

[r00t]

This is perfect as it is.

The existing armament won't hurt anybody because people just aren't that stupid. OK, maybe ONE idiot tests it out.

For those that think the current border is "cruel" because of the harsh desert and mean ranchers, this is better. People will cross when the chance of death is only a few percent. They won't cross if death would be nearly certain. Thus, fewer people die.

This is probably cheaper than using a laser or that skin-heater beam. Despite the robot part, it's kind of low-tech.

Re:Overpriced and vulnerable

[NeutronCowboy]

Unfortunately, this would destroy one of the cool developments in the DMZ: a refuge for wild animals. Occasionally, they seem to lose some animals to tripwires and landmines, but nothing too much. This stuff would just mean that the DMZ would become a dead zone. I hope that the pattern recognition they use can actually distinguish a crane from a human (and a human camuflaged as a crane from a crane).

Re:Long List of Problems

[NeutronCowboy]

I don't think it's designed to replace a battalion of humans guarding the border. If that's their idea, you're right - the sentry robot is terribly unsuited for that. More likely though is that it is supposed to prevent infiltration. The Nort Koreans have a long history of trying to sneak into South Korea for a number of reasons - see mini-subs and tunnel digging. This would mean they can post a sentry every 100 feet, and have that area completely covered, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Someone tries to sneak through DMZ? Shoot first, investigate later. someone tries to get out of the river into Seoul? Shoot first, investigate later. And if someone tries to actually invade South Korea and take those suckers out? Well, a couple of sentries in the same area that stop working will be damn good sign that something's up, and that you should get ready to fight. And if there's a large-scale assault... well, I hope the South Koreans haven't sold all their battle tanks, artillery and other nifty gizmos.

All in all, not a bad deal for 200k a pop.

Re:Overpriced and vulnerable

[blincoln]

I assume it's just using motion detection. The video looks like a more advanced version of the homebrew airsoft sentry gun that a hobbyist put together last year (I'd post a link, but he took down the site and replaced it with a page implying he was taking it commercial).

Basically what his software did was compare the previous frame and the current one, then draw a bounding box around things that had changed. That's all this system appears to be doing, except instead of aiming for the center of the box, it is estimating where the target's head is.

Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea

[myowntrueself]

You mean that you don't think that the Americans have a strong interest in maintaining a balance of terror in north east asia?

The situation on the Korean peninsula means that the yanks have a fantastic excuse to maintain both Japan and South Korea as their pet states with strong American military presence in the region.

Then theres the economic powerhouse that a unified Korea would have been (prior to the north becoming a total basket case).

The two Koreas would complement one another very well indeed.

Re:Apparently,

[crhylove]

First off, I'm not an atheist, so your insecurities about how you may look given my anti-religion tirade are completely unfounded. Secondly, you can make a point without being demeaning and assuming anything about my age.

Of course there is no way to disprove the idea of a god or gods. Neither is there a way to prove their existence, either. Hence, believing either that none exist or that there is definitively one or more is demonstrably stupid.

Believing in things without evidence of any kind is always stupid.

I have no insecurities in MY beliefs, because I only believe that which is proven. I can make educated guesses about the rest, and debate them for fun, but BELIEVING them would be stupid, and trying to convert other people to made-up or unproven beliefs would be doubly so.

As to bitching and whining, I would say that is a waste of time. Arguing however may be essential, especially in public places like /. where an undecided person may be swayed into considering a more rational perspective.

Religion is for idiots, and it's time for the bulk of humanity (especially in a democracy, where the bulk's intelligence can make important decisions effecting everyone) to see it as such.

I'm not alone in some of these ideas, and I'm sorry that I do not express them eloquently enough for you. Perhaps I should spend more time linking to wikipedia articles by Bertrand Russell, or books like "Fifty Degrees Below Zero", which though fictional, express very intelligent suggestions relating to scientific knowledge, public awareness, and governmental policy.

Now, if you'd like to go ahead and reword and improve upon my over all message, which is very sound and reasonable, however poorly expressed/worded, please feel free to do so, and make all of you "atheists and unbelievers" look better. Not that I'm sure unbeliever is the proper term for what you were trying to express.

rhY

Re:Apparently,

[Anonymous Coward]

"People are not stupid for believing in one or many gods."

Would I be stupid for believing in the Easter Bunny?

If so, then what's the difference?

How long until smartguns?

[FleaPlus]

This makes me wonder how long it'll be until this sort of tech gets miniaturized enough to fit on a portable gun, so we end up with people toting Aliens-style M56 Smart Guns [wikipedia.org]. You could imagine it being coupled with some sort of friendly-fire deterrence system like they use with aircraft.

Re:Apparently,

[FishWithAHammer]

However, religion can cause people to think they can make better predictions than they actually can, i.e. it gives them a false sense of security. It can also make people unnecessarily vulnerable to con men disguised as holy people.

Sure. But I can sell dirt to homeless people, and I'm not religious. And I know plenty of nonreligious people who think they can "make better predictions than they actually can." Overconfident and/or stupid people and all that.

What? You just said that we can't know. Now you say that we will?

I said that we cannot prove whether a deity or deities exist. But I figure we'll have some inkling after we die, yes?

That's a rather large generalization. Evidence?

Experience. Your mileage may vary.

Re:OMG!

[itwerx]

This robot is far better than a land mine...

That does bring up an interesting question - can it withstand a mine blast?
      (Cue the Homer "Doh!" as they all get blown to smithereens within hours of deployment. :)

Re:OMG!

[jamstar7]

This robot is far better than a land mine however; It can be switched off, can be configured to give a warning, and can be removed easily when it is no longer needed.

If these things are radio-controlled, they can be hacked. Don't think the North Koreans won't be working on that. And speaking from experience of my misspent youth 30ish years ago, I can categorically say it's easier to defeat an electronic/mechanical/computerised system than it is to defeat a Mark 1 calibrated eyeball. Gotta love statutes of limitation. I'm thinking Sanyo's gonna make a killing (no pun intended) at $200k per.

Land mines have none of these properties.

Dumb mines are dirt cheap, too. Not a whole lot of markup or chances for cost overruns and such. And they have a proven track record of area denial.

Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed?

Absolutely. Unfortunately, they won't sell anybody a shuttle ticket to that world. Know any sane, moral, legal way to change human nature? I don't. It gets me when I hear somebody say things like 'Well, if we don't provoke them, they'll leave us alone' and 'If we all give up our guns, the world will be SUCH a better place. Great idea. You first.

The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.

Or, here's a thought. Buy a few thousand of these for 'inner city urban warfare' er, 'police useage'. Yeah, that would work. I'm just curious if any counters to them that show up on the Internet would be considered covered by the Second Amendment.

Yeah, I love my country. My government, OTOT, scares me shitless...

You got me wrong.

[crhylove]

I'm not just throwing around random insults. If you believe in unproven and especially disproved things, you are in fact an idiot. So by simple definition, MOST religious people (all billions of them) are in fact idiots.

I mean, if you truly believe that some guy died for your sins 2,000 years ago and that your belief in him somehow will be your salvation "in the next life", or in some made up location like "heaven" or "hell", which clearly we have absolutely no evidence for, then you ARE in very simple terms, a moron.

Lots of people believe the earth is flat. What do you call them?

Now, there is a possibility in some backwards cultures and societies that these believers are in fact ignorant and not morons, but with the advent of the internet, at least in most countries where you have access to so much knowledge for free (wikipedia, etc.), ignorance is no excuse, and in fact if you REMAIN ignorant, that is in itself a form of idiocy.

Stop defending ignorant people who willfully refuse to accept the reality they live in. They are idiots, and they're hurting themselves, their families, the planet, and most of the good things that humanity and individuals IN humanity have achieved over the last few millennia. It's inexcusable. Stop defending them. They are idiots, by the very definition of the word.

rhY

Re:How long until smartguns?

[upside]

I've been wondering the same. And how come it's taken so long for _this_ to come out? Why use humans as weapons platforms - lousy senses, wobbly aim?

We have automated weapons systems for taking out vehicles on the ground, air and water. Most use humans to designate the target and the machine does the rest. Ships have totally automated antiaircraft cannons. These are fairly large scale, but that is no limitation. Portable anti-tank systems exist. Digital SLRs have had cheap tracking technology for taking pictures of fast moving targets since the early 90s.

My guess is there will eventually be an AT-missile type antipersonnel weapon that will combine traits from digital cameras and existing large scale weapon systems. Put the MG or launcher on a tripod and aim at the enemy, or perhaps define a kill sector by pointing and clicking. The platform will figure out what your intended target is and do the sub-millimetre adjustments that are required to hit the target, possibly compensating for target movement.

Even servo control is not necessarily required. You aim and squeeze the trigger but the weapon will fire the round only once it has decided you are going to hit the mark.

In a world without organised religion...

[rHBa]

...bad people do bad things and good people don't.

In a world *with* organised religion bad people still do bad thing and good people do bad things in the name of religion.

Re:We're Winning Again

[addie]

Mediation? Excuse me?

To begin with, if it weren't for China, the Soviets, Japan, and America, the Korean peninsula would be doing just fine thank you. Koreans would be united as they have been on and off for their 5000 years of history, despite repeated invasions and attempted cultural genocide. To suggest that China and the USA have somehow being "mediating" a domestic dispute between the Korean peoples is ignorant. Korea is a strategic plaything for the powerhouses of the east, and America. The South Korean people have every wish to be united with the DPRK in due time, and the last thing they want is another war, or to intensify the tension that already exists. They consider the North Korean people their brothers and sisters. My supervisor at work cannot visit her grandfather's grave because it is just across the border.

If you want to talk Crazy Olympics, look to the resolution strategies of WWII and ask how we came to be in this situation in the first place. Why do I feel so strongly about this? I live thirty minutes from the DMZ. Criticize the problems in your own backyard before you come knocking over here.

Re:Apparently,

[NeutronCowboy]

Since you are very proud of your rational approach to life, you might want to go a step further and investigate a-priori an a-posteriori knowledge. You'll find out that the only things that are provable are the ones that are uninteresting - bachelors are single, and stuff like that. Belief is an intrinsic part of everyone's life, because outside of the mathematical and the semantic, nothing can actually be proven. It can only be inferred with a degree of certainty.

Even though you believe (yes, believe) that your approach is based on rationality, it isn't. Furthermore, you also haven't figured out the reason that religion exists - to provide answers to questions we can't answer, and where the answers provide peace of mind. Your blanket categorization of all things believed as stupid, less than worthy and below you on the totem pole of human quality therefore does cast a bad light on others who might believe similar things, but who do it without the snobbery that you display.

I don't think your approach is wrong, but I think you stopped a little early in your decision making process.