I mentioned this in another response, but I don't necessarily think the Goliath is in the same league as the Teletank, as far as gun-toting ground bots go. I should have specified that, though, in the piece.

Guessing you've moved on, but the link above is location-specific. You could try this one: http://www.popsci.com/blog-net...

I probably should have clarified, but if you read the piece, I was talking about armed the unprecedented—and still unique—use armed UGVs, like ground bots with guns. No one else has done that. The Goliath, on other hand, was a rolling bomb. You could call that an armed UGV, but, to me, that's like calling a Tomahawk an armed UAV.

I meant way, way fewer. Like dozens of tanks and over a hundred planes for the Finns, versus thousands of both on the Russian side.

Believe it or not, that appears to be a subset of this particular theologian's concern—that we'll develop "exclusive" relationships with bots, including possibly "going to bed with them." The implications are a little strange, mainly that sanctioned sex is, by some law of salacious syllogism, a component of a person's continuing relationship with God.

Agreed. It's not like biological conception is a miracle—it's biology, presumably set in motion by a higher power (if you're into such things). Why would the creation of an inorganic humanoid be any less under His purview or jurisdiction?

Well, in Staley's defense, that wasn't necessarily his view. He was trying to describe the reaction he wants to head off.

I would love to see research related to the potential moral damage, as you put it, resulting from owning (and possibly abusing) an apparently soulless, though somewhat life-like machine. I don't think this college will get there, but it really would be a perfect research area for them. Unfortunately, the sense I got from Staley was that there wouldn't be much actual experimentation going on. Which makes sense, since he's a theologian, not a psychologist (or roboticist), and the robot isn't a super-advanced HRI model. I honestly think that he's open to new conclusions, but that his main emphasis is to explore a religious version of Sherry Turkle's concerns, about the disconnection that can result from interfacing with tech, including bots. He was also very upfront, in the interview, about the fact that this might be a non-issue, since there's no guarantee that we'll get to a point where humanoids can really command a ton of our attention. He also referenced issues like people "going to bed" with robots, something that I wouldn't trust a Christian college to discuss in a useful way. Still, HRI is such a small, nascent field, that any work seems valuable, even if it winds up being devoid of data, and purely anecdotal.

I think the robots are coming for a ton of our jobs, no matter how hard we resist. Politics could (and maybe should) slow things down, but robotic long-haul trucking wouldn't necessarily require a go-ahead from the government, if it simply follows broader autonomous driving regulations. They could start, for example, with requiring a driver to be in the cab, as with Google's cars, but companies might find a way to pay less for those positions. If robo-trucks rack up a better safety record, and, say, news outlets start harping on automated 18-wheelers driving less aggressively, playing to notions of truckers as bullies, then popular support could build, and more autonomy could kick in. Inch by inch, as companies save money and the general populace sees it as a positive, the political resistance could give way. Lots of coulds and what-ifs, I know, but I think money beats politics, in the long run. And as much as people value retaining jobs, lots of them also see tractor trailers as a problem that needs solving.

Good eye! Lockheed told me that some of the gear used in this demo was relatively high-end, but they think they can downgrade with commercial applications (they might also be hoping for more a priori LIDAR data by the time that's feasible).