Future of war: Private robot armies fight it out

[Slargos]

And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.

Not really. It is hard to predict what and how it will do whatever it does, but how it'll look is easy. You won't be able to tell whether something is technology or not. Whether you choose to carry your computer as an earring, in your clothes or embedded in your cranium, form will not be linked to function anymore. It'll be an aesthetic decision.

Not necessarily.  We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.

You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power,  and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.

And yet you think you're mocking me when you're calling me stupid.

Oh, the irony.

[Valmy]

You guys are making it really hard not to post more Battletech stuff.

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm trying to remember the name of a game where you had a corporation, and you'd make robot spies that go out and defeat the ones from other corporations. I think there was a world map to "conquer". And you could upgrade your robots.

[Iormlund]

Not necessarily.  We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.

You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power,  and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.

We've been using the same, relatively inefficient technology, for decades. It has been an evolution process. Now we need a little revolution.
It has already started with an increasing emphasis on concurrent and distributed systems without changing hardware technology that much (we simply now pack CPUs in small groups).
In time the revolution in hardware will come and we'll leave our laser-etched semiconductor tech for optical computing, nanotech or biotech chips.

[Barrister]

You guys are making it really hard not to post more Battletech stuff.

Why hold back?

[Slargos]

I'm trying to remember the name of a game where you had a corporation, and you'd make robot spies that go out and defeat the ones from other corporations. I think there was a world map to "conquer". And you could upgrade your robots.

Syndicate.

[MadImmortalMan]

Gracias

[Slargos]

Not necessarily.  We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.

You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power,  and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.

We've been using the same, relatively inefficient technology, for decades. It has been an evolution process. Now we need a little revolution.
It has already started with an increasing emphasis on concurrent and distributed systems without changing hardware technology that much (we simply now pack CPUs in small groups).
In time the revolution in hardware will come and we'll leave our laser-etched semiconductor tech for optical computing, nanotech or biotech chips.

No. It's not possible. Beeb told me so.

[Iormlund]

Take a look at the predictions of the appearance of future technology done 30 of 100 years ago and tell me if you still think it's so easy.

You miss the point. As of now, the look of things like computers is driven by function. Just as it was 50 years ago. But the trend is the same: to make stuff adapt to us, rather than us to it. As examples, think of interfaces: first graphical took over from command line interfaces, Tactile surfaces rather than mice. Then came voice activation. When needed there's also eye-movement detection (used for example for attack gunship gunners or severely disabled people) and finally wetware integration, even right into the brain, used for orthopedics.
The only thing we don't know is how much time it'll cost us to move from one to the next. But the end result is wholly predictable.


Even cars only include an extra set of rules in their basic shape beside ergonomics: aerodynamics. Thus we also get a predictable trend. It is not a coincidence that when you take the little details away, every single brand looks the same for a given segment.

[Slargos]

You miss the point. As of now, the look of things like computers is driven by function. Just as it was 50 years ago. But the trend is the same: to make stuff adapt to us, rather than us to it. As examples, think of interfaces: first graphical took over from command line interfaces, Tactile surfaces rather than mice. Then came voice activation. When needed there's also eye-movement detection (used for example for attack gunship gunners or severely disabled people) and finally wetware integration, even right into the brain, used for orthopedics.
The only thing we don't know is how much time it'll cost us to move from one to the next. But the end result is wholly predictable.


Even cars only include an extra set of rules in their basic shape beside ergonomics: aerodynamics. Thus we also get a predictable trend. It is not a coincidence that when you take the little details away, every single brand looks the same for a given segment.

I'm not saying it's impossible to predict the evolution of the appearance of technology, with the kind of hind sight and the wealth of information we all have available now it's obviously going to be easier today than it was 50 years ago.

That said, I think it's an intense expression of hubris to believe that you can predict to any practically significant degree of accuracy what the appearance and more importantly function of technology will be in even 20 years, let alone 100.

Perhaps instead of "oh har har iz ezy" you could make an actual prediction and we can table this discussion for a single decade and see how right you were.

Presumably, people understood the concepts you describe 20 years ago aswell, but if you asked any people but the ones busily developing the Internet what communication would look like today, do you honestly believe they would've pictured this?

Beeb doesn't believe it will ever be possible to wear a computer as an ear ring. I'm willing to wager most people in the 70s didn't believe they'd have the entire world's collective knowledge at their fingertips 30 years later.

[Ideologue]

Take a look at the predictions of the appearance of future technology done 30 of 100 years ago and tell me if you still think it's so easy.

You miss the point. As of now, the look of things like computers is driven by function. Just as it was 50 years ago. But the trend is the same: to make stuff adapt to us, rather than us to it. As examples, think of interfaces: first graphical took over from command line interfaces, Tactile surfaces rather than mice. Then came voice activation. When needed there's also eye-movement detection (used for example for attack gunship gunners or severely disabled people) and finally wetware integration, even right into the brain, used for orthopedics.
The only thing we don't know is how much time it'll cost us to move from one to the next. But the end result is wholly predictable.

Not good enough.  Where's my sexbot, Iorm?

[Iormlund]

I'm not saying it's impossible to predict the evolution of the appearance of technology, with the kind of hind sight and the wealth of information we all have available now it's obviously going to be easier today than it was 50 years ago.

That said, I think it's an intense expression of hubris to believe that you can predict to any practically significant degree of accuracy what the appearance and more importantly function of technology will be in even 20 years, let alone 100.

Perhaps instead of "oh har har iz ezy" you could make an actual prediction and we can table this discussion for a single decade and see how right you were.

Presumably, people understood the concepts you describe 20 years ago aswell, but if you asked any people but the ones busily developing the Internet what communication would look like today, do you honestly believe they would've pictured this?

Beeb doesn't believe it will ever be possible to wear a computer as an ear ring. I'm willing to wager most people in the 70s didn't believe they'd have the entire world's collective knowledge at their fingertips 30 years later.

Have you read Neuromancer? Gibson describes a world where people access cyberspace with neural implants. Now we have both extremely primitive neural implants and a worldwide net. It will happen. And he wrote it almost 30 years ago.

[Ideologue]

Don't wait for the translation, answer the question.

[Ideologue]

Or if you want a slightly more serious inquiry, which first, virtual reality sex, or sex robots?  My bet is on sex robots.

[Iormlund]

Sorry, I don't do much robotics Ide. Building one with the necessary coordination for sex is going to be hard I think. We can barely make them walk as it is.
But have no fear, just as it happened with porn and the Web, you can bet much of the early applications of wetware or robotics will surely involve sex. DARPA funds research for limb replacement and weapon interface and the sex industry then takes over to make your wishes reality.


[Edit] It is also interesting to note that a skilled sex robot good enough to pass for a human would pretty much render manual labor obsolete.