DARPA...What's this?

Sciences, Space Exploration, Cosmic Charts and Horoscpoes. Did Man really walk on the moon? Everything you need to know and more.

DARPA...What's this?

Postby Tripz » Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:10 pm

DARPA's iXo Artificial Intelligence Control Grid:
Image
This was constructed almost entirely using government / military quotes, animations, videos, images and photos. The narrative is sourced ... all ┬╗ from government quotes from start to finish. It is the "official version", if you will, but in an unprecedented format.

It unveils the governments numerous and ongoing programs related to A.I., "NBIC", the "Global Information Grid", nanotechnology, biotechnology, autonomous drones, "naval sea-bases", space weapons, weather modification or more directly: domestic and global totalitarian technological domination. American Imperialism meets Artificial Intelligence.

The only debate is: what are we going to do to stop it? Time's running out

It mostly centers around DARPA materials, as they're the fountainhead of all of this, but this is all a broad multi-agency effort. Some of the video content, the "OS" of the video, was screen captured from the DARPA sites old iXo interactive flash presentation, from almost a yearago, but is now no longer available


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 39435723&q

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 78664013&q
Last edited by Tripz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: DARPA...What's this?

Postby Tripz » Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:22 pm

DARPA Seeks 'Deep Green' Battle Computer

Of course, this is just the latest brainchild of the monster agency from another planet known as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. From remote control aviation to the human-machine interface, this entity continuously seeks more and more efficient means of retaining some control over what is left of a soldier's autonomy. This is the purpose of technology, of course, at least according to the technocracy; corner the market on decision making in the field, be that field economic or military or, as in the case of fascist states, both.
Human GIs to be pawns in deadly man-vs-machine chess game.

The scientists and engineers of DARPA (The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency), the Pentagon's gateway to the technological left field, have struck again. The bulgy-bonced battle boffins have decided to sink some cash into an effort to develop a super-intelligent battle computer system which will enable US soldiers to be invincible in the field.

Perhaps impressed by the famous "Deep Blue" and its victories over mere human brains in the mock combat of chess, DARPA's name for its general-in-a-box tech is "Deep Green".

The colour presumably alludes to the fact that - at least to start with - the robocommand package is intended to help US Army bird colonels handle their "modular brigade" battle groups. If the project were a British Army one, the project might be known as "Deep Brown" (Or there again, maybe not). As Deep Blue is already taken, future versions for the other US services will presumably be known as Deep Periwinkle (air force) and Actually Deep Blue (navy).

Deep Green: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it, colonel ...

According to the DARPA call for ideas. Deep Green will include technologies called "Sketch to Plan and Sketch to Decide", "Crystal Ball", "Automated Course of Action Generation"" and "Blitzkrieg".

The idea is that within three years DARPA will be able to run wargames using human headquarters staffs, but that the Deep Green equipped staffs will have only a quarter as many personnel. Performance will be graded by judges who don't know whether a given team was Deep Green equipped or not.

It would, of course, be silly to say that Deep Green will take over the US Army's combat units.

"Leaders from the field generally do not want machine-generated courses of action," admits DARPA, plainly disappointed after being shouted at by some cigar-chewing US colonels. Deep Green is to be "a commander-driven battle command technology".

But the boffins have left themselves scope for the machine takeover which we all knew would be inevitable from the start.

"The long-term vision of Deep Green is for options to be generated by both the commander and the computer... so that some options are generated by humans and others are generated by machines. Initially, DARPA expects the machine generation of options to be centered on making clever mutations of the human-generated options..."

And from there it's only a short step to getting rid of the human generals and colonels altogether. They can head down to the dole queue with the swarms of annoying staff officers automated out of a job in the early phases.

Come to think of it, Deep Green might actually be rather popular in the army. :lol:
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: DARPA...What's this?

Postby Tripz » Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:23 pm

DARPA looking to verify imported military chips

DARPA*, the mad-as-a-bottle-of-crisps Pentagon warboffinry operation, has struck again - this time awarding a $13m contract to the University of Southern California to develop technology which will ensure that imported integrated circuits (ICs) used by the US military are trustworthy.

It appears that there is already a scheme under which US-made chips are checked out, and perhaps in an ideal world the American forces would use only American ICs. But domestic industry simply can't supply the full range or amount required, seemingly, and it has been accepted that imports will be necessary.

But there is a worry that unspecified foreign miscreants could meddle with the chips before they arrive in the USA, perhaps during manufacture, introducing "vulnerabilities... caused by malicious manipulation of hardware and software processes..."

So DARPA is looking for kit and processes which could tell "whether a microchip manufactured through a process that is inherently (untrusted) (i.e. not under our control) can be (trusted) to perform operations only as specified by the design, and no more."

It seems that only the USC crowd felt like having a go, and now they have duly been funded to take the problem on. The effort is expected to deliver results (or not, as with many DARPA punts) by 2012.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/30 ... up_scheme/
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: DARPA...What's this?

Postby Tripz » Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:24 pm

DARPA seeks flexible ion-drive tech for spy sats

The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon death-boffin hothouse where ideas don't have to be mad to get funding but it doesn't hurt either, has issued a new request for proposals.

This time, the groundbreaking military gambler-profs are after hugely more flexible ion engines for use in spacecraft.

In an announcement posted last week, the agency notes that: "There is increasingly a desire to deploy satellites and spacecraft whose missions and requirements may be changed routinely throughout their operational life to support changing national needs."

This probably refers to spy satellites, much in demand by the American security and defence establishments. Spy satellites typically need to alter their orbits in order to get a good view of specific places or targets, and this uses up fuel. Once a surveillance bird has run out of propellant, it will only get into the right place at the right time again by sheer luck; its useful life is over. Spy spacecraft being expensive things, it makes sense to strive for fuel efficiency.

Electrically-powered ion thrusters can offer excellent propellant efficiency in terms of how much a satellite can change its vector per unit of fuel it spits out, because such systems throw exhaust at very high velocities. In technical terms, this is known as operating with a high specific impulse. These engines are normally configured to use a lot of energy (in spacecraft terms) and hurl tiny flows of fuel out with great violence, achieving only a minuscule thrust but using hardly any fuel. In the last decade, ion thrusters have been used on a number of satellites as an alternative to traditional bipropellant chemical jobs.

That's all very well if you're happy to spend weeks adjusting a spy-bird's track, or you just want to maintain an existing orbit; and such might well be the case. This sort of performance is very appropriate for getting and staying in position to monitor, oh, let's say construction work at uranium refinement facilities over a long period.

But on the other hand you might want to shift a satellite in a matter of days or hours in many cases - as when tracking shipments of weapons or when monitoring temporary camps or meetings. This will be a problem for existing electric thrusters.

"Currently, electric propulsions systems are limited in their ability to vary [specific impulse] while onflight. Tasking the satellite to do a manoeuvre other than it was designed for is either beyond the capability of the spacecraft (e.g. insufficient power and thrust), or extraordinarily wasteful of precious propellant (insufficient specific impulse)," DARPA says.

The Pentagon kill-science people would like to see ideas that could let an electric drive operate at high total thrust and low-but-decent specific impulse for urgent jobs, but also shift/maintain orbits slowly using very little propellant in normal ion-drive style. They expect this to involve "Field Effect Electric Propulsion (FEEP) or Colloid propulsion systems", micro-scale electrical thrusters which have been proposed for use in very small "microspacecraft" or "microsatellites".

DARPA and the US military are very interested in microsatellites, but there are indications that they would also like to scale up these technologies for use aboard more normal-sized craft. Under phase III of the request for proposals, they want to see their future thrusters using 100W of power.

Biggish comms satellites often have an order of magnitude more juice than this, but it isn't a "micro" power load by any means. Certain classes of surveillance sat - such as radar ocean-surveillance jobs - must by their nature have large amounts of power available.

As to how much funding could be available and what sort of timescale they're after, the DARPA programme chiefs are keeping their options open.

"The amount of resources made available... will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds," they say.

As for timing, the Pentagon spy-sat designers would evidently like their 100W impulse-adjustable drive as soon as possible. Timetables calling for longer than three years overall will need to show "specific measurable milestones".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/17 ... _sat_plan/
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: DARPA...What's this?

Postby Tripz » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:28 am

Image

Image

Image

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55KLnw25x1s


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQf0Q0JEdtE

Image

Image

Governments around the world are rushing to develop military robots capable of killing autonomously without considering the legal and moral implications, warns a leading roboticist. But another robotics expert argues that robotic soldiers could perhaps be made more ethical than human ones.


Noel Sharkey of Sheffield University, UK, says he became "really scared" after researching plans outlined by the US and other nations to roboticise their military forces.


He will outline his concerns at a one-day conference in London, UK, on Wednesday

Over 4000 semi-autonomous robots are already deployed by the US in Iraq, says Sharkey, and other countries – including several European nations, Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Singapore and Israel – are developing similar technologies

Crucial decisionsIn December 2007, the US Department of Defense (DoD) published an "Unmanned systems roadmap" proposing to spend about $4 billion by 2010 on robotic weapons, a figure that will later rising to about $24 bn

Sharkey is most concerned about the prospect of having robots decide for themselves when to "pull the trigger". Currently, a human is always involved in decisions of this nature.


But the Pentagon is nearly 2 years into a research programme aimed at having robots identify potential threats without human help

"The main problem is that these systems do not have the discriminative power to do that," he says, "and I don't know if they ever will.


The US and other governments have also set a very short timeframe to achieve such sophistication, says Sharkey.


"It is based I think on a mythical view of AI"

Temporary banGovernments and robotics engineers should re-examine current plans, and perhaps consider an international ban on autonomous weapons for the time-being, he suggests.


"We have to say where we want to draw the line and what we want to do – and then get an international agreement"

After writing publicly of his concerns, he says engineers working for the US military have contacted him with similar worries.


"Some wrote to thank me for speaking out," he says

Ronald Arkin, a robotics researcher at Georgia Tech University, US, says that Sharkey is right to be concerned. "We definitely need to be discussing this more," he says.

However, he believes that robots could ultimately become a more ethical fighting force

'Moral responsibility'As governments seem determined to invest in robotic weapons, Arkin suggests trying to design ethical control systems that make military robots respect the Geneva Convention and other rules of engagement on the battlefield

"I have a moral responsibility to make sure that these weapons are introduced responsibly and ethically, and reduce risks to non-combatants," he says

Arkin also notes that human combatants are far from perfect on the battlefield. "With a robot I can be sure that a robot will never harbour the intention to hurt a non-combatant," he says.


"Ultimately they will be able to perform better than humans"

Arkin is using computer simulations to test whether ethical control systems can be used in battlefield scenarios, some of which are modelled on real-life events

Refusing ordersOne involved an Apache helicopter attacking three men laying roadside bombs in Iraq. Two were killed, and the third clearly wounded.


The pilot is ordered by a superior to kill the incapacitated man, and reluctantly does so

"I still find the video of that event disturbing," says Arkin, "I hope an autonomous system could realise that man was clearly incapacitated, effectively a prisoner of war and should not have been killed.

"One of the fundamental abilities I want to give [these systems] is to refuse an order and explain why"

Yet Arkin does not think battlefield robots can be made a smart as human soldiers.


"We cannot make them that generally intelligent, they will be more like dogs, used for specialised situations," he says

But he is so far concentrating his research scenarios involving armies.


"For those situations we have very clear cut guidance from the Geneva Convention, the Hague and elsewhere about what is ethical," he explains

Robots - Learn more about the robotics revolution in our continually updated special report

Weapons Technology - Keep up with the latest innovations in our cutting edge special report

linky

http://www. armedforcesjournal. com/2007/11/2802366

a must watch lecture on machines that kill humans..

http://www.archive.org/details/When_Rob ... onsibility
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: DARPA...What's this?

Postby celticcarla » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:45 am

Thanks very much for that Tripz. When ive finished digesting that overload in about a week i will comment :lol: seriously though very intersting.
"We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business", says David Payne.
Gonçalo Amaral promises to clarify "all the lies created"
User avatar
celticcarla
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 2552
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:13 am


Return to Sciences - Space, Moon Landings - Astronomy - Astrology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests