clicky

Samsung has partnered with Korea university and developed the machine-gun equipped robotic sentry. It is equipped with two cameras with zooming capabilities one for day time and one for infrared night vision. It has a sophisticated pattern recognition which can detect the difference between humans and trees, and a 5.5mm machine-gun. The robot also has a speaker to warn the intruder to surrender or get a perfect headshot. The robots will go on sale by 2007 for $ 200,000 and will be deployed on the border between North and South Korea.

LOL

Not sure how the surrender part works. Do you stand deadly still while back up arrives? Or does the robot get bored after a while and blow you away?

What if u dressed like a tree?

heh, obviously coz it's military they aren't going to show much of it's capabilities... but it would be interesting to see how effective it's 'pattern recognition' is. like... will it mow down animals that try to pass by? shoot birds out of the sky?

it'd be a fun unit to develop & test from an engineering pov :D

f***in telstra ad

anyway, yeah i was wondering about the surrender part too, does it frog march the suspect to the nearest cop shop or what

This is not an exercise. This is a police
control. Put your hands in the nearest yellow circles...

heh, obviously coz it's military they aren't going to show much of it's capabilities... but it would be interesting to see how effective it's 'pattern recognition' is. like... will it mow down animals that try to pass by? shoot birds out of the sky?

I'd doubt it would just use motion to detect people. It probably uses pixels that changed colours to detect motion in an area which allow them to create an area of interest and then use something like haar patterns to decide if it is a threat or not.

That being said, if I was creating something like this I'd make its default setting if anything un-identifable would be:

1: broadcast warning
2: ask for remote user interaction

if no remote users are available.

3: Do some sort of critical warning that's phenomenally loud. Enough to make anything intelligent just f*** off.
4: ask for remote user interaction
5: Wait until the object has approached almost minimum range and nuke it from orbit.

anyway, yeah i was wondering about the surrender part too, does it frog march the suspect to the nearest cop shop or what

I'd guess it would alert human defenders near by and make the threat kneel down with their hands up until it is given permission to stand down.

Considering that it is designed to go into places like the Korean DMZ, I'd guess that it can have a "in the worst case *shoot*" policy.

With that in mind, if it was set up only in locations where no f***er is supposed to be (like a mine field) it would be very effective. It probably wouldn't take too long to do the computer vision stuff to be mostly reliable. Cleaver folks would still be able to get past it, but you could combine vision with normal vision, IR, UV and thermal would make it pretty hard to get by.

In fact, if deployed in a relatively static area (like a hallway or an open field), even I could make something that would be exceptionally hard to get past. Even camouflage wouldn't be very effective, if at all.

The key of a device like that is to allow remote user interaction to qualify anything it might want to do, unless the computer considers it critical to go ahead. Between the computer sensors, patterns, AI and human perception, it would be very, very hard to get past.

You have 10 seconds to comply

Can you configure it to go after RABS n JEWs?

Bring our troops home Mr Howard and send in the Robots.

Can you configure it to go after RABS n JEWs?

Profiling is much harder than pattern recognition, but I wouldn't say it is impossible. Even, assuming it is possible, it wouldn't be feasible in a portable unit due to the demands included by AI requirements.

Although, if they where all networked and they just fired off images to some sort of big arse mainframe neural network it would increase its feasibility. I wouldn't want to stake my reputation on social profiling of any AI though, unless it was just for demographics.

General Dickwad: JOHNSON, how many morons ran up to our sentry bots this week?
Private Johnson: Sir, 18 Muslems, 3 dogs, 1 parrot and 23 drunken US Troops.
General Dickwad: Yehaah!

some kids built one of these in america, i wish i could remember the site : /
However, it didnt have any recognition, it just shot anything that moved :P

edit: http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=882


last edited by casa at 13:18:51 15/Nov/06

Yeah, the basic technology isn't that tough, and as processing power gets cheaper and better it's getting easier and easier. Basic introductions to computer vision consist of the basic technology that you'd need to use to make the basic operations work. (hence why I said (to paraphrase) 'even I could do it).

I'd guess the real difficulty will come in interoperability of the system into the integrated defence systems that are already in place, and converting the automated sentries system into something usable for command, control and communication systems. Most importantly, you'd have to make the entire thing 'safe' in terms of information security. What kind of information can 'bad people' get from your system, and how can you stop them from sending false information to you.

So, while 'some kids built' something like this, doesn't put it in the same ballpark as the technology that is being built here.

For those of you who think USD200,000 is a little steep, I present to you:
Room defender - priced at a much more reasonable GBP19.95.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8123/thumbsglvl3ut1.jpg
you know you were all thinking it




last edited by Denny at 13:36:21 15/Nov/06

Ed 209 says "Me rikey"

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4701/ed5zc2.jpg

voidref November 14, 2006 4:38 AM

I, for one, welcome our robot overlords

surely you wouldn't have to be too creative in order to trick this thiing into dumping it's ammo supply :/


it looks like an overpriced surveilence camera that can sometimes shoot at you if it has bullets ;)

surely you wouldn't have to be too creative in order to trick this thiing into dumping it's ammo supply :/

It depends on where it is and what kind of interaction it has with human operators. If it doesn't fire without direct orders from a person, unless it thinks security is going to be breached, then no, not really.

Looking at the way the military is focusing on integrating their systems, I'd be very surprised if the intention of this was to never have any form of human interaction behind it.

Edit: even if you could force the system to have false-positives so it fired without human interaction, you'd still be giving away tactical and probably strategic information to the defenders. Which can be used to enhance the system in future iterations.

Edit #2: The reason why human interaction would still be a benefit is that now the operators could be in a secured location anywhere in the world. Which means a world wide allied force (say NATO) could help secure bases world wide.

In fact, some defence contractors are looking at contracting services like this themselves. i.e. the USAF would contract Company X to design, develop and maintain technology and then and run the missions that technology is used for.

last edited by typo at 16:08:52 15/Nov/06

Has nothing on Metal Storm.

If it has a short range, I assume it could get taken out by a sniper with ease, especially if they had a railgun and stood on the q3dm17 platform

crouched on the platform you mean trog, while zoomed or having a set fov of 30

if it totally relied on remote human interaction then it's method of communication would be a vulnerability. just cut it's cables or jam it's radio frequency & then run it over with a tank! ;D on second thoughts... just run it over with a tank. :D

as long as the designers arent as retarded as the combines and their turrets...

crouched on the platform you mean trog, while zoomed or having a set fov of 30

Changing fov is cheating so I don't know what that means

if it totally relied on remote human interaction then it's method of communication would be a vulnerability. just cut it's cables or jam it's radio frequency & then run it over with a tank! ;D on second thoughts... just run it over with a tank. :D

I didn't say it would be totally reliant on remote human interaction. The fact that if it lost communication, for whatever reason, it would probably go on nazi alert mode.

American - and thus most national - military is currently in a massive push for integrated systems. Being able to litre places that are hard, or dangerous to man constantly with this kind of technology and not pumping that information into that kind of integration is a waste.

Jamming point to point laser communication is pretty hard. Even harder if it's pointing at a satellite.

Jamming remote devices is also pretty hard, seeing that they can instantly and concurrently change channels, use dozens of channels simultaneously and engage over what appears to be busy frequencies.

UAVs have constant bi-directional information feeds . If it was so simple to jam the signal, they'd be useless. In fact, they'd be worse than useless.

If you come charging at a remote sentry that is hooked up into an integrated system, then the entire chain of command immediatly knows that they are facing a tank at that location. Unlike the current situation that has some scared mother f***er dodging tank rounds trying to save his ass, slowly passing information up the chain of command.


last edited by typo at 18:31:43 15/Nov/06

UAVs have constant bi-directional information feeds . If it was so simple to jam the signal, they'd be useless. In fact, they'd be worse than useless.

To date most of the use (...that I'm aware of, anyway) of UAVs have been against poverty third world nations that have no defence against them whatsoever. I'm sure real countries actually have some decent anti-UAV tricks up their sleeve. If they don't, we should definitely invade those chumps.

I reckon a good sniper with a decent weapon could take that Samsung thing out froma long way off. Then again it might be just what the US needs along its Mexican border. :) Those Mexicans can't fool s***.

:P

I reckon a good sniper with a decent weapon could take that Samsung thing out froma long way off.

Maybe, but I'd like to think that they'd put it in a location that was hard to see from 'a long way off'. Like in a gutter bunker.

Then again it might be just what the US needs along its Mexican border.

Or American concentration camps.

don't they know that samsung's comercial use warranty is only 3 months :)

nah, seriously, i wonder how it would deal with an infrared floodlight though. i would have thought that would pretty much blind the night mode camera

American concentration camps.

Americans concentrating...
Now there's an oxy moron

heh - all that's left to do now is for Samsung to licence it to EA so it starts showing up in their games :P

I reckon a good sniper with a decent weapon could take that Samsung thing out froma long way off

or someone's gonna start producing emp granades :P

nah, seriously, i wonder how it would deal with an infrared floodlight though. i would have thought that would pretty much blind the night mode camera

I think it would depend on how its night vision works, how many different forms of sensors, how well do guns work in concert with each other and how concealable devices are.

However, all of you who are going down the “omg lol how easy would it be to disable it” seem to forget that most of these techniques work against people, it still provides information up the chain of command and finally, if they work in concert with each other, they can triangulate information and still fire mortars on suspected antagonists.

That’s why integrated defence systems are so powerful. You one unit or device “see’s” something, everything can see something. Guns saw the location of the sniper that shot them, well the artillery team 20 km away will show him a happy birthday blow job the world has never seen. Mass disruption on a base in upper east bumf***, that’s ok every allied command, control and communication centre in the world knows about it.

Americans concentrating...

No no.. they're making OTHER people concentrate.. not themselves.

To date most of the use (...that I'm aware of, anyway) of UAVs have been against poverty third world nations that have no defence against them whatsoever. I'm sure real countries actually have some decent anti-UAV tricks up their sleeve. If they don't, we should definitely invade those chumps.

If you're talking about attempting to "jam" the UAV... i don't think the US would be afraid. They'll just triangulate your location through the radio rather than via UAV camera. Either that or end up hitting their own troops. One of the two.

Also bear in mind that some UAV's are coming with missiles these days. I forsee a "poison-pill" UAV that is loaded down with HARMs (Radar seeking missiles) just waiting for some poor bastard with a radar to actively try and jam it.

The next generation of UAV's will apparantly be over 20,000ft up and be about the size of your hand. Thats pretty f***ing small.

As far as sentry turrets are concerned... if we're talking base defense then you know it'll end up being CAT5. If some spec ops guy is good enough to get through the defenses and cut the cat5 then i'm pretty sure he could have cut the throat of some dude standing there anyway and as typo has been saying the absence of a signal is as much an alarm as a dude with a towel on his head yelling something about admiral ackbar.

So can we post again?

kewl

Sorry for resurrection of an old thread, but I thought someone else might care.

I talked to some of the guys here (Boeing) who work on UAVs about the methods that people here suggested to defeat a remote sentry, in terms of communications. The general opinion is that a remote sentry would be no more susceptible to communication attacks than infantry, in fact because of even general frequency jumping technology built into the systems, it becomes even more difficult.

it would be nigh impossible to jam a whole spectrum, and you would face f***ing with your own equipment (plus people with nearby ipod transmitters would not be happy).

it would be nigh impossible to jam a whole spectrum, and you would face f***ing with your own equipment

I think that's been said!

As far as sentry turrets are concerned... if we're talking base defense then you know it'll end up being CAT5.

if you have ever been on an DoD or ASIO site you would know that everything is fibre, no cat5 unless it is going into a cat5 to fibre media converter, and then only in the data center, not in the field.

if you have ever been on an DoD or ASIO site you would know that everything is fibre, no cat5 unless it is going into a cat5 to fibre media converter, and then only in the data center, not in the field.

It doesn't change the essence of his argument. OK, the 'not in the field' part does, but when I was talking to Xyzzy about it, the essence of what he was saying is even if it is a fixed wire, it doesn't mean much as the absence of data is as much of an alarm as a sand monkey screaming at the camera.


last edited by typo at 09:37:48 28/Nov/06

it doesn't mean much as the absence of data is as much of an alarm as a sand monkey screaming at the camera.

I think that's been said!

I think that's been said!

I think that's been said!

Can you configure it to go after RABS n JEWs?

Can you configure it to tell the difference between the two? 'Cause I sure as s*** can't.