Squirrel and bird deception techniques inspire military-robot design
December 5, 2012
Deceptive robots (credit: Arkin et al./Georgia Institute of Technology)
Using deceptive behavioral patterns of squirrels and birds, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have developed robots that are able to deceive each other.
The research is led by Professor Ronald Arkin, a Regents Professor in Georgia Tech’s School of Interactive Computing, who suggests the applications could be implemented by the military in the future.
Animal deception tactics
Squirrels gather acorns and store them in specific locations. The animal then patrols the hidden caches, routinely going back and forth to check on them. When another squirrel shows up, hoping to raid the hiding spots, the hoarding squirrel changes its behavior. Instead of checking on the true locations, it visits empty cache sites, trying to deceive the predator.
Arkin and his Ph.D. student Jaeeun Shim implemented the same strategy in a robotic model and demonstration. The deceiving robot lured the “predator” robot to the false locations, delaying the discovery of the protected resources.
“This application could be used by robots guarding ammunition or supplies on the battlefield,” said Arkin. “If an enemy were present, the robot could change its patrolling strategies to deceive humans or another intelligent machine, buying time until reinforcements are able to arrive.”
Arkin and his student Justin Davis also created a simulation and demo based on birds that might bluff their way to safety. In Israel, Arabian babblers in danger of being attacked will sometimes join other birds and harass their predator. This mobbing process causes such a commotion that the predator will eventually give up the attack and leave.
Arkin’s team investigated whether a simulated babbler is more likely to survive if it fakes or feigns strength when it doesn’t exist. The team’s simulations, based on biological models of dishonesty and the handicap principle, show that deception is the best strategy when the addition of deceitful agents pushes the size of the group to the minimum level required to frustrate the predator enough for it to flee. He says the reward for deceit in a few of the agents sometimes outweighs the risk of being caught.
“In military operations, a robot that is threatened might feign the ability to combat adversaries without actually being able to effectively protect itself,” said Arkin. “Being honest about the robot’s abilities risks capture or destruction. Deception, if used at the right time in the right way, could possibly eliminate or minimize the threat.”
Ethical issues
From the Trojan Horse to D-Day, deception has always played a role during wartime. In fact, there is an entire Army field manual on its use and value in the battlefield. But Arkin is the first to admit that there are serious ethical questions regarding robot deception behavior with humans.
“When these research ideas and results leak outside the military domain, significant ethical concerns can arise,” said Arkin. “We strongly encourage further discussion regarding the pursuit and application of research on deception for robots and intelligent machines.”
In 2010, Arkin and Georgia Tech Research Institute Research Engineer Alan Wagner studied how robots could use deceptive behavior to hide from humans or other intelligent machines.
The research is funded by the Office of Naval Research.
Video (credit: Arkin et al./Georgia Institute of Technology)
Comments (7)
by asiwel
Deception is a two-way street. A clever robot might be able to deceive. But an even cleverer robot who understand the techniques of deception might be able to detect and contravene such efforts. If we want to talk about war and gaming, deception is simply a form of strategy – one we humans are very familiar with and hence study. Is pigeons studied catfish strategy, they would not so often become catfishfood. Since we recognize the possibly for deception, self-deception, and simply faulty understanding does exist in this universe and that there often are a wide variety of reasons (many ethical) for this, we would expect intelligent robots that we design to do the same, perhaps to a higher degree than we can.
by Mr.X
To me it has become apparent -swiftly- that this site is a place of those who are friends of war, yet are too cowardly to fight it themselves, let alone man against man.
Here they dwell, marvelling at the conception of heinous machine-works, which allow their nation to harass its weaker prey, without punishment or cost in life (befitting their decadent, craven ways).
Unwittingly, these people adore what might bring future doom on them themselves -if or hopefully when-fortunes favor passes
to another place or race (race-robots ).
All this can bring great amusement to the neutral observer, especially when such a people explodes yet again in one of its ridiculous (bigotted) outbursts of moral indignation, directed at the lesser (in extent and decadence) doings of others.
Today it says everywhere: Behold the wrath of the Childpeople, who can undo you with their joysticks, without even leaving their house, who could even be too fat to move for long.
The tragedy of war and of violence has once again become a bloody game, to be played by immature, self-righteous minds.
Ps: This nature-copying thing has become a cliché.
by PirateRo
Whatever.
You know, it might also be that we use technology in an exploration of ourselves and that since part of us involves violence, deception and other things, then it becomes only natural to examine these.
More importantly, though, your entire argument requires that we duck around corners and hide in ignorance and fear. I don’t think I will do that.
Instead, I’ll be happy enough to get out there and see what it’s all about, to learn and change in the process of discovering who I am and what mankind is about. Our humanity demands this of us and no less.
And if one day, I decide to change who and what I am and I look back on that process and discover I like hand better than the one I was originally dealt, then I’ll play those cards. If I don’t, I’ll go through another process of change until I find something appealing.
But you know what I won’t do? I won’t live my life to the tune of acceptance by some clod who prefers to wallow in fear and then reign judgmental to those with the courage to move ahead.
Seriously, go back to living in the forest. Did you forget where? Right back under that rock you crawled out of.
by Mr.X
@PirateRo:
Your primitive attack against my personality can be forgiven, for its force and aim hit as accurately as your arguments, which missed the point entirely.
I wasn’t talking about the science, but the application thereof. Presuming you to be smart enough to have understood this:
“And if one day, I decide to change who and what I am and I look back on that process and discover I like hand better than the one I was originally dealt, then I’ll play those cards”
+
This post we are commenting on
=
You want to try being a military robot!?Ok, Robobeard.
“Seriously, go back to living in the forest. Did you forget where? Right back under that rock you crawled out of.”
Maybe you should do something about your funny smell, you smell as old as your insult.
May my robot-rock reign onto your baloony-head, and make all the hot air and misty fog clouding thy judgement go away.
Have a nice day
by Arctic Poppy
Isaac was a true futurist.
by PirateRo
I met Asimov at various Trek conventions. He was quite a character with an incisive mind that could just cut right through to the issue at hand.
I sure do miss him.
by Gorden Russell
A long time ago, Isaac Asimov wrote a story about a robot liar. It turned out that the robot was only trying to keep from hurting people’s feelings, but it sure got Susan Calvin mad.