Home » In electronic warfare, the boundary between game and reality is increasingly blurred

In electronic warfare, the boundary between game and reality is increasingly blurred

by admin

ARCAS (the acronym stands for AI-Powered, Computerized Solution for Assault Rifles) reduces the difficulty of a soldier involved in combat in analyzing the scenario and making decisions about the engagement of the opponents. It is a system built around the assault rifle concept that allows soldiers to spot threats early, optimize firing trajectories, lock on targets and have visual information on the operation of the weapon and on the interaction with the environment. In addition, the system allows the operator to receive information from the control room and other team members equipped with the same tool.

The integration of an artificial intelligence to perform all these functions it may represent a novelty factor but, apart from that, ARCAS is nothing really revolutionary. We are facing the miniaturization of systems that are already used in the air and naval field.

The aspect that instead deserves some reflection is once again that of the relationship between reality and fiction that I had already talked about while commenting the arrival on the civilian market of the “online-ready” Kalashnikov. Like the Russian 12 gauge, ARCAS is also heavily influenced by the world of video games.

The manufacturer explicitly states that Soldiers operate the system using a joystick button positioned on the rifle’s front handle and a graphical interface inspired by the world of gaming. Watching the advertising video for this product it is not hard to believe it and, as far as we are concerned, this is precisely the problem: the further thinning of the boundary between the reality of violence, made of flesh and blood, and the dehumanization of the target made possible by the technological intermediation described from David Grossman in the book On Killing and by Gavin Hood in Eye in the Sky (distributed in Italy under the title The right to kill).

See also  NEXT WEEK, a new CYCLONE will put Italy under pressure; the details

The relationship between the military sector and the video game industry is narrow, documented and dating back over time. As Huntemann and Payne note in Joystick Soldiers. The Politics of Play in Military Video Games, published in 2010, lThe prevalence of military-themed video games has increased since 2001, with a significant portion of these games focusing on the terrorist / counterterrorist conflict. For the US military, the events of September 11, 2001 and beyond have accelerated a shift within the military in how to better train and equip its soldiers for the realities of modern warfare. Part of this shift included renewing long-standing relationships and building more partnership with the entertainment sector, in particular with film and video game producers. This process of integration between the two areas has been accelerated by the increase in the graphic capabilities of dedicated computers and consoles (as well as programming languages ​​and techniques) which in just over twenty years have allowed the transition from Fps like Wolfenstein 3D e Doom to their hyper-realistic modern-day successors.

Thus, the process of dehumanization of the opponent, which from a human being becomes an animated icon on the screen of a smart TV, begins even before the viewer installed in a combat helmet. Waiting for a war that hopefully will not happen, it is therefore quite reasonable to ask how the perception of killing changes in individual behaviors and attitudes when the game creates a reality in which one constantly immerses oneself. This last consideration introduces the further theme of the dehumanization of the operator and not only of his opponent.

See also  a study by the Cardiology of Ferrara - Health

Systems like ARCAS (assuming they really work, long enough and without interference) eliminate or they greatly reduce the options on which the soldier has to make a decision (which target should I hit? how many rounds do I have in the magazine? which path is safer?). On the one hand, it is reasonable for this to happen because it reduces the margin of error and increases the protection of the military. On the other hand, if the indications come from the interface managed by the AI, the operator risks being reduced to a biological automaton that only has to execute orders given by a technological platform.

This is not the case with conjure up science fiction scenarios to Robocop and it is instead (always) the case to remember that in such situations the last word belongs to whoever is on the field. However, withdrawing from the military sphere, the problem posed by the use of ARCAS concerns all those similar cases (from autonomous driving to surgical operations) in which there is a risk of confusing a high operational autonomy of a machine with the existence of its own independent and separate responsibility from those who use it.

In even more general terms we should therefore ask ourselves what happens when both hooks that keep us tied to reality break (individual self-determination and humanity’s perception of the other) and we float in a state of non-perception of the consequences of our actions. Some element to answer is already there for all to see.

.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy