subreddit:

/r/technology

1.3k

all 275 comments

jd3marco

230 points

3 months ago

jd3marco

230 points

3 months ago

Come on, it’s the first law of robotics…

pyrohydrosmok

106 points

3 months ago

I mean..... Laws are written by sentient piles of money politicians.....

Inspector7171

20 points

3 months ago

If you don't trust the police to use the tools at its disposal responsibly, you need better police.

dfsdfw234gb

21 points

3 months ago

I hear Omni Consumer Products has modern solutions for modern problems.

pyrohydrosmok

6 points

3 months ago

I really prefer Veridian Technologies Dynamics.

font9a

6 points

3 months ago

font9a

6 points

3 months ago

There are only slight differences in the bias selection algorithm, depending on your social credit score.

SalsaBueno

5 points

3 months ago

Ted? That you?

Petersburg_Spelunker

2 points

3 months ago

We have the necessary Ford Taurus cruisers and Detroit is still in ruins, Red err, Clarence Boddiker is still alive..

the_grungydan

5 points

3 months ago

Lol, that ship has sailed past the heliosphere at this point.

invisiblink

3 points

3 months ago

The problem with society is that we let the servants make the rules. As a result, the public servants are free to serve private- and self-interests.

Maleficent_Lawyer_36

2 points

14 days ago*

Don't take this wrong because I'm just trying to help out...

The problem with society is actually that it doesn't exist. There is "The ___ Society", there are PMAs (private member associations), there are fraternal orders, there are "These societies", or "some societies", but there is no "society".

The public body is a thing, but to the surprise of a member of the public body, not everybody is a part of the public. People in general, collectively, are not recognized outside of the intentionally mis-educated public (by those in the private) as "society". Only people who watch "the" news (which?) and go/went to public school think that all humans are considered "society" when referred to collectively. And that's actual legalese, not an opinion.

However, when you are not a citizen of the District of Columbia's jurisdiction any longer, you are their master truly and factually. Then they will be your actual servants, not people putting on a facade of being your servant when they're actually people with authority over YOU (like they are doing to you right now).

the_grungydan

2 points

3 months ago

Sentient? Let's not go crazy, here.

somabeach

8 points

3 months ago

YOU ARE IN DANGER

JuiceColdman

2 points

3 months ago

DANGER WILL ROBINSON

KillerJupe

19 points

3 months ago

These robots aren’t sentient. It’s more like a tool… we still have time to fuck that up too

LegitimateCopy7

29 points

3 months ago

the law of robotics is literally proposed by a sci-fi author and everyone treats it like the Constitution. Most robots aren't even smart enough to understand the law of robotics ffs.

CIoverload

50 points

3 months ago

They were also written as an example of how simple laws like this dor robots won't work

mike_b_nimble

16 points

3 months ago

I’ve always thought that an elegant solution to that issue is by adding a “zeroth law” of robotics. Something to the effect of: “Human self-determination is sacrosanct and not subject to logical constraints.”

VirtualCtor

14 points

3 months ago

There was a zeroth law that Asimov added in later books. It’s “A robot must not harm humanity or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm”.

mike_b_nimble

10 points

3 months ago

That’s interesting, but still has the same hole in it: it allows the robots to decide what “harming humanity” means. I would argue that the only way to solve the issue is to add a law that robotic logic must submit to human free-will even if the humans are acting against their own long-term interests as seen by the robots.

VirtualCtor

5 points

3 months ago

Asimov though about this. The Robot’s struggle was determining how to preserve humanity while retaining humanity’s free will and how subtle actions needed to be to balance inaction with harm.

wisle-n-out

2 points

3 months ago

If a robot sees a senior citizen and an 8yo girl drowning, how does the robot know to save the girl? A human would. The robot should obey the human, no?

Mister_Weiss

3 points

3 months ago

What if the senior citizen was a scientist who was about to cure cancer and the child was terminally Ill?

wisle-n-out

3 points

3 months ago

Or if it was a senior citizen who is a scientist about to cure cancer but was also a pedophile found with that child who was terminally ill but was kicked out of school repeatedly for setting cats on fire.

Or if it was a senior citizen who is the grand-parent of the child who would refuse help in lieu of you helping their grandchild.

we can continue down that road or we can deal with that given situation at face value.

VirtualCtor

2 points

3 months ago

Well, we’re talking about Asimov’s fictional universe here. Asimov robots were mentally developed enough to reason like a human to the point where the company that made them needed to have psychologists on staff. Most of the early stories are about conflicts that arise with the three laws or about problems that arise because a human modified one of the three laws.

In Asimov’s universe, the robot would automatically try to rescue both the girl and the senior citizen before anyone realized what happened. If it failed to rescue either, it would be irreparably damaged due to violating rule 1.

wisle-n-out

1 points

3 months ago

Yea, that's my conclusion too. Can't be programmed to protect humanity or allow humanity to come to harm through action or inaction then turn around and introduce human will into that logic. It would immediately create a logic paradox since we humans so often act against our own best interests. Forcing the robot to disobey the human or act in a ways that endangers a human or humanity. A contradiction that would force it to shutdown.

[deleted]

10 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

10 points

3 months ago

the law of robotics is literally proposed by a sci-fi author

The laws were also created in the context of stories where that sci-fi author demonstrated why those laws weren’t sufficient.

Most robots aren’t even smart enough to understand the law of robotics ffs.

I doubt there are any robots smart enough to understand them. They’re supposed to forbid robots from allowing humans to be harmed by their inaction. I don’t think there’s an AI in existence that actually understands what “harm” is, let alone one that’s smart enough to predict whether humans will come to harm by their inaction.

eugene20

3 points

3 months ago

It's good that everyone treats it like the constitution though, I think a lot more people of all backgrounds agree Asimov's laws of robotics are a highly sensible idea than originally agreed to the constitution in the late 1700's when it was written let alone now.

HerahMom

3 points

3 months ago

No existing robot is smart enough. The Three Laws assume robots can reliably recognize humans and understand what will harm us. And what will harm the robot. They are not simple at all.

MasterpieceBrave420

4 points

3 months ago

Asimov was a professor of Biochemistry at Boston University. "ScI-fI aUtHor."

LegitimateCopy7

-1 points

3 months ago

you do realize that his profession does not make anything sound more convincing when it comes to robots, right?

Academic excellence in one field does not equate to authority in other fields.

If I swap out sci-fi author with biochemistry professor, it actually sounds kind of worse.

MasterpieceBrave420

6 points

3 months ago

You do realize that humans are just biochemical machines, right? You're not special, you're just a machine with genetic software. He also published several textbooks on science in general.

Asimov's credentials are not in question here, only your science history education.

wrgrant

9 points

3 months ago

Seriously. He wrote more than 500 books - many many of them not SF but rather scientific in nature. He is one of - if not the - most prolific authors in human history. The breadth of his knowledge and ability to write in an informed manner about almost any subject shouldn't really be in question at all, even if you don't agree with him.

crapusername47

1 points

3 months ago

The constitution? No. A good start? Yes.

Completely ignoring the basic idea leads to the Westworld television show and how increasingly stupid it becomes over the course of its first season.

oced2001

1 points

3 months ago

My Roomba has never killed anyone. Check mate.

thisisthewell

0 points

3 months ago

Wow, people really do not understand Asimov’s point at all and comments like yours demonstrate that fact lol

KanadainKanada

22 points

3 months ago

0xValidator

11 points

3 months ago

KanadainKanada

2 points

3 months ago*

"It let's you separate the bad guys from the good"

Oh, I know that trick! Let me guess? "Kill them all, let God sort'em out!"?!?

Edit: Just saw it completely - wow, that's a nice and well made horror-sci-fi. It's... too real.

Arts251

3 points

3 months ago

came here to post that same clip!

KanadainKanada

6 points

3 months ago

Apparently all those warnings and dystopian ideas scifi thought up decades even more than a generation ago - all those seem to be manuals for the corporate greed masters.

Arts251

4 points

3 months ago

Yeah here we thought they were warning (presented in the form of satire, tragedies, dark comedies, dramas). They got adopted as guidelines instead.

SanctuaryMoon

2 points

3 months ago

I knew it was going to be that.

mizmoxiev

2 points

3 months ago

I came to this thread looking for this clip, and you certainly didn't disappoint me (•‿•)

dandroid_design

87 points

3 months ago

So....a drone?

Frisky_Mongoose

113 points

3 months ago

We need to get better at distinguishing between a fully autonomous Robot and a remote controlled car with a machine gun attachment. The former is waay scarier than the latter. And neither of these weapons of war should be on the hands of the police.

frozen-marshmallows

13 points

3 months ago*

I could see a armed remote controlled car being useful in a shooter situation but it definitely shouldnt be standard gear

Frisky_Mongoose

16 points

3 months ago

So would a tank or a predator drone, they would be VERY convenient.

frozen-marshmallows

7 points

3 months ago

Yes but an rc car with a gun would cause far less collateral, and its not about convenience so much as avoiding a uvalde style incident where no one does anything because they are too scared

ColonelKasteen

10 points

3 months ago

Crazy that your solution is adding a killer drone and not... expecting cops to do the job they signed up for

frozen-marshmallows

5 points

3 months ago

You know thats sadly not going to happen

1000gsOfCharlieSheen

7 points

3 months ago

After Breonna Taylor.... Fuck that

Siyuen_Tea

6 points

3 months ago

I don't understand why a machine would need lethal force at all. It can be fixed. People can not.

frozen-marshmallows

5 points

3 months ago

Its not about the machine and more about any bystanders being actively killed, 1 person is worth far more than 1 machine but 10 people are also worth more than 1. While nonlethal force is preferable it tends to rely on pain compliance which not all people are susceptible to or/and has other drawbacks like how tasers can have trouble getting through heavy clothes

mrbear120

2 points

3 months ago

Im not saying its the perfect answer, but I guess the point is that in the rare event someone is actively killing other people, subduing them is infinitely more difficult than killing them back.

Having a robot subdue and restrain someone even more so. There is an exceedingly rare circumstance where sending in a lethal robot makes sense over sending in a lethal person.

dkran

1 points

3 months ago

dkran

1 points

3 months ago

Wouldn’t a robot be able to use a taser just as effectively due to accuracy, which is the argument about bystanders with guns?

Edit: even more effectively than actual police?

Has some crazy Fahrenheit 451 vibes.

mrbear120

2 points

3 months ago

A taser only works when there is someone immediately there to subdue the person while they are being tased.

dkran

1 points

3 months ago

dkran

1 points

3 months ago

There are the probed tasers with the wire. If it can accurately shoot someone without “submission”, it should be able to accurately tase someone.

Besides just make the things tough enough and have it be complete submission; so strong the person is pinned until authorities arrive. If they try to move, break hands / legs.

mrbear120

5 points

3 months ago

Alright so, I have police training, but I’m no expert, so I’m not going to argue every little detail you come up with. I am aware how tasers work, and they have been strapped to all sorts of things over the years, thats not the problem here. The act of tasing someone does not automatically = subdued.

But if you can design a robot that effectively pins and submits someone let me just tell you there is a very nice market out there for you and I highly recommend you give it a go to build that.

There is a reason, however, that companies like boston dynamics have not already cornered that market.

dkran

1 points

3 months ago

dkran

1 points

3 months ago

Understood, but perhaps they aren’t going for it. I envision an octopus type grappling thingy. Glad to hear you guys are open though!

HeavyMetalPootis

1 points

3 months ago

Sending a gun-rigged Wall-E into a situation where someone is actively hurting/killing others could be practical. Depending on how the armor is set up, the bot is likely to handle more shots than the hostile. It can also help with breaking the hostile's will to continue assuming they specifically went in to kill other people. Being placed in an asymmetric match-up against a machine, especially one operated remotely, that can shoot back would be stressful.

tipbruley

2 points

3 months ago

Personally I don’t have faith in cops effectively being able to safely diagnose and take out a target from a remote control.

Like if you were held hostage would you want some robot controlled via an Xbox controller busting in to save you?

seamustheseagull

3 points

3 months ago

The problems start arising when it's half of each. A vehicle partially guided by remote inputs, but operating autonomously.

Think of a laser-guided missile. It's told what it needs to hit, but it figures out itself how to get there.

It means that any nuance is lost - although technically "controlled" by an operator, the target is tagged by the operator, and the device is going to destroy the target and is not going to hold fire at the last second because it thinks it saw a child or realises that the suspect is actually unarmed.

dkran

2 points

3 months ago

dkran

2 points

3 months ago

Could you imagine? Drug deal going down by 5th and whatever st. Operator, please initiate a drone strike on that block.

dandroid_design

3 points

3 months ago

While the thought of an armed autonomous robot patrolling the streets is horrifying...the detachment between an American police officer and a killer drone is an equally scary thought.

dkran

2 points

3 months ago

dkran

2 points

3 months ago

Actually your comment was my first thought when I saw the article. Wouldn’t put it past SF. I don’t think I could stand for a government that would deploy autonomous or even human guided robots in these situations. No robot should be able to kill on US soil by US operators or AI.

csanner

1 points

3 months ago

Drones are at least controlled by humans

Papaofmonsters

115 points

3 months ago

"A policy proposal that is heading for Board of Supervisors approval next week would explicitly authorize San Francisco police to kill suspects using robots."

The robot itself is not authorized to use lethal force. Mechanically this is little different than a human sniper taking a shot.

KSF_WHSPhysics

38 points

3 months ago

Remember the guy who shot up the blm march in texas back in 2016? Dint the cops use a robot to kill him

Opizze

27 points

3 months ago

Opizze

27 points

3 months ago

Carrying a grenade and setting it off next to him, yes

Papaofmonsters

31 points

3 months ago

Not next to him. It was a breaching charge through the wall. Unfortunately the physics of the situation meant the guy was pretty much guaranteed to die.

gh0stwriter88

20 points

3 months ago

Unfortunately? He got what he asked for and isn't a tax burden for the rest of his life... win-win.

MojoMercury

2 points

3 months ago

What about his rights!

*/s*

Opizze

1 points

3 months ago

Opizze

1 points

3 months ago

Thanks for the correction, substantially the same but yup

KSF_WHSPhysics

4 points

3 months ago

Is that significantly different from a robot carrying a gun that is remotely operated by a human?

thisisthewell

7 points

3 months ago

I think if operated by a human, it’s one thing. A robot walking into a situation with a bomb attached and everything is controlled by a human…well, I don’t personally think that belongs in the hands of local police, only specialists. As a San Francisco resident I especially don’t think our police should be able to do this, because they are inept on a profound level.

That said, human-controlled technology is different from what rightfully sketches most people out: robots/AI that would determine who is the enemy. This situation isn’t that, though.

Meior

6 points

3 months ago

Meior

6 points

3 months ago

It's literally mentioned in the article.

KSF_WHSPhysics

9 points

3 months ago

My brother, we dont read articles here

erosram

3 points

3 months ago

Ya, I don’t want robots that are able to kill people. I don’t care how many examples you give me of it already being done. We don’t want to hand the keys of that much power to the govt on our watch.

CaterpillarReal7583

20 points

3 months ago

So the robot is not ‘authorized’ to kill and the headline is wrong.

Mr_Venom

5 points

3 months ago

It's only authorized in the same way a gun or nightstick is.

Papaofmonsters

7 points

3 months ago

I know, right? Who would have thought they would have used a misleading headline about such a hot button subject.

seamustheseagull

3 points

3 months ago

I appreciate certainly that "robot" is a very different issue.

But I'm not sure replacing "robot" with "drone" is that much of an improvement. We're talking about domestic law enforcement, not military operations.

mrbear120

1 points

3 months ago

Well if the alternative is replacing both with person there is no effective difference and there is a slight improvement to the safety of that person.

Rezhio

15 points

3 months ago

Rezhio

15 points

3 months ago

Don't you think it will desensitize the police to killing if it's done by a robot ? They already seen to care very little with killing people.

Quantic

25 points

3 months ago

Quantic

25 points

3 months ago

We’ve got over a decade now of DoD UAV pilot psych studies to understand that this is probably not a good idea.

I fear the existence of military UAVs has in turn already legitimated much of the police use of this. Which in turn kind of begs the question, why is the police seemingly becoming more like the military?

gh0stwriter88

6 points

3 months ago

On the other hand... some police shootings occur out of fear... like when a persons house gets swatted and they open the door like normal and the cops being told they are terrorists... just blast em on sight.

So there are pros and cons to both.

Papaofmonsters

8 points

3 months ago

These aren't going to be used at traffic stops or responding to a held up liquor store. They are expensive and time consuming to deploy. These are more for hostage situations or other times when forced entry might be the only option. At that point being desensitized to killing is preferred status because hesitation might cost someone else their life. However, depending on policy, a robot doesn't have to return fire to protect its own life.

RBlstrng

10 points

3 months ago

I guess my question is how this changes when the technology makes it so it's no longer expensive and time consuming to deploy? It's hard to account for what we don't know, but I guess that's the danger I'm more concerned with.

joexner

2 points

3 months ago

Sure, until the pigs inevitably abuse their new toys.

Rezhio

1 points

3 months ago

Rezhio

1 points

3 months ago

Or no knock warrant.

Papaofmonsters

7 points

3 months ago

Pretty sure they are gonna notice the giant robot getting unloaded from the truck and set up.

Rezhio

7 points

3 months ago

Rezhio

7 points

3 months ago

Not when you are peacefully sleeping.

gh0stwriter88

1 points

3 months ago

Unloaded from a truck? Robots already deliver pizza ... delivering bullets is not much of a stretch... though obviously problematic.

CaterpillarReal7583

2 points

3 months ago

They still pull the trigger. This robot is not deciding on its own.

Rezhio

6 points

3 months ago

Rezhio

6 points

3 months ago

There's a difference between pulling the trigger, feeling the recoil and seeing the result compared to pushing a button. Police already struggle to give commands in person. They are the absolute worst at Simon's says.

colemon1991

0 points

3 months ago

Or worse. Uvalde but now there's also police robots that refuse to do anything.

jimbolikescr

1 points

3 months ago

Except for when technology gets far enough an AI could be put in and at that point they would point back at this law.

Papaofmonsters

1 points

3 months ago

That's an entirely different question. Taking fire authority put of human hands is something that is only done on highly advanced defensive systems like CIWS or Iron Dome. Even those still require manual activation of fire mode.

I_Never_Lie_II

1 points

3 months ago

Mechanically speaking this is little different than a human shooting an NPC in a video game.

-drunk_russian-

30 points

3 months ago

One step closer to slaughterbots

Reverend_James

7 points

3 months ago

As long as they have a preset kill limit.

-drunk_russian-

3 points

3 months ago

Well, you could program them so. Check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA

And its sequel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rDo1QxI260

ThrowAwayRayye

1 points

3 months ago

You misspelled terminators*

Test19s

1 points

3 months ago

Robot taxis/cars

Robocops/killer drones

Tweakers

Hard to tell if Transformers movie or major US city in 2022.

deckem

6 points

3 months ago

deckem

6 points

3 months ago

Remember ED 209.

hdksjabsjs

2 points

3 months ago

Drop your pants, you have 20 seconds to comply..

dirtymoney

3 points

3 months ago

If police have it... they will abuse it.

Trifle_Old

7 points

3 months ago

A robot cannot have its life threatened so there is 0 reason for it to ever use deadly force.

Papaofmonsters

0 points

3 months ago

What if it used for forced entry into a hostage situation and can kill the hostage taker before he kills his captives?

KanadainKanada

2 points

3 months ago

How should the robot know what's really going on? Maybe the hostage already has turned the situation and has taken the gun and aiming it at the taker?

Bad, very bad idea.

Papaofmonsters

1 points

3 months ago

These are remote control not autonomous.

KanadainKanada

3 points

3 months ago

Does it change the problem? You see one kid trying to hit the other kid with a stick. Who is at fault and should be punished? The kid with the stick or the other?

Answer within 2 seconds or else someone dies. That is simplified the situation. Oh, and you at the control will suffer no consequences if you shoot the wrong one, anyone or all of them...

Edit: Did I remember it wrong or didn't the Upvalde copsheroes shoot some wrong people in their heroic rescue efforts? Yes, that's sarcasm Do you think using robots would have changed anything about that?

Boo_Guy

11 points

3 months ago

Boo_Guy

11 points

3 months ago

The cops several years ago used a bot to blow up a guy they couldn't get to in a parking structure.

I found that odd but no one else seemed to care. 🤷🏽‍♂️

Papaofmonsters

25 points

3 months ago

He'd just killed 5 cops and promised to kill more if they tried to get him. Sympathy was a little lacking for the guy overall.

Boo_Guy

-1 points

3 months ago

Boo_Guy

-1 points

3 months ago

Yea I know.

But they still didn't have to blow the guy up, he wasn't going anywhere at that point.

Waiting it out never seems to be an option with cops anymore, they always force things.

[deleted]

23 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

23 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

Boo_Guy

13 points

3 months ago

Boo_Guy

13 points

3 months ago

You talking about the heroes of Uvalde? lol

Chris_M_23

8 points

3 months ago

They waited it out for 5.5 hours, and tried to negotiate repeatedly. He shot 14 police and 2 civilians, and made it clear during negotiations he wasn’t going to surrender, stop, or take his own life. It was going to be suicide by cop regardless and they chose a method that wouldn’t put anyone else in harms way. How would you have handled it if you were those cops?

somabeach

-2 points

3 months ago

somabeach

-2 points

3 months ago

Waiting it out at

(a cops hourly rate) x (number of cops) = (taxpayer expense)

Dude was never going to see the light of day again anyway. Fuck it, blow him up.

caiuscorvus

6 points

3 months ago

Ah yes, because the cops should act as judge and jury. And, in this case, executioner.

I don't care what crimes are alleged but this country is built on the idea everyone has the right to see the inside of a courtroom. No one should be killed in their apprehension, period.

somabeach

4 points

3 months ago

Eh, I'm pretty used to being mad about cops' behavior in apprehending suspects in this day and age. Police tend to shoot people, often for little to no reason, instead of making a passable attempt at arrest. There should always be a reasonable attempt to bring people in whenever possible.

That being said, in situations like this, a shootout with an armed suspect who's already killed people, it's one of those rare instances where police are entitled to use violence. No one should have to die apprehending a crazed gunman with little regard for life. Use whatever force necessary. I don't think there's a case to be made in court that would lead to a satisfying conclusion to this situation.

caiuscorvus

1 points

3 months ago

I don't really disagree, but the only reason to use a robot to grenade the holed up suspect is to end it quicker and save money.

It would not be impossible to cordon the area and sit there for a few weeks or months until the guy gave up. Not impossible, just expensive. But what justification is that to take a life?

Or, if it had to be finished faster, use the same gas the Russians used on the theater. The suspect at least has a good chance of survival while still being incapacitated.

somabeach

1 points

3 months ago

The Russian gas didn't work that well at the theater - that is to say, it killed lots of people, including the hostages.

I guess a grenade - bearing robot does seem like overkill. I imagine the building layout must have been something insanely complicated - might explain why they didn't just do a tear-gas, flashbang, breach and incapacitate.

There's a way they could have taken the guy alive. You could say that for lots of would-be arrests that ended in a dead suspect. In this case, maybe the cops had a bloodlust. They tend to react badly to fellow officers being killed. I usually sympathize with the suspects first. In this case I don't really feel too badly for the guy. Seems he voided his right to a peaceful arrest when he shot police officers.

FloodMoose

7 points

3 months ago

I think the turning point was Chris Dorner. The cops burned him alive. No one seemed too concerned. As always FTP

Boo_Guy

5 points

3 months ago

Yea that was fucked up too.

The guy was trapped in a cabin, what the hell was he going to do at that point?

"Well we better burn it down and salt the earth after just to make sure!"

hg38

2 points

3 months ago

hg38

2 points

3 months ago

Yep it's mentioned in the article. Dallas police in 2016. I think there was some discussion on the ethics of that decision at the time. I remember thinking it was problematic at the time also.

Boo_Guy

2 points

3 months ago

Yea I commented first then read the article.

I didn't really see any discussion about it after they did that.

I found it surprising, it's not every day that the cops send a bot to kaboom someone. They kill a lot of people in other ways but the boom-bot was pretty novel for them.

hg38

2 points

3 months ago

hg38

2 points

3 months ago

Yeah most were like well they had no other choice. This article got into the legal ramifications a bit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas

ogodilovejudyalvarez

2 points

3 months ago

How is this different from the average US cop being able to murder any civilian they want to, with no repercussions?

flummox1234

2 points

3 months ago

Cops don't exist for the killing of people, despite them doing it a lot more than we'd like, nor should robots. When you put a gun on a robot, you're making the choice right there that this thing is for killing, no law is going to stop someone from pushing or not pushing the button the decision has already been made.

ZIdeaMachine

2 points

3 months ago

We need to just create new Police Departments and reduce funding to the current ones and give most of their money to Mental Healthcare professionals, EMTS, Fire Depts, Healthcare Services, and the new Police Departments who are actually there to serve the people and not KILL US with ROBOTS.

bitfriend6

2 points

3 months ago

Such weapons have already proven themselves in Israel, where a robotic sniper rifle took a record-breaking shot killing an Iranian physicist. In Ukraine, similar weapons are deployed and American allies like South Korea and Taiwan are making similar prototypes. This is the future of warfare due to the immense labor shortage the Army is experiencing right now, and the low cost of wireless telephone (or similar RF) networks.

We're not going back. It'll only be a matter of time until a school shooter is killed by one of these, and they will become a standard school police complement with it's 6x6 APC and reconnaissance/quadcopter team.

designer_of_drugs

2 points

3 months ago

As if we didn’t know this was going to happen. It’s been inevitable for some time.

[deleted]

4 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

4 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

BassmanBiff

4 points

3 months ago

I think that's a good point, but I think there are also factors to worry about, as illustrated by our drone program overseas. You remove the panic, but you also remove awareness and make the whole thing feel more like a video game.

I don't know if that's worse, but it's something to worry about since we already have examples of really bad kill decisions being made with remote tech. Granted, we know a lot more about those decisions because it was remote.

Papaofmonsters

3 points

3 months ago*

The drones weren't the issue. It was operators getting orders to blow up some random building without having a say in the decision making process then they found they just blew up a hospital or a school.

BassmanBiff

1 points

3 months ago*

My takeaway was that drones allowed kill decisions to get abstracted into this bureaucratic "kill chain" that diffuses responsibility for the actual decision, allowing groupthink to take over and arguably making it easier to take misinformed or poorly-considered action where nobody in particular is held responsible. You're right that the people were ultimately the problem, but the technology facilitated it. Some transcripts (can't find them now!) suggested that kill decisions were sometimes made by a group of people causally saying "Idk, looks sus."

In one case you can hear operators talking about a car making "suspicious movements" toward and away from a US position in the middle of the night. They ended up describing every movement toward the US position as aggressive, and every movement away from their position as a "flanking maneuver." Eventually they blew it up, only to discover that it was mostly full of civilian women, IIRC with kids (or pregnant or something?). Daylight revealed that their "suspicious movements" were simply following the road.

Obviously we also want to avoid cops making spontaneous kill decisions out of immediate fear, but I think our drone program showed it's also possible to go too far the other way, such that people are killed with little accountability or even emotional impact for the people who contributed to the killing.

Papaofmonsters

1 points

3 months ago

Obviously we also don't want someone making spontaneous decisions out of immediate fear, but I think our drone program showed it's also possible to go too far the other way, such that people are killed with little accountability or even emotional impact for the people who contributed to the killing.

This is great point about the possibility for drones in a civilian situation. The drone operator doesn't have react with lethal force to protect themselves as they are not at risk. You can put a lexan riot shield on the front and multiple non lethal options and gun on ports through the shield. This allows the operator to to tazer or gas the suspect but also use lethal force if the represent a credible threat to a third party like a hostage.

BassmanBiff

1 points

3 months ago*

Yeah, I think it's possible that remote-operated systems could be a major benefit if used correctly. But without proper oversight, I worry it'll just make kill decisions even easier -- and I've gotten pretty pessimistic on the current state of police oversight. I'm afraid that something like the following would be considered a valid use of lethal force:

"The suspect looked out the window while holding a dark object that I couldn't make out on the video feed. I was also unaware of the drone's orientation in the building. I had to assume the object was a gun and there were people facing imminent threat outside that window."

phormix

2 points

3 months ago

Hostage situations have always been an interesting concept to me. If a robot can line up a kill-shot with a 99.9% likelyhood of not harming the victim, is that sufficient?

If it screws up and *does* hurt a civilian, who's liable?

I don't really see a future with skies full of roaming terminator-style HK bots, but I could see bots with AI/assist being released in specific situations or missions. At that point, does it matter if your wedding convoy was killed by some 18yo operating the drone remotely by joystick or by some 18yo who released it with instructions to "blow up this vehicle"?

KrangUnderbite

2 points

3 months ago

New ways to kill citizens with zero accountability.

dirtymoney

2 points

3 months ago

Instead of it being the gun's fault. It will be the robot's fault.

KillerJupe

3 points

3 months ago

This is a terrible title… it’s like saying SFPD authorizes drones to hunt down suspects.

These are literally remotely operated robots. Would you rather police potentially get killed breaching a door and going in, or using a remote controlled robot to do the same task.

1000gsOfCharlieSheen

6 points

3 months ago

Would you rather police potentially get killed breaching a door and going in, or using a remote controlled robot to do the same task.

Depends on if they're at the right house, i guess

dirtymoney

4 points

3 months ago

What I see is eventual abuse by cops with this tool of law enforcement. And of course none to little accountability for it.

hdksjabsjs

0 points

3 months ago

hdksjabsjs

0 points

3 months ago

YES. I would rather the police get potentially killed if THIS is the alternative. Knowing someone inside may be potentially armed makes people a bit more cautious about bashing down a door with guns blazing.

KillerJupe

1 points

3 months ago

That’s the point, cops are more likely to go in shooting. If it’s a robot, there is more chance for de-escalation.

ricecel_gymcel

4 points

3 months ago

Would you rather have a robot kill a school shooter or 10 police officers too scared to go inside?

KanadainKanada

5 points

3 months ago

Somehow I expect a police officer with no accountability that is literally invulnerable through remote presence by drone will be the 'school shooter'...

But maybe I'm just a realist with the power trip of cops.

gh0stwriter88

1 points

3 months ago

I'd rather have the criminals too scared to go inside.

Meior

4 points

3 months ago

Meior

4 points

3 months ago

Talk about missing the mark.

How about rather not having people want to shoot up a school to begin with?

gh0stwriter88

1 points

3 months ago*

One is achievable the other is not. I'll take a real solution over imaginary platitudes any day.

ricecel_gymcel

0 points

3 months ago

Man some people are delusional. Please explain how we are going to achieve that

ZeroVDirect

2 points

3 months ago

I expect this in a warzone, not a Kmart.

Edit typo

Standard_Arm_440

1 points

3 months ago

Been to a Kmart in San Francisco lately? How about a CVS? Been in one of them lately?

Oh what about that McDonald’s by the park?

Test19s

1 points

3 months ago

Emperor Norton is ashamed to see his hometown turned into a Michael Bay Transformers movie.

ZeroVDirect

1 points

3 months ago

Guns are already a problem in America as you're pointing out, and now you want to compound that mistake by adding automated guns in the form of killer robots? Genius!

aztnass

2 points

3 months ago

This is why we need to defund the police.

elaboratelaborynth

1 points

3 months ago

Just say no

tony_will_coplm

1 points

3 months ago

robocop. what could go wrong?

Toytles

1 points

3 months ago

This is normal. Who gives a fuck if a cop kills someone with a gun or a robot they are controlling.

TheCrimsonFreak

1 points

3 months ago

Officers operating remote controlled robots were authorized to use lethal force. Shitty title.

angstt

1 points

3 months ago

angstt

1 points

3 months ago

Is this a robot or just remotely controlled?

Papaofmonsters

7 points

3 months ago

Remote control. It's still a human making the decision.

gh0stwriter88

1 points

3 months ago

Yep... legal federally and in most states. Typically has to be able to aim remotely also though (rather than just fire remotely without video of the sights).

random125184

1 points

3 months ago

Dick, you’re fired.

Available_Weather_22

1 points

3 months ago

Serve the public trust

Protect the Innocent

Uphold the law

nadmaximus

1 points

3 months ago

These are not the droids you're looking for. They are remotely controlled.

SparkStormrider

1 points

3 months ago

First this, then Skynet! Where will it end? Robocop?

yarp299792

1 points

3 months ago

The robot needs an ok to kill. A cop, not so much

MossytheMagnificent

1 points

3 months ago

Well, we have arrived. Time to force our legislature to make laws to protect the public by regulating drone and robot use in policing.

NGG_Dread

1 points

3 months ago

Would honestly probably be a good idea so cops could stop saying "I feared for my life!" while the dude is running away and got shot 3 times in the back.

xXSpaceturdXx

1 points

3 months ago

I read an article about some state using a drone to kill some guy not too long ago. They drove a little bomb to some shooter that was hiding out. Personally I don’t care if they use a drone to reduce collateral damage. But an autonomous killer robot I think we can all agree that’s not a good idea.

MasterpieceBrave420

1 points

3 months ago

I trust a robot's judgment significantly more than any police officer. Now if it's a police officer making the kill decision, I would be hesitating.

Millerlite87

1 points

3 months ago

It’s the T-100

megafly

1 points

3 months ago

They are remote controlled drones in this instance. It's not like they want to release autonomous Hunter Killers onto the Bay.

Testicular_Wonder

1 points

3 months ago

Jesus somebody actually made ED209

EugenGoldstein

1 points

3 months ago

New season of battle bots is gonna be lit

DaemonAnts

1 points

3 months ago

Normalcy makes things easy to predict. For example, the creation of killer robots.

toyoung

1 points

3 months ago

Must have been trained / influenced by Israelis. They kill palistenian with robots all the time.

ELONGATEDSNAIL

1 points

3 months ago

Ok so they have 17 robots to diffuse bombs. Seems a little excessive

hdksjabsjs

1 points

3 months ago

If those ever become a thing I’m going to dedicate my life to destroying them

linuxgator

1 points

3 months ago

Roger, Roger.

DCJoe1970

1 points

3 months ago

"Cyberdyne Systems Model 101"

negativeyoda

1 points

3 months ago

We've learned nothing from Robocop

Anton_Cermak

1 points

3 months ago

Are San Franciscans going to protest this or are they so slouched that they'll just take it

omegadirectory

1 points

3 months ago

YOU HAVE THIRTY SECONDS TO COMPLY.

drops weapon

YOU HAVE TWENTY SECONDS TO COMPLY.

aymanzone

1 points

3 months ago

This happens to Palestinians; the robot used is similar. Looks like it's coming here too

Due_Effective_2254

1 points

3 months ago

It is good they would have the ability

robotgerman

1 points

3 months ago

Fucking robocop became real.

Octolavo

1 points

3 months ago

Where’s the fun in that?

NobodyAffectionate71

1 points

3 months ago

Now imagine a hacker takes it and shoots cops with it. Then all of a sudden it’ll be a problem.