61–70 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Policing is far superior to what it replaced. Previously it was the army, mob rule, or mafia rule (sometimes legally sanctioned like a Lord of an area).
It's 2021 - well into the age of the internet. What relevance has the practices which police ostensibly supplanted to the matter of how we handle public safety post-abolition?
With enough abuse of technological advances, both are only a matter of time.
I hope humanity figures out a peaceful utopia where everyone can be fed with tablets which give all nutrients and are freely distributed, and robots do work so humans don't have to. But looking at human history, I remain sceptical, it looks like the robocop/terminator scenario is more likely. Throughout history, humans have thrived for power and wealth accumulation, by peaceful or violent means.
The day might come where many people will ask "how did we permit this to happen?".
It will likely happen because the politicians , generals etc will say "like this, we don't have to risk human lives".
They might be remote human operated at first, but the push for autonomous beta test will be inevitable.
One bug or vulnerability will make the American police violence today look like a picnic in comparison.
Maybe I am totally wrong, but this is a gut feeling.
How often have proposed limits on police power actually been effected (or effective)? It seems that every year, year after year, and decade after decade police are only ever getting more and more powerful.
On the upside, three states so far have abolished qualified immunity (New Mexico joined the list earlier this year). The first was Colorado in 2020. So there's hope this may spread to other states in the coming years.
It will also take the "life was in danger" aspect away from policing in which people are killed unncessarily. A drone can target a leg of a suspect without having anyones life in danger.
The police are not moral arbiters. They are policy enforcers. So you basically have a robot that has a soul and fears mortality going around right now. This is more dangerous than actually having a robot do the job.
Some police are community protectors but that has gone the way of the dodo bird a long time ago. Especially in big cities.
Here's the "problem": on a worldwide level there are bad actors who will for sure deploy armed robots. Period. So, do we (we = any country in the world) want to be ahead of this technology or behind? Leading or lagging? Because the leaders will have the power to overthrow the laggards, and if history has served us as a teacher, if it MIGH happen (capability) it WILL happen. Add to the mix overpopulation and the relat…
They're about 30 years too late on this one. Police and the FBI have been using EOD robots with shotguns for a long time now and have even killed a few people with them. In a hostage situation or standoff, they'll send in the robot with food or a phone hanging from the arm, which has a Remington semi-automatic shotgun attached to the base. Ruby Ridge is one of the more famous examples.
The primary purpose of that shotgun is IED/UXO disruption, ostensibly. It's unfortunate that the robots have been used as weapons, and that people aren't in prison for it. But I think arming AI-equipped drones specifically to kill is a much more worrisome threat.
I’m less worried about the police doing this than I am rogue nation, groups, and individuals. It’s only a matter of time until Hamas launches an armed, low flying, autonomous drone swarm in the heart of Tel Aviv. The book “Kill Decision” by Daniel Suarez convinced me that we have less to fear from government and more to fear from private actors when it comes to lethal drones. Actually, I’m really surprised it hasn’t…
Drones should be much easier to intercept than rocket / artillery shell attacks which have become significantly less effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome
A lot of anti-drone weapons today are based on the idea of disrupting drone-to-controller comms to force them to return or land, but if you setup your drone on a one-way trip with zero need to communicate to a controller, your countering options get limited pretty quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The primary purpose of that shotgun is IED/UXO disruption, ostensibly. It's unfortunate that the robots have been used as weapons, and that people aren't in prison for it. But I think arming AI-equipped drones specifically to kill is a much more worrisome threat.
I mean, I get that some jargon is clear to those who have an interest in the topic. But how the hell is it acceptable to use sth like "IED/UXO" on an article about ethics? This is so obviously not a well known term (and not searchable). My mind boggles.
how the hell do you expect to understand an article on autonomous drones ethics without knowing that IED/UXO means? It makes obvious that you lack basic knowledge of modern factual landscape in the domain, and how do you expect to understand ethics of the domain without basic factual knowledge of the domain?