[deleted]
San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
41–50 of 90 posts
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#42Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#43There's a hypothesis that the social order of a society depends on the accessibility of the military tech. E.g. in Ancient Greece almost any free citizen could afford to buy the top weapon of the time (an iron or bronze sword) - hence it was very expensive for a dictator to hire a force that could deal with an armed crowd - and this is why they had a democracy. Or a free person in the 13 American colonies could affor…
> a free person in the 13 American colonies could afford a musket or a rifle This view of history needs to account for the nonfree people and how, despite the ambient tech level, they were kept unfree for a century after independence.
Well, they couldn't afford/acquire a musket, which if they could on a wide scale, would probably have effected their freedom.
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#44Is there a way for people to know if those robots with machine guns are controlled by the police or a terrorist mass murderer?
Given what led to the choice of name for BLM, I think the answer is "if they're moving, both".
Even absent all that, I don't think I'd trust either remote fire control nor AI fire control for the stated scenarios.
But, I remember the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, and I wonder what the real story behind this article is?
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cable-controlled bomb disposal robot, sometimes armed with shotgun, was a common feature in Northern Ireland at least 30 years ago. In that situation it's a much simpler technology.
Huh, I never knew they sometimes had shotguns.
Yes, it is a sort of shotgun . . . the idea is to mess up the bomb enough that it will no longer explode (i.e. destroy any timer or other trigger mechanism). It is a very crude, brute force method, but it will generally work, and if all the people have been moved away, it is relatively low risk.
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#46Imagine the robot shoots an innocent person because it misidentified an object as a gun.
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#47The robots’ controllers aren’t under any threat at any time.
Arguably would make it easier to avoid using deadly force. Armed robot vs. barricaded subject with a hostage, the robot could advance with no regard for its own safety and only use deadly force if the attacker goes after any hostages present.
I don't think there's any benefit in that scenario as a well armed, well trained, well equipped swat team would likely take zero damage if sent in in the same situation.
Hostages or no, the desired result is generally no human casualty, perp or otherwise.
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#48Imagine a terrorist cell, which has no leader, no members, no financiers but is able to attack anyway. A DAO hires gig workers to assemble a "product" in a property which it has rented, the product is then programed by the DAO to attack the city it resides in. The DAO having speculated on shares of competitors of companies within the city, moves ever onwards. Terrorism as a software glider gun. Its a major theme in m…
Exponential is usually an adjective applied to processes and progressions. I'm having a hard time parsing the phrase "exponential tech advance". What do you mean?
Unless edited since, the parent comment said "advances" not "advance". A sequence of advances can obviously be exponential, even if they're discrete rather than continuous.
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#49Imagine the robot shoots an innocent person because it misidentified an object as a gun.
"Sorry, software bug, happens"
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#50If these are remote controlled, then there's no danger to the operator in any situation, therefore there should be less reason to require the use of deadly force.
I wonder what the stats are about police needing to draw a weapon to protect someone other than themselves? (Not being facetious, genuinely wondering about the data in order to help form an opinion).