Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

missionlocal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 225 posts

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#211

Post by l3uwin »

treeman79 wrote: post #88
wheresmycraisin wrote: post #25

I can't possibly imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea. US police are already over-militarized and under-accountable. We as Americans need to stop worshiping "men in uniform" including all levels of law enforcement and military and hold them to the same standard as any other member of society -- stop giving them everything they want and stop spoiling them when they call us unpatriotic.

I agree that killer robots are a bad idea. Asking a cop to walk into an active shooter situation isn’t great either.

That's a cops job. If they cant do it they shouldn't be a cop.

Case and point, uvalde.

What's to point of arming some fragile white guy who peaked in high-school to the teeth if he's just gonna stand outside and watch kids get shot anyway.

You're telling me that even in an armored car, while wearing bullet proof plates, next to a whole squad of armed and armored dudes, cops still are soooo weak and scared to do their jobs we have to pay for them to have new gun robots?

Fuck that. ACAB

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#212

Post by edanm »

heavyset_go wrote: post #192
Alupis wrote: post #53

Folks - this is not a lethal autonomous robot. This is a remotely controlled bomb disposal robot retrofitted with a gun. A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. This is nothing but a good thing. Nobody cares if a robot is destroyed. A robot will allow everyone time to think and assess the situation before making a snap-judgement we all question later on. This can do nothing but reduce let…

> In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. There are countless examples of cops killing people in situations that were not potentially harmful nor in situations where they were "forced" to make snap judgments. Robots aren't going to fix the problem of cops abusing power or killing people with impunity simply because they can. Turning the killing of real living civilians in…

> Robots aren't going to fix the problem of cops abusing power or killing people with impunity simply because they can.

You're taking a few examples, and conflating it with all cops. Yes, cops that acted badly will still act badly with this.

But that's only some cops! For the ones who wouldn't act badly, this will help.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#213

Post by Bancakes »

wheresmycraisin wrote: post #25

I can't possibly imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea. US police are already over-militarized and under-accountable. We as Americans need to stop worshiping "men in uniform" including all levels of law enforcement and military and hold them to the same standard as any other member of society -- stop giving them everything they want and stop spoiling them when they call us unpatriotic.

People like you can never answer: what do you do when a 6'3 gangster high off PCP runs at you with a knife? What about a 300lb robot doing circles on the highway so you can't safely grab it?

Cops have hands, less lethal, and lethal, because they should deal with different situations properly.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#214

Post by spoils19 »

l3uwin wrote: post #210
spoils19 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do coups not exist?

Name a successful coup of the American government by an armed force

> The military is a tool wielded by the government. They don't go anywhere without being ordered.

I don't see (the United States of) America being referenced at all. Even with the context of the parent comments, it's fairly easy to mistake this typical HN comment as referring to wider in scope at a first reading.

Your sarcasm also isn't in line with the HN commenting guidelines.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#215

Post by eternalban »

eternalban wrote: post #184
chrisweekly wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mixed feelings about involvement of robots at all, but ABSOLUTELY YES the use of NON-LETHAL FORCE is outrageously under-utilized in every kind of policing IRL and as depicted in popular media. Set em on stun, FFS.

I wonder if what is really happening, whether by design or a misaligned universe, is that firms that build these devices are really building for the military, and the thoughtless trend of militarizing police forces is intensifying. Why do I say this? Because the idea to use non-lethal force is frankly obvious and various think tanks were looking at this stuff for years. Ditto concerns over lethal robots. https://www.…

That last cite actually answered my own question:

"The future of robotic policing can now be found in developments within the military.(54) The military has used remote controlled robots for more than a decade.(55) The Department of Defense is preparing for a future in which nearly autonomous robots will play a central role in warfare.(56) Consequently, the military is spending the most money and attention on robotics."

(54). [P.W. Singer, Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (2009)], supra note 20, at 78 (observing that the “military sets the agenda in AI”).

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#216

Post by LightG »

elevaet wrote: post #22
POiNTx wrote: post #6

Isn't this just a remotely controlled gun? If we'd be talking about AI making its own decisions that's a different thing. In addition to this I feel better decisions would be made when the person holding the gun isn't threatened by his or her life.

Step by step, that's where we could end up. Step 1: Remote controlled guns Step 2: Built in AR sighting and suspect identification Step 3: ML powered accuracy enhancement Step 4: AI powered everything, human controller just has to click "Approve Killing" Step 5: AI kill-decision making I'm probably being a bit paranoid, but it's also easy to imagine that kind of scenario.

Paranoid? ... I think you're bring overly optimistic over the medium to long term.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#217

Post by l3uwin »

spoils19 wrote: post #214
l3uwin wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name a successful coup of the American government by an armed force

> The military is a tool wielded by the government. They don't go anywhere without being ordered. I don't see (the United States of) America being referenced at all. Even with the context of the parent comments, it's fairly easy to mistake this typical HN comment as referring to wider in scope at a first reading. Your sarcasm also isn't in line with the HN commenting guidelines.

It's a story about a US police department. Also check the top comment:

> I can't possibly imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea. US police are already over-militarized and under-accountable. We as Americans need to stop worshiping "men in uniform" including all levels of law enforcement and military and hold them to the same standard as any other member of society -- stop giving them everything they want and stop spoiling them when they call us unpatriotic.

Maybe Ctrl + f next time

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#219

Post by seabird »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #174
seabird wrote: post #76

For those who have an issue with this, I have to ask; have you actually thought this through at all? Would it really be preferable to make an officer literally risk their life trying to make the right decision? The will to survive in a situation that's shaping up to be a shootout is going to trump any reprimand or consequence. People generally don't like dying. Removing all risk from the situation for an officer only…

It is. The benefit of officer risking his life is that he/she a literal stake in making a decision. It is not supposed to be an easy job. The moment that officer is plopped down behind a screen, the situation immediately becomes less real. He does not have stakes in the situation, which has benefits ( less officers killed ) and serious drawbacks ( population is policed by unaccountable robots, which does wonders for…

With very few exceptions, anybody in a life threatening (or what they perceive to be a life threatening) situation is going to pick themselves over a person that they don't know and believe is trying to kill them. It is exceedingly hard to train this out of people and the only way to know whether or not you successfully have is to observe them in actual gunfights. I would even go as far to say that the trait is probably concerning from a psychological standpoint and the pool of people you would reliably find it in would raise some eyebrows, too.

Getting an officer's skin in the game doesn't make them think about what they're doing. It results in them deciding in 1-2 seconds that they're in a dangerous situation, and they're going home no matter what. I really don't think you understand what being in a life-or-death situation does to normal, mentally sound people. The idea that officers having time to decide whether or not lethal force is necessary is a bad thing just doesn't make sense.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#220

Post by mattkrause »

mattrick wrote: post #75
eightysixfour wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They used a bomb disposal robot with a pound of C4 attached to stop the Dallas gunman in 2016. People did not like talking about whether it was necessary or not at the time. > Sr. Cpl. Banes said they considered using a .50 caliber rifle to fire at the shooter, which had been successful in a similar attack on police 14 months earlier. However, in that case, the suspect had driven an armored truck into police headquar…

It seems odd to me that a rifle was deemed too dangerous to use in a populated area but a pound of C4 strapped to a robot was acceptable.

It seems odd to me they had a pound of C4 laying around!

I suppose it's a demolition charge for deactivating bombs?

Post reply on HN