Since it is nearly Christmas, that is an effective way to decrease the surplus population.
San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
21–30 of 38 posts
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know remote gun operation with servos and scoped cameras are a thing. You can definitely get or make them yourself. They are legal in the USA at least.
That is a horrifying idea. I figure if a human is operating a "remote gun" the relative psychological impact would be similar why casinos have you bet with poker chips instead of actual cash—you may be more likely to pull the trigger, because the impact won't be as real to you. (I wonder if there's any data or studies around things like this?)
For drone pilots, it's rumored they actually have a lot of PTSD. You may be looking at a screen and ignore the situation now, but for healthy humans, killing someone will ALWAYS come back to haunt you, even if it's entirely justified like in self defense.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know remote gun operation with servos and scoped cameras are a thing. You can definitely get or make them yourself. They are legal in the USA at least.
That is a horrifying idea. I figure if a human is operating a "remote gun" the relative psychological impact would be similar why casinos have you bet with poker chips instead of actual cash—you may be more likely to pull the trigger, because the impact won't be as real to you. (I wonder if there's any data or studies around things like this?)
Not necessarily - PTSD is an issue among drone pilots.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know remote gun operation with servos and scoped cameras are a thing. You can definitely get or make them yourself. They are legal in the USA at least.
That is a horrifying idea. I figure if a human is operating a "remote gun" the relative psychological impact would be similar why casinos have you bet with poker chips instead of actual cash—you may be more likely to pull the trigger, because the impact won't be as real to you. (I wonder if there's any data or studies around things like this?)
To be honest, I think I would be more horrified. There is something surreal and disgusting about the thought of killing in such a way. Similar to the horror of the Rube Goldbergesque devices used in the Saw films. However, if you put it through a filter to make it look like a game and pull and Ender's Game on the user, you may get the psychological distancing you mention.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#25We obviously need the right to have personal lethal combat robots if the state intends to use them against the people. Let's just not go down this road and not give the police the right to use lethal combat robots
Expand the Second Amendment to include personal robot armies
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#26I'm not writing this as an argument for or against lethal-force robots, but I think there is some important context here. When people hear 'police robot' they tend to imagine ED-209 type robots blasting people, but this isn't really the case. Usually police want these robots for 'barricaded suspect' type situations. We have SWAT to deal with this, but entering an area held by armed suspects is still extremely dangero…
I'm pro law and order in general (although not necessarily pro law enforcement, to split hairs), but I want it to be dangerous for law enforcement to take a life. I want it to be something they have to carefully consider. I don't want it to be easy and safe. This is akin to adding more and more padding to football players...they tackle harder and harder and injuries pile up.
The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#27That scene from robocop where the robot kills all the scientists in a demo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZq7fW6ftlU
Anyone who approves lethal force proxy robots should have to run away from the robot and surrender to make sure they really know when a suspect is compliant.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a horrifying idea. I figure if a human is operating a "remote gun" the relative psychological impact would be similar why casinos have you bet with poker chips instead of actual cash—you may be more likely to pull the trigger, because the impact won't be as real to you. (I wonder if there's any data or studies around things like this?)
For drone pilots, it's rumored they actually have a lot of PTSD. You may be looking at a screen and ignore the situation now, but for healthy humans, killing someone will ALWAYS come back to haunt you, even if it's entirely justified like in self defense.
I think that is pretty speculative. I think a large portion on the population would not be haunted by killing others in a wide range of justified situations, particularly when it comes to defending themselves or family from a credible threat.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#29We obviously need the right to have personal lethal combat robots if the state intends to use them against the people. Let's just not go down this road and not give the police the right to use lethal combat robots
I know remote gun operation with servos and scoped cameras are a thing. You can definitely get or make them yourself. They are legal in the USA at least.
This is extremely misleading. In the US, the ATF has stated in past rulings that electronically-fired semi-auto weapons are functionally equivalent to full auto weapons in the case where there is not manual user input per shot. (If there is manual user input per shot, it's not clear from any existing rulings and should be treated as an open question that may get you sent to prison).
Now, the ATF just makes up new rulings all the time and they aren't laws, so "legal" is always a touch fuzzy where the ATF is concerned, but you're probably going to prison for a very, very long time on a weapons charge if you make a remote-activated, electronically-fired semi auto like we're talking about here - the same way you would be if you try to make your own full auto. The exception would be the case where you are legally allowed to manufacture fully automatic weapons because you have an SOT license from the ATF. In the case of the video made in the past few months where some YouTubers mounted a rifle on a Boston Dynamics Spot, one of the YouTubers in question specifically does have an SOT, meaning they can do things that would get normal people sent to prison over an NFA violation.
At the very least, before you do something that destroys your life, call up the ATF and ask them whether what you are about to do is a dangerously bad idea legally.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#30I'm not writing this as an argument for or against lethal-force robots, but I think there is some important context here. When people hear 'police robot' they tend to imagine ED-209 type robots blasting people, but this isn't really the case. Usually police want these robots for 'barricaded suspect' type situations. We have SWAT to deal with this, but entering an area held by armed suspects is still extremely dangero…
I'm pro law and order in general (although not necessarily pro law enforcement, to split hairs), but I want it to be dangerous for law enforcement to take a life. I want it to be something they have to carefully consider. I don't want it to be easy and safe. This is akin to adding more and more padding to football players...they tackle harder and harder and injuries pile up. The easier and safer we make it for law en…
>The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use.
I think the parent post made a compelling counterclaim. The biggest driver of lethal force is to increase office safety.
If someone pulls a gun or looks like they are, the safest solution for the officer is to shoot. Remove the officer risk and there is no reason to use lethal force.
The more officers are at risk, the more they will use lethal force.