31–40 of 225 posts
Maybe I lack imagination, but it seems like if you have enough control over a situation that you can deploy a police robot instead of charging in, then you have enough control to make non-lethal force a viable option.
You can't bet someone elses life based on how well a taser may or may not work.
LTL is a real dice throw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cops in america already shoot way too many people. Do you think giving them the ability to do that from a remote location is going to help?
I'm not pro gun or even American, but to me it seems a lot of those shootings happen in high stress situations, not in a remotely controlled environment.
EDIT: I mean, anything to avoid reducing the total number of highly lethal weapons currently available to both police and criminals in the US, right? Because that would be unconstitutional or something.
- Police not exposed to deadly situations
- Robots (presumably) equipped with variety of sensors and cameras mitigating misidentification of people or what they’re holding
- Better firing accuracy
- Greater accountability as all actions could be recorded
Cons
- Myriad of possible misuse cases
- Further militarization of police
- Drones on US soil
Maybe I lack imagination, but it seems like if you have enough control over a situation that you can deploy a police robot instead of charging in, then you have enough control to make non-lethal force a viable option.
Exactly, officers can't really say they feared for their lives in such a scenario.
2. Bystanders
3. General public (fleeing violent criminal)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cops in america already shoot way too many people. Do you think giving them the ability to do that from a remote location is going to help?
I'm not pro gun or even American, but to me it seems a lot of those shootings happen in high stress situations, not in a remotely controlled environment.
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.
If you can remotely control a gun, aren't there plenty of less lethal things you can also remotely control to try to diffuse the situation or disarm the person?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not pro gun or even American, but to me it seems a lot of those shootings happen in high stress situations, not in a remotely controlled environment.
A lot of the stress is manifested by the police themselves (which is an issue specifically called out by the "defund the police" movement, e.g., mental health crises when the better path is deescalation by trained mental health workers)
Yeah they stopped going on calls unless cops were present because they kept getting injured or used as hostages.
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.
Cops in america already shoot way too many people. Do you think giving them the ability to do that from a remote location is going to help?
Perhaps military use of drones is a good analogy - although not perfect, since there the goal is often inflicting violence rather than avoiding it. Would be interested to hear from anyone with knowledge.