Imagine 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…
Fortunately what we have learned is that terrorists at the end of the day are pretty dumb. People capable of doing mass damage are not ones to soccumb to extremist ideology.
San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
61–70 of 90 posts
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#62I despise the tone, wording, and implication of the story and clickbait headline. Verge is tech enough to know it's wrong.
They acknowledge "remotely piloted" in the first sentence. But then, back to drama in the second with "granting robots". Granting implies autonomy and choice where there is neither; granting the officer pilot would be more truthful.
The term bot or robot should be reserved for independently thinking entities. The machine here is just a remote manipulator.
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fortunately what we have learned is that terrorists at the end of the day are pretty dumb. People capable of doing mass damage are not ones to soccumb to extremist ideology.
Not yet, but 100 years from now they'll be a lot more tech savvy. If I look who's capable of using a computer at all to browse the web, it's a lot more people than I'd have predicted in the early 90s
Most people can barely rename a file name, I think we're safe.
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#64Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#65There'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…
You account of history is so wrong and biased I don't even know where to start.
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#66Is this the police version of "Life is hard, let's go shopping!" ? I would think policy makers inside SFPD would be working 24/7 with the politicians in order to bring down the ridiculous amount of crime SF has ( most of it isn't even reported because police now say it outright they wouldn't even bother to respond ). It feels like when I invent things to do when I really don't want to tackle that hard problem..
As the article notes, this clause was the result of policymakers inside SFPD working with politicians to convince them that the categorical ban a supervisor originally proposed wasn’t appropriate.
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#67Full Self Deadliness
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a fan of the film chappie by Blomkamp
Man, I felt the feels for Chappie. Elysium also offered some interesting scenarios on automated policing.
Can you describe some? What I remember from Elysium is: med beds, elite donut world in orbit, corporate dystopian slave earth, exoskeletons.
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#69“Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it works or not.”
Re: San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’
#70Is there a way for people to know if those robots with machine guns are controlled by the police or a terrorist mass murderer?
/var/log/messages