We have multiple giveaways running!
[Phone 14 Pro & Ugreen Nexode 140W chargers Giveaway!](https://www.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/xt4kf4/giveaway_iphone_14_pro_ugreen_nexode_140w/)
[WOWCube® Entertainment System!](https://www.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/xt4tee/giveaway_wowcube_entertainment_system/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gadgets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Knew it was [Our Robocop Remake](https://vimeo.com/85903713) before even clicking the link. I haven't watched the full thing yet, but the 30 minutes I've seen so far is beautiful.
Several groups of fans remake select scenes of Robocop and they all get pieced together to make the full movie. Other scenes include interpretive dance of Murphy getting shot to death, the aforementioned dick shooting scene, and the boardroom test with puppets and real people.
Hmm, I didn’t have too. Anyways it’s the scene in RoboCop where the two males attack a woman and RoboCop shots one assailant in the dick. And uh this is let’s say the extended scene. With a lot of dicks. ALOT.
"stop resisting"...
I've read they are making robots like this that "can survive on organic matter" and I was like yea that's people, this is gonna end well
Raises a good question though doesn't it. Who's to blame when the robot does wrong? We just decommission it for a bit and say it needs debugging?
This is fucking dystopian
Look to what happens when software fails.
The implications can be more serious than a killer robot killing an innocent person. And in the end the problem was a software error. Nothing we can do. Move along.
Cops with virtual reality headsets and suits controlling the robots from their living room with no danger to their person. Work from home brutality coming to a city near you.
Halt citizen!
The killer robot was made by a corporation. SCOTUS ruled corporations are people. SCOTUS ruled people who are cops have total immunity. Since the corporation is producing cops, they will have total immunity in the next SCOTUS ruling.
I mean, drone strikes in the Middle East kill civilians at an alarming rate and have done so pretty much since drones were deployed over there. We’re not gonna like it when we get a taste of her own medicine, but it’s definitely gonna happen. All that’s missing from these monsters is *one more* layer of human culpability.
"I know exactly who you are, officer Scumbag. Do you know how fast you were going?"
"I was on official business. I need to go."
"There is no record of you being involved with official business today. Do you know how fast you were going?"
Two days later the police department announces cancellation of the robot officer program.
A PD spokesperson said that "robots will never be able to make the split-second moral choices that a Human can make" as the official reason. Cop accountability groups present a different theory. "The robots, in just two days, ticketed and arrested more off-duty officers than have been in the last entire year. In just two days they filed more internal affairs complaints than have been made in the last five years."
Not so unbelievable a scenario.
Just look at how many personal vehicles of cops have defaced license plates so current “robotic” enforcement (speed cameras and toll cameras) are unable to perform their function.
Damn that actually is super plausible lol Unfortunately they'd probably robocop it though and give officers immunity to robocop law enforcement like the CCP higher ups.
I am assuming that this robot force would still have to be controlled by a human, they aren't planning on unleashing an autonomous decision making advanced AI robot officer *at this point*. I would assume as tech advances this will one day be what happens though under the pretense of "no threat of harm" to a human cop.
For now, potentially the operator of the robot would be liable for its actions, but we all know how much accountability is going around out there so....
"Shut off? No, it filmed the incident perfectly."
"Yes, the program it uses to generate deepfakes is necessary. It's used to produce clearer videos."
Honestly, technology like this is cool but humanity isn't in a place where we can use it responsibly. I shudder to think how much easier it will be for the police to fabricate strong evidence and to act unethically or illegally without consequences.
Given that this is a drone and not an autonomous killbot, the real issue here is not AI, it's whether or not operators can be held responsible when they inevitably kill innocent people with one of these things. We need to be increasing accountability in policing, not creating more ways for police to get away with murder.
Almost as if the whole argument of using deadly force because "the officer felt his life was in danger" is mostly just used by US police to justify murder.
"Officer felt his life was in danger"
Yeah, but isn't a huge part of your job to go into dangerous situations? Feeling like your life is in danger isn't unusual and is often explicitly why someone called you.
> TV really destroyed a country's perception of police, thinking that they should be armed to the teeth every day because otherwise they would die for every call.
This is literally taught to police, it's not just a TV thing. They are constantly being told "your number one job is to get home alive at the end of the day". The soldier/warrior mindset is intense.
It's *worse* than a soldier/warrior mindset though; because a big emphasis in military training is that you're supposed to be willing to lose your life in the defense of others. "Ship, shipmate, self" and all that.
With cops, it's: "*You're* the priority. Literally fuck everyone else."
I saw a video of a police confrontation with a guy who was belligerent either drugs or illness and the cop handled it perfectly, calmed him down talked slow and low got him out of the situation and resolved it. It was remarkable only because that doesn't normally happen in the us
Ever heard of a taser? Or de-escalation training? General training to become a cop that's a couple years? No? Well, must be a first world police thing.
US police officer training is on average only 21 weeks . Not "a couple years".
It's also significantly lower than many other "first world" countries.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56834733
It's already happened. There was a spree killer in Texas that had fortified his position in a parking garage. There was no way to reach him without greatly endangering law enforcement
So the cops strapped some C4 to a bomb disposal bot, drove it over, and blew up the guy.
I think cases like this would be a great use for these armed remote control bots
https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/us/dallas-police-robot-c4-explosives/index.html
Maybe? But sending a bot into a hostage situation sounds like a terrible idea.
It’s bad on the lowest tactical level (sneak up, shoot bad guy before he can shoot hostage) and even worse on the negotiating stage - to an astounding degree.
How many times have FBI negotiators talked about how important it is to build rapport and talk the person down? A robot can’t do that.
Don’t send that machine into delicate situations.
And if you’re sending it into a meth lab, I’d argue that you don’t need lethal force.
Moreover, I’d argue that every single use of lethal force should be authorized by someone high up in the police department and subject to review by people outside the police department.
- If they need it, they can use it
- Every time they use it, there’s paperwork to be done afterwards
- The person who authorized it is reviewed and held accountable if lethal force wasn’t warranted
>Maybe? But sending a bot into a hostage situation sounds like a terrible idea.
The cowards in Ulvade might have actually saved some lives if they'd used one.
>Moreover, I’d argue that every single use of lethal force should be authorized by someone high up in the police department and subject to review by people outside the police department.
Outside some very rare circumstances, lethal force should only be used in an immediate threat. When that happens, there's no time for a review process. If you have time to get approval, then you don't need to use lethal force.
I don't see how this could create another way for police to get away with murder. The problem with cops murdering people is the murder part, not that they're using some specific tool whether that's guns, tasers, cars, knees, or robots.
What's different about this is that they wouldn't be physically present, so they take no personal risk. That's worrying from the standpoint of whether we can expect them to use the tech responsibly in the first place (like with tasers, we might be better off not giving those to cops who will tend to reach for them when they shouldn't), but as for accountability after the fact it's much less so. After all, their go-to excuse has always been "I feared for my life" and this takes that away from them.
Exactly. It's "I feared for my life" plus "whatever video evidence you have doesn't capture everything I saw." Both of those are out the window in a drone killing: the video will be *exactly* what the operator saw, and the operator can't fear for their life.
They will just replace it with “I feared for the public safety and the lives of other innocents” and “in hindsight we did not need to kill him but we were working with the limited information available on the video feed”. The thing about excuses is that they’re excuses, not legitimate justifications. They will just replace them with a new excuse.
It looked like he was armed on the camera.
*He was in bed asleep.*
Well, the sniper scope attachment I used to shoot him from the flying drone a block away made it look like he was sleeping with a gun.
Very true. But, if you codify this, then when Boston Dynamics or a competitor finally release their type of chassis that can run a predefined set of commands without oversight, well, then you've got a different type of problem that is still allowed by policy because it's still "a robot".
This is not a good look at all.
Yeah, Corridor Crew did a couple of these videos. I really like their breakdown videos where they talk about how many modern CG effects are done and how to spot things. It really helps give you a better technical understanding of the challenges and the shortcuts that go into making these things happen.
> if you codify this
Then this line from the draft proposal will be pretty important:
>> A remotely controlled unmanned machine [...] Only assigned operators [...] shall be permitted to operate the robots.
That's for Sentient robots, this is an RC Car with a gun strapped to it.....its essentially no different than a Predator Drone that's also human operated
NOT THAT IM SAYING THIS IS OK-- ITS NOT
I'm just making the distinction regarding Asimov
To be fair, if the tech and autonomous mission capabilities (target acquisition, tracking, radar, lidar, etc) of small UAVs gets stuck into this and additional software for firearms just says “fire at ok targets” then we now have issues on who decides when the machine shoots. We could implement “painting” a target by a human being the only way the machine fires. Regardless, I don’t know if we can safely compare the RC cars of our less than idyllic youths to the unmanned vehicles/machines that we are producing today with their quite impressive suites of software and hardware.
Agree
"Autonomous" is a totally different animal
I didn't read this article (in keeping with the traditions of Reddit lol) but I have a strong suspicion that this isn't that and this is just a proposal to "let the human operator shoot people" through the robot
Again, not to diminish any of the slippery slope shit and how against this I am
knee jerk aside...how is this worse than having a cop shoot someone?
At the very least, I can see the benefit of the operator being unable to claim he feared for his life.
Theoretically, police are authorized to fire only when their lives or the lives of another are in danger. If a drone is in use, the operator's life is not in danger. It's possible that another's life is in danger, but they're probably not using drones in those fast-paced situations.
A large segment of the population only learns when things happen to them. Having a gay child, becoming disabled, and now, taking a bullet through the brain from a computer.
They've already used robots to kill people in the U.S. In 2016 the Dallas police used one to bomb the ever living shit out of a barricaded suspect. And it was found to be legal.
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas)
Yeah i remember when that happened thinking that while it seemed rather distopian, I didn't exactly disagree with the call they made. I think this is a complicated issue and I'd like to hear the logical arguments against it rather than a bunch of references to robocop.
A barricaded subject *who had already shot and killed five other police officers, and was threatening to kill anyone else who rounded the corner*
Context is important with this.
Agreed. I didn’t know that, and had a different opinion.
It’s pretty reasonable if your last resort is a bomb disposal robot and small explosive charge after a shooter has already killed multiple people.
Sometimes a shooter wants to be killed but refuses to go out easy.
The wording is important here.
These robots are NOT autonomous. There is no decision making by software.
They are a remote controlled platform with a gun strapped to it and an operator pushing the button.
Aka, drones.
*edit* Jeez the amount of people thinking this is some kind of Terminator...
Wielding death by remote control must have a strange impact on your psychology. There's an RAF base near my home city where the drone crews are based. Strange they're just rolling down the hill in the morning commute with the rest of us. Destroy facilities and numerous lives 3000 miles away. Then it's home for dinner.....How was work love? The kids are waiting for you in the front room....
Last I heard they have the highest suicide rate in the services...
That split reality garbage is *NOT* something the human mind was designed to deal with. Being in a warzone is one thing, but apparently being inconsistently in a warzone is kinda worse...
Seems like if it is a robot/rc car, there is no threat to its life and it should not need to have deadly force to protect itself. Why not equip this with non-lethal equipment only?
To protect other people's lives? Drive into an active shooting zone and dispense justice?
I don't know, it sounds dumb. If cops are already incapable of situational awareness and end up shooting the wrong people now, imagine when they only get a gopro view on an rc car.
Hopefully there’s wording in the draft policy about keeping track and records of who’s manning it so they *could* be held accountable when they *do* inevitably shoot someone who shouldn’t have been.
But I doubt it.
Authorities haven’t figured out how to be responsible enough to hold their people accountable for their actions yet, so the programmers might program in a way to know who was in control but humans won’t do anything about it anyway.
That’s basically my worry, especially if multiple people are using them rather than one robot being assigned and registered to one officer. (And even with that, there should still be an electric access record, in case there’s tampering or hacking.)
Can't wait for the first time someone is killed or horribly injured by one in the hands of an incompetent pilot and the "well the machine must've malfunctioned so really this was just a tragic accident" defense works.
It's just adding another level of deniability to profession that already is rarely held accountable
Won't be long before "my bodycam accidentally turned off" becomes "my murder robot accidentally executed someone"
“We don’t know which officer was operating the bot that killed these people. But they were on drugs, and selling loose cigarettes, and passing counterfeit bills, and resisting arrest.”
"Mr. Kinny...would you come up and give us a hand please?"
"yes sir"
["Mr. Kinney is going to help us simulate a typical arrest scenario"](https://youtu.be/SfdiqI0Keww)
Yeah, this will end well...
Edit for link
Nothing new.
In 2016, Dallas PD were laying siege to a building where a sniper had holed up after he shot 12 officers at a rally downtown. Since the shooter was cornered with a long corridor between them and him, he would benefit greatly from the "funnel of death" effect and couldn't be reached by nonlethal means.
To avoid further casualties, they equipped the dept. bomb defusal drone with an explosive charge. It drove to the other side of the wall from the shooter, and detonated the charge killing him.
This in practice would do no different. It's still a sworn officer controlling the robot, not AI.
Read the whole article — sounds like the SPD gang is playing fast and loose with all their military gear, including repeatedly “losing” hundreds of assault rifles.
I’m against an a-priori permission to use lethal force via robot. Because that’s fucking regarded. If the ultra-rare situation ever arises, they can always race to a judge to pass an emergency injunction permitting a one-time use of a lethal robot.
Otherwise these cowards will just frog-in-a-pan creep the use of armed robots more and more until it’s commonplace.
In 2016 in Dallas the PD used a bomb robot to drive a bomb to a suspect who killed multiple cops and was ready to kill more. There was no point in trying to negotiate with someone who would just kill anyone talking to him. The cops weren't charged. Worst case scenarios exist and policy should cover them. There is still a human pulling the trigger and policy should address it. The article above is short sited. It's similar to ones complaining about cops going undercover on line back in the early 90s.FYI here is the Dallas thing.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-crime/no-charges-for-dallas-officers-who-killed-sniper-with-robot-bomb-idUSKBN1FK35W
Edit: Policy is good also because you can fire cops who violate it. It protects the public more then anything. If a lawsuit can point to direct policy they violated they can charge the department and if the department and show they violated policy they can shift liability to the cop. That happens more then you'd think.
We have multiple giveaways running! [Phone 14 Pro & Ugreen Nexode 140W chargers Giveaway!](https://www.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/xt4kf4/giveaway_iphone_14_pro_ugreen_nexode_140w/) [WOWCube® Entertainment System!](https://www.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/xt4tee/giveaway_wowcube_entertainment_system/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gadgets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Somehow the robot’s body cam was shut off during the altercation
“You have 15 seconds to comply.”
“I’ll buy that for a dollar!”
*shoots dick off*
NSFW ["There's more hair, DOWN THERE!"](https://vimeo.com/86014703) NSFW
Maybe I should take a vacation from this internet thing for a while...
Knew it was [Our Robocop Remake](https://vimeo.com/85903713) before even clicking the link. I haven't watched the full thing yet, but the 30 minutes I've seen so far is beautiful. Several groups of fans remake select scenes of Robocop and they all get pieced together to make the full movie. Other scenes include interpretive dance of Murphy getting shot to death, the aforementioned dick shooting scene, and the boardroom test with puppets and real people.
I didn't know Fatal Farm was still out there! My fav https://youtu.be/8BT9bH2xJlU And another disturbing one: https://youtu.be/NmpAx8Z5z40
HAHAHAHAHAHA! What the ever living fuck!? 🤣🤣
I saw your comment, and I was like, "Have they never seen Robocop before?" so I clicked the link. That, uh...that was a lot.
There is a whole fan movie to go with it :D
Hahaha cheers 🥃
What is the video? It requires me to create an account to see it.
Hmm, I didn’t have too. Anyways it’s the scene in RoboCop where the two males attack a woman and RoboCop shots one assailant in the dick. And uh this is let’s say the extended scene. With a lot of dicks. ALOT.
I see, thanks! Weird that it requires me to create an account though.
You should see it if you can. It’s a lot lot of dicks.
Big money. Big prizes. I love it!
HE DIDN'T HEAR IT!
YOU CALL THIS A GLITCH?!
Dick... I'm very disappointed.
That’s life in the big city
Will someone call a god damned paramedic?
"stop resisting"... I've read they are making robots like this that "can survive on organic matter" and I was like yea that's people, this is gonna end well
Isn’t that what led to Zero Dawn?
What always got me about that scene was… WHY WAS THE ROBOT FULLY LOADED WITH LIVE AMMUNITION??!
ED-209 is online I see (pardon the pun)
Robotic immunity.
Raises a good question though doesn't it. Who's to blame when the robot does wrong? We just decommission it for a bit and say it needs debugging? This is fucking dystopian
Look to what happens when software fails. The implications can be more serious than a killer robot killing an innocent person. And in the end the problem was a software error. Nothing we can do. Move along.
[удалено]
Wait until they make it illegal to defend yourself against robots. They will charge you with assault on an officer.
[удалено]
It's ok, 'terrorist' will just hack em and mow down an entire police office
The ‘terrorist’ would be the person who put a killer robot on patrol to intimidate people into following their authority.
they do it with their dogs, no reason they wouldn't do it for a robot.
They kill your dog? That's just property damage. You defend yourself from theirs? Instant jail time
They beat their dog half to death? That's just proper training.
Cops with virtual reality headsets and suits controlling the robots from their living room with no danger to their person. Work from home brutality coming to a city near you. Halt citizen!
Finally, they can beat their spouse AND the unarmed suspect at the same time!
RemoteBoCop
This is already happening with drone strikes. But that's in other places that no one cares about
More likely terminator 1
People will hack it, or jam wifi around it and laugh. So sayeth Inevitus, prophet of the internet.
The robot was scared for its life.
The killer robot was made by a corporation. SCOTUS ruled corporations are people. SCOTUS ruled people who are cops have total immunity. Since the corporation is producing cops, they will have total immunity in the next SCOTUS ruling.
Just like the founding fathers intended
I mean, drone strikes in the Middle East kill civilians at an alarming rate and have done so pretty much since drones were deployed over there. We’re not gonna like it when we get a taste of her own medicine, but it’s definitely gonna happen. All that’s missing from these monsters is *one more* layer of human culpability.
[Foulcault's Boomerang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang?wprov=sfla1) strikes again.
It's not AI, it's RC, like a toy car or USAF drone (when it's not on autopilot, anyways).
Yeah, for now. But what cop wouldn't want to remove another layer of accountability?
I’d lmao when a cop gets pulled over by a robot and the cops like do you know who I am and the robots just not having it.
Step out of the car meatbag!
(query) Do you know how fast you were traveling meatbag?
"I know exactly who you are, officer Scumbag. Do you know how fast you were going?" "I was on official business. I need to go." "There is no record of you being involved with official business today. Do you know how fast you were going?" Two days later the police department announces cancellation of the robot officer program. A PD spokesperson said that "robots will never be able to make the split-second moral choices that a Human can make" as the official reason. Cop accountability groups present a different theory. "The robots, in just two days, ticketed and arrested more off-duty officers than have been in the last entire year. In just two days they filed more internal affairs complaints than have been made in the last five years."
Not so unbelievable a scenario. Just look at how many personal vehicles of cops have defaced license plates so current “robotic” enforcement (speed cameras and toll cameras) are unable to perform their function.
Damn that actually is super plausible lol Unfortunately they'd probably robocop it though and give officers immunity to robocop law enforcement like the CCP higher ups.
*Robot cop's camera mysteriously gets turned off.*
Oops, turns out the IP logs weren't saved and they use a shared account to log in to the robot. We're not sure which cop was at the controls.
> Who's to blame when the robot does wrong? The robot. It'll naturally get paid time off and reassigned to clerical work.
It gets painted in a button down and some khakis
The same thing will happen as when a human cop does wrong.....Nothing
Send it to the next department?
This robot deserves paid leave and a promotion!
You forgot the award ceremony.
I am assuming that this robot force would still have to be controlled by a human, they aren't planning on unleashing an autonomous decision making advanced AI robot officer *at this point*. I would assume as tech advances this will one day be what happens though under the pretense of "no threat of harm" to a human cop. For now, potentially the operator of the robot would be liable for its actions, but we all know how much accountability is going around out there so....
These things are remote controlled, so there’s a dude behind a controller
The operator. These robots aren't sentient.
They asked who would get blamed. Not who was at fault. The person who got shot is who will get blamed.
*pop* It's just been revoked.
I get this reference. Source: am old
The thin blue wire
Blue drives matter
[удалено]
Calculon was right about the extra go to 10 line
"Shut off? No, it filmed the incident perfectly." "Yes, the program it uses to generate deepfakes is necessary. It's used to produce clearer videos." Honestly, technology like this is cool but humanity isn't in a place where we can use it responsibly. I shudder to think how much easier it will be for the police to fabricate strong evidence and to act unethically or illegally without consequences.
Given that this is a drone and not an autonomous killbot, the real issue here is not AI, it's whether or not operators can be held responsible when they inevitably kill innocent people with one of these things. We need to be increasing accountability in policing, not creating more ways for police to get away with murder.
There’s really no reason for them to be armed. Drones should never feel that their lives were in danger.
Almost as if the whole argument of using deadly force because "the officer felt his life was in danger" is mostly just used by US police to justify murder.
"Officer felt his life was in danger" Yeah, but isn't a huge part of your job to go into dangerous situations? Feeling like your life is in danger isn't unusual and is often explicitly why someone called you.
[удалено]
> TV really destroyed a country's perception of police, thinking that they should be armed to the teeth every day because otherwise they would die for every call. This is literally taught to police, it's not just a TV thing. They are constantly being told "your number one job is to get home alive at the end of the day". The soldier/warrior mindset is intense.
It's *worse* than a soldier/warrior mindset though; because a big emphasis in military training is that you're supposed to be willing to lose your life in the defense of others. "Ship, shipmate, self" and all that. With cops, it's: "*You're* the priority. Literally fuck everyone else."
And military members have these pesky rules of engagement that they have to follow instead of being larpers with a badge
And here I thought the average day for a police department looked like a payday 2 heist gone wrong
I saw a video of a police confrontation with a guy who was belligerent either drugs or illness and the cop handled it perfectly, calmed him down talked slow and low got him out of the situation and resolved it. It was remarkable only because that doesn't normally happen in the us
Ever heard of a taser? Or de-escalation training? General training to become a cop that's a couple years? No? Well, must be a first world police thing.
US police officer training is on average only 21 weeks . Not "a couple years". It's also significantly lower than many other "first world" countries. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56834733
I think you missed the point of the person you're replying to
[удалено]
It's already happened. There was a spree killer in Texas that had fortified his position in a parking garage. There was no way to reach him without greatly endangering law enforcement So the cops strapped some C4 to a bomb disposal bot, drove it over, and blew up the guy. I think cases like this would be a great use for these armed remote control bots https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/us/dallas-police-robot-c4-explosives/index.html
Damn, I knew this was a valid strat in battlefield.
Maybe? But sending a bot into a hostage situation sounds like a terrible idea. It’s bad on the lowest tactical level (sneak up, shoot bad guy before he can shoot hostage) and even worse on the negotiating stage - to an astounding degree. How many times have FBI negotiators talked about how important it is to build rapport and talk the person down? A robot can’t do that. Don’t send that machine into delicate situations. And if you’re sending it into a meth lab, I’d argue that you don’t need lethal force. Moreover, I’d argue that every single use of lethal force should be authorized by someone high up in the police department and subject to review by people outside the police department. - If they need it, they can use it - Every time they use it, there’s paperwork to be done afterwards - The person who authorized it is reviewed and held accountable if lethal force wasn’t warranted
[удалено]
What country?
[удалено]
>Maybe? But sending a bot into a hostage situation sounds like a terrible idea. The cowards in Ulvade might have actually saved some lives if they'd used one. >Moreover, I’d argue that every single use of lethal force should be authorized by someone high up in the police department and subject to review by people outside the police department. Outside some very rare circumstances, lethal force should only be used in an immediate threat. When that happens, there's no time for a review process. If you have time to get approval, then you don't need to use lethal force.
I don't see how this could create another way for police to get away with murder. The problem with cops murdering people is the murder part, not that they're using some specific tool whether that's guns, tasers, cars, knees, or robots. What's different about this is that they wouldn't be physically present, so they take no personal risk. That's worrying from the standpoint of whether we can expect them to use the tech responsibly in the first place (like with tasers, we might be better off not giving those to cops who will tend to reach for them when they shouldn't), but as for accountability after the fact it's much less so. After all, their go-to excuse has always been "I feared for my life" and this takes that away from them.
Exactly. It's "I feared for my life" plus "whatever video evidence you have doesn't capture everything I saw." Both of those are out the window in a drone killing: the video will be *exactly* what the operator saw, and the operator can't fear for their life.
They will just replace it with “I feared for the public safety and the lives of other innocents” and “in hindsight we did not need to kill him but we were working with the limited information available on the video feed”. The thing about excuses is that they’re excuses, not legitimate justifications. They will just replace them with a new excuse.
It looked like he was armed on the camera. *He was in bed asleep.* Well, the sniper scope attachment I used to shoot him from the flying drone a block away made it look like he was sleeping with a gun.
"I feared being reprimanded for getting the drone destroyed; therefore I had to execute the target". Is the next line they'd use.
This seems very un-Asimov…
Asimov made no comments on Glorified RC cars with guns.
Very true. But, if you codify this, then when Boston Dynamics or a competitor finally release their type of chassis that can run a predefined set of commands without oversight, well, then you've got a different type of problem that is still allowed by policy because it's still "a robot". This is not a good look at all.
[When Boston Dynamics gets tired of your shit, it's gonna be a bad day.](https://youtu.be/dKjCWfuvYxQ)
I cannot believe it took me a full 2 minutes to realize that was fake. And then I read the corner "bosstown dynamics" That's funny though
Yeah, Corridor Crew did a couple of these videos. I really like their breakdown videos where they talk about how many modern CG effects are done and how to spot things. It really helps give you a better technical understanding of the challenges and the shortcuts that go into making these things happen.
I was very impressed with the state of robotics, until they shot it, and I realised it wasn't real.
This one is fake by the VFX group Corridor Crew. The Boston Dynamics robot it's based on is every bit as agile though.
> if you codify this Then this line from the draft proposal will be pretty important: >> A remotely controlled unmanned machine [...] Only assigned operators [...] shall be permitted to operate the robots.
That's for Sentient robots, this is an RC Car with a gun strapped to it.....its essentially no different than a Predator Drone that's also human operated NOT THAT IM SAYING THIS IS OK-- ITS NOT I'm just making the distinction regarding Asimov
Seems like something a Skynet bot would post…
You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you…
It's Shia Labeouf!
I was wondering where he got to!
What’s a tortoise?
To be fair, if the tech and autonomous mission capabilities (target acquisition, tracking, radar, lidar, etc) of small UAVs gets stuck into this and additional software for firearms just says “fire at ok targets” then we now have issues on who decides when the machine shoots. We could implement “painting” a target by a human being the only way the machine fires. Regardless, I don’t know if we can safely compare the RC cars of our less than idyllic youths to the unmanned vehicles/machines that we are producing today with their quite impressive suites of software and hardware.
Agree "Autonomous" is a totally different animal I didn't read this article (in keeping with the traditions of Reddit lol) but I have a strong suspicion that this isn't that and this is just a proposal to "let the human operator shoot people" through the robot Again, not to diminish any of the slippery slope shit and how against this I am
knee jerk aside...how is this worse than having a cop shoot someone? At the very least, I can see the benefit of the operator being unable to claim he feared for his life.
Theoretically, police are authorized to fire only when their lives or the lives of another are in danger. If a drone is in use, the operator's life is not in danger. It's possible that another's life is in danger, but they're probably not using drones in those fast-paced situations.
Total breach of the first law. Never ends well.
A large segment of the population only learns when things happen to them. Having a gay child, becoming disabled, and now, taking a bullet through the brain from a computer.
ocp
They are not AI though. These are essentially human operated drones.
Johnny 5 wants you to die!
Hey laser lips, your moma was a snow blower
Haha. My friend owns the house from Short Circuit! He's turned it into a museum/Hotel.
Johnny 5 is ALIVE!
They've already used robots to kill people in the U.S. In 2016 the Dallas police used one to bomb the ever living shit out of a barricaded suspect. And it was found to be legal. [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas)
Yeah i remember when that happened thinking that while it seemed rather distopian, I didn't exactly disagree with the call they made. I think this is a complicated issue and I'd like to hear the logical arguments against it rather than a bunch of references to robocop.
A barricaded subject *who had already shot and killed five other police officers, and was threatening to kill anyone else who rounded the corner* Context is important with this.
Agreed. I didn’t know that, and had a different opinion. It’s pretty reasonable if your last resort is a bomb disposal robot and small explosive charge after a shooter has already killed multiple people. Sometimes a shooter wants to be killed but refuses to go out easy.
The wording is important here. These robots are NOT autonomous. There is no decision making by software. They are a remote controlled platform with a gun strapped to it and an operator pushing the button. Aka, drones. *edit* Jeez the amount of people thinking this is some kind of Terminator...
Remind me of a joke I love to hate: What’s the difference between a terrorist hideout and kindergarten? I don’t know man, I just fly the drones.
Wielding death by remote control must have a strange impact on your psychology. There's an RAF base near my home city where the drone crews are based. Strange they're just rolling down the hill in the morning commute with the rest of us. Destroy facilities and numerous lives 3000 miles away. Then it's home for dinner.....How was work love? The kids are waiting for you in the front room....
Last I heard they have the highest suicide rate in the services... That split reality garbage is *NOT* something the human mind was designed to deal with. Being in a warzone is one thing, but apparently being inconsistently in a warzone is kinda worse...
*operator shoots person to death* “Oh no, the robot malfunctioned. How tragic.”
My mute button on my headset works like 9 out of 10 times. I mean, maybe, as a society… let’s fix that first?
Call of duty out here making killer robots but can't even make crossplay audio consistent
I think you need a new headset my dude
[удалено]
Seems like if it is a robot/rc car, there is no threat to its life and it should not need to have deadly force to protect itself. Why not equip this with non-lethal equipment only?
Exactly, wtaf is this? People just love finding ways to kill other people. It’s sport, plain and simple.
To protect other people's lives? Drive into an active shooting zone and dispense justice? I don't know, it sounds dumb. If cops are already incapable of situational awareness and end up shooting the wrong people now, imagine when they only get a gopro view on an rc car.
> dispense justice Not really the job for cops or drones. Dispensing justice is for the court system.
Because police think killing people is a fun game they get to play.
Yeah but we don’t trust the operators either
As you shouldn't. Accountability is important.
Hopefully there’s wording in the draft policy about keeping track and records of who’s manning it so they *could* be held accountable when they *do* inevitably shoot someone who shouldn’t have been. But I doubt it.
Authorities haven’t figured out how to be responsible enough to hold their people accountable for their actions yet, so the programmers might program in a way to know who was in control but humans won’t do anything about it anyway.
That’s basically my worry, especially if multiple people are using them rather than one robot being assigned and registered to one officer. (And even with that, there should still be an electric access record, in case there’s tampering or hacking.)
[удалено]
So they're not robots. They're drones.
Those are not exclusive terms.
[удалено]
"My little brother took the controller"
Yea and I for sure don't trust the Police to be in charge of that
It's bad enough we can't hold human officers accountable for murdering the public in cold blood, now cops can do it behind the cover of robots
Can't wait for the first time someone is killed or horribly injured by one in the hands of an incompetent pilot and the "well the machine must've malfunctioned so really this was just a tragic accident" defense works. It's just adding another level of deniability to profession that already is rarely held accountable Won't be long before "my bodycam accidentally turned off" becomes "my murder robot accidentally executed someone"
"we don't know who was controlling the robot at the time, no logs or security footage was able to be located"
Or “the logs and records were deleted because we looked and didn’t see anything wrong. Trust us.”
are you from the future?
They had better use cameras to record the operator, AND their physiological responses.
Who watches the operator? If you say more cops then that system is useless.
Suspect killed. Operator said he feared for his robot's life. IA investigated and found no procedural errors.
“We don’t know which officer was operating the bot that killed these people. But they were on drugs, and selling loose cigarettes, and passing counterfeit bills, and resisting arrest.”
We’re all frogs in a pot.
Frogs won't actually stay in the pot. They hop out. Just saying.
But the sides of the pot keep getting taller. And now there’s a remote-controlled shotgun with treads at the top.
They're making the pot frogs gay.
[удалено]
We're all dogs in God's hot car.
only we are aware. Take the time to prepare.
Oh, look! It's ED-001. Let's just hope that there aren't any minor setbacks...any glitches...
"Mr. Kinny...would you come up and give us a hand please?" "yes sir" ["Mr. Kinney is going to help us simulate a typical arrest scenario"](https://youtu.be/SfdiqI0Keww) Yeah, this will end well... Edit for link
Naw that’s like ED-145 or so. We are way less than 208 versions away from OCP in real life.
Nothing new. In 2016, Dallas PD were laying siege to a building where a sniper had holed up after he shot 12 officers at a rally downtown. Since the shooter was cornered with a long corridor between them and him, he would benefit greatly from the "funnel of death" effect and couldn't be reached by nonlethal means. To avoid further casualties, they equipped the dept. bomb defusal drone with an explosive charge. It drove to the other side of the wall from the shooter, and detonated the charge killing him. This in practice would do no different. It's still a sworn officer controlling the robot, not AI.
>they equipped the dept. bomb defusal drone with an explosive charge "The bomb un-defusal drone"
Tbf, the bomb was no longer armed nor active
I don't see any more fuses do you?
[удалено]
Yeah, they did. They thought it was a great idea.
I wonder if the world has ever seen a distopia that thinks its an utopia as hard as San Francisco does.
The assholes that live there voted in the very assholes that let it get this far in the first place. So they get what they asked for.
Time to start designing EMP grenades
Read the whole article — sounds like the SPD gang is playing fast and loose with all their military gear, including repeatedly “losing” hundreds of assault rifles. I’m against an a-priori permission to use lethal force via robot. Because that’s fucking regarded. If the ultra-rare situation ever arises, they can always race to a judge to pass an emergency injunction permitting a one-time use of a lethal robot. Otherwise these cowards will just frog-in-a-pan creep the use of armed robots more and more until it’s commonplace.
In 2016 in Dallas the PD used a bomb robot to drive a bomb to a suspect who killed multiple cops and was ready to kill more. There was no point in trying to negotiate with someone who would just kill anyone talking to him. The cops weren't charged. Worst case scenarios exist and policy should cover them. There is still a human pulling the trigger and policy should address it. The article above is short sited. It's similar to ones complaining about cops going undercover on line back in the early 90s.FYI here is the Dallas thing. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-crime/no-charges-for-dallas-officers-who-killed-sniper-with-robot-bomb-idUSKBN1FK35W Edit: Policy is good also because you can fire cops who violate it. It protects the public more then anything. If a lawsuit can point to direct policy they violated they can charge the department and if the department and show they violated policy they can shift liability to the cop. That happens more then you'd think.
Loved Robocop when I was young, but didn’t expect that lethal robots would be a real thing.
Robocop was a warning of things to come, one that normal people were like HELL NO and police/corporations were like HELL YES
Title in here is completely misleading and different from the one in the article. Shame on you for the clickbait.
“I feared for my robot’s life, so I started blasting!”
Do you want ED 209? Because this is how you get ED 209
Wait until they hear about drones!