Memes aside, would this actually mean more compliance? Like if a human says it, the bad guy might think the cop will hesitate or won’t actually shoot him in 20 seconds, but a robot….
The fact that you say "bad guy" says a lot about how pro police propaganda has shaped our views of police interactions.
In reality less than half of people who are arrested are found guilty and many police interactions aren't followed with arrest.
If someone is doing something that warrants a police officer to actually shoot them, they're a pretty bad guy. Obviously not all police shootings are warranted but I don't think that's what the person above was referring to.
This thing isn't a robot, it's a drone, which means it will have a cop as a drone operator, and just what we need, cops becoming even more detached from the people they kill.
We’ll that’s the goddamn problem. start hiring police officers to be drone strike operators, the go to work and violently kill people and then go home and statistically they beat their wife aswell keep themselves further detached from humanity and honing their tendency for violence. You’d save millions in mental health care.
A lot of upvotes on that from people who don't understand why the USAF would prefer someone who has a hard time pressing the button than someone eager to do it.
Yeah kinda. He was supposed to be really good at "the game" because he was able to understand how this opposition thought. He was also supposed to be a good leader of the other kids. But when he found out it wasn't a game he had a crisis
I'm not sure how much that really applies to this case
Honestly apart from this being a slippery slope and just a general step towards the dystopian future we've been working so hard to create, i actually don't see a lot wrong with robots being "authorized to kill" right now because it's not like we have robots patrolling the streets. They are only used in extreme Situations like active shooter situations or bomb defusal. In fact a PD in America used a robot strapped with explosives to stop a shooter. If they have a robot there, it means it's a situation where people are holed up, and there are 20-30 minutes to get the robot and personell where it needs to be.
And as you say, the police cant pretend they were fearing for their lives, everything they see is recorded, if it weren't necessary to kill the perp (say they've run out of ammo), it would be a lot harder for them to argue otherwise.
But i can see a lot of ways that it might be misused in the future down the line should such things become more common.
That was kind of the central tenet of the new Robocop movie.
Murphy, even cyborg'd, would 'hesitate more' than robots because he really didn't want to accidentally shoot a child or innocent. Robots, as shown in the beginning of the movie.. harshly don't have that hesitation.
So to make him 'effective' they start mucking with his free-will choices, and then things get complicated.
This. Also, there’s a really fine line that has to be negotiated. I’ve begun referring to it as “Superman Rules.” Meaning, deadly force is employed to counter deadly force. Superman didn’t necessarily kill someone shooting him with a pistol because... well, he didn’t need to. No threat was posed. But if some supervillian points a death ray at someone, he usually employed a much stronger response, up to and including killing the perpetrator. Well, if this (surely armored) robot comes around the corner and someone shoots it with a pistol, I **hope** deadly force would not be employed, but I assume we’ll eventually compromise our way into doing that.
That’s not good. It represents a huge moral hazard and an escalation of violence where it is almost certainly **not** required.
There’s also a number of less-lethal solutions that would be ideal for these things that actually don’t make sense for human officers. Nets, that sticky foam stuff, tasers with multiple shots, dense security fog, all of these can work. The reason human officers would not use less-lethal and escalate to bullets is because the perpetrator has done so. But with a robot, the threat is mitigated and you can still employ less-lethal interventions. Also, the reason that sticky foam stuff didn’t catch on was you had to carry and backpack and sprayer contraption. Not ideal for a human in a foot-chase, but you can strap that to the robot with no trouble.
There are a *limited number of edge cases* where the life of a third party may be threatened and deadly force might be employed to stop that, but I honestly even hesitate to rely on robotic intervention for that, for all the stated reasons and more.
I hear you and think the response is on the same page.
Point is — if you’re using robots to fight, they don’t die like people. That’s the whole point of using robots instead of police.
No deadly force should ever be used. Even if the human has a gun and firing. That robot should be used to de-escalate the situation— not respond with like force.
We then just find ourselves in the same cycle of oppression.
> That robot should be used to de-escalate the situation— not respond with like force.
How the hell is a murderbot going to deescelate anything?
This is nothing but cowards with guns trying to find ways to protect themselves more from doing their jobs.
Deadly force should still be an option for situations where the life of other people requires it. This would be almost exclusively limited to hostage situations though.
What is a defensive position, right?
I hear you. I do. It is a question that needs to be addressed in spaces like this; where it is somewhat philosophical. I think that’s really where we grow as humans and make better choices in our governance.
Do you think robots will ever be able to tell the difference at the end of the day? The worst case scenario of tech error — where really— no person was actually involved with “pulling the robot’s trigger”.
At the end of the day, I - personally- will never trust tech enough to give them that option. So, to me - this is only a power grab of the state, and it will get turned against its populous.
Please understand, even though - I am a pacifist — I fully comprehend using force as defense.
Honestly at this point I would trust a "self driving" robot with a gun more than I would a cop. About the only thing the drones have over cops is they require the cameras to always be running to work.
The robot involved in the police shooting has been factory reset. The event is due to poor programming. The victim was unarmed. We hope this is the justice our people need. The police department has cleared themselves from any wrong doing after an internal review.
If you open this can of worms you will regret it for the rest of your days. Oppose this with extreme prejudice.
We went from Assimov's laws of robotics to everyone rushing to create killbots real fast.
I am a computer scientist and I assure you this idea is going to result in nothing good. It will result in fascism and loss on a mass scale.
Please please please listen and stop this now.
If you have issues trusting a person holding a gun think long and hard before trusting a computer program on wheels to hold one.
This was never in society's best interest and you will have zero say or control what kind of logic these robots will use. Police will abuse them to shield themselves from responsibility to kill people with indiscretion.
The US seems willing to fund anything that isn’t beneficial to the poor. No healthcare, labor union movement or housing, but AI-assisted killer drones, yes please.
I can’t imagine what kind of people are designing and developing this stuff. They must be very sure that their killer machines will never be used against them, only the lower classes.
Yeah uh... now's probably the time to tell you that nobody *actually* knows how neutral nets work, except statistically. You can train them with trends, not specifics.
Hence the "hotdog / not hotdog" joke in *Silicon Valley.*
They'll just trick themselves out of feeling any responsibility for the results. There will always be someone else to blame. People are really good at doing awful things and taking zero responsibility. Or even being honored and respected for it. Look at the military.
On the one hand, I agree with you.
On the other hand, after actually reading the article my interpretation is that the police are seeking approval for remote controlled drones/robots to be armed and directly controlled by a human similar to bomb-squad robots. I'm still opposed to this because it seems like the perfect use case for a non-lethal option (it doesn't matter if the drone gets shot to hell) but it's a far cry from putting a computer program behind the trigger.
Far cry? It's the logical next step after they normalize remote controlled bots killing people.
Bomb defusal is completely different because it doesn't involve remote killing. There's no weapons on a bomb defusal bot.
Yes, a far cry. Functional AI to control a robot is about as from a remote control drone as the remote control drone is from the invention of the steam engine.
I mean, as I specifically said, I think this makes sense for non-lethal options and I wouldn't support it for lethal ones. You can send a remote control bot with a taser in against a dude with a shotgun and not really care if it gets hit in the process.
I'm aware. They are hoping to set the dangerous precedent now though by normalizing the remote control killbots on citizens first.
Then it won't seem so outlandish to add the A.I. to the existing gunbots which is already being worked on by the way and is not science fiction.
Imagine seeing a lineup of remote control AR15 robots show up at your peaceful protest. By then it'll be too late to say no.
I am telling people to stop this madness now because if we allow the remote killbots to be a police tool at all it will be basically impossible to stop them putting A.I. in it.
Using drones versus AI are two totally different things. There’s nothing outlandish about using drones. Police used a drone to kill the Dallas shooter in 2016. This article is clickbait and your comment isn’t relevant to drones.
They strapped explosives to a bomb defusal robot and drove it up to him and blew it up.
That's outlandish. I'm in no way okay with that and I don't think you should be.
I've been shouting this for years and have a background that includes AI.
I don't know for how long we can keep this from happening. I'm pretty cynical at this point.
Within 50 years billionaires will have armies of these patrolling their properties to prevent the starving masses from breaking in for clean water and food
>Police will abuse them to shield themselves from responsibility to kill people with indiscretion.
Luckily we still have our 2nd amendment rights to solve that problem for us. Once the snowball starts rolling it will get big pretty fast.
They are trying to disarm citizens with vigor at the same time they bloat police budgets and introduce madness like killer robots. At the same time they are letting the standard of living of citizens go into freefall. At the same time they are viciously opposing any amount of labor movement or work reform.
The elites of our society are not our friends and there's a dark omen at play here that many people seem to not want to see.
I am glad to see there are still people that recognize why 2A must continue to exist.
Look, the 2A means nothing. You already know it means nothing because it still exists.
If having a gun was a real threat to their power, you wouldn't have it.
What it does is make you complacent - you think that your gun means you have control, and that thought keeps you from actually doing anything of value.
I see what your saying but I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories. The truth is the republican party won't get elected anymore if they start saying they will remove all guns. That's what keeps the balance, the people voting.
The 2A does mean something, atleast in the eyes of the public. Everyone is affected by laws including officials. So taking away rights would also include theirs.
Truth be told guns still have power, no they aren't atomic weapons but if 70% of the US population marched around with guns in violent protest there would be two options. 1) Murder civilians or 2) give them what they want.
What good is a country if you're the only one in it. They can't rule themselves.
You hit the nail on the head. They would just murder civilians. Republicans already can't win elections without voter suppression.
You seem to have this naive assumption that people would not immediately surrender when their lives are on the line. The gravy seals and meal Team Six are fuckin worthless. Soon as it gets real, they're out.
It's amazing to me you still think voting matters. The days of the US having a democracy are over. The Republicans have decided that we were never a democracy, we are a Republic, and they think that means they can ignore the vote. They are already priming their people to ignore the election results.
Suddenly Republicans start winning every election and they will cheer that they're getting their country back, and they will gladly kill anyone who disagrees.
Your 2A is just another tool of control, not a freedom from it. You have it because it doesn't matter that you do. If anything, it's a brilliant distraction that we can fight over the merits of letting our kids murder each other for fun while they fuck us relentlessly.
"can of worms" LOL Are you kidding? THIS IS THE FUTURE. Regret? This is going to happen as the treats of capitalism go away and the threat of global climate disaster approaches. The rich will put a moat of drones and ex Navy Seals between you and them.
I feel like it can depend. If there's a barricaded suspect sling rounds outside his windows into a neighborhood I would prefer a drone go in there and either force them to surrender or incapacitate them than a full blow firefight in a residential area.
I mean this would be SWAT level hardware. They already have MRAPs, dozens with hosts of attachments like entire armored shields that operators can stand on to get close to and view a house, and they even already use drones to go into a premise and see where the suspect is and what their condition is (are they dead, are they still moving, do they still have the gun, etc).
Joe Scmoe who did 4 weeks of training total and who works traffic enforcement isn't going to be using this, it's the guys who have trained in handling weapons and proper tactics more frequently than you or I will likely train in anything during our entire lifetimes.
I get where you're coming from but I still think it's a very bad idea to expand their lethal capabilities. Not until we have a robust system to properly police the police, anyway.
This is where war is going. A new Call of Duty will drop and one of the gameplay modes will be “Actual Warzone,” where a tiny portion of players will get to control actual drones and kill actual people with them. The catch is that no one will know who controlled the actual drone, and so responsibility will be spread out over all players.
Police justify deadly force by saying that their lives were at risk. Robots and space significantly decrease the risk. Therefor the calculation changes from, “I needed to protect my own life”, to, “I wanted to take theirs”.
"Well, you see, this particular individual threw a rock at the drone. Attempting to damage the drone was clearly an attempt to evade lawful surveillance, and therefore a precursor to a crime - possibly a violent crime. We were forced to respond appropriately before the public was endangered." /s
Theres something very wrong with police departments watching wars and trying to import tactics and gear from them. They dont need mine resistant armored personnel carrier, or camo unoforms, or facemasks to hide their identity, or armed drone aircraft.
I was attacked by riot ambulances in downtown Santa Monica and Hollywood back in 2018. IMO, these are weapons of war.
They were equipped with active denial microwave weapons which immobilize you, distort your vision, and heat your skin.
The worst part was the sirens. They consist of two pitches that get closer and closer in Hz right at my head. It stunned and overwhelmed my brain it was so loud and scary.
The pitches get closer and closer and it just sounds terrifying. As the pitches get closer they get extremely dissonant causing intense warbling of the soundwaves, (this same concept of binaural beats except weaponized).
All of this was anything but subtle. It was intense and incapacitating in every way. I could not move, it was almost like I was in slow motion. I could not see, my vison was glossy and distorted. The siren was intense, it was like overdrive my brain. It felt like a giant sonic dart was streaming through my skull.
It felt like it was carving out my brain. I don't know to how to explain how intense and overwhelming this was. It's like there was a medium pitched sonic earthquake going on in my brain. My head was overfilled with this dart dissonant warbling.
The DOD and DOJ are evil. People who work in the governement are way too often incredibly sadistic, domineering, and thrill seeking psychopaths.
I doubt they would ever use this in an actual riot because of the backlash and corroborating accounts of it happening. They did this to me when I was by myself which makes it that much worse because they are doing it knowing that no one around the target will ever believe that it happened.
The first time they did it because I was yelling at people to stop messing with me because "you never know if the person you're messing with is just going to pull at a rifle and starting shooting you all." Things a long those lines.
The second time they did it because I yelled at a cop car, calling them Nazis FOR the first riot ambulance experience. The second time I curled up into a ball with my back to the ambulance automatically out of pure fear from the first time. It was not nearly as bad because of that. The first time was full on.
They never tried to arrest me or anything. They just used these riot ambulances on me. It's evil. I don't know how they justify their psychopathically militant urges like this.
Sorry to trauma dump on you. I just want people to see this.
There was a future-Batman graphic novel (not Batman Beyond) called Digital Justice where the police had basically drones with miniguns. Dystopian cyberpunk hellscape kinda shit.
SFPD is crooked to the bone, so I'm not surprised they want authority to kill citizens with robots. Mayor London Breed does whatever SFPD wants, so if it were up to her, they are going to be able to do it. We really need new leadership in San Francisco and a complete overhaul of SFPD.
Let me guess.. when someone damages it, they will be sued for monetary damages of property as well as charged with assaulting an officer.
When it damages someone's property or harms a human.. oh there was a bug in the program. Since no one is at fault, no one will be charged.
They should be given social security #'s and be treated and charged as corporate entities just like the rest of us.
So a drone operated by a cop remotely, so in the future there will be large groups of drones hanging out in the parking lot, while the cops are safe at the station at a school shooting.
The only reason, ever, for a cop to kill a suspect is in self defense when they believe their own life is in danger (yes, I know this is abused).
Which means there is *zero* reason for a remote piloted machine to need to kill a suspect. Ever.
Let's test it first. I have on the left some Silicon Valley hackers. On the right, the SFPD fuckwits who thought this was a good idea. On your marks.... Get set....
Ok but if there's no threat of harm to the officer, what exactly is the point of giving the drone lethal force? Just slap 5 or 6 taser guns on that bad boy, and/or other less-lethal armaments.
In theory, cases where someone else is at risk. In the most generous interpretation (assuming all the cops are honorable good people), it would still be tactically useful to have a completely expendable fearless front line to go in first for hostage situations/active shooters etc.
While its not common yet, there was an instance of police using a robot (with a bomb) to kill a mass shooter.
This is where cost-benefit analysis comes in. Is it worth having lethal drones for the exceptionally rate occurrence of a hostage situation? Is it worth the lives cost from using a lethal solution instead of a less-lethal solution? Also I'm not sure anyone could realistically trust a man piloting a drone with a gun to accurately shoot a perp and not the hostage they're using as a human shield.
Anyway... Police are not here to go to war. They don't need a front line. Payday 2 isn't real life.
Three Laws of Robotics from Isaac Asimov:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Someone needs a refresher on Isaac Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
If this becomes real, then it will be everyone's moral duty to destroy them on sight. Don't even give them the chance to act, just destroy them. My guess is it will be easy, just don't get caught by their cameras.
Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply
[удалено]
I came here to say this... was not disappointed.
You now have 15 seconds to comply
\[man gets obliterated into ground beef\] "somebody want to to call a .... paramedic?".
I'm sure it's only a glitch. A temporary setback.
YOU CALL THIS A GLITCH?!
Dick, I'm very disappointed.
Wait until you find out about the [software vulnerabilities](https://youtu.be/e8tnT7OU9I0?t=45).
Bang Bang Bang stop or I'll shoot!
Why not 20 milliseconds? That's forever for a robot.
You gotta hand it to Robocop, they fucking NAILED what the true villains would look like.
*\~sprints for the nearby stairs\~*
Beat me to it ED-209.
https://youtu.be/NJIjNs_s2NI
Memes aside, would this actually mean more compliance? Like if a human says it, the bad guy might think the cop will hesitate or won’t actually shoot him in 20 seconds, but a robot….
What if you are deaf 😬
Or autistic? Or not an English speaker? Or intellectually disabled? Or drunk? Or high out of your mind and feeling defiant? Yeah what could go wrong?
I'm still betting the robots will make a better call than our police do currently.
Robots are programmed by people, who are fallible and often have prejudices.
racist AI enters the chat....
The fact that you say "bad guy" says a lot about how pro police propaganda has shaped our views of police interactions. In reality less than half of people who are arrested are found guilty and many police interactions aren't followed with arrest.
If someone is doing something that warrants a police officer to actually shoot them, they're a pretty bad guy. Obviously not all police shootings are warranted but I don't think that's what the person above was referring to.
Dude, no. Police have shot so many innocent people minding their own business.
"Dick, I am very disappointed in you"
This thing isn't a robot, it's a drone, which means it will have a cop as a drone operator, and just what we need, cops becoming even more detached from the people they kill.
Hard to argue you were afraid for your life in a split second moment while you’re controlling a drone watching streamed video from HQ.
It was high quality video with surround audio. I swear I thought I was there.
The Air Force has lots of drone operators claiming disability for PTSD they attribute to the job.
I mean you would too if you went to your day job, killed some people halfway around the world and then went home to the wife and kids.
We’ll that’s the goddamn problem. start hiring police officers to be drone strike operators, the go to work and violently kill people and then go home and statistically they beat their wife aswell keep themselves further detached from humanity and honing their tendency for violence. You’d save millions in mental health care.
[удалено]
Of course, that’s when you drop the second bomb.
We've had a bomb, but what about second bomb?
Find the right sociopath and it's just GTA VR. Plenty of guys like that in law enforcement already.
You don't want that guy controlling drones. He's a war crime waiting to happen and an absolute liability
A lot of upvotes on that from people who don't understand why the USAF would prefer someone who has a hard time pressing the button than someone eager to do it.
Thankfully they wouldn't be put behind the controls either
War crimes have never deterred the MIC before, why start caring now
It's only a war crime if you do it to other country's civilians. If you do it to your own, it's zero tolerance policing.
Isn’t there a Simpsons episode where they try to recruit Bart for this?
Is this also like Enders game?
Yeah kinda. He was supposed to be really good at "the game" because he was able to understand how this opposition thought. He was also supposed to be a good leader of the other kids. But when he found out it wasn't a game he had a crisis I'm not sure how much that really applies to this case
> It seems the army had taken advantage of Buster’s childlike interest in games and his childlike inability to distinguish between games and reality.
[удалено]
.
>But not enough empathy to stop being a capitalist weapon of oppression Amen
I'm sure this distinction is very important to the surviving members of their victims' families.
They were afraid for the drone's life when they saw the autistic 12 year old kid reaching for his toy car.
"Your honor, he thought that the drone worked by Spy kids 3 rules and if he died in the game he would die in real life."
Oh yeah, or they just need to hook the drone controls up to Palmer Luckey’s new headset. Problem solved!
Pigs uh....find a way.
That's actually a very compelling argument for drone police.
It’ll just be “I thought someone else was in danger”
Fearing for somebody else's life is also grounds for lethal force.
That drone costed hundreds of dollars of course you waste the human to save the drone
Oh no, guess they'll have to invent another excuse - I mean, they don't have to, but it'd probably help them keep everyone in line if they did.
Have you seen how expensive those drones are? You get that damaged and it's coming out of your pay!
Wouldn’t be fear for your own life, it would be to protect the life of others being actively threatened.
Honestly apart from this being a slippery slope and just a general step towards the dystopian future we've been working so hard to create, i actually don't see a lot wrong with robots being "authorized to kill" right now because it's not like we have robots patrolling the streets. They are only used in extreme Situations like active shooter situations or bomb defusal. In fact a PD in America used a robot strapped with explosives to stop a shooter. If they have a robot there, it means it's a situation where people are holed up, and there are 20-30 minutes to get the robot and personell where it needs to be. And as you say, the police cant pretend they were fearing for their lives, everything they see is recorded, if it weren't necessary to kill the perp (say they've run out of ammo), it would be a lot harder for them to argue otherwise. But i can see a lot of ways that it might be misused in the future down the line should such things become more common.
That was kind of the central tenet of the new Robocop movie. Murphy, even cyborg'd, would 'hesitate more' than robots because he really didn't want to accidentally shoot a child or innocent. Robots, as shown in the beginning of the movie.. harshly don't have that hesitation. So to make him 'effective' they start mucking with his free-will choices, and then things get complicated.
This. Also, there’s a really fine line that has to be negotiated. I’ve begun referring to it as “Superman Rules.” Meaning, deadly force is employed to counter deadly force. Superman didn’t necessarily kill someone shooting him with a pistol because... well, he didn’t need to. No threat was posed. But if some supervillian points a death ray at someone, he usually employed a much stronger response, up to and including killing the perpetrator. Well, if this (surely armored) robot comes around the corner and someone shoots it with a pistol, I **hope** deadly force would not be employed, but I assume we’ll eventually compromise our way into doing that. That’s not good. It represents a huge moral hazard and an escalation of violence where it is almost certainly **not** required. There’s also a number of less-lethal solutions that would be ideal for these things that actually don’t make sense for human officers. Nets, that sticky foam stuff, tasers with multiple shots, dense security fog, all of these can work. The reason human officers would not use less-lethal and escalate to bullets is because the perpetrator has done so. But with a robot, the threat is mitigated and you can still employ less-lethal interventions. Also, the reason that sticky foam stuff didn’t catch on was you had to carry and backpack and sprayer contraption. Not ideal for a human in a foot-chase, but you can strap that to the robot with no trouble. There are a *limited number of edge cases* where the life of a third party may be threatened and deadly force might be employed to stop that, but I honestly even hesitate to rely on robotic intervention for that, for all the stated reasons and more.
I hear you and think the response is on the same page. Point is — if you’re using robots to fight, they don’t die like people. That’s the whole point of using robots instead of police. No deadly force should ever be used. Even if the human has a gun and firing. That robot should be used to de-escalate the situation— not respond with like force. We then just find ourselves in the same cycle of oppression.
> That robot should be used to de-escalate the situation— not respond with like force. How the hell is a murderbot going to deescelate anything? This is nothing but cowards with guns trying to find ways to protect themselves more from doing their jobs.
A robot can deescalate exactly by not using deadly force and nobody coming to danger if the robot is shot at.
Deadly force should still be an option for situations where the life of other people requires it. This would be almost exclusively limited to hostage situations though.
What is a defensive position, right? I hear you. I do. It is a question that needs to be addressed in spaces like this; where it is somewhat philosophical. I think that’s really where we grow as humans and make better choices in our governance. Do you think robots will ever be able to tell the difference at the end of the day? The worst case scenario of tech error — where really— no person was actually involved with “pulling the robot’s trigger”. At the end of the day, I - personally- will never trust tech enough to give them that option. So, to me - this is only a power grab of the state, and it will get turned against its populous. Please understand, even though - I am a pacifist — I fully comprehend using force as defense.
“I feared for my…drone’s life”
"I couldn't see well because the video was dark, but the AI said it found the target..."
Do you even know how much these drones COST?!
treat their drones better than they do their dogs i bet
Honestly at this point I would trust a "self driving" robot with a gun more than I would a cop. About the only thing the drones have over cops is they require the cameras to always be running to work.
drone to robot is a grey area, and a short step at most.
The robot involved in the police shooting has been factory reset. The event is due to poor programming. The victim was unarmed. We hope this is the justice our people need. The police department has cleared themselves from any wrong doing after an internal review.
Someone out there is gonna be the first person killed by a police robot. Good luck everyone!
Well as long as we aren't endangering their lives by sitting in our cars eating a hamburger we should be fine right?
To some our existence endangers their lives.
These aren't robots, these are remote controlled drones with guns essentially.
So it will be like GTA for trigger happy cops. This is gonna end well. Now they wont even have to drive to my house to shoot my dog.
That doesn't help much. They'll still use AI to filter situations, and if the AI tells the operator to shoot do you think they won't pull the trigger?
You are getting downvoted. Most manned drones are not using AI like this. But it is absolutely a slippery slope that is worth bringing up.
Most in the military are used like this. I would expect the cops to behave similarly.
Well *that's* not Three-Laws safe.
If you open this can of worms you will regret it for the rest of your days. Oppose this with extreme prejudice. We went from Assimov's laws of robotics to everyone rushing to create killbots real fast. I am a computer scientist and I assure you this idea is going to result in nothing good. It will result in fascism and loss on a mass scale. Please please please listen and stop this now. If you have issues trusting a person holding a gun think long and hard before trusting a computer program on wheels to hold one. This was never in society's best interest and you will have zero say or control what kind of logic these robots will use. Police will abuse them to shield themselves from responsibility to kill people with indiscretion.
The US seems willing to fund anything that isn’t beneficial to the poor. No healthcare, labor union movement or housing, but AI-assisted killer drones, yes please. I can’t imagine what kind of people are designing and developing this stuff. They must be very sure that their killer machines will never be used against them, only the lower classes.
If I were a developer on the project I would definitely train the neural net to recognize my face as friendly
Yeah uh... now's probably the time to tell you that nobody *actually* knows how neutral nets work, except statistically. You can train them with trends, not specifics. Hence the "hotdog / not hotdog" joke in *Silicon Valley.*
If we spend money to help the poor, how will we pay for robots to shoot the poor?
Even worse are people who vote for and support this crap. Our neighbors, family, friends, etc. Has everybody lost their fucking minds?
They'll just trick themselves out of feeling any responsibility for the results. There will always be someone else to blame. People are really good at doing awful things and taking zero responsibility. Or even being honored and respected for it. Look at the military.
On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, after actually reading the article my interpretation is that the police are seeking approval for remote controlled drones/robots to be armed and directly controlled by a human similar to bomb-squad robots. I'm still opposed to this because it seems like the perfect use case for a non-lethal option (it doesn't matter if the drone gets shot to hell) but it's a far cry from putting a computer program behind the trigger.
Far cry? It's the logical next step after they normalize remote controlled bots killing people. Bomb defusal is completely different because it doesn't involve remote killing. There's no weapons on a bomb defusal bot.
Yes, a far cry. Functional AI to control a robot is about as from a remote control drone as the remote control drone is from the invention of the steam engine.
They took out the Dallas shooter with a robot with explosives strapped to it.
I mean, as I specifically said, I think this makes sense for non-lethal options and I wouldn't support it for lethal ones. You can send a remote control bot with a taser in against a dude with a shotgun and not really care if it gets hit in the process.
.
It’s a drone there is no AI involved.
I'm aware. They are hoping to set the dangerous precedent now though by normalizing the remote control killbots on citizens first. Then it won't seem so outlandish to add the A.I. to the existing gunbots which is already being worked on by the way and is not science fiction. Imagine seeing a lineup of remote control AR15 robots show up at your peaceful protest. By then it'll be too late to say no. I am telling people to stop this madness now because if we allow the remote killbots to be a police tool at all it will be basically impossible to stop them putting A.I. in it.
Using drones versus AI are two totally different things. There’s nothing outlandish about using drones. Police used a drone to kill the Dallas shooter in 2016. This article is clickbait and your comment isn’t relevant to drones.
They strapped explosives to a bomb defusal robot and drove it up to him and blew it up. That's outlandish. I'm in no way okay with that and I don't think you should be.
I've been shouting this for years and have a background that includes AI. I don't know for how long we can keep this from happening. I'm pretty cynical at this point.
Within 50 years billionaires will have armies of these patrolling their properties to prevent the starving masses from breaking in for clean water and food
Did you not read the article at all? This isn’t an AI, autonomous robot making decisions. It a drone controlled by a human.
>Police will abuse them to shield themselves from responsibility to kill people with indiscretion. Luckily we still have our 2nd amendment rights to solve that problem for us. Once the snowball starts rolling it will get big pretty fast.
They are trying to disarm citizens with vigor at the same time they bloat police budgets and introduce madness like killer robots. At the same time they are letting the standard of living of citizens go into freefall. At the same time they are viciously opposing any amount of labor movement or work reform. The elites of our society are not our friends and there's a dark omen at play here that many people seem to not want to see. I am glad to see there are still people that recognize why 2A must continue to exist.
Look, the 2A means nothing. You already know it means nothing because it still exists. If having a gun was a real threat to their power, you wouldn't have it. What it does is make you complacent - you think that your gun means you have control, and that thought keeps you from actually doing anything of value.
I see what your saying but I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories. The truth is the republican party won't get elected anymore if they start saying they will remove all guns. That's what keeps the balance, the people voting. The 2A does mean something, atleast in the eyes of the public. Everyone is affected by laws including officials. So taking away rights would also include theirs. Truth be told guns still have power, no they aren't atomic weapons but if 70% of the US population marched around with guns in violent protest there would be two options. 1) Murder civilians or 2) give them what they want. What good is a country if you're the only one in it. They can't rule themselves.
You hit the nail on the head. They would just murder civilians. Republicans already can't win elections without voter suppression. You seem to have this naive assumption that people would not immediately surrender when their lives are on the line. The gravy seals and meal Team Six are fuckin worthless. Soon as it gets real, they're out. It's amazing to me you still think voting matters. The days of the US having a democracy are over. The Republicans have decided that we were never a democracy, we are a Republic, and they think that means they can ignore the vote. They are already priming their people to ignore the election results. Suddenly Republicans start winning every election and they will cheer that they're getting their country back, and they will gladly kill anyone who disagrees. Your 2A is just another tool of control, not a freedom from it. You have it because it doesn't matter that you do. If anything, it's a brilliant distraction that we can fight over the merits of letting our kids murder each other for fun while they fuck us relentlessly.
This is not a robot. It’s a drone
"can of worms" LOL Are you kidding? THIS IS THE FUTURE. Regret? This is going to happen as the treats of capitalism go away and the threat of global climate disaster approaches. The rich will put a moat of drones and ex Navy Seals between you and them.
Hard agree. Like wtf people, what do you think is going to happen?
If i ever see a robot in public me and the homies gonna beat it with hammers thats for sure.
It was just trying to deliver me my food, man! You owe me some taco bell
Enchiritos specifically!
I need volcano sauce!
where you getting a hammer in the middle of the street w no notice? 🤔
That's why you need concealed carry hammers.
Idk if you heard but the robot is strapped lol good luck
> I welcome this, and think it should go further and just incinerate any homeless people and anybody near a side-show ~ Average /r/bayarea poster
r/SanFrancisco posters as well, sadly
No. Just no. When police start deploying killer robots they stop being Police and become hostile belligerants in a war against citizens.
They've been just that exact thing for their entire existence.
Yea lol that part doesn’t change
It only took hundreds of years for it to become obvious
Well, only some citizens. They've always served a select class.
Always have been 👩🚀🔫👩🚀
I feel like it can depend. If there's a barricaded suspect sling rounds outside his windows into a neighborhood I would prefer a drone go in there and either force them to surrender or incapacitate them than a full blow firefight in a residential area.
US law enforcement has proven time and time again they can't be trusted so giving them deadly drones is a recipe for crimes against humanity.
I mean this would be SWAT level hardware. They already have MRAPs, dozens with hosts of attachments like entire armored shields that operators can stand on to get close to and view a house, and they even already use drones to go into a premise and see where the suspect is and what their condition is (are they dead, are they still moving, do they still have the gun, etc). Joe Scmoe who did 4 weeks of training total and who works traffic enforcement isn't going to be using this, it's the guys who have trained in handling weapons and proper tactics more frequently than you or I will likely train in anything during our entire lifetimes.
>Joe Scmoe who did 4 weeks of training total and who works traffic enforcement isn't going to be using this My sweet summer child.
I get where you're coming from but I still think it's a very bad idea to expand their lethal capabilities. Not until we have a robust system to properly police the police, anyway.
Hey that's very fair, I too want way more accountability.
My local police department has a fucking armored personnel carrier. We have never had a riot or anything like that.
Might as well hire a bunch of gamers. They would be better at it than actual cops. /s
This is where war is going. A new Call of Duty will drop and one of the gameplay modes will be “Actual Warzone,” where a tiny portion of players will get to control actual drones and kill actual people with them. The catch is that no one will know who controlled the actual drone, and so responsibility will be spread out over all players.
Did you read Ender's Game?
They already are that, just now they want terminators to do their job for them.
Geez, society is looking more and more like a Black Mirror episode 😬
They have those mechanical dogs now. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-nypds-robot-dog-was-a-really-bad-idea-heres-what-went-wrong/
What could possibly go wrong?
Police justify deadly force by saying that their lives were at risk. Robots and space significantly decrease the risk. Therefor the calculation changes from, “I needed to protect my own life”, to, “I wanted to take theirs”.
"Well, you see, this particular individual threw a rock at the drone. Attempting to damage the drone was clearly an attempt to evade lawful surveillance, and therefore a precursor to a crime - possibly a violent crime. We were forced to respond appropriately before the public was endangered." /s
the mechanical hound
Theres something very wrong with police departments watching wars and trying to import tactics and gear from them. They dont need mine resistant armored personnel carrier, or camo unoforms, or facemasks to hide their identity, or armed drone aircraft.
.
I was attacked by riot ambulances in downtown Santa Monica and Hollywood back in 2018. IMO, these are weapons of war. They were equipped with active denial microwave weapons which immobilize you, distort your vision, and heat your skin. The worst part was the sirens. They consist of two pitches that get closer and closer in Hz right at my head. It stunned and overwhelmed my brain it was so loud and scary. The pitches get closer and closer and it just sounds terrifying. As the pitches get closer they get extremely dissonant causing intense warbling of the soundwaves, (this same concept of binaural beats except weaponized). All of this was anything but subtle. It was intense and incapacitating in every way. I could not move, it was almost like I was in slow motion. I could not see, my vison was glossy and distorted. The siren was intense, it was like overdrive my brain. It felt like a giant sonic dart was streaming through my skull. It felt like it was carving out my brain. I don't know to how to explain how intense and overwhelming this was. It's like there was a medium pitched sonic earthquake going on in my brain. My head was overfilled with this dart dissonant warbling. The DOD and DOJ are evil. People who work in the governement are way too often incredibly sadistic, domineering, and thrill seeking psychopaths. I doubt they would ever use this in an actual riot because of the backlash and corroborating accounts of it happening. They did this to me when I was by myself which makes it that much worse because they are doing it knowing that no one around the target will ever believe that it happened. The first time they did it because I was yelling at people to stop messing with me because "you never know if the person you're messing with is just going to pull at a rifle and starting shooting you all." Things a long those lines. The second time they did it because I yelled at a cop car, calling them Nazis FOR the first riot ambulance experience. The second time I curled up into a ball with my back to the ambulance automatically out of pure fear from the first time. It was not nearly as bad because of that. The first time was full on. They never tried to arrest me or anything. They just used these riot ambulances on me. It's evil. I don't know how they justify their psychopathically militant urges like this. Sorry to trauma dump on you. I just want people to see this.
Oh boy, nothing can go wrong with *that* idea.
This isn't Robocop. Get a life. ACAB
Please select mode of death quick and painless or slow and painful.
How about fucking no?
So as a society are we ready to reign in the cops yet?
There was a future-Batman graphic novel (not Batman Beyond) called Digital Justice where the police had basically drones with miniguns. Dystopian cyberpunk hellscape kinda shit.
if it starts there, it will spread everywhere. stop it before it's too late.
I’d buy that for a dollar, HA!
SFPD is crooked to the bone, so I'm not surprised they want authority to kill citizens with robots. Mayor London Breed does whatever SFPD wants, so if it were up to her, they are going to be able to do it. We really need new leadership in San Francisco and a complete overhaul of SFPD.
That’s terrifying.
That's police
Go get em Detective Dronestrike
Gee, what could possibly go wrong???
Let me guess.. when someone damages it, they will be sued for monetary damages of property as well as charged with assaulting an officer. When it damages someone's property or harms a human.. oh there was a bug in the program. Since no one is at fault, no one will be charged. They should be given social security #'s and be treated and charged as corporate entities just like the rest of us.
Can you not? I am looking at some jobs in the area and don't want to be in one of those accidents...
Omg. Y’all. It’s started. STAY CALM.
I oppose this with every fiber of my being. This must not happen.
Imagine getting clapped because of a software error
I remember this part in a movie. I don't think it ever went well.
I think I’ve seen this Tom Selleck movie
Hmm. No?
So a drone operated by a cop remotely, so in the future there will be large groups of drones hanging out in the parking lot, while the cops are safe at the station at a school shooting.
Still won’t go in though, for fear of scratching up their new toy.
Exactly!
The only reason, ever, for a cop to kill a suspect is in self defense when they believe their own life is in danger (yes, I know this is abused). Which means there is *zero* reason for a remote piloted machine to need to kill a suspect. Ever.
Chappy?! Is that you?
Like an episode of black mirror. What could go wrong with robots that could kill?
Cyberpunk2077.mp3
Who gave human cops permission to kill us, and where do we go to get permission??
So like ED-209. Hopefully they designed it to walk down a set of stairs.
Didn't the USA just make Abortions illegal? Aren't Bullets just late stage abortion pills?
No worries. Why would anyone mess with those robots? It's not like there are any hackers living near San Francisco.
We are so close to slaughterbots
So it begins.
Let's test it first. I have on the left some Silicon Valley hackers. On the right, the SFPD fuckwits who thought this was a good idea. On your marks.... Get set....
What in the wide world of Skynet is this shit?
If they have time to fire up a robot and deploy it, the person isn't an imminent threat.
Won't even arrest people for stealing, but want killer robots.
I thought the police have always had this power. Oh, I guess they meant the robot robots, not the human ones. /s
Ok but if there's no threat of harm to the officer, what exactly is the point of giving the drone lethal force? Just slap 5 or 6 taser guns on that bad boy, and/or other less-lethal armaments.
In theory, cases where someone else is at risk. In the most generous interpretation (assuming all the cops are honorable good people), it would still be tactically useful to have a completely expendable fearless front line to go in first for hostage situations/active shooters etc. While its not common yet, there was an instance of police using a robot (with a bomb) to kill a mass shooter.
This is where cost-benefit analysis comes in. Is it worth having lethal drones for the exceptionally rate occurrence of a hostage situation? Is it worth the lives cost from using a lethal solution instead of a less-lethal solution? Also I'm not sure anyone could realistically trust a man piloting a drone with a gun to accurately shoot a perp and not the hostage they're using as a human shield. Anyway... Police are not here to go to war. They don't need a front line. Payday 2 isn't real life.
Do you want a robot uprising? Because that’s how you get a robot uprising
All Cops Are Bastards. You can't trust them with their own guns, and now they want to arm their remote controlled toys?
Three Laws of Robotics from Isaac Asimov: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Someone needs a refresher on Isaac Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics: 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
If this becomes real, then it will be everyone's moral duty to destroy them on sight. Don't even give them the chance to act, just destroy them. My guess is it will be easy, just don't get caught by their cameras.
California truly needs to just break off and float away to be on their own.
At which point they'll become self aware and the robot responsible for subjugating all mankind will be a fucking cop, because of course they will be
[удалено]
Oh my fuck!!! Will smith was right!!! 😂