4 ms·

First, the "snake-head on a goose-neck" manipulator that usually mounts on Spot will have a pair of electroshock probes added, as a non-lethal means of incapaci

First, the "snake-head on a goose-neck" manipulator that usually mounts on Spot will have a pair of electroshock probes added, as a non-lethal means of incapacitating a suspect at touch range. Then they will add a 20ga shotgun that shoots a single beanbag or netting cartridge. Then, after that, they will use the lethal firearms.

shadowgovt 7y ago
Or we could not. Slippery slope arguments assume people make the worst choices, and there's no reason that's necessary. Declare automated surveillance drones categorically unacceptable because of a hypothetical risk they could have weapons mounted on them and you get more people and animals killed unnecessarily.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  I am not making that particular argument. I'd prefer to mount the .38 special revolver on the robot now, make sure the trigger-pull servo is 100% human-controlled, and train the robot operator on the rules of engagement and remote use of lethal force right from the start, rather than just wait until the inevitable happens to catch up. A cop-controlled robot is an extension of the cop. It's not the robot's fault if its technology is misused, but the cop's. The problem underlying all this is that cops have too much unchecked power already. At least if they're shooting people remotely with armed robots, we would know the camera wasn't malfunctioning, and that the video should be available for the civil lawsuit. Rather than freaking out about the possibility that robots might be armed, just assume that they are already weapons, and craft the human policy around the technology. I.e. when a robot is armed, the firing mechanism for the weapon must be under direct human control. If you claim your robot will never be armed or used to intimidate, you can conveniently skip out on writing that rule, so when it happens someone gets a free escape responsibility card, with "we weren't trained for this" printed on it.
  - dariusj18 7y ago
    But if the operator, nor anyone else, is in immediate danger of being harmed, what would ever be the rationality to use the weapon?

shadowgovt 7y ago

Or we could not. Slippery slope arguments assume people make the worst choices, and there's no reason that's necessary. Declare automated surveillance drones categorically unacceptable because of a hypothetical risk they could have weapons mounted on them and you get more people and animals killed unnecessarily.

logfromblammo 7y ago
I am not making that particular argument. I'd prefer to mount the .38 special revolver on the robot now, make sure the trigger-pull servo is 100% human-controlled, and train the robot operator on the rules of engagement and remote use of lethal force right from the start, rather than just wait until the inevitable happens to catch up. A cop-controlled robot is an extension of the cop. It's not the robot's fault if its technology is misused, but the cop's. The problem underlying all this is that cops have too much unchecked power already. At least if they're shooting people remotely with armed robots, we would know the camera wasn't malfunctioning, and that the video should be available for the civil lawsuit. Rather than freaking out about the possibility that robots might be armed, just assume that they are already weapons, and craft the human policy around the technology. I.e. when a robot is armed, the firing mechanism for the weapon must be under direct human control. If you claim your robot will never be armed or used to intimidate, you can conveniently skip out on writing that rule, so when it happens someone gets a free escape responsibility card, with "we weren't trained for this" printed on it.
- dariusj18 7y ago
  But if the operator, nor anyone else, is in immediate danger of being harmed, what would ever be the rationality to use the weapon?