3 ms·

I think _autonomous_ weapon systems that pick targets and fire autonomously are obviously scary. However - and this is probably not going to be popular - I thi

I think _autonomous_ weapon systems that pick targets and fire autonomously are obviously scary. However - and this is probably not going to be popular - I think if robots are remote controlled, it's probably for the best if lawful-violence-monopoly-appliers (i.e. the state) uses them instead of putting humans out there with weapons. I think a lot of situations escalate to higher echelons of violence when the (e.g.) police officer is faced with a threat to their life and needs to quickly go up the escalation of force ladder to disable the opponent, euphemism for shooting them. If instead a robot is the agent being threatened, the equation would be much different. There would be no need to kill the human opponent, since a robot is not worth sacrificing a human life for. To me, remote controlled weapon systems are a great way to avoid unnecessary escalation of force. And escalation of force are, in my opinion, what is at the heart of most display of police violence (police cars driving into crowds, police officers shooting someone). Of course there's no denying that there are many cases where force was unjustifiably misused, but I'm an optimist at heart and I think the majority of cases isn't so, and that robotic telepresence would be a good way of defusing a lot of situations that would otherwise have escalated.

phkahler 5y ago
>> If instead a robot is the agent being threatened, the equation would be much different. There is no need to have an armed robot then, since self defense is not necessary. It is IMHO very bad for police to shoot in domestic calls, as you never really know who the "bad guy" is, and killing someone is equivalent to saying "is someone is gonna kill some here, its gonna be me". For other situations like robbery maybe it's not as bad, but again there's no need to protect the robot.
- AYBABTME 5y ago
  Not as big a need to protect the robot, but the robot might be trying to protect other people, and thus would require some method of disabling an attacker. Egregious example: a hostage situation, or an active shooter situation. With a remote controlled robot, you can use less lethal weapons against the attacker, since the robot can be sacrificed (whereas I assume we'd rather not sacrifice police officers).
Sophistifunk 5y ago
And I put it to you that being safely miles away in an airconditioned box without risk of being swarmed by a mob for shooting first will make police more likely to escalate violence much sooner. How are we supposed to know which is correct before it's too late?
- AYBABTME 5y ago
  Historically, providing alternative methods of de-escalating situations to law enforcement has proven effective in diminishing usage of lethal force. In the end it's speculation, and your guess or mine. Your guess is premised on (1) the belief that police officers will act more carelessly, thinking they're in a video-game if they control remote machines. My guess is premised on (2) the belief that undue escalation of force happens when police officers feel their life is at risk, and removing this element from the situation will improve things. (1) assumes that police officers are acting violently out of disregard for others, and (2) assumes that police officers are acting violently out of fear for themselves. I'm a humanist and I think (2) is more likely than (1). It seems a simpler and more pragmatic assumption, to me, that police officers may act overly violently due to fear. I much prefer dealing with someone who's able to maintain a cool head, than dealing with someone who feels threatened.

phkahler 5y ago

>> If instead a robot is the agent being threatened, the equation would be much different. There is no need to have an armed robot then, since self defense is not necessary. It is IMHO very bad for police to shoot in domestic calls, as you never really know who the "bad guy" is, and killing someone is equivalent to saying "is someone is gonna kill some here, its gonna be me". For other situations like robbery maybe it's not as bad, but again there's no need to protect the robot.

AYBABTME 5y ago
Not as big a need to protect the robot, but the robot might be trying to protect other people, and thus would require some method of disabling an attacker. Egregious example: a hostage situation, or an active shooter situation. With a remote controlled robot, you can use less lethal weapons against the attacker, since the robot can be sacrificed (whereas I assume we'd rather not sacrifice police officers).

Sophistifunk 5y ago

And I put it to you that being safely miles away in an airconditioned box without risk of being swarmed by a mob for shooting first will make police more likely to escalate violence much sooner. How are we supposed to know which is correct before it's too late?

AYBABTME 5y ago
Historically, providing alternative methods of de-escalating situations to law enforcement has proven effective in diminishing usage of lethal force. In the end it's speculation, and your guess or mine. Your guess is premised on (1) the belief that police officers will act more carelessly, thinking they're in a video-game if they control remote machines. My guess is premised on (2) the belief that undue escalation of force happens when police officers feel their life is at risk, and removing this element from the situation will improve things. (1) assumes that police officers are acting violently out of disregard for others, and (2) assumes that police officers are acting violently out of fear for themselves. I'm a humanist and I think (2) is more likely than (1). It seems a simpler and more pragmatic assumption, to me, that police officers may act overly violently due to fear. I much prefer dealing with someone who's able to maintain a cool head, than dealing with someone who feels threatened.