3 ms·
Had to check for weasel words. (Not that it matters because companies can always change things.) Didn’t take long to spot the loophole: >The firms pledged not
by natch 4y ago
Had to check for weasel words. (Not that it matters because companies can always change things.) Didn’t take long to spot the loophole:
>The firms pledged not to weaponize their "advanced-mobility general-purpose robots"
So, this only applies to general-purpose robots. Not to mention that they are just saying they won’t do the weaponization themselves (let third parties and customers do it)… unless it’s a specific-purpose robot, then they are free to do it themselves.
Really, who falls for this stuff?
- chasd00 4y agoWouldn’t an armed robot by default not be “general purpose”?
- 22c 4y agoNot to mention there doesn't seem to be a lot stopping these robots from being customised by the purchaser. I don't think there would be much in the way of a military contractor getting their hands on these and strapping a glock to it. eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rliFQ0qyAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rliFQ0qyAM but with a much higher budget and not just for fun.