12 ms·

Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read

Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read it. The plan here is to literally load live 12 gauge shells into the robot's PAN disrupter device, which typically only takes blank rounds, in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. It's a shotgun. But don't take it from me, take it from the cop who proposed the plan! “Yeah, physically a live round can go in,” Daza-Quiroz answered. “Absolutely. And you’d be getting a shotgun round.”

pizza234 4y ago
I've read the article, but it doesn't define what exactly a robot is. The problem is that one can mistake the term for machines with some form of autonomy, while, based on my understanding, they're "just" remotely controlled ones.
- samfbiddle 4y ago
  I both named the exact model of the robot (Northrop Grumman Remotec Andros Mark 5-A1) and specify that it's operated via remote control.
MichaelZuo 4y ago
> in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. Where is this suggested by the Oakland PD?
- samfbiddle 4y ago
  It wasn't suggested, it was explicitly stated in the meetings and in the proposed authorized use language, both of which you will conveniently find quoted in the article.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    No? I'm seeing at most: ' Lt. Joseph Turner' 'urged the commission to allow such a killer robot in case of “exigencies.”' He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The official spokesperson appears to be: 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz, who represented the department in discussions over the authorized robot use policy' His claim that “Yes, we are looking into that and doing more research at this time.” is even farther. There's also: 'According to Daza-Quiroz, the department is still looking toward the future. “We will not be arming robots with lethal rounds anytime soon, and if, and when that time comes each event will be assessed prior to such deployment,” he said.' Even the closest of his claims: 'When asked if there were other situations beyond a Dallas-style sniper in which police might wish to kill with a robot, Daza-Quiroz added: “Absolutely there are many more scenarios.”' Seems like expressing the fact that there imaginable scenarios where such a system is desirable. Not that the Oakland PD wants to do so.
    - samfbiddle 4y ago
      I encourage you to look up the word "exigency"
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        > He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The article itself claims that someone else, a 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz' is the official spokesperson. Since you apparently are the author, this attempted deflection seems not credible at all.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        > I encourage you to look up the word "exigency" In your haste to snark, you missed the parent's point, which was that the officer doesn't speak on behalf of the department contra the claim.
        tanseydavid 4y ago
        There's no snark in that comment. It is proper and appropriate.
- dumpsterlid 4y ago
  ........ ....... ..... do you honestly think that if you give police remote control vehicles with shotguns attached to them that they WONT use them for violence and killing? These are police we are talking about here, they come from a culture of violence and extreme fear.
labrador 4y ago
Hi Sam Biddle, I think it is common knowledge that writers don't choose their titles, editors do, so I wasn't criticizing your article, I was criticizing the title. These devices are not robots. They are remote control devices operated by humans. Oxford: robot, a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer. Robots act autonomously and automatically. The hypothetical case where we might give such an autonomous device lethal capabilities is an ongoing discussion. Most people agree that could be a very bad idea. But a human controlled device? I don't see the problem.
- justin66 4y ago
  The police call the machine in question a robot, the army calls it a robot, even the manufacturer calls the machine in question a robot.
- JieJie 4y ago
  Northrop-Grumman calls this specific model a robot in their press release. https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-remotec-unveils-next-generation-andros-tm-robot https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Sometimes companies exaggerate their products in order to charge higher prices. No doubt there is some strict, technical definition of "robot" that this satisfies, but it's not what people generally think of as a "robot". There's also a strict definition of "tool" that is satisfied by a rock or a stick, but that's not what I'm looking for when I ask about tools at Home Depot (and apart from the pedants, everyone generally understands this).
    - JieJie 4y ago
      Just some friendly advice, that you might wanna watch where you're pointing that accusation of pedantry.
_fat_santa 4y ago
My massive problem with tech like this is it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger". If a cop is chasing a suspect and the suspect pulls out a gun and starts shooting a the cop, the cop would be right to shoot back and kill the suspect. But you can't apply that standard to something that isn't living, if a cop is directing a robot to chase a suspect and the suspect start shooting at the robot, the same standard just does not apply.
- runnerup 4y ago
  I had this same misgiving when Dallas PD used a robot to carry a bomb towards a hostile rooftop sniper. I think it will usually be justified as being in the imminent defense of others / the public. The sniper was actively threatening to continue shooting people. Perhaps they’d say the hypothetical guy shooting at a robot is endangering others via any stray bullets. And perhaps sometimes that would be correct.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    I mean, the Dallas (ex-military) sniper was exactly the right use of this sort of technology. He was actively, explicitly murdering cops, and the police had no reason to believe he was unwilling or unable to kill more of them if they moved to arrest him. I can understand concern that this might be used in more ambiguous circumstances, but I don't understand why anyone would object to its use in that particular case.
    - runnerup 4y ago
      Because at the exact moment the bomb was detonated he wasn’t a threat at that moment. Maybe ten minutes before, perhaps ten minutes after. But perhaps they could have cordoned off a wide area until he got hungry or thirsty enough to come down. That would have been a massive hassle for the city and difficult to ensure the city’s safety but you could always blow him up next time he starts shooting at someone. On balance obviously it was expedient to blow him up at that moment but it’s not clear it was strictly necessary.
ericmcer 4y ago
There is a pretty huge distinction between an RC car with a camera and an attachment that can load a single shell into it and the "shotgun-toting robot" that your article conjures. Doesn't the chief of police have to personally authorize the use of one of these robots? Do you find these scary even when used appropriately? Or is your fear that this is a slippery slope that ends in an autonomous robot sticking a shotgun in your face and demanding your ID?
subjectsigma 4y ago
Seeing the title I immediately thought of something AI/ML controlled. I read the article and thought the robot was autonomous up until more than halfway through where you mention it is remote-controlled. You even compare it to a Roomba, which is autonomous. It is confusing. Putting that it the first paragraph would make the article sound much different.
throwaway894345 4y ago
Implying that someone hasn't read the article violates the site guidelines.

pizza234 4y ago

I've read the article, but it doesn't define what exactly a robot is. The problem is that one can mistake the term for machines with some form of autonomy, while, based on my understanding, they're "just" remotely controlled ones.

samfbiddle 4y ago
I both named the exact model of the robot (Northrop Grumman Remotec Andros Mark 5-A1) and specify that it's operated via remote control.

MichaelZuo 4y ago

> in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. Where is this suggested by the Oakland PD?

samfbiddle 4y ago
It wasn't suggested, it was explicitly stated in the meetings and in the proposed authorized use language, both of which you will conveniently find quoted in the article.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  No? I'm seeing at most: ' Lt. Joseph Turner' 'urged the commission to allow such a killer robot in case of “exigencies.”' He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The official spokesperson appears to be: 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz, who represented the department in discussions over the authorized robot use policy' His claim that “Yes, we are looking into that and doing more research at this time.” is even farther. There's also: 'According to Daza-Quiroz, the department is still looking toward the future. “We will not be arming robots with lethal rounds anytime soon, and if, and when that time comes each event will be assessed prior to such deployment,” he said.' Even the closest of his claims: 'When asked if there were other situations beyond a Dallas-style sniper in which police might wish to kill with a robot, Daza-Quiroz added: “Absolutely there are many more scenarios.”' Seems like expressing the fact that there imaginable scenarios where such a system is desirable. Not that the Oakland PD wants to do so.
  - samfbiddle 4y ago
    I encourage you to look up the word "exigency"
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      > He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The article itself claims that someone else, a 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz' is the official spokesperson. Since you apparently are the author, this attempted deflection seems not credible at all.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      > I encourage you to look up the word "exigency" In your haste to snark, you missed the parent's point, which was that the officer doesn't speak on behalf of the department contra the claim.
      - tanseydavid 4y ago
        There's no snark in that comment. It is proper and appropriate.
dumpsterlid 4y ago
........ ....... ..... do you honestly think that if you give police remote control vehicles with shotguns attached to them that they WONT use them for violence and killing? These are police we are talking about here, they come from a culture of violence and extreme fear.

labrador 4y ago

Hi Sam Biddle, I think it is common knowledge that writers don't choose their titles, editors do, so I wasn't criticizing your article, I was criticizing the title. These devices are not robots. They are remote control devices operated by humans. Oxford: robot, a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer. Robots act autonomously and automatically. The hypothetical case where we might give such an autonomous device lethal capabilities is an ongoing discussion. Most people agree that could be a very bad idea. But a human controlled device? I don't see the problem.

justin66 4y ago
The police call the machine in question a robot, the army calls it a robot, even the manufacturer calls the machine in question a robot.
JieJie 4y ago
Northrop-Grumman calls this specific model a robot in their press release. https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-remotec-unveils-next-generation-andros-tm-robot https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Sometimes companies exaggerate their products in order to charge higher prices. No doubt there is some strict, technical definition of "robot" that this satisfies, but it's not what people generally think of as a "robot". There's also a strict definition of "tool" that is satisfied by a rock or a stick, but that's not what I'm looking for when I ask about tools at Home Depot (and apart from the pedants, everyone generally understands this).
  - JieJie 4y ago
    Just some friendly advice, that you might wanna watch where you're pointing that accusation of pedantry.

_fat_santa 4y ago

My massive problem with tech like this is it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger". If a cop is chasing a suspect and the suspect pulls out a gun and starts shooting a the cop, the cop would be right to shoot back and kill the suspect. But you can't apply that standard to something that isn't living, if a cop is directing a robot to chase a suspect and the suspect start shooting at the robot, the same standard just does not apply.

runnerup 4y ago
I had this same misgiving when Dallas PD used a robot to carry a bomb towards a hostile rooftop sniper. I think it will usually be justified as being in the imminent defense of others / the public. The sniper was actively threatening to continue shooting people. Perhaps they’d say the hypothetical guy shooting at a robot is endangering others via any stray bullets. And perhaps sometimes that would be correct.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  I mean, the Dallas (ex-military) sniper was exactly the right use of this sort of technology. He was actively, explicitly murdering cops, and the police had no reason to believe he was unwilling or unable to kill more of them if they moved to arrest him. I can understand concern that this might be used in more ambiguous circumstances, but I don't understand why anyone would object to its use in that particular case.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    Because at the exact moment the bomb was detonated he wasn’t a threat at that moment. Maybe ten minutes before, perhaps ten minutes after. But perhaps they could have cordoned off a wide area until he got hungry or thirsty enough to come down. That would have been a massive hassle for the city and difficult to ensure the city’s safety but you could always blow him up next time he starts shooting at someone. On balance obviously it was expedient to blow him up at that moment but it’s not clear it was strictly necessary.

ericmcer 4y ago

There is a pretty huge distinction between an RC car with a camera and an attachment that can load a single shell into it and the "shotgun-toting robot" that your article conjures. Doesn't the chief of police have to personally authorize the use of one of these robots? Do you find these scary even when used appropriately? Or is your fear that this is a slippery slope that ends in an autonomous robot sticking a shotgun in your face and demanding your ID?

subjectsigma 4y ago

Seeing the title I immediately thought of something AI/ML controlled. I read the article and thought the robot was autonomous up until more than halfway through where you mention it is remote-controlled. You even compare it to a Roomba, which is autonomous. It is confusing. Putting that it the first paragraph would make the article sound much different.

throwaway894345 4y ago

Implying that someone hasn't read the article violates the site guidelines.