6 ms·

Isn't this just a remotely controlled gun? If we'd be talking about AI making its own decisions that's a different thing. In addition to this I feel better dec

by POiNTx 4y ago

Isn't this just a remotely controlled gun? If we'd be talking about AI making its own decisions that's a different thing. In addition to this I feel better decisions would be made when the person holding the gun isn't threatened by his or her life.

colpabar 4y ago
Cops in america already shoot way too many people. Do you think giving them the ability to do that from a remote location is going to help?
- POiNTx 4y ago
  I'm not pro gun or even American, but to me it seems a lot of those shootings happen in high stress situations, not in a remotely controlled environment.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    A lot of the stress is manifested by the police themselves (which is an issue specifically called out by the "defund the police" movement, e.g., mental health crises when the better path is deescalation by trained mental health workers)
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      Have you followed up on those "trained mental health workers"? Yeah they stopped going on calls unless cops were present because they kept getting injured or used as hostages.
      - greenhorn360 4y ago
        This isn't even remotely true. My city, Portland, etc. Have had great success with these programs. The vast majority of calls they respond to don't require police. Please cite your sources (or any evidence at all) if you're going to make statements like that.
      - antiterra 4y ago
        Genuinely curious, do you have a source handy for that?
      - bandyaboot 4y ago
        I did a search on this to see if I could find some source of what you’re referring to. Came up with nothing. Most of the information out there on this topic is in stark contrast to what you’re saying here.
      - pstuart 4y ago
        Yes, there's a model program in Eugene, OR that's being adopted elsewhere because of its success: https://www.vera.org/behavioral-health-crisis-alternatives/cahoots https://www.vera.org/behavioral-health-crisis-alternatives/c... It seems you're proposing that the only sensible option is always more cops.
  - cyberphobe 4y ago
    Usually the high stress situation is manufactured entirely or significantly heightened by the officers involved
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Which is why I think I might be on board with this. The “police are professionals trained to keep their cool even in life threatening situations” boat sailed ages ago. So making it so police aren’t in the life threatening situation at all might be a win.
      - chimeracoder 4y ago
        > So making it so police aren’t in the life threatening situation at all might be a win. Cops routinely kill people even when there's no reasonable way to claim they were in a "life threatening situation". All this will do is make it easier for cops to kill people and evade accountability.
      - heavyset_go 4y ago
        Not being in life threatening situations hasn't stopped cops from killing people before. Robots are not going to solve the problem of people abusing the power they're given because they can. I'd argue that it would exacerbate it. I don't see anything good coming from turning shooting real people into a video game for cops.
      - cyberphobe 4y ago
        Police being in life threatening situations is a bullshit excuse. None of these killings have the police been in a life threatening situation. They’re just murderous thugs, we should stop buying them expensive toys and start locking them up when they commit crimes
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    Not an American either. I'd wager it's hard to come up with actual numbers on how many of those happen in high stress situations and how many are triggered by the police themselves. The main issue to my understanding is that you can't trust police reports as they have no incentive to write their motives plainly, and no peer pressure to expose bad reporting.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  So you think sending in humans is the better option? - REPLYING TO BELOW - > Why does anyone or anything need to “go in”? There are plenty of other ways to deal with these situations instead of pretending to be Seal Team Six. Such as? Like a large magnet to pull the guns out of their hand? Sometimes these situations will only result in shootouts, like busting a drug operation of a gang. Then you have to go in to protect other citizens. Sending in a robot would then be safer. And it's been done before. > Working on having less guns would be a start. In terms of "less lethal" pepper spray is usually pretty good Sure, but that's not today, gangs currently have guns. Drug busts currently have dangers. (note I don't agree that guns are the problem, if anything everyone should be armed)
  - salad-fan 4y ago
    Why does anyone or anything need to “go in”? There are plenty of other ways to deal with these situations instead of pretending to be Seal Team Six.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      Dead bystanders is usually considered poor form.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        Tell that to the Uvalde police department. Police are concerned with their own lives. They have no duty to protect anybody else’s lives
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        That's a fixable problem. Police could have a legally mandated ethics code similar to lawyers and fiduciary duty. I do believe, ethically speaking, Uvalde officers should be criminally charged. There's no legal basis of course.
        4y ago
- darkteflon 4y ago
  I think these two things are orthogonal. Less gun violence is always good, of course, but it’s not clear to me that introducing a robot would necessarily increase shooting incidents in law enforcement scenarios. Perhaps military use of drones is a good analogy - although not perfect, since there the goal is often inflicting violence rather than avoiding it. Would be interested to hear from anyone with knowledge.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Cops shoot people because they fear for their lives. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
nijave 4y ago
If you can remotely control a gun, aren't there plenty of less lethal things you can also remotely control to try to diffuse the situation or disarm the person?
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Sure if nobody else is around. Unfortunately criminals don't usually do crime in deserted areas.
- asveikau 4y ago
  I think that's a great point. It seems like in debates about officer involved shootings, frequently people justify police action with, "but the officer feels so much danger to their life in that situation". But if we're talking about robots, there is no danger to an officer -- so why do they need a gun?
sbf501 4y ago
Sure, it is a remotely controlled gun. The question is: do we want to allow this? Without going all slippery slope on this debate, I don't think we've had time to think through the consequences of a precision remote-controlled gun. Of course, they didn't give us a say on selling military weaponry to police departments, so I don't think we'll have much to say in this either.
elevaet 4y ago
Step by step, that's where we could end up. Step 1: Remote controlled guns Step 2: Built in AR sighting and suspect identification Step 3: ML powered accuracy enhancement Step 4: AI powered everything, human controller just has to click "Approve Killing" Step 5: AI kill-decision making I'm probably being a bit paranoid, but it's also easy to imagine that kind of scenario.
- cyberphobe 4y ago
  ML driven killing that much more surgically and precisely targets black and brown people, rather than having the cops trying to guess
- LightG 4y ago
  Paranoid? ... I think you're bring overly optimistic over the medium to long term.
darkteflon 4y ago
Yeah, while reflexively I would like to see less of both guns, and robots with guns, I can also see that sending a (human-controlled) robot into a dangerous situation could (not necessarily “would”) lessen the risk of fatal accidents.
quickthrower2 4y ago
On the other hand, the decision to shoot is going to be based on a lower fidelity information than available if the officer has a gun. And I think the US should really be going in the direction of fewer guns, i.e. gun control. The US has way more guns per person, gun deaths per 100,000, proportion of homicide/suicide by gun than any other country. Pick one of those "dangerous countries" you are advised not to visit ... they have way less than the US on all these stats. The police could lead the way by using force that doesn't maime or kill to control situations. That is where the innovation should happen. A robot could be ideal here - send in a robot to disarm, control, resolve, but not to kill.

by POiNTx 4y ago

colpabar 4y ago

Cops in america already shoot way too many people. Do you think giving them the ability to do that from a remote location is going to help?

POiNTx 4y ago
I'm not pro gun or even American, but to me it seems a lot of those shootings happen in high stress situations, not in a remotely controlled environment.
- pstuart 4y ago
  A lot of the stress is manifested by the police themselves (which is an issue specifically called out by the "defund the police" movement, e.g., mental health crises when the better path is deescalation by trained mental health workers)
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Have you followed up on those "trained mental health workers"? Yeah they stopped going on calls unless cops were present because they kept getting injured or used as hostages.
    - greenhorn360 4y ago
      This isn't even remotely true. My city, Portland, etc. Have had great success with these programs. The vast majority of calls they respond to don't require police. Please cite your sources (or any evidence at all) if you're going to make statements like that.
    - antiterra 4y ago
      Genuinely curious, do you have a source handy for that?
    - bandyaboot 4y ago
      I did a search on this to see if I could find some source of what you’re referring to. Came up with nothing. Most of the information out there on this topic is in stark contrast to what you’re saying here.
    - pstuart 4y ago
      Yes, there's a model program in Eugene, OR that's being adopted elsewhere because of its success: https://www.vera.org/behavioral-health-crisis-alternatives/cahoots https://www.vera.org/behavioral-health-crisis-alternatives/c... It seems you're proposing that the only sensible option is always more cops.
- cyberphobe 4y ago
  Usually the high stress situation is manufactured entirely or significantly heightened by the officers involved
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Which is why I think I might be on board with this. The “police are professionals trained to keep their cool even in life threatening situations” boat sailed ages ago. So making it so police aren’t in the life threatening situation at all might be a win.
    - chimeracoder 4y ago
      > So making it so police aren’t in the life threatening situation at all might be a win. Cops routinely kill people even when there's no reasonable way to claim they were in a "life threatening situation". All this will do is make it easier for cops to kill people and evade accountability.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      Not being in life threatening situations hasn't stopped cops from killing people before. Robots are not going to solve the problem of people abusing the power they're given because they can. I'd argue that it would exacerbate it. I don't see anything good coming from turning shooting real people into a video game for cops.
    - cyberphobe 4y ago
      Police being in life threatening situations is a bullshit excuse. None of these killings have the police been in a life threatening situation. They’re just murderous thugs, we should stop buying them expensive toys and start locking them up when they commit crimes
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Not an American either. I'd wager it's hard to come up with actual numbers on how many of those happen in high stress situations and how many are triggered by the police themselves. The main issue to my understanding is that you can't trust police reports as they have no incentive to write their motives plainly, and no peer pressure to expose bad reporting.
hunterb123 4y ago
So you think sending in humans is the better option? - REPLYING TO BELOW - > Why does anyone or anything need to “go in”? There are plenty of other ways to deal with these situations instead of pretending to be Seal Team Six. Such as? Like a large magnet to pull the guns out of their hand? Sometimes these situations will only result in shootouts, like busting a drug operation of a gang. Then you have to go in to protect other citizens. Sending in a robot would then be safer. And it's been done before. > Working on having less guns would be a start. In terms of "less lethal" pepper spray is usually pretty good Sure, but that's not today, gangs currently have guns. Drug busts currently have dangers. (note I don't agree that guns are the problem, if anything everyone should be armed)
- salad-fan 4y ago
  Why does anyone or anything need to “go in”? There are plenty of other ways to deal with these situations instead of pretending to be Seal Team Six.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Dead bystanders is usually considered poor form.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Tell that to the Uvalde police department. Police are concerned with their own lives. They have no duty to protect anybody else’s lives
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        That's a fixable problem. Police could have a legally mandated ethics code similar to lawyers and fiduciary duty. I do believe, ethically speaking, Uvalde officers should be criminally charged. There's no legal basis of course.
        4y ago
darkteflon 4y ago
I think these two things are orthogonal. Less gun violence is always good, of course, but it’s not clear to me that introducing a robot would necessarily increase shooting incidents in law enforcement scenarios. Perhaps military use of drones is a good analogy - although not perfect, since there the goal is often inflicting violence rather than avoiding it. Would be interested to hear from anyone with knowledge.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Cops shoot people because they fear for their lives. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

nijave 4y ago

If you can remotely control a gun, aren't there plenty of less lethal things you can also remotely control to try to diffuse the situation or disarm the person?

vorpalhex 4y ago
Sure if nobody else is around. Unfortunately criminals don't usually do crime in deserted areas.
asveikau 4y ago
I think that's a great point. It seems like in debates about officer involved shootings, frequently people justify police action with, "but the officer feels so much danger to their life in that situation". But if we're talking about robots, there is no danger to an officer -- so why do they need a gun?

sbf501 4y ago

Sure, it is a remotely controlled gun. The question is: do we want to allow this? Without going all slippery slope on this debate, I don't think we've had time to think through the consequences of a precision remote-controlled gun. Of course, they didn't give us a say on selling military weaponry to police departments, so I don't think we'll have much to say in this either.

elevaet 4y ago

Step by step, that's where we could end up. Step 1: Remote controlled guns Step 2: Built in AR sighting and suspect identification Step 3: ML powered accuracy enhancement Step 4: AI powered everything, human controller just has to click "Approve Killing" Step 5: AI kill-decision making I'm probably being a bit paranoid, but it's also easy to imagine that kind of scenario.

cyberphobe 4y ago
ML driven killing that much more surgically and precisely targets black and brown people, rather than having the cops trying to guess
LightG 4y ago
Paranoid? ... I think you're bring overly optimistic over the medium to long term.

darkteflon 4y ago

Yeah, while reflexively I would like to see less of both guns, and robots with guns, I can also see that sending a (human-controlled) robot into a dangerous situation could (not necessarily “would”) lessen the risk of fatal accidents.

quickthrower2 4y ago

On the other hand, the decision to shoot is going to be based on a lower fidelity information than available if the officer has a gun. And I think the US should really be going in the direction of fewer guns, i.e. gun control. The US has way more guns per person, gun deaths per 100,000, proportion of homicide/suicide by gun than any other country. Pick one of those "dangerous countries" you are advised not to visit ... they have way less than the US on all these stats. The police could lead the way by using force that doesn't maime or kill to control situations. That is where the innovation should happen. A robot could be ideal here - send in a robot to disarm, control, resolve, but not to kill.