3 ms·

Folks - this is not a lethal autonomous robot. This is a remotely controlled bomb disposal robot retrofitted with a gun. A human still has to pull the (digital)

by Alupis 4y ago

Folks - this is not a lethal autonomous robot. This is a remotely controlled bomb disposal robot retrofitted with a gun. A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. This is nothing but a good thing. Nobody cares if a robot is destroyed. A robot will allow everyone time to think and assess the situation before making a snap-judgement we all question later on. This can do nothing but reduce lethal force use. This opens the door to fitting the same robot with a multitude of options - further reducing the need for lethal force. Pepper balls, stun guns, blinding lights, etc. (less-lethal does not mean non-lethal, when we discuss things like stun guns, pepper balls, rubber balls, etc) In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. Sometimes they get things wrong... but when people's lives are at risk, lethal force will be employed to protect innocents and police alike. This robot removes half of the equation that leads to lethal force. This is nothing but a good thing.

chimeracoder 4y ago
> A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. Because cops have such a great track record with those decisions so far? > In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. This is what cops always claim when these discussions come up, but a look at the actual data proves otherwise. Cops routinely kill civilians - including innocent ones - in situations where there is literally no possible way they could reasonably be fearing for their life or be forced to make a "snap decision".
- Alupis 4y ago
  I don't understand what you are saying. If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better. With that said, you grossly overstate this "problem" and the data doesn't tell the story you think it does... but regardless, there is no way to frame this but positive. Unless you just are anti-police in general...
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better. Or, they feel free to use the “Easy Button” to end situations faster, precisely since there is no risk to them to do so.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      I doubt that will be the case. A lone officer shooting someone while covering their camera is far easier than hauling out this huge machine and deploying it. It literally requires only one person to make that decision all on their own. I also don't think it's lost on anyone how the public would react if these RC robots started to stack a body count... The risks seem to be extremely minimal. Accountability can be built into the machine itself. We can even require multiple layers of "sign off" before the digital trigger can be activated. This is all good stuff to have in the vein of reducing lethal force use.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        > I also don't think it's lost on anyone how the public would react if these RC robots started to stack a body count... Police have already demonstrated publicly that they don’t care about the public reaction to them killing people in their custody. I cant see how their use of robots would change that. > This is all good stuff to have in the vein of reducing lethal force use. And I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree. I do not see how reducing the risk of using lethal force will lead to the reduction of the use of lethal force as a whole.
phkahler 4y ago
Put a taser on it, not a gun. Shit, I'd say put a taser on an autonomous drone with remote target selection before putting a gun on anything.
- Alupis 4y ago
  They already do put less-lethal options on these remotely controlled robots. It's even in the article... This is for when there is a significant probability violence will escalate and harm anyone besides the "bad guy" (ie. hostages, active gunman, etc). Removing officer lives from the equation means folks can keep a level head and not just go guns blazing. This is a good thing. If you think police commit too much violence, then you should celebrate this. Removing half of the necessary equation that results in lethal force will do nothing but reduce the use of lethal force.
  - random314 4y ago
    Statistically how often does the SF police come across such a situation. What are the numbers from the past 10 years. Surely, the SFPD has provided this data to justify the lethal robots. > If you think police commit too much violence, then you should celebrate this. So the SFPD won't be carrying any guns? George Floyd wouldn't have died? Sounds great!
    - Alupis 4y ago
      What is the point? They have to have had X number of hostages die in a year before we approve a remotely controlled robot? Even if the number was zero, being able to remotely assess the situation before risking your own life and/or killing someone is nothing but a good thing. Officers don't shoot people for funsies, despite the current prevailing narrative. We remove all risk to an officer's life, and we will get more peaceful solutions. In the event violence is required to resolve a situation without harming innocents, this is by far the safest way to do that.
      - random314 4y ago
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<< Folks - this is not a lethal autonomous robot. For now. Israel has already implemented/tested AI driven non-lethal guns. It is a matter of time before it is normalized. << A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. Yes. Drones in Afghanistan ( and elsewhere lately ) truly taught us nothing about human nature and how we perceive danger. << This can do nothing but reduce lethal force use. If anything, it will significantly increase it, because: 1) cops will demand more of them 2) they will get them 3) budgets will forever be increased 4) people that are trigger happy will just be pressing different triggers << In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. We are in agreement. Is the street a field though? We ask for a human, because the moment some random John is controlling the robot he has no stakes in local community. He might as well be controlling it from India. << Sometimes they get things wrong... Yes, which is the reason for concerns. << This robot removes half of the equation that leads to lethal force. Maybe in theory, but that fails to account for cultural differences, human nature and the fact that is merely a stepping stone away from autonomous robot deciding who lives or dies. << This is nothing but a good thing. Time may prove me wrong, but from where I sit, there is a reason to be concerned. edit: Crap man, this does not even scratch the surface of how bad an idea that is and most of it is not even based on technical issues, but merely on knowledge of human nature.
- runarberg 4y ago
  > << This robot removes half of the equation that leads to lethal force. > > Maybe in theory, Not even in theory. In the 1970s there was a series of psychological experiments called The Milgram experiment where they tested how far subjects were ready to obey orders. Turns out around 60% of subjects are willing to use lethal force against subject just because a scientist tells them to. Unlike most experiments in social psychology, this one has been replicated numerous times, and in one variation they introduce an intermediary between the subject and the acting victim. Turns out that even more humans (closer to 90% if I remember correctly) are willing to order a deadly force if there is someone else that actually presses the shock button. So our current theory is actually the reverse of your parent claims, and we have experimental data to prove it. Drone operators in the Iraq invasion can actually attest to this as well. Humans are more likely, not less, to use deadly force the further they are away from the victim.
mushbino 4y ago
Police can't control their own actions responsibly, what makes you think a robot would be any better? Seems like it would be worse.
heavyset_go 4y ago
> In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. There are countless examples of cops killing people in situations that were not potentially harmful nor in situations where they were "forced" to make snap judgments. Robots aren't going to fix the problem of cops abusing power or killing people with impunity simply because they can. Turning the killing of real living civilians into a video game for cops isn't going to end well.
- edanm 4y ago
  > Robots aren't going to fix the problem of cops abusing power or killing people with impunity simply because they can. You're taking a few examples, and conflating it with all cops. Yes, cops that acted badly will still act badly with this. But that's only some cops! For the ones who wouldn't act badly, this will help.
runarberg 4y ago
> A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. I guess you haven’t read up on the Milgram experiment. Humans are more likely, not less, to order deadly force when there is an intermediary between you and the victim. This robot will be another layer for the police to wash away their ethics and “follow orders”. We’ve already seen this with drone operators during the Iraq invation (which still suffer from PTSD despite never going to the frontlines), that they are no less likely—and even more if anything—to use deadly force on the innocent if ordered to do so.

by Alupis 4y ago

chimeracoder 4y ago

> A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. Because cops have such a great track record with those decisions so far? > In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. This is what cops always claim when these discussions come up, but a look at the actual data proves otherwise. Cops routinely kill civilians - including innocent ones - in situations where there is literally no possible way they could reasonably be fearing for their life or be forced to make a "snap decision".

Alupis 4y ago
I don't understand what you are saying. If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better. With that said, you grossly overstate this "problem" and the data doesn't tell the story you think it does... but regardless, there is no way to frame this but positive. Unless you just are anti-police in general...
- falcolas 4y ago
  > If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better. Or, they feel free to use the “Easy Button” to end situations faster, precisely since there is no risk to them to do so.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    I doubt that will be the case. A lone officer shooting someone while covering their camera is far easier than hauling out this huge machine and deploying it. It literally requires only one person to make that decision all on their own. I also don't think it's lost on anyone how the public would react if these RC robots started to stack a body count... The risks seem to be extremely minimal. Accountability can be built into the machine itself. We can even require multiple layers of "sign off" before the digital trigger can be activated. This is all good stuff to have in the vein of reducing lethal force use.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      > I also don't think it's lost on anyone how the public would react if these RC robots started to stack a body count... Police have already demonstrated publicly that they don’t care about the public reaction to them killing people in their custody. I cant see how their use of robots would change that. > This is all good stuff to have in the vein of reducing lethal force use. And I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree. I do not see how reducing the risk of using lethal force will lead to the reduction of the use of lethal force as a whole.

phkahler 4y ago

Put a taser on it, not a gun. Shit, I'd say put a taser on an autonomous drone with remote target selection before putting a gun on anything.

Alupis 4y ago
They already do put less-lethal options on these remotely controlled robots. It's even in the article... This is for when there is a significant probability violence will escalate and harm anyone besides the "bad guy" (ie. hostages, active gunman, etc). Removing officer lives from the equation means folks can keep a level head and not just go guns blazing. This is a good thing. If you think police commit too much violence, then you should celebrate this. Removing half of the necessary equation that results in lethal force will do nothing but reduce the use of lethal force.
- random314 4y ago
  Statistically how often does the SF police come across such a situation. What are the numbers from the past 10 years. Surely, the SFPD has provided this data to justify the lethal robots. > If you think police commit too much violence, then you should celebrate this. So the SFPD won't be carrying any guns? George Floyd wouldn't have died? Sounds great!
  - Alupis 4y ago
    What is the point? They have to have had X number of hostages die in a year before we approve a remotely controlled robot? Even if the number was zero, being able to remotely assess the situation before risking your own life and/or killing someone is nothing but a good thing. Officers don't shoot people for funsies, despite the current prevailing narrative. We remove all risk to an officer's life, and we will get more peaceful solutions. In the event violence is required to resolve a situation without harming innocents, this is by far the safest way to do that.
    - random314 4y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

<< Folks - this is not a lethal autonomous robot. For now. Israel has already implemented/tested AI driven non-lethal guns. It is a matter of time before it is normalized. << A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. Yes. Drones in Afghanistan ( and elsewhere lately ) truly taught us nothing about human nature and how we perceive danger. << This can do nothing but reduce lethal force use. If anything, it will significantly increase it, because: 1) cops will demand more of them 2) they will get them 3) budgets will forever be increased 4) people that are trigger happy will just be pressing different triggers << In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. We are in agreement. Is the street a field though? We ask for a human, because the moment some random John is controlling the robot he has no stakes in local community. He might as well be controlling it from India. << Sometimes they get things wrong... Yes, which is the reason for concerns. << This robot removes half of the equation that leads to lethal force. Maybe in theory, but that fails to account for cultural differences, human nature and the fact that is merely a stepping stone away from autonomous robot deciding who lives or dies. << This is nothing but a good thing. Time may prove me wrong, but from where I sit, there is a reason to be concerned. edit: Crap man, this does not even scratch the surface of how bad an idea that is and most of it is not even based on technical issues, but merely on knowledge of human nature.

runarberg 4y ago
> << This robot removes half of the equation that leads to lethal force. > > Maybe in theory, Not even in theory. In the 1970s there was a series of psychological experiments called The Milgram experiment where they tested how far subjects were ready to obey orders. Turns out around 60% of subjects are willing to use lethal force against subject just because a scientist tells them to. Unlike most experiments in social psychology, this one has been replicated numerous times, and in one variation they introduce an intermediary between the subject and the acting victim. Turns out that even more humans (closer to 90% if I remember correctly) are willing to order a deadly force if there is someone else that actually presses the shock button. So our current theory is actually the reverse of your parent claims, and we have experimental data to prove it. Drone operators in the Iraq invasion can actually attest to this as well. Humans are more likely, not less, to use deadly force the further they are away from the victim.

mushbino 4y ago

Police can't control their own actions responsibly, what makes you think a robot would be any better? Seems like it would be worse.

heavyset_go 4y ago

> In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. There are countless examples of cops killing people in situations that were not potentially harmful nor in situations where they were "forced" to make snap judgments. Robots aren't going to fix the problem of cops abusing power or killing people with impunity simply because they can. Turning the killing of real living civilians into a video game for cops isn't going to end well.

edanm 4y ago
> Robots aren't going to fix the problem of cops abusing power or killing people with impunity simply because they can. You're taking a few examples, and conflating it with all cops. Yes, cops that acted badly will still act badly with this. But that's only some cops! For the ones who wouldn't act badly, this will help.

runarberg 4y ago

> A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. I guess you haven’t read up on the Milgram experiment. Humans are more likely, not less, to order deadly force when there is an intermediary between you and the victim. This robot will be another layer for the police to wash away their ethics and “follow orders”. We’ve already seen this with drone operators during the Iraq invation (which still suffer from PTSD despite never going to the frontlines), that they are no less likely—and even more if anything—to use deadly force on the innocent if ordered to do so.