6 ms·

<< 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

<< 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.

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.