5 ms·

You can never hold the robot accountable. It's in direct violation of asimov's laws where it's intentionally harming humans. Bad idea. On the opposite side, th

You can never hold the robot accountable. It's in direct violation of asimov's laws where it's intentionally harming humans. Bad idea. On the opposite side, the robot never gets to fear for its life and end up shooting innocent people. There ought to be high definition recordings proving lethal force was necessary. Freely available to all public for review. Absence of video being immediate summary judgement for misconduct charges to the operators which includes jail time. Police unions thusly aren't getting involved. So I can see some pros and cons. The big question I have, why is San Fran the first to do this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Franci...

mc32 4y ago
Just guessing this would be used in proscribed circumstances, such as a hostage situation or someone holed up so you can further avoid hurting bystanders. The advantage is you don't have to act in a fraction of a second because in the person + robot system the person representing the law is not in immediate mortal danger and is not put into a life-death decisionmaking pressure. So presumably the outcome for law abiding citizens is improved.
- smcg 4y ago
  Surely the explosions will ignore the innocent bystanders
- incomingpain 4y ago
  How many 'hostage' situations are there in San Fran? I expect none or damned close to none. No, these bots are going to be used in a more liberal fashion to justify all the effort being used to arm them. This wont be for rare situations, this will be used for their ongoing crisis.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Eleison23 4y ago
  Yes, police response is typically prescribed when people do something that is proscribed.
GartzenDeHaes 4y ago
> You can never hold the robot accountable. It's in direct violation of asimov's laws where it's intentionally harming humans. It's remote controlled by a cop. There's no AI.
- aliqot 4y ago
  It's not asimov's laws of AI, it's the laws of robotics.
  - feet 4y ago
    And those laws are not actual laws in the eyes of the government, why would they care
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - SimonPStevens 4y ago
    Firstly Asimov's laws aren't inviolable physical laws. They were just fictional idea that were suggested could be programmed into robots as a plot device in his books. The stories were frequently about unexpected side effect caused by intersections of the laws and specific situations that caused some kind of ambiguity in how they should be followed. Real world robots could be programmed with or without them, or with entirely different behavioural 'laws'. Secondly, the 'laws' were about behaviour that applies mostly to the AI side of things, the fact they are referred to as laws of robotics is mostly immaterial, they are about behaviour rules for AI.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    I was going to disagree, but re-reading the laws would mean that the robot would be required to be capable of overriding any input command from a human which might cause it to harm another human. I'm inclined to agree that violating this is generally a bad idea. I don't know that I would go so far as to make it a law, as I am not a pacifist and would prefer a robot to retain the capability to override the first law exclusively in the interest of obeying the second law, when there is an audit trail of commands given such that someone- whether the robot or the human behind the robot- can be held to account.
leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
Probably because cops don't want to show up to calls where they may have to use lethal force and possibly have their lives destroyed and decisions Monday morning QBd. Definitely a bad idea though, I don't like the idea of a guy in a suit being able to hit a button. You also don't need to convince a robot to violate my rights and put themselves in danger while doing it.
- subradios 4y ago
  Most of the problems with policing as we see them today involve police behaving as humans do in life or death situations, even "bad shoots" have fundamental elements of reasonableness to them most of the time, whereas a robot does not have to worry about being killed by the perp or any number of things that require use of force that we consider excessive.

mc32 4y ago

Just guessing this would be used in proscribed circumstances, such as a hostage situation or someone holed up so you can further avoid hurting bystanders. The advantage is you don't have to act in a fraction of a second because in the person + robot system the person representing the law is not in immediate mortal danger and is not put into a life-death decisionmaking pressure. So presumably the outcome for law abiding citizens is improved.

smcg 4y ago
Surely the explosions will ignore the innocent bystanders
incomingpain 4y ago
How many 'hostage' situations are there in San Fran? I expect none or damned close to none. No, these bots are going to be used in a more liberal fashion to justify all the effort being used to arm them. This wont be for rare situations, this will be used for their ongoing crisis.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Eleison23 4y ago
Yes, police response is typically prescribed when people do something that is proscribed.

GartzenDeHaes 4y ago

> You can never hold the robot accountable. It's in direct violation of asimov's laws where it's intentionally harming humans. It's remote controlled by a cop. There's no AI.

aliqot 4y ago
It's not asimov's laws of AI, it's the laws of robotics.
- feet 4y ago
  And those laws are not actual laws in the eyes of the government, why would they care
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- SimonPStevens 4y ago
  Firstly Asimov's laws aren't inviolable physical laws. They were just fictional idea that were suggested could be programmed into robots as a plot device in his books. The stories were frequently about unexpected side effect caused by intersections of the laws and specific situations that caused some kind of ambiguity in how they should be followed. Real world robots could be programmed with or without them, or with entirely different behavioural 'laws'. Secondly, the 'laws' were about behaviour that applies mostly to the AI side of things, the fact they are referred to as laws of robotics is mostly immaterial, they are about behaviour rules for AI.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  I was going to disagree, but re-reading the laws would mean that the robot would be required to be capable of overriding any input command from a human which might cause it to harm another human. I'm inclined to agree that violating this is generally a bad idea. I don't know that I would go so far as to make it a law, as I am not a pacifist and would prefer a robot to retain the capability to override the first law exclusively in the interest of obeying the second law, when there is an audit trail of commands given such that someone- whether the robot or the human behind the robot- can be held to account.

leeroyjenkins11 4y ago

Probably because cops don't want to show up to calls where they may have to use lethal force and possibly have their lives destroyed and decisions Monday morning QBd. Definitely a bad idea though, I don't like the idea of a guy in a suit being able to hit a button. You also don't need to convince a robot to violate my rights and put themselves in danger while doing it.

subradios 4y ago
Most of the problems with policing as we see them today involve police behaving as humans do in life or death situations, even "bad shoots" have fundamental elements of reasonableness to them most of the time, whereas a robot does not have to worry about being killed by the perp or any number of things that require use of force that we consider excessive.