Killer Robots in San Francisco!

[bcla]

Soooo not to put too sharp a point on this but in the particular city of San Fran guns are bad & mostly illegal in the hands of humans, but somehow a remote control gun in the hands of a human very far away is ok?

I'm not looking to debate the underlying ideas of what should or should not be, just making an observation of the lack of reason in play because this logic is utterly deranged.

Police in San Francisco are armed. I don't see any inconsistency in allowing the police to have access to weapons even if they're controlled remotely.

 

[bcla]

They can't get self driving cars to work. How are they going to get this to work?

We're not talking robots with AI controlling the situation. The proposal is for remotely controlled devices where a human is controlling everything like a military drone.

That being said, San Francisco is a huge testbed for autonomous vehicles. Way, Cruise, and several other companies are actively testing in San Francisco.

 

[GAN]

Not sure about that, have you seen the quality of the robotics out of Boston Dynamics? Those things could easily be used in this capacity so I don't think it's a scam, but I do think it is a terrible idea. Just because one CAN do something does not mean one SHOULD do that thing. Humans are very good at overestimating their abilities and equally good underestimating the damage of unintended consequences.

True. But a lot of the same overestimating humans also make irreversible decisions when face-to-face with a threat. In this scenario, that immediate threat to themselves is removed -for better or worse

 

[RamblingMad]

We're not talking robots with AI controlling the situation. The proposal is for remotely controlled devices where a human is controlling everything like a military drone.

That being said, San Francisco is a huge testbed for autonomous vehicles. Way, Cruise, and several other companies are actively testing in San Francisco.

So some kid that spent years playing video games will now have a controller for an armed robot walking around SF? What could possibly go wrong?

 

[GAN]

So some kid that spent years playing video games will now have a controller for an armed robot walking around SF? What could possibly go wrong?

I haven’t touched a joystick in 30-years …would you rather have me control that thing!

 

[bcla]

So some kid that spent years playing video games will now have a controller for an armed robot walking around SF? What could possibly go wrong?

I’m pretty sure they’re going to require that anyone controlling these things will be sworn police officers.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Police in San Francisco are armed. I don't see any inconsistency in allowing the police to have access to weapons even if they're controlled remotely.

But it is inconsistent in that this whole region is a hotspot of the antitheses of this practice, so the weird pivot is bizzarre.

Before we go off with another social experiment inflicted upon the poor of US cities, maybe we should wait to see how the lawsuits land for culpability with Tesla cars and damage inflicted.

The whole idea of who is responsible when operating and engaging is an ethical and moral dilemma. Maybe we should figure out what these things are in the eyes of the courts and law before we release more of them into the wild.

Iron Giant comes to mind, very thought provoking film on the ethics of such things.

 

[LuvOrlando]

True. But a lot of the same overestimating humans also make irreversible decisions when face-to-face with a threat. In this scenario, that immediate threat to themselves is removed -for better or worse

There will still be a human, there is always a human. No matter what happens a human's influence simply cannot be erased since the very code itself is a work of art created by a human so it will be laced with that particular humans creator's idiosyncrasies & appetites. So, while we are removing the personal threat impetus there will remain that apathetic cruelty that has bloomed with the internet. I think we can all agree that removing people from interpersonal accountability releases certain sadistic tendencies in many that would probably be better suppressed.

This is a monumental moral dilemma for those capable of morality, in the hands of a psychopath it can be a horrifying evolution and extension of their drives. As a society we should all tread carefully.

 

[Colleen27]

I saw this headline yesterday and thought it was so bizarre that I screenshotted it to send to DD21, who lives in SF. I love the framing, like it is meant to be reassuring that they have explosives rather than guns?

 

[Ms.Minnie]

I saw this headline yesterday and thought it was so bizarre that I screenshotted it to send to DD21, who lives in SF. I love the framing, like it is meant to be reassuring that they have explosives rather than guns?

View attachment 722918

As if explosives are better than guns, in what world? I would think one explosive could and would do more damage to a larger area then one bullet would. I don't know if we are ready for this...

 

[Colleen27]

They can't get self driving cars to work. How are they going to get this to work?

This won't be autonomous, it will be directly human controlled. Much like the drones our military uses in combat situations, there will be a human being operating the robot. The advantage of the tech is that the person will remain a safe distance from whatever situation the robot was deployed to address.

If I believed even for a second that the use of this particular tool would be confined to the scenarios being used to sell it - incapacitating a mass shooter is the one that keeps being brought up in press conferences - I wouldn't see it as such a bad thing. But in general, the militarization of the police tends to foster a "we have it, we may as well use it" mindset about their equipment and the scope of use tends to creep and expand until you see things used for far more than originally intended. Like armored vehicles used at peaceful protests or even just parked outside a school on an ordinary day because for some reason the SRO is driving it.

Beyond that, there's enough evidence pointing to the dehumanizing effect of carrying out violence by remote control that expanding its use from strictly military into civilian agencies feels like a questionable idea on principle. I think that could be overcome by proper oversight, though, because the "terms of engagement" for lack of a better word would be more strictly confined in police use than, say, piloting a drone in a combat zone. But at the very least, it demands a conversation about what proper oversight means and a clear set of parameters for use that I'm not confident could be had in the current social and political climate.

But it is inconsistent in that this whole region is a hotspot of the antitheses of this practice, so the weird pivot is bizzarre.

That's what struck me about it too... it feels like such an uncharacteristic leap for a city and state that are generally trying to demilitarize law enforcement and de-escalate the capacity for police use of force.

 

[Colleen27]

As if explosives are better than guns, in what world? I would think one explosive could and would do more damage to a larger area then on bullet would. I don't know if we are ready for this...

And have much more collateral damage. They keep talking about how this could be deployed in an active shooter situation, and I'm trying to imagine how you could deploy an explosive inside a school full of kids hiding who-knows-where from a gunman without significant risk of killing or injuring others in the process of decapacitating the shooter.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I saw this headline yesterday and thought it was so bizarre that I screenshotted it to send to DD21, who lives in SF. I love the framing, like it is meant to be reassuring that they have explosives rather than guns?

View attachment 722918

Are the people writing this stuff unaware that a gun is a projectile set in motion by an explosive?

Sometimes I ponder the collective IQ of the people who write the stuff we tolerate in the news, or have stopped tolerating judging by the state of the news business these days... good bye and good riddance - next please!

*added in the news because I may not have been clear

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

And have much more collateral damage. They keep talking about how this could be deployed in an active shooter situation, and I'm trying to imagine how you could deploy an explosive inside a school full of kids hiding who-knows-where from a gunman without significant risk of killing or injuring others in the process of decapacitating the shooter.

A stun grenade, aka flash grenade. They've been around since the 70s and have been used by police since the 80s. They're an example of a "less lethal" round. Yes in a few instances they have injured or killed someone. But they aren't designed to and don't usually. I doubt they'd have the time to bring in a robot during a true active shooter situation. But if the perps have barricaded themselves in a room and have hostages, they could.

 

[Robber Baron]

San Francisco Debuts a killer robot capable of lethal force.

To me that is truly a wonder of modern science.

Oh, by the way.....The day after showing off this product San Francisco installed their first new hi tech city self cleaning bathroom. It's operation failed within 3 days.

New Hi Tech Bathrooms

 

[Colleen27]

Are the people writing this stuff unaware that a gun is a projectile set in motion by an explosive?

Sometimes I ponder the collective IQ of the people who write the stuff we tolerate, or have stopped tolerating judging by the state of the news business these days... good bye and good riddance - next please!

I feel like that's a needless foray into semantics. The officials quoted clearly stated "explosive weapon, not gun". Why would a reporter than split the hair of how firearms operate, rather than focusing on the meaning of the statement in a bigger picture sense? It would serve no purpose other than pushing the conversation into a rabbit hole of distinguishing between the two at the risk of obscuring the bigger point/questions about the ethics and application of robots capable of killing suspects.

A stun grenade, aka flash grenade. They've been around since the 70s and have been used by police since the 80s. They're an example of a "less lethal" round. Yes in a few instances they have injured or killed someone. But they aren't designed to and don't usually. I doubt they'd have the time to bring in a robot during a true active shooter situation. But if the perps have barricaded themselves in a room and have hostages, they could.

That second point is why I think scope creep is inevitable. They've stressed all the checks and balances over the use of these robots, up to and including the fact that only a tiny number of people have the power to authorize their deployment. That suggests they'll be a tool that can be brought on scene in minutes or hours but they're being sold to the public as intended for situations where every second counts... It doesn't pass the common sense test.

 

[tvguy]

A stun grenade, aka flash grenade. They've been around since the 70s and have been used by police since the 80s. They're an example of a "less lethal" round. Yes in a few instances they have injured or killed someone. But they aren't designed to and don't usually. I doubt they'd have the time to bring in a robot during a true active shooter situation. But if the perps have barricaded themselves in a room and have hostages, they could.

Stun grenades...........Flash bang grenades as they are most commonly called......do seem to have an issue with starting fires inside structures when used.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Every now and again I get a vibe that there is a peculiar preoccupation to break the US way of life with a cunning use of words. It is odd and I'm not really sure of the goal, but this is one of those times where the point seems shadowy.

I feel like that's a needless foray into semantics. The officials quoted clearly stated "explosive weapon, not gun". Why would a reporter than split the hair of how firearms operate, rather than focusing on the meaning of the statement in a bigger picture sense? It would serve no purpose other than pushing the conversation into a rabbit hole of distinguishing between the two at the risk of obscuring the bigger point/questions about the ethics and application of robots capable of killing suspects.

But that needlessness is precisely the point because the rule of law depends on it.

Ever notice that the drugs on the street keep changing and food supplements keep shuffling themselves? Same thing with big pharma drugs and their rebooted versions of the sort of same thing? Our laws are built upon exact definitions of things. With illicit things as soon as a substance is rounded up and classified as illegal a few little molecular changes and poof, a new thing appears that isn't illegal so it is legal or at least in a murky non illegal place. If a food supplement is flagged as a drug a minor change and poof, not the same anymore so not a drug. Pharma's do this where as soon as a thing slides into unprotected space & generics appear, poof, a new thing appears and legal protections reappear because it is a new thing. Artists do this where they make tons of copies of a thing then draw a new line and sign it then call it original because that new line makes it, legally, original. Tricky right? Most of us intuitively know this is nonsense and default to reason but semantics change everything, literally, at least when it comes to the law.

 

[kdonnel]

I welcome our new robot overlords.

 

[Colleen27]

Every now and again I get a vibe that there is a peculiar preoccupation to break the US way of life with a cunning use of words. It is odd and I'm not really sure of the goal, but this is one of those times where the point seems shadowy.

But that needlessness is precisely the point because the rule of law depends on it.

Ever notice that the drugs on the street keep changing and food supplements keep shuffling themselves? Same thing with big pharma drugs and their rebooted versions of the sort of same thing? Our laws are built upon exact definitions of things. With illicit things as soon as a substance is rounded up and classified as illegal a few little molecular changes and poof, a new thing appears that isn't illegal so it is legal or at least in a murky non illegal place. If a food supplement is flagged as a drug a minor change and poof, not the same anymore so not a drug. Pharma's do this where as soon as a thing slides into unprotected space & generics appear, poof, a new thing appears and legal protections reappear because it is a new thing. Artists do this where they make tons of copies of a thing then draw a new line and sign it then call it original because that new line makes it, legally, original. Tricky right? Most of us intuitively know this is nonsense and default to reason but semantics change everything, literally, at least when it comes to the law.

I see where you're coming from, but we already have quite a large number of laws and policies that define both "gun" and "explosive" in ways that are mutually exclusive. Someone firing a gun isn't charged based on the explosive used to launch the round, they're charged based on firearms statues. And conversely, explosives from the mundane (fireworks) to the powerful are regulated in entirely different ways and with entirely different foundations (no one that I'm aware of has ever argued a 2nd Amendment right to roman candles or M80s, never mind C4 or dynamite) than guns. So in this case in particular, it doesn't feel like a meaningful semantic distinction because there's already a wealth of legal precedent defining both of the categories in question. The police can't just decide later that a 9mm is a acceptable armament for the robot based on the micro-explosive in the bullet.