this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
60 points (87.5% liked)

News

23367 readers
2664 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 41 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Is this the news story that will be pushed to show how useful and effective these robots are after they start strapping guns to them, letting some AI tell them who to shoot? That's what it feels like.

[–] Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Hello friend. It looks like you made a disparaging comment about our surveillance capabilities and ongoing efforts to introduce AI killer robots. Please report to your nearest police station where one of our members will escort you to our re-education camp.

Thank you Killer robot team.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

P.S., if you fail to report within 4 hours we will release the dogs.

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

(two spaces at the end of a line will "force" markdown to respect your single line break/enter)

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

AI might be an improvement over the humans who open fire on guys armed with nothing but a sandwich.

Ah, who am I kidding, of course machine learning is just racism laundering. The image recognition software will use police data to train and therefore will do the same racist murders, just with hyper accurate gun shots.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 8 months ago

Even before the latest surge in AI capabilities image recognition was already better than human at distinguishing between gun and non-gun. I think it'll be a net positive. I'm looking forward to the humanoid police robots that can just run up to someone and grab their gun away, ignoring being shot at in the process.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Black Mirror Metalhead intensifies

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

Search AI pushing news stories written by AI about AI autonomous weaponry telling us we'll be safe.

[–] geogle@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

At no point did it talk about arming the robot, let alone any use of AI. Your concerns are valid, just not for this specific story.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 17 points 8 months ago

I don't feel like you are parsing that comment correctly.

Will this feel-good story about a robot dog be used later to make us all a bit more accepting of all the dystopian shit that we know is coming with police robots?

Well maybe not, but I have to agree with the "that's what it feels like" assessment.

[–] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 36 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Those things aren't like the K9 unit in the C.O.P.S. cartoon, or even like Goddard in Jimmy Neutron. They're terrestrial drones. Comparing them to dogs is either incredibly generous to them or incredibly insulting to the dogs.

[–] Aggravationstation@feddit.uk 8 points 8 months ago

Or incredibly ingratiating to what will likely become a mobile weapons platform.

[–] chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I'm gonna say the dog did a good job this time. If there's someone unstable in a building with a gun, I'd rather a robot go in and either negotiate or use non-lethal force than a person do it, since a remote operator is much less likely to overreact than someone in person.

The issue for me isn't with the technology, and more with who is applying it and why. It should be explicitly for harm reduction purposes, and they shouldn't be equipped with lethal force.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago

This I can agree with. Despite my general unease with ANYTHING that can be reasonably called a police robot, even the cops seem to realize they'll probably kill less people this way.

“In addition to providing critically important room clearance and situational awareness capabilities, the insertion of Roscoe into the suspect residence prevented the need, at that stage of response, from inserting human operators, and may have prevented a police officer from being involved in an exchange of gunfire.”

At least it doesn't matter when the operator of the unarmed robot thinks the phone (or sandwich, or wallet) you are holding is a gun - it probably doesn't cost you your life.

[–] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (4 children)

They instigated him into revealing his position with robots and then gassed him. I guess that’s effective, but I assume it could have been done without the robots too.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I guess that’s effective, but I assume it could have been done without the robots too.

The guy inside was shooting at officers outside and shot at multiple robots inside. Multiple strikes to one that finally made it fail. Zero humans (assailant or officers) were injured in all of this because of the use of robots.

I'm interested in hearing what other non-robot method are you suggesting that would have had the same result with equal safety to humans?

[–] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What else are they going to spend that money on? Crap like deescalation training and non-lethal equipment?

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

The robots are already non-lethal equipment though

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

But robots are cool and they need to spend their money on cool new toys for the boysssssssssss omg have some compassion maaahn duude.

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If this becomes a common method, there's going to be a lot more police instigated house fires. Tear gas cannisters are basically a smoldering ember

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Well the other option would be to gas the entire home, so no it would actually prevent them by limiting where they use them.

Also, can you provide the statistics on house fires started by tear gas? It sounds like it’s possible, but it also sounds like you’re being an alarmist since it can be possible, but has probably only also happened once in its history. Which wouldn’t be an issue to bring forward in most other situations…..

[–] juicy -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Interesting, that was more than my preliminary results pulled up, although 2 of yours specify the wrong grenades were used.

So sounds more like a training and personal issues over equipment issue if using the right equipment limits it?

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

I'd say it's an inherent risk with most less lethal grenades. They're ideally used out of line of sight and many have a minor incindiary element. So if they land say next to curtains they can start a fire. Like the one that occurred in the Iranian Embassy Siege after the SAS threw in a flash bang.

There's risk mitigation that can take place but accidents will always happen to some degree.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

until it doesn't enter the terminator soundtrack