San Francisco politicians to vote on policy endorsing lethal force for robots Next week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is expected to vote on a policy proposal that will allow the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to deploy robots authorized to kill people. No such use is currently planned, according to SFPD, which characterized the policy proposal as an endorsement of the continued use of …
They might be where you are but not in the UK. There is liability but its a fight as to whose. This is the same philosophical argument that has been going on for a long time regarding self-driving cars and another example of the trolley problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem).
You may be right that "robot" conveys a notion of an autonomous robot to some people, but robots can be autonomous or semi-autonomous. Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) are robots, but not all robots are LAWs.
I think the term robot is being used properly here, and the general public will eventually get beyond science fiction notions of robots as only autonomous AI-driven androids.
Aren't LAWs Light Anti-armour Weapons?Maybe?
The acronym I was looking for was LAWS and not LAWs and is correctly "lethal autonomous weapons systems". Thanks for the correction.
Robot has been corrupted by idiots to mean remote controlled toy.
If you are including industrial robots in your definitions of corrupted, idiots, and toys then you are at odds with the modern world. Words evolve. I would be interested to see a modern credible source for a definition of robot that requires it to be fully autonomous (without alternative definitions for partially autonomous robots).
Rather than the 'robot' part, I would be more worried about the 'military equipment' part. US police forces have become more and more militarised since 9/11, partly because of federal grants that can only be used for specific antiterror purposes. Grants which police departments prefer to use rather than lose, and then once they have the equipment it's a case of 'might as well use it since we have it'.
That in turn is part of the escalation where both criminals and non-criminals have easy access to high-power weaponry and the police 'need' to militarise just to keep up. Which ends up in the type of scenarios seen in Robocop.
"The proposal addresses California Assembly Bill 481, which requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval from an appropriate legislative body for the use of military equipment."
Military equipment. For the plod.
Next they'll get Reaper drones to patrol the streets, or ICBMs (ok, maybe not, as they aim outside of your jurisdiction).
Weird place.
The US police don't really do what we in the UK would call policing, it is more like counter insurgency work. Americans are willing to start a gun fight and die over the smallest of things, you can find videos of people getting pulled over for having broken taillights and being given a fix-it ticket (so not even a fine) and deciding to pull out a gun and get themselves killed.
... and deciding to pull out a gun and get themselves killed.
Hmm ...
Yes, bound to happen where to most anyone over 18 purchasing a Glock 22 is as easy and straightforward as just asking for one.
But there have been many more situations where police pulled their guns and shot (rpeatedly) a pedestrian/driver because they had reached for something which ended up being nothing at all.
Not to mention the infamous no-knock warrants, it is mind bending.
Granted, most if not all affected were US citizens which were not pale enough to qualify as white.
Maybe that should also be taken into account.
Armed robots will only make it worse.
O.
It's not nearly as easy as you seem to think to get a handgun.
Where I live in North Carolina the first step is to fill out a permit request with the country sheriffs office. They do a background check and if you pass it you will get a permit to purchase a pistol.
That may take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks.
Once you have your permit you can go to a dealer licensed by the federal government, and after showing your ID and permit you can buy a pistol.
If you go through the much more rigorous process of getting a concealed carry permit, which costs several hundred dollars and you have to take classes it's much easier to get a handgun. You go into the gun store, show them your CCH (Concealed Carry Handgun), and your driver's license, then you can go ahead and purchase your gun.
And yes, sadly there have been situations where someone has reached for something and gotten shot... but in a situation where say, you have been pulled over by an officer the LAST thing you want to do is something he sees as threating. He has no way of knowing if you are reaching for a gun or a pack of gum, and far too many police officers have died in just this kind of scenario, only the person they were dealing with DID reach for a gun.
Another fact of the matter is white people are more likely to be shot by the police than blacks, and blacks are most likely to be shot by other blacks.
... not nearly as easy as you seem to think to get a handgun.
Seems not.
... white people are more likely to be shot by the police than blacks ...
Well ...
Not according to The Washington Post in their (ongoing) seven year statistic (updated 21/11/2022):
---
Black Americans are killed at a much higher rate than White Americans
Although half of the people shot and killed by police are White, Black Americans are shot at a disproportionate rate. They account for less than 13 percent of the U.S. population, but are killed by police at more than twice the rate of White Americans. Hispanic Americans are also killed by police at a disproportionate rate.
---
ie:
- Black: 42 per million
- Hispanic: 30 per million
- White: 17 per million
- Other: 5 per million
As you will surely gather, White victims of police violence have been 17 per million while the rest ie: those not considered White by the police or the Washington Post, have been 77 per million.
The victims are overwhelmingly young and male (>95%) and the shootings happen all across the US.
That's over 4.5 times as many.
Granted, the study is not making any distinction between Black or White police officers, but I doubt it is relevant in any way.
Truly, a very sad state of affairs.
O.
This post has been deleted by its author
I am not disagreeing with you initial figures just your concluding maths, over 4.5 times as many. You can't add the per millions together (42 + 30 + 5) and come up with 77 per million.
Looking at the link non-white population 130 million 3177 of which were killed by police. So 24.4 per million non-white population not 77 per million.
If No such use is currently planned, according to SFPD
why is the department asking for permission for such use?
Asking for unnecessary permissions is a red flag for me (usually triggered by applications on my smartphone and not police departments).
Don't worry, we don't have any (current and publicly known) plans to exercise all those rights we ask you to grant us ...
Similar statements were made to objections of the expansion of authority and secret warrants and courts granted by the US Patriot Act passed after the 2001 September Eleventh attacks.
Something along the lines of "Yes, it is broad overreach and possibly unconstitutional, but you can trust us, we wont go that far. And, TERRORISTS!"
So where are the "robots" going to learn proper use of force from?
Not taking sides on this one, but I think the history is worth mentioning. Notable examples:
There is probably more going on here than just a debate on what are the reasonable uses of technology.
Others have already said this. Asimov should have nothing to add. A remote control device is not an AI. In legal and ethical terms, it should not be considered any different to driving or piloting a vehicle. It just happens to be capable of insulating the driver or pilot from any physical risks.
Strictly remote control (e.g. most publicly available drones) is not a robot. If the machine has some autonomous capability, such as collision avoidance, you start to blur the line. Some of the machines mentioned in the article have the ability to climb stairs, which puts them squarely in the robot category.
@trindflo "Some of the machines mentioned in the article have the ability to climb stairs, which puts them squarely in the robot category."
I have the ability to climb stairs that does not put me squarely in the robot category. Climbing stairs does not make a machine a robot any more than flying would.
A machine that climbs stairs piloted by a human is not a robot. Neither is a machine that climbs stairs piloted remotely by a human a robot.
@falmari
I have not accused you of being a machine, so your ability to climb stairs doesn't imply you are a robot. If you are going to be ridiculous just to argue, I won't answer again.
For a machine to automatically perform complex tasks, such as climbing stairs, without the operator controlling every motion is in the definition of a robot in a number of places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot
https://www.britannica.com/technology/robot-technology
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/robot
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot
https://robots.ieee.org/learn/what-is-a-robot/
You seem to be using an outdated meaning to the word.
Assuming there's not a typo in the article, the original piece of contention was "Robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person." - not specifically lethal force. So this would also seem to exclude the use of 'robots' to deliver non-lethal force, including tasers, CS and other incapacitants which there may be a more reasonable case for.
Considering that a robot (or drone, these aren't exactly robots) could be made pretty much bulletproof it would make all sorts of sense to build in a few none lethal methods of controlling someone. So let the perp shoot at the machine all he wants as it comes up to him and uses gas, a really loud sound, a net, or whatever to incapacitate him.
Automated, laser-assisted enforcement in the home is an idea whose time has come.
Zap burglars, free-riding cats, and filthy roommates.
You choose the joules multiplier, from 1 (stun) to 11 (KFC).
Coming soon: Outside Vac-and-Zap. Free your 'hood from solicitors, joggers, children, and animals.*
* "California-Cleaning" upgrade (bums, pushers, addicts, shoplifters, Fecesbook employees, hippie pols, etc.) for an additional charge.
"They include: Remotec modelsF5A, 6A, and RONS; QinetiQ Talon and Dragon Runner; IRobot FirstLook; and ReconRobotics Recon Scout ThrowBot."
Of course it would never happen that the politicians had been influenced in any way by the fact that rather a lot of companies have been spending rather a lot of money developing these things, and could only recoup that if they could somehow persuade the politicians to authorise their use. Once they've added AI, automatic target selection and autonomous weapon firing, the same process can be used to get that accepted too.
Sadly, the greater the distance between human and target, the lesser the concern for the loss of life, or so it seems from the use of UAVs in Afghanistan. As the cops are already trigger happy, and don't honour their training to deescalate or establish the actual magnitude of the danger they are facing before shooting, use of robots will end in (more) tears.
The quip "try not to die by automated car" is either an intentional misdirection or is completely off-point. In the killer robot instance -- there is an intent to inflict deadly harm, with the car it is simple negligence or incompetence in programming or QA or both.
that San Francisco is doing this at all. California has the most authoritarian government in the US, and San Francisco has the most authoritarian government in California. Today the robots require a human to push the button, but in a few years the robot programming will be refined until they can identify a person, and identify what they are doing. If the person is in the protected political class they'll be able to kill a person in front of the robot, or direct the robot to kill for them. If not, the robot will make the decision to kill and there will be no recourse. The government's will shall be absolute.
Sound like I'm off my rocker? Not really. I don't have to walk a path to see the ultimate destination, especially knowing that authoritarian governments have zero value for individual lives unless those lives are part of the political machine. Even then, political lives are replaceable cogs if they no longer follow government will.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
