Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Asimov's First Law Broken by a Police Robot — Parallax Forums

Asimov's First Law Broken by a Police Robot

ercoerco Posts: 20,254
Robots in the news.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/08/dallas-shooting-suspect-killed-by-bomb-robot/

The use of a robot to kill someone has taken police observers aback. Using robots to place small detonating devices next to larger bombs so that they detonate remotely has long been a tactic used by police bomb squads. And last year, a robot was used to talk a man out of suicide, after using it to deliver him a phone and pizza.

But placing a bomb on a police robot with the intention to kill a suspect—if that is, in fact, what happened—would represent a major shift in policing tactics. In fact, it may be the first “use of robot in this way in policing” in the United States, defense technology expert Peter Singer tweeted.

Comments

  • Given the number of video cameras I imagine that a bomb robot isn't autonomous, and more like a fancy radio controlled vehicle with a point of view camera. That doesn't spook me that much because it's essentially a human performing the action remotely.
  • Just my humble opinion, but...
    I would like to agree with this premise but I find it very difficult to call a remotely operated vehicle an autonomous robot. In this particular instance the only decisions the police "robot" could make was strictly obstacle avoidance navigation. It was the remote operator that made the decision to detonate the explosive. I think the police bot also paid the ultimate price.
  • I agree with Hal. It wasn't a robot, but a glorified remote controlled car. Humans still pushed the buttons.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    Nothing to do with Asimov and his laws here.

    This was all controlled by humans.

    It's just death by remote control.
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,254
    I agree with Hal. It wasn't a robot, but a glorified remote controlled car. Humans still pushed the buttons.

    Of course. Of course!

    (Devil's Advocate) But isn't an autonomous robot just the errand boy of the human(s) who pushed the (keyboard) buttons to program it previously? Or the end user human who pushed the "seek and destroy" buttons?

    In both instances, had the buttons not been pressed, there would be no death.

    (Back to reality, I just love stirring the pot)

    Who will mourn the robot? Just the taxpayers?



  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    If you are happy with your police using remote control devices to kill people, I guess it's OK.

    It disturbs me greatly.

  • yetiyeti Posts: 818
    edited 2016-07-09 18:41
    Why didn't they take some narcotic gas or other non lethal ways to stop him?
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,254
    yeti wrote: »
    Why didn't they take some narcotic gas or other non lethal ways to stop him?

    That's a great question. Had a single police officer shot & killed him, there would have been a whole investigation asking that question. In this case, there was a nameless, faceless team controlling the robot. I wonder if the smoke will clear faster since the "robot" will be blamed.

  • As an avid Asimov fan, I can say with confidence that none of the three laws were touched. The robot involved was merely a glorified remote control vehicle. I am confused with the use of deadly force, but the scenario was very complicated.
  • erco wrote:
    (Devil's Advocate) But isn't an autonomous robot just the errand boy of the human(s) who pushed the (keyboard) buttons to program it previously?
    In the case of self-replicating robots, I guess it would depend upon how many generations they're removed from their human programmers.

    -Phil
  • I've got no problem with it - just like using a drone to take out ISIS terrorists...
  • I've got no problem with it - just like using a drone to take out ISIS terrorists...

    Last thing we needed was more law enforcement risking their lives, on someone who may have IED's in the vicinity, take the threat out, get it done, the perp had no mercy.
  • msrobotsmsrobots Posts: 3,704
    edited 2016-07-10 01:45
    Heater. wrote: »
    If you are happy with your police using remote control devices to kill people, I guess it's OK.

    It disturbs me greatly.

    yes, me too.

    concerned!

    Mike
  • erco wrote: »
    (Devil's Advocate) But isn't an autonomous robot just the errand boy of the human(s) who pushed the (keyboard) buttons to program it previously? Or the end user human who pushed the "seek and destroy" buttons?

    In both instances, had the buttons not been pressed, there would be no death.
    Well, if a robot would be programmed in the ancient ways, one instruction at a time, then yes, there's no difference. If however the robot were programmed using more advanced techniques and be self-learning, i.e. capable of acquiring skills, gathering facts and coming to new conclusions itself, either due to some neuronal network, genetic programming, statistics (seems to be favored by some fellows at google) or some new approach, then its not so clear. Similar discussion regarding self-driving cars.
    erco wrote: »
    Who will mourn the robot? Just the taxpayers?
    Isn't that the idea behind military drones?
  • I don't think we're entering an era of bomb-carrying police robots. First, they likely didn't have time to assemble an alternative. It takes a lot more research and development to come up with a non-lethal method of disabling a person. I imagine this is something they'll turn their attention to.

    Second, the baddies now know to watch out for robots carrying little round things with burning fuzes on the top. The element of surprise has come, and gone.

  • IMO it is about time.

    Where was the uproar when Eric Rudolph used a remote to kill a policeman and maim a very sweet lady friend of mine.
  • trooks wrote: »
    Where was the uproar when Eric Rudolph used a remote to kill a policeman and maim a very sweet lady friend of mine.

    It's not the use of a remote device, per se (it's common in Afghanistan and Iraq), but it's new for the police. You have to figure it will generate news.

    OTOH, now with the concept out there, I'm sure law enforcement will look at ways to deliver non-lethal methods, when appropriate. In this case, there was no time to develop anything but a deadly charge.

    To remind you, Rudolph got plenty of uproar: He was on the FBI most wanted list for years, with a huge million dollar reward, and recurring news coverage about his crimes. After he was caught, for months his plea bargains generated front page news and angry arguments about his avoiding the death penalty. He's now serving multiple life terms in a supermax prison (that means solitary confinement). Images of his brother cutting off his hand in protest generated even more news and opinion. It lasted for years. It was hardly Page 6 news.

  • ercoerco Posts: 20,254
    trooks wrote: »
    Where was the uproar when Eric Rudolph used a remote to kill a policeman and maim a very sweet lady friend of mine.

    Alas, I only remember Richard Jewell from the Atlanta bombing. Idiots Eric Rudolph and Eric Wamser (drone pilot arrested) are giving us Erics a bad name.

  • Gordon,
    You are correct. It was initially thought that the off duty policeman working as a security guard had set off the explosion when he was checking out the package. The fact that Rudolph used a remote and was watching the cop bend over the package did not come out until after his 'death-defying' deal.

    The point being missed in this discussion is that the cops had a tool(the ROV) to enable them to save more lives and they used their tool. There is nothing 'robot' about it.
  • Martin_H wrote: »
    Given the number of video cameras I imagine that a bomb robot isn't autonomous, and more like a fancy radio controlled vehicle with a point of view camera. That doesn't spook me that much because it's essentially a human performing the action remotely.
    I've been looking for those words. I didn't know what to call my project. Since I used an nRF24L01, similar to an X-Bee I guess I can also say it's DRC-RCV for data radio control - radio controlled vehicle
    Anyway, I like the phrase "radio controlled vehicle"
Sign In or Register to comment.