Oh wow, it’s kind’a like you work with me, weird…
4 Likes
Nice OG Cylon photobomb in that last panel…
5 Likes
4 Likes
first. no. it’d be even harder than trying to algorithmically moderate comments. how well are facebook and google doing at that? ( absolutely terrible. )
second. why should we believe programmers and their managers are any better at solving this than cops and their supervisors? ( racism in, racism out. )
just as there are some things public agencies can do better than private companies, there will always be things that people can do better than (non-sentient) robots.
we’re hopefully not signing up for that dystopia any time soon.
if there are things people can’t do well: like carry guns arounds to police each other, robots aint going to do it better. but what we can do is stop letting people carry guns around to police each other.
5 Likes
Sure, built in weapons systems make sense, but if you’re already developing the technology to have manipulative grasping ‘hands’ it’s just as useful to give the robot the ability to utilize external firearms. The utility and flexibility of being able to switch out weapons on the fly or as needed in the field without requiring an extended remounting process is an invaluable tactical and logistical tool.
2 Likes
I suspect that it depends on the value of integration with existing supplies and supply chains; and on whether or not there are a lot of fiddly little tasks that humans do easily with their dexterous monkey fingers that you can’t get rid of the need for.
If you just need a robot army, standardized hardpoints are a well proven concept(albeit usually on a slightly larger scale; but nothing prevents them being shrunk to infantry size) and would save you a lot of complexity and teeny servo motors and such. If you need killbots that can work with your humans, though, giving the bots hands will probably go over better than implanting hardpoints in your humans; and if you just can’t get past the fact that your favored weapon design jams every few thousand rounds and needs to be fiddled with you might end up need to add hands for fiddling purposes; and which point making them human-compatible for versatility starts to look more attractive.
2 Likes
Why would the robot police force needs guns anyway? They could just rubber chicken bad guys.
3 Likes
Would it? Already we have police procedures. The problem is cops ignore and bend them. They get a “gut feeling” and harass someone because they think they are doing something wrong. Sometimes they are right and we reward them, some times they are wrong and we ignore that they just abused their authority because next time they might be right.
Because of the underlying reason some people are cops, and the inherent problem with the system where they protect bad actors because some day they might have a bad day and be that bad actor.
I assume your first example is an analogy, because I’m not suggesting private policing. And I concede your second point, but I am not sure this will pan out in the future or not for this issue. 10 years ago I would have said driving is to complicated for robots, but now I am positive it will be common place within my life time.
Everyone assumes the Terminator instead of something benign?
Already said up thread that not all police robots need to be armed. Currently cops need to be armed because people are trying to hurt one another with arms. Robots don’t have that fear of death, nor hatred in their hearts. Program them with the emphasis on preserving life.
I thought about this, and I think weapons would need to be proprietary but external because you don’t want a weapon system constantly “on” the platform as there will be many more uses for it besides firepower. Up thread we even talked about not needing to arm most of them, and unless we are living in an 80s movie dystopia with colorful gangs running around with uzis, we probably don’t need them armed for most interactions.
Relevant:
The algorithm studied did not take account of race when estimating a person’s risk of health problems. Its skewed performance shows how even putatively race-neutral formulas can still have discriminatory effects when they lean on data that reflects inequalities in society.
The software was designed to predict patients’ future health costs as a proxy for their health needs. It could predict costs with reasonable accuracy for both black patients and white patients. But that had the effect of priming the system to replicate unevenness in access to healthcare in America—a case study in the hazards of combining optimizing algorithms with data that reflects raw social reality.
When the hospital used risk scores to select patients for its complex care program it was selecting patients likely to cost more in the future—not on the basis of their actual health. People with lower incomes typically run up smaller health costs because they are less likely to have the insurance coverage, free time, transportation, or job security needed to easily attend medical appointments, says Linda Goler Blount, president and CEO of nonprofit the Black Women’s Health Imperative.
Because black people tend to have lower incomes than white people, an algorithm concerned only with costs sees them as lower risk than white patients with similar medical conditions. “It is not because people are black, it’s because of the experience of being black,” she says. “If you looked at poor white or Hispanic patients, I’m sure you would see similar patterns.”
5 Likes
The stupid, it burns.
7 Likes
I read that as the robot returning to its base state while it regained its composure.
2 Likes
I know you’re joking, but the reason to make a bipedal humanoid is to give the robot access to the same spaces as humans. Wheels or big inflexible blobs can’t traverse stairs or narrow doors, reach high shelves, or fit in existing seats in vehicles.
2 Likes
Case in point…
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
