Hacker News Reader

Comment by samfbiddle | Hacker News Reader

Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read it. The plan here is to literally load live 12 gauge shells into the robot's PAN disrupter device, which typically only takes blank rounds, in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. It's a shotgun. But don't take it from me, take it from the cop who proposed the plan!

“Yeah, physically a live round can go in,” Daza-Quiroz answered. “Absolutely. And you’d be getting a shotgun round.”

View on HN

Hi Sam Biddle, I think it is common knowledge that writers don't choose their titles, editors do, so I wasn't criticizing your article, I was criticizing the title.

These devices are not robots. They are remote control devices operated by humans.

Oxford: robot, a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.

Robots act autonomously and automatically. The hypothetical case where we might give such an autonomous device lethal capabilities is an ongoing discussion. Most people agree that could be a very bad idea.

But a human controlled device? I don't see the problem.

The police call the machine in question a robot, the army calls it a robot, even the manufacturer calls the machine in question a robot.

Northrop-Grumman calls this specific model a robot in their press release.

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...

Sometimes companies exaggerate their products in order to charge higher prices. No doubt there is some strict, technical definition of "robot" that this satisfies, but it's not what people generally think of as a "robot". There's also a strict definition of "tool" that is satisfied by a rock or a stick, but that's not what I'm looking for when I ask about tools at Home Depot (and apart from the pedants, everyone generally understands this).

Just some friendly advice, that you might wanna watch where you're pointing that accusation of pedantry.

I'm not being pedantic, and I'm not accusing anyone in particular of pedantry, I'm saying it would be pedantic to consider a stick or a stone to be a tool in the context of Home Depot.

Personally, I don't think opening a thinly veiled accusation with "just some friendly advice" does much to mitigate the rudeness.

It was described in the article. That a police, which already is accused of using excessive force, gets a new means of killing people, remotely.

It's considered a robot by its manufacturer (https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...), the police who own it, and California state law, so I am confident in my choice of terms here.

When the subject of Robot + lethal force are combined, people think of Robocop, specifically the ED-209, not the cyborg. That's the implication. An autonomous robot which carries out "justice."

It would be appropriate to call it by it's modifier, a remote-controlled robot.

I’d buy that for a dollar!

Today I learned my toaster is a robot

Observing this disagreement without having first read the article, you're coming off as unreasonable in your details, though your original criticism may make sense. Autonomy is not, in practice, a prerequisite for the label "robot", no matter how much we would like it to be (and I would like it to be). This is especially true of standins for dangerous operations. We all know that e.g. bomb disposal robots are robots in normal writing and normal conversation. It seems like a bad-faith nit-pick to assert otherwise.

Even if you disagree that this is the "common" understanding, the sarcastic exaggeration is meaningless.

I agree with another commenter, that a more reasonable criticism would be that it should be called a "remote controlled robot", rather than just a robot.

I'm agreement with you but think that the phrase "robots with lethal shotguns" is scare mongering.

What's the CA legal definition of a robot?

According to Merriam-Webster, a "robot" is: > 1. a machine that resembles a living creature in being capable of moving independently (as by walking or rolling on wheels) and performing complex actions (such as grasping and moving objects) > 2A. a device that automatically performs complicated, often repetitive tasks (as in an industrial assembly line) > 2B. a mechanism guided by automatic controls > 3. a person who resembles a machine in seeming to function automatically or in lacking normal feelings or emotions

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot

Maybe a remote control device could fit the definition of 2B, but it's a stretch, as that's so broad that an alarm clock could be a "robot".

I'm sure the distinction between teleoperated machine and autonomous robot will be very important to the family killed by this machine the next time the Oakland police do a no-knock raid on the wrong house.

Whatever kind of machine this is at the end of the day it's a force multiplier. That's why it is used. It lets law enforcement leverage more force against people and it allows them to do so with further impunity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdokBQW7Suc

It's always disconcerting when people don't see a problem with that.

How much force projection should law enforcement have anyways?

How much is too much? Is it subjective or objective?

What are the checks and balances on this kind of equipment?

The criticism was that the title is clickbait, not that there is no problem with "increased force projection". The latter doesn't justify the former.

Clickbait-accusation seems to imply "do not waste your time reading this." I think you are equivocating.

Clickbait means the title is more sensational than the article delivers, it doesn't mean that the article isn't worth reading (lots of unsensational things are worth reading). An article about the lethal potential of a remotely guided bomb disposal machine is entirely worth reading, but that doesn't justify describing it as a "lethal shotgun equipped robot", which is textbook equivocation--pretty bold to suggest that I'm the one equivocating.

> Robots act autonomously and automatically.

In the way most people colloquially use the word "robot", that's not necessarily true; surgical robots aren't autonomous, for example, nor are telepresence robots. The word "robot" is actually surprisingly vague. A dishwasher operates autonomously, but many people don't consider it a robot. Elevators are vertical L5 autonomous vehicles, but most people don't consider them robots, either.

More importantly, though, if a device has software-activated weapons and is connected to the internet, it is theoretically possible for a hacker to load code onto it to make it an autonomous death machine, even if its OEM firmware was intended for human-controlled teleoperation only.

My massive problem with tech like this is it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger". If a cop is chasing a suspect and the suspect pulls out a gun and starts shooting a the cop, the cop would be right to shoot back and kill the suspect. But you can't apply that standard to something that isn't living, if a cop is directing a robot to chase a suspect and the suspect start shooting at the robot, the same standard just does not apply.

I had this same misgiving when Dallas PD used a robot to carry a bomb towards a hostile rooftop sniper.

I think it will usually be justified as being in the imminent defense of others / the public. The sniper was actively threatening to continue shooting people.

Perhaps they’d say the hypothetical guy shooting at a robot is endangering others via any stray bullets. And perhaps sometimes that would be correct.

I mean, the Dallas (ex-military) sniper was exactly the right use of this sort of technology. He was actively, explicitly murdering cops, and the police had no reason to believe he was unwilling or unable to kill more of them if they moved to arrest him. I can understand concern that this might be used in more ambiguous circumstances, but I don't understand why anyone would object to its use in that particular case.

Because at the exact moment the bomb was detonated he wasn’t a threat at that moment.

Maybe ten minutes before, perhaps ten minutes after.

But perhaps they could have cordoned off a wide area until he got hungry or thirsty enough to come down. That would have been a massive hassle for the city and difficult to ensure the city’s safety but you could always blow him up next time he starts shooting at someone.

On balance obviously it was expedient to blow him up at that moment but it’s not clear it was strictly necessary.

It's not clear to me that they would have had a better opportunity. "Lethal intervention" is among the best case scenarios in a mass shooting, I don't know why we are litigating it like the outcome was particularly tragic. It may not have been perfect, and I'm sure there's something to learn from it, but people are discussing it like it was Uvalde or something. It seems like it was as close to a desirable outcome as could reliably be secured--I'm glad police didn't roll the dice in hoping for a less lethal outcome with innocent lives hanging in the balance.

Good point. Though what if the suspect is threatening to shoot others, and there is a robot (with a live round) nearby?

I get that cops can't be trusted to only use it in this scenario (as implied by the author), but if hypothetical "better police officers" were available, should we allow it then?

EDIT: theoretically the robot (even if remote controlled) could aim better.

> the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger"

Emphasis mine. Is it not okay to shoot at someone who's shooting at your partner?

> it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger"

For police, it's "you only kill when a life is in danger". It doesn't have to be your life.

I've read the article, but it doesn't define what exactly a robot is.

The problem is that one can mistake the term for machines with some form of autonomy, while, based on my understanding, they're "just" remotely controlled ones.

I both named the exact model of the robot (Northrop Grumman Remotec Andros Mark 5-A1) and specify that it's operated via remote control.

There is a pretty huge distinction between an RC car with a camera and an attachment that can load a single shell into it and the "shotgun-toting robot" that your article conjures.

Doesn't the chief of police have to personally authorize the use of one of these robots? Do you find these scary even when used appropriately? Or is your fear that this is a slippery slope that ends in an autonomous robot sticking a shotgun in your face and demanding your ID?

> in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances.

Where is this suggested by the Oakland PD?

It wasn't suggested, it was explicitly stated in the meetings and in the proposed authorized use language, both of which you will conveniently find quoted in the article.

No?

I'm seeing at most: ' Lt. Joseph Turner' 'urged the commission to allow such a killer robot in case of “exigencies.”'

He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views.

The official spokesperson appears to be: 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz, who represented the department in discussions over the authorized robot use policy'

His claim that “Yes, we are looking into that and doing more research at this time.” is even farther.

There's also: 'According to Daza-Quiroz, the department is still looking toward the future. “We will not be arming robots with lethal rounds anytime soon, and if, and when that time comes each event will be assessed prior to such deployment,” he said.'

Even the closest of his claims: 'When asked if there were other situations beyond a Dallas-style sniper in which police might wish to kill with a robot, Daza-Quiroz added: “Absolutely there are many more scenarios.”'

Seems like expressing the fact that there imaginable scenarios where such a system is desirable. Not that the Oakland PD wants to do so.

I encourage you to look up the word "exigency"

> He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views.

The article itself claims that someone else, a 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz' is the official spokesperson. Since you apparently are the author, this attempted deflection seems not credible at all.

> I encourage you to look up the word "exigency"

In your haste to snark, you missed the parent's point, which was that the officer doesn't speak on behalf of the department contra the claim.

There's no snark in that comment. It is proper and appropriate.

Michael's use was congruent with exigency's meaning--there was no reason for samfbiddle to suggest Michael didn't understand the word, particularly while ignoring Michael's actual point (that Officer Turner wasn't the department's spokesperson). samfbiddle's comment was neither proper nor appropriate.

Note also that samfbiddle similarly accused another commenter upthread of not reading his article (without evidence) despite that the commenter's criticism was congruent with a reading of the article (i.e., there was no reason for samfbiddle to assume that the critic hadn't read his article, and anyway voicing as much violates the site guidelines).

This is an old, well established pattern, but it is embarrassing that this kind of irrelevant idiocy is so often destined to greet authors and subject matter experts when they visit a message board discussing their work.

> This is an old, well established pattern, but it is embarrassing that this kind of irrelevant idiocy is so often destined to greet authors and subject matter experts when they visit a message board discussing their work.

Yes, this sort of bikeshedding is the cost of clickbait titles--seems like this could all go away if authors/editors stopped using clickbait titles; not sure why we should sneer at the community for highlighting the misleading headline. Moreover, such sneering violates the site guidelines:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

(emphasis mine)

........

.......

..... do you honestly think that if you give police remote control vehicles with shotguns attached to them that they WONT use them for violence and killing? These are police we are talking about here, they come from a culture of violence and extreme fear.

Implying that someone hasn't read the article violates the site guidelines.

Seeing the title I immediately thought of something AI/ML controlled. I read the article and thought the robot was autonomous up until more than halfway through where you mention it is remote-controlled. You even compare it to a Roomba, which is autonomous. It is confusing. Putting that it the first paragraph would make the article sound much different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com