Hacker News Reader

Comment by npteljes | Hacker News Reader

Bad premise, and therefore nonsense conclusions, because AI can have many uses, aside from surveillance. In this regard, it's not like a gun, which is very specifically an instrument to kill, and has secondary uses like shooting sports, but rather it's a tool, like tongs, which can be used for building, cooking, and also to torture someone.

Advertising companies are jumping at AI for two things: it is hoped that it can give them an edge, and second, because they already have data, which is in fact fundamental for AI.

View on HN

In many countries guns are used in a nonlethal way. My friend during psychosis stabbed a policeman in the leg with a kitchen knife, and was only shot in the leg as a response.

I don't think any country has a police force with a shoot to wound policy. Your friend was extremely lucky. It's not practical to shoot to wound in most circumstances. The arms and legs move faster than a shooter can react and that's why center of mass is what is trained.

Sweden does. (I know because I live in Sweden.)

https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befog...

Relevant part:

"Om polisen skjuter mot en person ska de sträva efter att bara för tillfället oskadliggöra personen. Skotten ska i första hand riktas mot benen, men om omständigheterna kräver det får polisen skjuta direkt mot överkroppen – till exempel om den hotfulla personen befinner sig nära i avstånd och angreppet går fort."

Google translation:

"If the police shoot at a person, they must aim to render the person harmless only for the time being. The shots must primarily be aimed at the legs, but if the circumstances require it, the police may shoot directly at the upper body - for example, if the threatening person is close in distance and the attack is fast."

EDIT: some data from https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befog... -- out of 1.13 million police interventions in 2022, shots were fired at a person or vehicle 21 times. Out of those, 2 had lethal outcomes.

That's interesting, it prompted me to read more on this. You definitely don't want to act in a threatening way in USA or Canada where it's shoot to kill and the death rates from police reflect this.

I don't know of many countries explicitly require shoot to wound, but many functionally have this with laws that require minimizing harm.

It's noticeable in the stats of police shootings versus police killings, where countries with these types of laws might see 10 police shootings in a year but 0 or 1 police killings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_countr...

Germany does. The situation is less clear cut than what it seems like from the sister comment, but in general, a police officer is legally prohibited from even using a gun unless the situation does not allow for any other means. This can also mean shooting a person to prevent their escape, but even that is only legal in certain circumstances.

Using LETHAL force has even stronger guards on it. Germany itself has no legal grounds for this AT ALL, as far as I know. Some states have a clause in their Police Laws that specifically mention a "Finaler Rettungsschuß" (final saving shot), which is a shot that would kill with "almost certain probability", and it is only allowed if there is no other way for the officer to save themselves or others from significant harm (see quote from law below). The exact legal situation differs between states, but even Bavaria, which has been widely critiqued for its liberal police law, only allows for the final saving shot:

"2) Schußwaffen dürfen gegen Personen nur gebraucht werden, um angriffs- oder fluchtunfähig zu machen. Ein Schuß, der mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit tödlich wirken wird, ist nur zulässig, wenn er das einzige Mittel zur Abwehr einer gegenwärtigen Gefahr für Leib oder Leben einer Person ist."

See https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayPAG-83

EDIT: The amount of deaths by police in Germany reflect this. In 2019, 62 shots have been fired by police officers on people. 15 were lethal, 30 people were injured. https://www.cilip.de/2021/02/02/polizeiliche-todesschuesse-2...

> a gun, which is very specifically an instrument to kill

Is it though? Maybe a gun is the most efficient way to send a destructive projectile to a nearby target. Any "killing living things" part is secondary to the primary function.

> which can be used for building, cooking, and also to torture someone.

Okay but that may imply AI is a building technology, & cooking technology... and surveillance technology. That's how disruptive it is, it's coming at us on multiple fronts.

Yes, in retrospect, guns are instruments created to destruct or hurt, rather than kill. Still, the original point stands: guns are created and used for specific problems, and other tools, in which I include AI, are much more general in usage, even with potential to abuse.

I agree with your point about AI being a more general tool. I can also appreciate the point in article, that tech services are pushing AI, rushing to normalize it. Some are concerned how our data is used to facilitate new AI features, given the track record of tech companies to put profit ahead of privacy, or ecosystem lock-in ahead of open flexibility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com