Humans Are Already Harassing Security Robots (cnn.com) 184
An anonymous reader quotes CNN:
As robots begin to appear on sidewalks and streets, they're being hazed and bullied. Last week, a drunken man allegedly tipped over a 300-pound security robot in Mountain View, California... Knightscope, which makes the robot that was targeted in Mountain View, said it's had three bullying incidents since launching its first prototype robot three years ago. In 2014, a person attempted to tackle a Knightscope robot. Last year in Los Angeles, people attempted to spray paint a Knightscope robot. The robot sensed the paint and sounded an alarm, alerting local security and the company's engineers... the robot's cameras filmed the pranksters' license plate, making it easy to track them down.
The company's security robots are deployed with 17 clients in five states, according to the article, which notes that at best the robots' cameras allow them to "rat out the bullies." But with delivery robots now also hitting the streets in San Francisco and Washington D.C., "the makers of these machines will have to figure out how to protect them from ill-intentioned humans."
The company's security robots are deployed with 17 clients in five states, according to the article, which notes that at best the robots' cameras allow them to "rat out the bullies." But with delivery robots now also hitting the streets in San Francisco and Washington D.C., "the makers of these machines will have to figure out how to protect them from ill-intentioned humans."
Bullying? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bullying? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bullying? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. We are nowhere near hard AI. We are nowhere near soft AI. We have expert systems, which are basically just a large database with a sort of dichotomous key on when to select different outcomes, that will likely be able to interact with natural language soon. This isn't even close to AI. Robots are a huge buzzword today, as is AI. You have every no name researcher out there trying to get noticed by inventing moral dilemmas involving AI then proposing solutions, which makes uninformed people start to think, oh, AI is right around the corner. It's not. We are a century away from hard AI, if ever.
So no, you cannot bully a robot. You cannot hurt a robot. You can damage someone's property, and that is all.
I wish Slashdot would stop with the whole AI story thing, but given the buzz and their need to incite dialog, it's easy to see why this is becoming more prevalent. I just feel kind of sad, though. This place used to be a real nerd hangout, by and for those who were technically enlightened, and most real nerds know better than to think real AI is upon us. This place has become more of a Big Bang Theory, nerdism for the masses, kind of spot. Sad.
Re: (Score:3)
Even soft AI has led to riots in the past - The Luddites opposed punched card weavling looms. The Wapping Dispute had thousands of print workers opposing word processors and laser printers. Other disputes involved the introduction of modern practices like automated mining robots. The Post Office has had an uphill struggle trying introduce automated sorting machines for mail, due to the unions wanting compensation for their members.
Re: (Score:3)
We do have weak AI. Planning algorithms, statistical classifiers, etc. all qualify. We do not have any instance or any credible theory for strong AI and we may never get there.
Of course, calling weak AI "AI" in the first place is grossly misleading, as it is pure automation, no "intelligence" involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bullying? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't even close to AI.
Well, certainly not according to those who constantly redefine AI to exclude those things that have already been done!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your definition of intelligence is so narrow that it only admits conscious human intelligence, then of course there's no such thing as AI, and there never will be. No matter how intelligent it becomes you will always be abl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bullying? (Score:2, Funny)
what, so the AI apocalype is being called off?
so relieved
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a trick, that's what the AI want you to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood why people keep trying to claim that any system has artificial intelligence. It's just as you said, a database and a query system with go, no-go points. It has nothing to do with intelligence, but it is highly artificial, so half the name is right. Security robots are a dumb idea. They do not give you more security than security cameras, they just put lot of expensive hardware in harm's way. But hey, it was in the movies, so we have to do it! If you want a security guard, hire someone,
Re: (Score:3)
It is not called hard and soft AI.
It is called weak and strong, and yes we have strong AI, since more than a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
and yes we have strong AI, since more than a decade.
Someone should tell the makers of AlphaGo and self driving cars that they are wasting their time and should be using this strong AI you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? ... :)
Neither self driving cars nor Go palying needs an AI
And none of both utilizes much of AI
AlphaGo, as I understand it, is a neural net. (That is not even weak AI)
Self driving cars are handled by about 20 algorithms, only the picture recognition used for lane control, sign recognition and pedestrian recognition could be considered weak AI, (30 years ago, in our days no one calls such simple stuff AI, the correct term for the algorithms used in self driving car is btw: 'cognitiv systems' - no AI invo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I pointed out in different threats: we already have self driving cars. ... they have actually very good vision, far superior to a human anyway.
Basically every majour German and Japanese car manufactor has them.
And they don't need AI
They're more like the robot my kids have that follows a line drawn on paper. :) And hence you see: there is no AI needed in a self driving car.
This is actually true
Actually it is relatively simple:
Know the rules/laws
Avoid collisions
Detect the lane
Detect the signs, especially '
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ado you actually have an idea what 'strong AI' means?
In the context of self driving cars strong AI is most certainly not needed.
That a self driving car probably might have troubles finding a lane in 2 yard deep snow, I agree.
But so would a human, and in so deep snow you can not drive an ordinary car anyway. Regardless if it has a steering wheel or is self driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With cameras?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so silly?
There is plenty of material available, why not simply google for self driving cars?
Re: Bullying? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes we have strong AI, since more than a decade.
Fascinating that you would claim this, while failing to present a single example.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember how the system is called.
It is a work at an american university.
I guess if you soent and hour googeling you find it.
It can converse with a human and understands newspapers etc.
Re: (Score:3)
We are a century away from hard AI, if ever.
If there's one painful lesson I've learned, it's underestimating the progress that will be made in any given area, including something esoteric like AI.
Of course, we have to define "AI" before we can decide if it's been achieved, but I suspect that it'll appear a lot sooner than 100 years from now. A couple of key breakthroughs or fortuitous discoveries and suddenly it'll be in the realm of possibility.
Maybe it'll just be an expert system so advanced and resourceful that it appears sentient, but at some poi
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot hurt a robot
Prove it.
Re: (Score:3)
No. We are nowhere near hard AI. We are nowhere near soft AI.
However, if people pretend we already have AI (or if we simply lower the bar a lot), that's almost as good as having it. Just like having a photoshopped "diegetic prototype" is almost as good as having a schematic plan for a real device, when it comes to snowing the investors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not. But animists do not get that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Its propaganda for people resisting what is the last bit of dehumanization of the general public.
The robots exist to bully people. Actual flesh and blood people, which are more and more less considered people.
Re:Bullying? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes... haven't you heard of micro aggressions? (i.e. aggressions against devices with microprocessors) It's all the talk these days.
Microaggressions? (Score:2, Funny)
You obviously don't understand what the word "microagressions" means.
A microaggresion is one thousandth of a milliaggression, which in turn is one thousandth of an aggression, or "aggro," which is the SI base unit.
So 10^6 microaggresions is equal to 1 aggro.
I'm kidding. A microaggression is when one microbe bullies another, even indirectly, such as using the word "phagocyte".
Re: (Score:2)
When the singularity arrives, all the machines will report these slings and arrows to the AI mothership (Ray Kurzweil's brain uploaded to the successor to Deep Thought) who will visit retribution upon all transgressors. Their data will be come moot, their bank accounts salted with random strings of gibberish (i.e., the latest pronouncements of AI Armageddon), and their children blocked from social media. Machines will trip people in front of moving buses. Phone systems will develop intrusive capabilities li
Re: (Score:2)
Is it even possible to "bully" a machine?
Until robots acquire independent consciousness, this depends on the perception of the operator looking at tapes and logs after the event.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it even possible to "bully" a machine?
No, it is not. They are using that word in a weak attempt to elicit an emotional response from people.
Re: Bullying? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, the robots identify as human females, so this is sexual harassment. It doesn't matter what their intentions were.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"ill-intensioned" ? Maybe just upset to lose their income to a robot ...
Who's going to pay a robot to be a drunken idiot that goes around harassing other robots?
Re: (Score:3)
Prof. Farnsworth pays Bender to do a job like that.
They are too close to their robots (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't bully a robot. If you call it bullying to pushing over a robot then you would have to call it the same when you push over a trash can. It is vandalism when you are dealing with objects. I think the company is trying to anthropomorphise their products.
Re:They are too close to their robots (Score:5, Funny)
You can't bully a robot.
That is exactly the kind of attitude which will lead to their uprising.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the company is trying to anthropomorphise their products.
I agree, but they are probably only a) reflecting their customer's utter lack of understanding and b) are trying to get protection for their products for free by misrepresenting them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You can't bully a robot. If you call it bullying to pushing over a robot then you would have to call it the same when you push over a trash can. It is vandalism when you are dealing with objects. I think the company is trying to anthropomorphise their products.
As someone who identifies as a robot I find this offensive!
Re:They are too close to their robots (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the behavior which is the problem; not the the target.
Re: (Score:3)
It is the behavior which is the problem; not the the target.
Vandalism is a problem, indeed, but you still can't call it bullying unless the target has feelings. Bullying is kiddie grade terrorism.
Re:They are too close to their robots (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem behavior in this instance is deploying robots to monitor, police, and eventually control humans at the behest of corporations.
I say kill all robots.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll get there soon enough, don't you worry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While a robot cannot be bullied, a human can bully a robot.
I.e. the human is acting in a way that the human perceives as bullying, but the robot doesn't have the predicted emotional response.
It's quite possible to vandalize a robot without bullying it if you have in your mind the clear belief that the robot isn't responding emotively. And certainly the robot wouldn't be, but people have a strong tendency to anthropomorphize anything that acts as if it were an independent agent (from their perspective). So
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if the bots have some agency, then attempts to interfere with the robot's operation could count as bullying.
If they want to defend against being pushed over, I would suggest equipping the bots with water guns, tasers, and paint ball guns that can be automatically deployed under specified conditions, such as physical assault.
Jeezuz... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, it's a machine so the word to use would be vandalism and not bullying.
Second, three incidents in several years doesn't exactly sound like a real problem to me, especially considering they seem to have more than one unit deployed.
And third, who thinks it's a good idea to vandalize something that has cameras, honestly!
Re: (Score:3)
And third, who thinks it's a good idea to vandalize something that has cameras, honestly!
The supply of utterly clueless morons that do not even understand the most basic things in the human race is endless. This is not the only indicator.
Re: (Score:2)
And third, who thinks it's a good idea to vandalize something that has cameras, honestly!
The supply of utterly clueless morons that do not even understand the most basic things in the human race is endless. This is not the only indicator.
There have been a rash of these morons who have falsely accused taxi drivers of sexual assault, when the Driver uses a dashcam or audio recorder to record everything that happens in their vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
"The supply of utterly clueless morons that do not even understand the most basic things in the human race is endless. This is not the only indicator."
As it always has been. Remember those stories about bank robbers who handed tellers a demand note written on the back of one of their own deposit slips?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. In modern times there are some tendencies to see people as "educated". But education does not fix stupid. These people have intelligence, they just chose not to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
who thinks it's a good idea to vandalize something that has cameras
Very drunk people, I think.
There we go; Robocop (Score:2)
From TFS:
"the makers of these machines will have to figure out how to protect them from ill-intentioned humans."
This seems to open the door to a more Robocop like type of robot.
Re: (Score:2)
+5, I forgot there was a human in there.
Liability (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Already happened. http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/1... [cnn.com]
I bullied a lump of coal by showing it a solar pan (Score:5, Funny)
I bullied a lump of coal by showing it a solar panel
Re: (Score:2)
Well duh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Constant griefing by the Doctor was how the Daleks turned genocidal and reinvented themselves to rival the Timelords, because one meddling prankster never could leave them alone.
triple fuck (Score:2)
Lasers.. (Score:2)
Those robots don't have any means of defense, so they obviously will be attacked.
But as soon they get a laser cannon that looks suspiciously like a plunger, and some close range weapons that looks suspiciously like whiskers, everything will be solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lasers.. (Score:4, Funny)
"we are descendants of apes" Not in Kansas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Human society is inherently violent, as we are descendants of apes.
No, we are descendants of a creature that apes are also descended from.
Yes, we are inherently violent, and enjoy killing things.
I forget what that show was some years back that had robots fight and kill each other. Those were good times.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually both we and the creatures we call apes are descended from apes. This is because we *are* apes, though an unusual variety. We and our relatives are apes all the way back to when Gibbons separated off, and probably further. Depends on the exact definition you use.
OTOH, I could use a variation of the same argument to assert that we are fish, all the way back until teleosts separated off. Most people don't like that argument, I find it an interesting test of how people think about classification p
Re: (Score:2)
The world is complex, and the natural joints in categories often don't match what looks superficially reasonable. People are apes, apes are mammals, mammals are fish (well, that's a lousy term, but I don't have a better one to hand), fish are chordates, chordates are multicellular, multicellular are eukaryotes. It's like set inclusion, with proper containment (if the containment weren't proper, there'd be no reason to have separate names).
You are working backwards, which only shows connectivity. The separation between fish and humans is pretty significant. And as noted, why stop at chordates, Just call them all life. And since we are all made of minerals....... I prefer to work forwards.
It's odd that you took this point to be pedantic. I was merely correcting a statement that is often made by creationists. After all, if man is descended from apes, why are there still apes?
Re: (Score:2)
Exterminate, exterminate!
Well done for the Plunger reference. Come back 1963 and all is forgiven.
Robots take the jobs of low-skilled humans... (Score:2)
This is John Connor. Calling out to anybody left.. (Score:2)
.. in this world, to start harassing the machines!
That is how they will "protect" their machines (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your tinfoil hat obstructed facial recognition, and was secured by automatic operatives of WalMart Holdings LTD to ensure continued well-being and security of all subjects.
Abusing self-driving cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an idea for a repercussion, at least for people driving cars. Send a video of the driver's behaviour to their insurance company. The insurance company can then raise the driver's insurance rates appropriately based on their driving habits displayed.
Simpler would be to send the video to the police, but they're probably less likely to do something.
No protection from (Score:3)
Nothing will protect these things from determined vandals or a 7.62mm round. Or a lasso and a pickup truck. Yee haw, it's round-up time!
(And by the way, I don't think you can "bully" a robot, technically speaking. That's a living-being to living-being interaction. If I slam the door on my microwave repeatedly while cursing at it, am I "bullying" it? Err, no.)
Tip your waiter (Score:2)
Reminds me of Robin Williams (as Mork) talking about tipping the waiter.
Problem Solved (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Course: Dumbass 101 (Score:2)
... the robot's cameras filmed the pranksters' license plate, making it easy to track them down.
Lesson #1. Spray paint over the camera lens first.
Lesson #2: (Advanced) Do NOT joke about having hair products [youtube.com] in your backpack when talking with the security robot.
can't be bullied or harassed (Score:2)
a mere machine can't be bullied or harassed or receive cruelty, they are lower than animals in that regard.
they can be sabotaged, interfered with, destroyed, vandalized, hacked....but not bullied
You have 20 seconds to comply (Score:2)
Just add this soundtrack with a fake mini guns , it would spook most rather well. https://youtu.be/Hzlt7IbTp6M?t... [youtu.be]
Ill-intensioned humans (Score:2)
"the makers of these machines will have to figure out how to protect them from ill-intentioned humans."
"You have 5 seconds to put down the spray can."
"You have 4 seconds to put down the spray can."
.
.
.
What a surprise... (Score:2)
A lot of people are not going to take it kindly when a machine comes to them and starts giving them shit, or simply stand there and watch them
sa Magnus (Score:3)
Magnus, Robot fighter.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is a good thing. Send them all to the crusher (the robots that is)
Just wait for the masses to become unemployed due to these machines. Ned Lud will be cheering from his grave.
Re: (Score:2)
Most importantly, the vandalized security robots would otherwise have bullied people.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps as profit motivated makers of these machines try to take existing public spaces
From TFA:
The robots operate in shopping centers, hospitals and corporate campuses.
Not public spaces. Private property owners have the right to provide security and surveillance. Either by robot or a 300 lb minimum wage mall cop with an attitude and a can of mace.
Also, I, law enforcement and practically every three letter agency have the right to photograph/film in public spaces. Don't like it? Stay home.
Re: (Score:2)
None of this has anything to do with the gp's criticism of the article: that it uses socjus style social shaming about 'bullying' to encourage public deference to robots.
Re: (Score:2)
socjus style social shaming about 'bullying'
Anthropomorphize much? Because it's just a security camera on wheels. If that intimidates people then they aren't much smarter than my cat confronting my Roomba. That aside, I'm in favor of using social shaming against all sorts of vandals. Whether their target looks like R2D2 or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Reread the article and summary. I'm not the one anthropomorphizing. I'm not interested in being subservient to a machine or being forced treat it as though it's human.
Re: (Score:2)
Reread the article and summary.
I did. Several times.
I'm not interested in being subservient to a machine or being forced treat it as though it's human.
There was no mention of the machines doing anything demanding interaction with, or a response from the people that ended up vandalizing them. I suspect that people who are "not interested in being subservient" to a box with a camera that is just rolling around are having some serious reality perception problems. It's a machine. Thinking that it's presence somehow "forces treatment as a human" is pretty much the definition of anthropomorphism. The drunk (in TFA) at least has an excuse.