1140
Water Wars Imminent (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
118 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Cool, so as long as you can shoot the inhumanly fast robot with a laser, or close the distance, work out how to remove it's battery and then do so, or gum up its joints - before it shoots you with a bullet - you're safe from gun-wielding robots.

Of course, protective lenses can be added to robots designed for the military or security, so even the safest of those options is unlikely to be at all feasible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    So I'm not talking about going solo against a fleet of lethal bots, I'm talking about coordinated guerilla tactics that neutralize and permanently disable them. I have a copy of the tech manual for those robot dogs, eh, somewhere on my PC. The point is you wouldn't figure out how to remove the battery, like the previous person said, you could aim for the battery to disable it, you'd already have knowledge of it.

    The lens protection that I already said exists, still blinds the camera, it just protects the camera from getting burned out. It doesn't mean its completely ineffective, but it is a way to disable one of its primary sensors. A lot of police bots also have infrared tech, I'm not sure how that works, but its just an engineering problem.

    My point is there are multiple things one could to to temporarily or permanently disable a robot that wouldn't work on a human.

    I do find of funny that you stress the AI, and that is the main flaw in your argument. You assume that these systems will actually work. A fleet of military robots sold to police doesn't have to work, it just has to work well enough to trick dumbass bureaucrats that it works. We already know how fucked up and unreliable AI is, and you just assume in your comment that the AI works as intended. AI is a buzzword scam meant to fleece the morons in control of public funding.

    If you think ai police bots are anything but a scam that couldn't be overcome through human ingenuity, I have some waterfront property I'd love for you to take a look at

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The lens protection that I already said exists, still blinds the camera, it just protects the camera from getting burned out. It doesn’t mean its completely ineffective, but it is a way to disable one of its primary sensors. A lot of police bots also have infrared tech, I’m not sure how that works, but its just an engineering problem.

    All the robot then has to do is move quickly and you won't be able to keep the laser aimed at it precisely. Extra sensors would enable it to shoot at sources of light triggering this protective mechanism, and extra cameras would make it impractical to disable all of them.

    I do find of funny that you stress the AI

    I didn't mention AI.

    We already know how fucked up and unreliable AI is

    But since you mentioned it, computers are good enough at mapping the environment and detecting people in it for Waymo to be doing very well, meaning that robots capable of doing this kind of thing are probably already possible and held back by militaries wanting a human in the loop.

    We're imagining a dystopian future here, so it's not like the robots need to err on the side of caution - they can just shoot anything that seems like a threat.

    but its just an engineering problem.

    What does this even mean in this context? The situation we're imagining is not where you have a single problem to overcome, you design a solution, then implement it, then you're done. It's more like an arms race. If you engineer a solution to one problem, the next iteration of the robots will make it less effective.

    The original image is a joke, because the developments in legged robots is not really what's important here; wheeled or tracked or flying robots don't have to solve that complicated problem and can guard the drinking water easily, too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Idk I lost the plot at some point I just started robot posting in the middle of Walmart. Pretty silly.

    For the flying drones, motors that could carry anything larger than a few kilos are like crazy expensive. So spraying or shooting something that was sticky, hard setting, or corrosive could be useful.

    You could also do signal jamming, this tech already exists.

    You're not fighting the bots you're fighting whoever sends them. So anything that disables I argue would always be possible and maybe even trivial

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent