Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will Robots Replace Rent-a-Cops?

Posted by timothy on from the gradual-and-inexorable dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Now, an EU-funded, £7.2 million ($11 million USD) collaborative project, called Strands, is underway in England to develop 4D, artificial intelligence for security and care applications. It aims to produce intelligent robo-sentinels that can patrol areas, and learn to detect abnormalities in human behavior. Could their project eventually replace security guards with robots? It looks possible. Strands, as Nick Hawes of the University of Birmingham said, will 'develop novel approaches to extract spatio-temporal structure from sensor data gathered during months of autonomous operation,' to develop intelligence that can then 'exploit [those] structures to yield adaptive behavior in highly demanding, real-world security and care scenarios.'"

101 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. This sounds familiar... by rwyoder · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Please put down your weapon! You have 20 seconds to comply!"

    1. Re:This sounds familiar... by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Damn! You beat me to it. Anyway, from TFA:

      Strands, as Nick Hawes of the University of Birmingham said, will "develop novel approaches to extract spatio-temporal structure from sensor data gathered during months of autonomous operation," to develop intelligence that can then "exploit [those] structures to yield adaptive behavior in highly demanding, real-world security and care scenarios."

      The key problem with that is that the subjects the robot is studying will know that they are being studied and will be able to alter their behaviour to change what the robot "learns".

    2. Re:This sounds familiar... by slick7 · · Score: 2

      "Please put down your weapon! You have 20 seconds to comply!"

      They won't be taken seriously until someone loses an eye. When a robot kills a human and the courts declare it justifiable, open season begins.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    3. Re:This sounds familiar... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Do land mines count as robots? They're pretty dumb, but autonomously so.

    4. Re:This sounds familiar... by pbjones · · Score: 1

      Ok, hands up who thought of posting the same quote! o/

      --
      There was an unknown error in the submission.
    5. Re:This sounds familiar... by gagol · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and put an arduino in it!

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    6. Re:This sounds familiar... by gagol · · Score: 1

      Having watched robocop as a kid, it was very good. Rewatch it as adult, the movie stinks. So no, count me out.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    7. Re:This sounds familiar... by hutsell · · Score: 1

      "Please put down your weapon! You have 20 seconds to comply!"

      Is this a worthy comparison? An alternative remembrance, THX 1138 being interrogated; also, the main focus of its movie's poster.

      --
      Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
    8. Re:This sounds familiar... by slick7 · · Score: 2

      Do land mines count as robots? They're pretty dumb, but autonomously so.

      Only if they dig themselves up, move and then rebury.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    9. Re:This sounds familiar... by lxs · · Score: 1

      My reaction was the complete opposite. Hated it as a teen, watched it again recently and found it eerily prophetic. Sure, the story is dumb and predictable '80s action fare, but the world it takes place in is surprisingly well constructed.

      Not to worry though, the inevitable bland remake will be out next year.

    10. Re:This sounds familiar... by lxs · · Score: 1

      Another tragic victim of Lucas Editing Disease.

    11. Re:This sounds familiar... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Only if they have some kind of system within them that can differentiate between two loads which are both sufficient to trip the mine, or similar. Robots make their own decisions. Going off when a contact is closed doesn't count.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re: This sounds familiar... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The only thing RoboCop got right was Detroit going into bankruptcy( which it has been doing for 40 years at this point ). They still haven't privatized security or police

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    13. Re:This sounds familiar... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      "Only if they dig themselves up, move and then rebury." Ideally they'll have spider-legs and make a horrible scuttling noise during this process.

    14. Re:This sounds familiar... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      20 seconds would give any shoplifter or armed robber plenty of time to get away.

    15. Re:This sounds familiar... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The cheap seats use pretty simple sensors (which is fair enough, when per-unit costs are a serious factor, you want to avoid the use of metal, and long-term reliability in harsh conditions is important); but some of the fancier ones, especially anti-vehicle and naval mines, have pretty sophisticated mechanisms; both for anti-tamper purposes and to ignore spurious signals from demining flails, explosive demining, or vehicles too small to be worth killing.

      It's ultimately a somewhat pointless endeavor to decide exactly where the cut-off is; but these arent' just pressure switches.

    16. Re:This sounds familiar... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you want a hard definition of robot, you're barking up the wrong tree. But one of the important definitions is that robots have to make decisions. I don't know precisely what it means either, but I'm sure that it's not enough to have a simple trip switch.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:This sounds familiar... by hutsell · · Score: 1

      Another tragic victim of Lucas Editing Disease.

      The guy should give his original works a little more respect. It was a simple story, impressively told. Although the special effects (if any at all) were limited to analog tricks, the unique production — excellent for its time — would still work today. If he felt it was outdated, a remake or a sequel to THX's story would have been the preferably better route.

      Freshening up his films with CGI, seems to imply an easy way to get more money with little effort; showing a lack of interest, perhaps laziness, with making any more new movies.

      [im(h)o]

      --
      Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
    18. Re: This sounds familiar... by davesag · · Score: 1

      Oh for fuck's sake it's 15 seconds to comply. If you are going to quote of if the most excellent scenes in cinema history get it right please.

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
  2. Overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords!

    1. Re:Overlords by narcc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or you could just push them over, slowly walk up a set of stairs, toss a towel over them, or any of a zillion simple ways to significantly disable them that even the fattest mall-cop would easily overcome.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    2. Re:Overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or you could just push them over, slowly walk up a set of stairs, toss a towel over them, or any of a zillion simple ways to significantly disable them that even the fattest mall-cop would easily overcome.

      You are missing the point I think. Most security guards don't do anything but observer and report. They will not under any circumstance attempt to prevent the crime from taking place. Armed security of course is different, but TFA seems more geared towards replacing observer and report guards since we can pretty much cover that will technology anyway.

      Just like the automated cars from an article the other day, if your job requires no real training, it will probably be replaced by machines sooner then later.

    3. Re:Overlords by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      But they would respond exactly like the fat mall cop would - by calling the actual cops. It would be more difficult to prevent a robot mall cop from doing that than a human mall cop. The robot mall cop could also easily be rigged with a "dead man's switch" so that if contact is lost, cops are notified.

    4. Re:Overlords by icebike · · Score: 1

      You can taunt the mall cop all you want, and there is not much he can do.
      But spray paint him and you probably will be arrested. Probably just property damage if you spray paint the robot.
      When a flash mob forms and disrupts all the robots at once, the police will quickly realize the false alarms aren't worth the trouble.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Overlords by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Couple people get 10 years for malicious mischief and felony destruction of state property, and those cameras stay untouched.

      Then explain to me how destroying cameras in the UK has become a new form of recreation? They've got destruction of government cameras down to a science.

      With suspended cameras they hang an old tire from it, fill the bottom with gasoline, and put a match to it. The flames will crack lenses, boil away electronics, and make a general mess of things. Cameras closer to the ground are generally treated to baseball bats and pry bars. Ones out of reach from ladders or bats, or a potential for bodily harm from burning, get pelted with paintballs.

      Given a large enough population, and enough cameras, and you will reach the statistical certainty that cameras will be destroyed by someone that doesn't give a shit. Unless the people responsible meet swift and sure punishment word will spread that it's open season on cameras. Which is precisely what happened in the UK.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:Overlords by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Or you could just push them over, slowly walk up a set of stairs, toss a towel over them, or any of a zillion simple ways to significantly disable them that even the fattest mall-cop would easily overcome.

      Ah, I see you grew up watching Doctor Who defeat the daleks in various ways...

      --
      Be seeing you...
    7. Re:Overlords by narcc · · Score: 1

      Indeed I did, though I had Asimo in mind when I wrote the comment.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    8. Re:Overlords by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      they would respond exactly like the fat mall cop would - by calling the actual cops. It would be more difficult to prevent a robot mall cop from doing that than a human mall cop

      Step 1, cover top of security droid with trashcan. Step 2, secure with chain to handles of can, between wheels, walkers, etc. Step 3, laugh and laugh as wireless signals fail. The early bots probably won't even have arms, you could shut them down with a mylar bag.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Overlords by Kijori · · Score: 2

      Which is precisely what happened in the UK.

      This story just isn't true. There was a rash of speed camera vandalisms here a few years ago, which has dissipated. They still get vandalised (of course, like everything) but not in any widespread systematic way. Driving around it's rare to see vandalised cameras.
      I tried to find some figures for what proportion of speed cameras were destroyed at the height of the vandalism - I couldn't find anything exact, but there were a few news stories giving figures of 700 cameras destroyed in 2007 (which apparently was the worst year for it), out of 5,500 total cameras. That's quite a lot of destroyed cameras, but nothing like the picture you are painting and it hasn't lead to the cameras being removed or a majority being destroyed.

    10. Re:Overlords by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's because the purpose of security is to observe and report. Officers that go beyond that run the risk of all sorts of legal ramifications. Not to mention the bitching and moaning about overstepping of their authority. Private security has the subset of ownership rights that the property owner has chosen do delegate to them.

      I realize that it's cool to hate security,but the least you could do is educate yourself before spouting off. The point of security is to observe and report in most cases. There are some exceptions, like armored car drivers, but for the most part, it's the job of law enforcement to stop crimes in progress. Security is there to make sure that the premises is properly secured and to keep track of changes day to day. And if there is a crime committed, serve as a witness in court.

      I'm not sure where you got the idea that private security is supposed to be getting in the middle of crimes in progress, but that's not the case in most places. In fact, the law is very specific about what private security can and can't do. The things that you'd be required to do in order to stop a crime in progress could easily wind up with you violating the law, if you're not extremely careful. And security officers are not typically trained the way that police officers are, so it seems to me like having under trained security intervening might not be good for anybody that isn't a personal injury attorney anyways.

    11. Re:Overlords by fredklein · · Score: 1

      When a flash mob forms and disrupts all the robots at once,

      http://www.larryniven.net/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml

    12. Re:Overlords by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Yeah. That's why I wrote a third sentence about how to overcome that.

    13. Re:Overlords by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah. That's why I wrote a third sentence about how to overcome that.

      You know, people steal whole fucking ATMs. A security bot will be loaded into a van and gone before you can say "Unit 21 appears to have lost communications."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Overlords by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Why would you steal the robot? The point of the robot is to protect the property, not the robot. The whole idea is that the cops can get to the property in less time than it takes for you to make off with anything valuable- just like with rent a cops today.

    15. Re:Overlords by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why would you steal the robot?

      Because it's valuable.

      The whole idea is that the cops can get to the property in less time than it takes for you to make off with anything valuable- just like with rent a cops today.

      Rent-a-cops are mostly there to be witnesses.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Programming them is quite easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    KILL ALL HUMANS

    1. Re:Programming them is quite easy. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1, Funny

      So, basically an upgrade to Planned Parenthood?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  4. Why bother patrolling? by ron_ivi · · Score: 2

    If you're going for automation - why not just fixed cameras and other sensors covering the whole area?

    1. Re:Why bother patrolling? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      If you're going for automation - why not just fixed cameras and other sensors covering the whole area?

      Cost and because they're also easier to map out and avoid? It doesn't need to be everywhere, it's enough that it could be everywhere as that makes the risk non-zero no matter the plan. I don't see this as an either-or, you'd want basic surveillance of the whole area with roaming security to add some dynamic to the system.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Why bother patrolling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Humans are cheap and better at the job. The only way humans aren't cheaper is if you neglect to account for regular maintenance (which requires humans) and replacement costs. Humans are also easier to replace with other humans if they don't work out and tend to upgrade their knowledge and experience without requiring expensive new models.

      Fixed cameras and sensors may not be as dynamic, but it's trivial to carpet an area with them so completely that it doesn't matter if an attacker knows they are there. For most applications almost certainly at a cost less than the same thing with robotics and experimental AI.

    3. Re:Why bother patrolling? by icebike · · Score: 1

      If you're going for automation - why not just fixed cameras and other sensors covering the whole area?

      Cost and because they're also easier to map out and avoid? It doesn't need to be everywhere, it's enough that it could be everywhere as that makes the risk non-zero no matter the plan. I don't see this as an either-or, you'd want basic surveillance of the whole area with roaming security to add some dynamic to the system.

      Somehow non of those reasons have stopped the British. An article published in CCTV Image magazine estimates that the number of cameras in the UK is 1.85 million. And that's just the public ones run by the police.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Why bother patrolling? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      If you're going for automation - why not just fixed cameras and other sensors covering the whole area?

      There's still a fairly low limit on how many video streams one person can attend to, especially if it's busy. Roving robots may not be useful, but what is happening is the cameras are getting smarter in where they look, and when to alert the operator:

      It's not just law enforcement that has taken note of this. Retail outlets such as Macys, Babys âRâ(TM) Us, and CVS have installed systems in some of their stores that can spot shoppers who do unusual thingsâ"such as remove many items from a shelf at once, open a case that is normally locked, or walk suspiciously through the aisles.

    5. Re:Why bother patrolling? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Com to Harrisonburg! Here in the center of the city we have the Mayor Walter Green MD medical buiding just across from the old historic post office.

      It was paid for with Federal Funds, because it was a Medical Buinding. The land was donated to him by the city, while he was mayor IIRC, because it would revitalize the downtown. I forget what is on the bottom floor, but at various other floors yoou have a stock broker, the US Post office renting their space instead of using the historic building; a couple other businesses, and -- in the penthouse--DR Green's medical office where you will no doubt find a stethoscope.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  5. "abnormalities in human behavior"? by CmdrEdem · · Score: 1

    Since the human nature is a violent one, I don't think violent behavior is abnormal, only not accepted in most circumstances by our social standards. The robot will detect behavior disapproved by the government that bought it.

    --
    This combination doesn`t exist: ETIs that know about humanity and want to see us dead. Otherwise we wouldn't exist.
    1. Re:"abnormalities in human behavior"? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The problem with this concept is exactly what you pointed to but for a different reason. Nobody will obey a fucking robot's orders! As someone said above, cameras will do just as well. Can these robots use tasers or shoot people with firearms? Many "rent a cops" are off-duty police officers earning a little beer money.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    2. Re:"abnormalities in human behavior"? by zlives · · Score: 1

      does robo inherently imply AI, a better description might be drone-sentinels... maybe

    3. Re:"abnormalities in human behavior"? by djupedal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can these robots use tasers or shoot people with firearms? Many "rent a cops" are off-duty police officers earning a little beer money.

      I'd rather trust an armed robot over a rent-a-cop any day. Last time one shot at me, the real cops that showed up hauled him off and lamented I didn't use the firearm we all agreed wasn't under the seat of my car...

    4. Re:"abnormalities in human behavior"? by gagol · · Score: 1

      Considering our specie spent most of its time killing other animals to survive, I would say violence is both "natural" and "normal". Education steers us away from it. (I know, me masturbate flies here)

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    5. Re:"abnormalities in human behavior"? by Kijori · · Score: 1

      "Last time" one shot at you? Meaning this has happened more than once? What on earth do you do when you go shopping?

    6. Re:"abnormalities in human behavior"? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Since the human nature is a violent one, I don't think violent behavior is abnormal, only not accepted in most circumstances by our social standards.

      And assuming we haven't all been brainwashed by aliens to remember a false history or something, our society is a product of our nature, as are the social mores that make violence unacceptable, so just what do you mean when you say our nature is violent? How would you even observe human nature apart from nurture?

      In any case, as long as most people don't engage in violence most of the time, violence is abnormal, even if these people are boiling volcanoes of poo-flinging murderous rage underneath their calm exterior. We are talking about a behavior observing, not thought reading, robot.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:"abnormalities in human behavior"? by CmdrEdem · · Score: 1

      Let's just say I'm not including only direct physical harm in my definition of violence. We may not hit ourselves in each other faces all day long, but:

      1- Our culture, more and more, represents violence. All kinds of media. Every time. All around.

      2- Look at the Internet. Look at comment sections (/. excluded, and that's why I still read comments here). That should be the new definition of verbal violence.

      3- Any way we deprive someone from their basic means of survival can be considered violence IMHO. All societies I can think of had, to their core, a way from taking something from most people to concentrate in the hands of fewer. The difference now is that with better transportation, entire countries can be screwed in favor of other countries. That is true for socialism and communism too. That is human nature, and that's my point.

      --
      This combination doesn`t exist: ETIs that know about humanity and want to see us dead. Otherwise we wouldn't exist.
  6. £7.4 million? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3

    Nick Hawes sounds like just another tired academic jumping on the bandwagon of grant money for security applications.

    Shame on him.

  7. Not ready yet by Anduril1986 · · Score: 1

    An AI can only tell with maybe 70% accuracy if I'm a human or a spam bot, let alone identify 'abnormal' behaviours. Of course now with the internet it has access to billions of social interactions to establish a baseline:

    *****
    Possible subject identified....
    Scanning social media to establish baseline behavioural norms....
    Behaviours identified....
    Subject found to not be dressing a cat in a strange costume or ranting narcissistically - Abnormality identified....
    *****

    Maybe not...

  8. Only if you can pay less Insurance by tuppe666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The reality of a security guard is your main job is...to lower insurance costs. The reasons if you need to be a serious criminal to want to go through a human, these robots don't have deterrent...but I suspect nothing like the costs. The fact is accountants will decide this one.

    In case your confused about what a security guard really does this is a clip from mike leighs Naked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N90sl94g7PE

    1. Re:Only if you can pay less Insurance by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Sort of, it's a gross simplification though. Yes, those do exist and are used, but it's not a matter of plugging the thing into the various points. It's going out and physically looking at the building. It's also an easy way of recording which areas were inspected and when.

      And yes, security does lower insurance costs, but so do smoke detectors and sprinkler systems. But, we don't say that smoke detectors and sprinkler systems are for the purpose of lowering insurance costs. Same goes for security, security is there for the odd bomb threat and keeping an eye on whatever psychos might come on site. They're also the typical folks that are in charge of keeping track of where work is being done in the building and making sure that the fire doors are properly shut.

      That's obviously, just a small amount of it. But, it's pretty clear that you're the expert, not the guy who has actually done the job.

  9. Blue screen of death kills jay walker by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    A pedestrian crossing the street outside the marked cross walk at Abner Ave. was killed today when a Patrolling Robot experienced a malfunction while writing a traffic citation at the scene. Authorities aren't clear yet on what happened but when paramedics arrived at the scene they found the robot's probe impaled in the suspects anus and a blank blue screen indicating an IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL exception.

  10. hm.... by metalmaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    gimme a roomba, a broom stick and a pivoting webcam.

    1. Re:hm.... by rwyoder · · Score: 4, Funny

      gimme a roomba, a broom stick and a pivoting webcam.

      Pervert.

    2. Re:hm.... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      And so the Dalek 0.1 was born ;)

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:hm.... by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      I'm deeply glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that -- it has to be the funniest one-word post I've seen in a very, very long time.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
  11. What are abnormalities? by betterprimate · · Score: 2

    For the rent-a-cop, abnormalities are: black, brown, poor, disabled or disordered, etc., ... unprepared, or even intelligent. Being intelligent is just too suspicious. Can the robot do all that?

    Everytime I visit the grocery store nearby, it's like a game of pacman. They have about six security guards per isle and they follow me around like dim-witted ghosts. I have to hurriedly snatch up my bread, coffee, and milk to make it safely to checkout.

    1. Re:What are abnormalities? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Intelligent doesn't imply smart.

      Perhaps all the furtive speedy grabbing of items is what leads you to look suspicious?

      At any rate, if this is your local grocery store, the smart thing to do is get to know the people that work there and let them get to know you. Perhaps you are just as prejudiced as they are, and there's no cure for prejudice like exposure to the truth.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    2. Re:What are abnormalities? by m00sh · · Score: 2

      Everytime I visit the grocery store nearby, it's like a game of pacman. They have about six security guards per isle and they follow me around like dim-witted ghosts. I have to hurriedly snatch up my bread, coffee, and milk to make it safely to checkout.

      I have no idea what kind of grocery store you go to but the one I go to has hundreds of cameras mounted above the isles. If they follow me, they do so in the comfort of their central room where they can view the camera feeds.

      Since there is only one exit to the grocery store, they can always nab me there if needed.

      Plus, most stores employ plain clothes loss prevention agents who disguise themselves as shoppers. They get rewarded for every shoplifter they catch because if you are caught shoplifting, they will offer to make a deal with you for $400 to not press charges in the local courts.

    3. Re:What are abnormalities? by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      Intelligent doesn't imply smart.

      Perhaps all the furtive speedy grabbing of items is what leads you to look suspicious?

      At any rate, if this is your local grocery store, the smart thing to do is get to know the people that work there and let them get to know you. Perhaps you are just as prejudiced as they are, and there's no cure for prejudice like exposure to the truth.

      That's a reasonable assumption, but no, they're just underpaid unintelligible extra-distrustful assholes. This is my local grocery store and I am doing the smart thing of getting to know them: they're entitled, underpaid, unintelligible, extra-distruful assholes. Even striking up a conversation with the cashier is suspicious. The front door should read: "Caution: Do not make eye contact, do not divert from grocery list, DO go at extra slow pace. All abnormalities are treated as hostile combatants."

      It's a chain store in MX. What more can I expect? You must live in Narnia. Around here acting like a sincere human being is the stuff of fables.

      You know, you talk big. I'd like to see what you'd do when you're ganged up on by six security guards with sticks while you speak in a shaky pre-pubescent voice, "I just want to know where the Cap'N Crunch is." Let's see how tough you are then, huh?

      It's a hostile land, man. Let me tell you.

    4. Re:What are abnormalities? by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      I live in Mexico City. Where the fuck do you live, man? It sounds like everyone where you live is already robots.

    5. Re:What are abnormalities? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      They get rewarded for every shoplifter they catch because if you are caught shoplifting, they will offer to make a deal with you for $400 to not press charges in the local courts.

      What are their documentation requirements? If they don't have to provide video evidence, any moderately talented swindling extortionist could leverage that situation to make thousands of dollars a day framing people.

    6. Re:What are abnormalities? by Jmc23 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I have the unfortunate predilection of acting the same towards everybody and being extremely idealistic. Growing up english in quebec there were always situations like this. Granted, I wouldn't call my behaviour tough, just naive and autistic. However, I never backed down and things always worked out in the end.

      I'm not sure if MX is supposed to stand for mexico, but when I was living there, no matter the attitude of the person, if I treated them like any other human (and I do that because I see them as any other human) they were unable to do anything but treat me the same. It's amazing how treating others the same as you would treat yourself can even get police that were looking for bribes to let you go free. Once, an enraged crack addict in withdrawal broke his hand against a concrete wall because he couldn't bring himself to harm me because of the way I had treated him.

      Change the way you see them in your head and you might find that they change the way they act towards you.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    7. Re:What are abnormalities? by happyhamster · · Score: 1

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    8. Re:What are abnormalities? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Nothing new under the sun. Just putting into practice esoteric ideas from millenia ago to test their merit as any good scientist should.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    9. Re: What are abnormalities? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting theory. In practice, people only have so many realistic choices. If the same kind of people are running the same kind of scam in all of them, they're stuck.

  12. One thing is for sure by msobkow · · Score: 1

    No matter how shitty the AI, it can't be any dumber than the typical rent-a-cop.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:One thing is for sure by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      And that's exactly why it's a bad idea. I don't think I'm stereotyping too badly when I say that the percentage of thugs and bullies is much higher in the rent-a-cop population than the population at large. Before you disagree too strenuously, think back to your last encounter with the TSA. Now picture all these people out of work.

    2. Re:One thing is for sure by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Please don't extrapolate from your country to other countries. Perhaps it's different in the UK, I know through experience it isn't that way in most of Canada (haven't seen it all!).

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  13. Going rogue by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    Hopefully, they'll also be able to detect abnormalities in robot behavior... Before things get out of hand.

  14. Chopping Mall by RackinFrackin · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the movie Chopping Mall, where security robots patrol a mall, and (big surprise) a bunch of teenagers get stuck in there overnight.

  15. NYPD BlueBot by Jessified · · Score: 4, Funny

    "It aims to produce intelligent robo-sentinels that can patrol areas, and learn to detect abnormalities in human behavior."

    Forget "abnormalities," if they just programmed the robots to detect and harass black people, you could replace the entire NYPD!

    1. Re:NYPD BlueBot by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Forget "abnormalities," if they just programmed the robots to detect and harass black people, you could replace the entire NYPD!

      It's almost enough to replace the LAPD too, but they will also need to be able to discriminate between various shades of brown and swing a baton like a home run hit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. We already have seven of these advanced models... by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Funny

    We already have seven of these. They're called D.O.Gs. Work great. Highly intelligent and programmable. Self directed. Loyal. Obedient. Self-replicating. Able to power themselves off of local rodents and farm wastes (meat & bones). They're also good at herding livestock.

  17. Human element required by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2

    Robots do not eat donuts.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  18. Who Will Protect the Robo-cops? by cookYourDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good luck patrolling the streets with machines composed of rare earth metals, proprietary design, and expensive hardware. Unless these things can protect themselves (hint: no), expect them to be walking (or rolling) targets for salvage.

    1. Re:Who Will Protect the Robo-cops? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention capture and repurposing! Imagine the havoc you could create with repurposed robocops.

  19. Something is wrong. by houbou · · Score: 2

    This is really where we need to balance our drive for automation with the need for human intuition and thinking.

    I will bet that it will be easy at first to hack these robots.

    I'm weary about more and more machines taking the place of humans in the workforce.

    Actually, what I'm really weary about is that it's great to have new technologies which can replace human labor, but there should also be something to offset where the human labor gets a chance to learn new skills to get other types of employment.

    After all, a person who can't get a fair chance at work, well, that's simply wrong, as it remove this person some dignity.

    Society needs to balance all of this, so that everybody has a chance to contribute to something and get monetary rewards.

    It's simple economics.

    This is where for once, our government should step in and balance things out, for the good of the people, who are also taxpayers. Promote the work, promote human labor and promote the moving of currency so that everybody has a chance to live.

    1. Re:Something is wrong. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm weary about[...]

      You might be leery about these things, but normally you'd be weary of them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Something is wrong. by houbou · · Score: 1

      Yes, not everybody is bright and smart, but, it doesn't mean they don't have other redeeming qualities.

    3. Re:Something is wrong. by Whibla · · Score: 1

      I can understand why someone might be wary of them, but weary?

      Hmm... Actually, perhaps that could work, if they constantly emit a soporific, ensuring everyone is too tired to bother doing anything 'bad'.

    4. Re:Something is wrong. by houbou · · Score: 1

      a typo.. you know misteak.. :P

  20. Will it be easy to trip up with false positives by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Will it be easy to trip up with false positives or other ways to tick the rent a rob cop?

  21. How eventually? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Will their project blah blah blah? No, they'll be probably dead by the time we're actually replacing human rent-a-dicks with ED-209s in any notable numbers. But over a long enough time scale, isn't this sort of inevitable? If we don't blow ourselves up first, or make a singularity or something.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. I shudder at the thought! by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    God knows what all those rent-a-cop types would be doing if they couldn't get that job!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  23. Who will defend the robot? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Many people will have trouble killing a human, because empathy creates a barrier. On the other hand, I suspect anyone can "kill" a robot without any hesitation nor any remorse.

    1. Re:Who will defend the robot? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1
      Not to mention it's a lesser offense. Just vandalism as opposed to murder unless they make a special new category of crime to protect them. I can imagine the fun gangs would have disabling these things in inventive and expensive-to-repair ways.
      • Push it down the stairs
      • throw it in the fountain
      • spray paint its cameras
      • Taser it
      • stick big magnets to it
      • put a trash bag over it
      • steal its batteries
      • steal the whole fucking thing
      • hijack its video feed
      • hack its command channel
      • jam its command channel
      • program it to
        • rob customers
        • crash into walls
        • go extremely slow
        • go extremely fast
        • spin
        • only speak Klingon
        • dance
        • play Rick Astley songs
        • all of the above

      .

  24. Prisons as well by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Patrolling isles in prisons is one good use of these devices. One could slide by a call once every three minutes and report sounds of distress etc..
                  The greatest issue with this sort of thing is the loss of jobs for humans. There are large condominium projects where a swarm of these robots could be much better than one or two human guards. Fire sensors and scream detection as well as mobile cams could discourage all kinds of crime. But there are a considerable number of people who get by in life with pay checks from guard companies. Whet will become of them? Will we force them into crime to simply gain food and shelter?

    1. Re:Prisons as well by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Patrolling isles in prisons is one good use of these devices.

      If your prison is on an island, you don't need to use robots to monitor the territory. A few cameras watching the shore will suffice.

      The greatest issue with this sort of thing is the loss of jobs for humans.

      You are not the first person to note that in this thread, nor did you do a particularly good job of it. Won't someone think of the buggy-whip makers?!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. A threat to abnormals everywhere by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    I wish that would be the case. Then only those gun-slinging Libertarians would have a problem. But what if it's:

    "Please act normal. You have 20 seconds to comply."

    What if in the future the mere display of "abnormalities in human behavior", whatever that means to whoever decides, itself becomes a crime.

  26. If I recall by Dereck1701 · · Score: 2

    If I recall correctly there are some military bases in the western United States that have had ARMED robot sentries for the better part of a decade. I suppose these are not exactly the smartest robots ever, little more than unmanned ATVs with sensor packages driving preprogrammed routes looking for movement/heat sources. If they find one they target their gun and wait for orders from a manned security post. While I don't have a real problem with security drones arming them with anything (lethal or non) is a bad idea, many authority figures already have god complex, I can only imagine it getting worse if they have the power of life, death & excruciating pain at the behest of their keyboard.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/02/army-gets-more/

  27. Well, when you put it like that, yes. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    Could their project eventually replace security guards with robots?

    When you put it like that yes, By definition of could and eventually.

    Just like everything else.

  28. I wonder if detectible abnormalities in behavior by mark_reh · · Score: 2

    include having dark skin...

  29. Am I wierd or what? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Everyone else is thinking Robocop II, and I'm thinking "Inspector Gadget".

    But he WAS a rent-a-cop. Murphy was a real cop (both in fiction , of course)

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  30. Yes, robots are coming by pianophile · · Score: 1

    For rent-a-cop, and and any other simple, "mindless" job. Security, manufacturing, anything, really. As soon as a robot is capable, the humans involved will be replaced, and the cost savings will go into the pockets of the executives and investors, as always.

    --

    'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
  31. Terminator? by bbsalem · · Score: 1

    But will that have SCSI terminators?

  32. Bonus! by mpaque · · Score: 1

    As a bonus, the robots can protect us from The Terrible Secret of Space.

    I just hope they don't get all philosophical. Remember the lesson of Bomb #20...