Slashdot Mirror


Humans Are Already Harassing Security Robots (cnn.com)

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."

33 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Bullying? by freeze128 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it even possible to "bully" a machine?

    1. Re: Bullying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, the robots identify as human females, so this is sexual harassment. It doesn't matter what their intentions were.

    2. Re:Bullying? by sheramil · · Score: 5, Interesting

      how about "vandalize"? load the robots up with delicate parts that don't do anything but which snap off at the slightest pressure, then sue anyone who gets drunk and damages them. if you can get drunken idiots to pay up, that could be a real money-spinner.

    3. Re:Bullying? by Excelcia · · 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.

    4. Re:Bullying? by mikael · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re: Bullying? by msauve · · Score: 2

      "Who's going to pay a robot to be a drunken idiot that goes around harassing other robots?"

      Prof. Farnsworth pays Bender to do a job like that.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:Bullying? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Bullying? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · 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!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re: Bullying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      what, so the AI apocalype is being called off?
        so relieved

    9. Re:Bullying? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re:Bullying? by Stewie241 · · 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.

    11. Re:Bullying? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:Bullying? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      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 point the line between "it's really AI" and "it's so close to AI that we can't tell the difference" will blur. And again, we really have to define "AI" before we can discuss whether or not it's been accomplished.

      But yeah, I think AI will eventually be a thing, and a lot sooner than May 2117.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    13. Re:Bullying? by sheramil · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. They are too close to their robots by Gadget_Guy · · 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.

    1. Re:They are too close to their robots by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can't bully a robot.

      That is exactly the kind of attitude which will lead to their uprising.

    2. Re:They are too close to their robots by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    3. Re:They are too close to their robots by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is the behavior which is the problem; not the the target.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    4. Re:They are too close to their robots by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:They are too close to their robots by sexconker · · Score: 3, 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.

  3. Jeezuz... by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, 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!

    1. Re:Jeezuz... by gweihir · · 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.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. Liability by Steve-Oh · · Score: 3

    So when will a consumer liability lawsuit be filed when one of these security robots cause human harm?

    1. Re:Liability by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2
      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  5. I bullied a lump of coal by showing it a solar pan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bullied a lump of coal by showing it a solar panel

  6. sa Magnus by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 2

    Prepping and practicing.
    Magnus, Robot fighter.

  7. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  8. Robots take the jobs of low-skilled humans... by CrankyOldEngineer · · Score: 2

    Why would we expect humans to treat robots better than they treat immigrants who take their jobs?

    --
    COE
  9. Re:Lasers.. by gtall · · Score: 3, Funny

    "we are descendants of apes" Not in Kansas.

  10. That is how they will "protect" their machines by Sqreater · · Score: 2

    They will lobby to have bullying and assault laws cover "robots," humanizing them. They are already laying the groundwork with words. Corrupt and incompetent legislators are capable of anything. Don't be surprise when it happens.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  11. Abusing self-driving cars by CanadianRealist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While self-driving cars may be the perfect driver, that opens them up to abuse. Human drivers will known they can cut in front of a self-driving car without facing any repercussions. Pedestrians and cyclists can do the same.

    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.

  12. No protection from by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    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.)

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  13. Microaggressions? by Anonymous Coward · · 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".