|
Tuesday, 6 February 2018
quote [ Bossa Nova’s robots are able to perform tasks such as identifying when items are out of stock, locating incorrect prices, and detecting wrong or missing labels. We spoke to Martin Hitch, chief business officer at Bossa Nova, about the technology behind the machines and how they are being received by shoppers and employees. ]
Anybody seen one of these in the wild yet?
|
Taxman said @ 2:16am GMT on 8th February
I humbly disagree. We as a nation are getting upset when human officers are wrongfully killing children when the officers can claim they were frightened. I'm not going to open that political can of worms, but what I feel makes the 'worms' is that you can side with the officer or the victim.
It becomes a much harder argument to state publicly that it was in the BEST interests of the store to tase, break the arm of, and/or kill a customer because they were potentially shoplifting, causing a disturbance, destroying property. Especially when the killer was never frightened. (Extra points if after killing the subject, the bot simply goes back to work)
The robots will probably not be (and better not be) programmed to discriminate in use of force against whites versus blacks versus . Which means the "seven year old white boy tased in eye, causing loss of eye, for stealing $1.23 chocolate bar" headline would be just around the corner.
I think robots are destined for 'law enforcement' but not as much in the 'force'ment part. It would be cheaper, safer, and quieter to have a robot (or more likely a drone) simply follow you until human law enforcement arrives. Everything on video, the 'company' didn't harm you, and then real (human) law enforcement can proceed to pound you into the pavement. /s
Taxman said @ 2:18am GMT on 8th February
I humbly disagree. We as a nation are getting upset when human officers are wrongfully killing children when the officers can claim they were frightened. I'm not going to open that political can of worms, but what I feel makes the 'worms' is that you can side with the officer or the victim.
It becomes a much harder argument to state publicly that it was in the BEST interests of the store to tase, break the arm of, and/or kill a customer because they were potentially shoplifting, causing a disturbance, destroying property. Especially when the killer was never frightened. (Extra points if after killing the subject, the bot simply goes back to work)
The robots will probably not be (and better not be) programmed to discriminate in use of force against whites versus blacks versus -insert minority group here-. Which means the "seven year old white boy tased in eye, causing loss of eye, for stealing $1.23 chocolate bar" headline would be just around the corner.
I think robots are destined for 'law enforcement' but not as much in the 'force'ment part. It would be cheaper, safer, and quieter to have a robot (or more likely a drone) simply follow you until human law enforcement arrives. Everything on video, the 'company' didn't harm you, and then real (human) law enforcement can proceed to pound you into the pavement. /s
Taxman said @ 2:18am GMT on 8th February
I humbly disagree. We as a nation are getting upset when human officers are wrongfully killing children when the officers can claim they were frightened. I'm not going to open that political can of worms, but what I feel makes the 'worms' is that you can side with the officer or the victim.
It becomes a much harder argument to state publicly that it was in the BEST interests of the store to tase, break the arm of, and/or kill a customer because they were potentially shoplifting, causing a disturbance, destroying property. Especially when the killer was never frightened. (Extra points if after killing the subject, the bot simply goes back to work)
The robots will probably not be (and better not be) programmed to discriminate in use of force against whites versus blacks versus -insert minority group here-. Which means the "seven year old white boy tased in eye, causing loss of eye, for stealing $1.23 chocolate bar" headline would be just around the corner.
I think robots are destined for 'law enforcement' but not as much in the 'force'ment part. It would be cheaper, safer, and quieter to have a robot (or more likely a drone) simply follow you until human law enforcement arrives.
Everything on video, the 'company' didn't harm you, and then real (human) law enforcement can proceed to pound you into the pavement. /s
<-- Entry / Current Comment
Taxman said @ 2:16am GMT on 8th February
I humbly disagree. We as a nation are getting upset when human officers are wrongfully killing children when the officers can claim they were frightened. I'm not going to open that political can of worms, but what I feel makes the 'worms' is that you can side with the officer or the victim.
It becomes a much harder argument to state publicly that it was in the BEST interests of the store to tase, break the arm of, and/or kill a customer because they were potentially shoplifting, causing a disturbance, destroying property. Especially when the killer was never frightened. (Extra points if after killing the subject, the bot simply goes back to work)
The robots will probably not be (and better not be) programmed to discriminate in use of force against whites versus blacks versus -insert minority group here-. Which means the "seven year old white boy tased in eye, causing loss of eye, for stealing $1.23 chocolate bar" headline would be just around the corner.
I think robots are destined for 'law enforcement' but not as much in the 'force'ment part. It would be cheaper, safer, and quieter to have a robot (or more likely a drone) simply follow you until human law enforcement arrives.
Everything on video, the 'company' didn't harm you, and then real (human) law enforcement can proceed to pound you into the pavement. /s
