cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/53250107
Police confirmed they had responded to a report of “criminal mischief involving a robot” on the 1200 block of Filbert Street around 1:16 p.m. on Wednesday. A woman on the scene ignored “multiple commands” to move, they said, resulting in a criminal violation notice for disorderly conduct.
Uber declined to comment.
Marvin, who plans to contest the charge on the grounds of her First Amendment right to protest, has been undeterred by the arrest. She plans to continue blocking Uber Eats robots and chatting with curious passersby who ask what she’s doing.
“It allows me to talk to people about what’s going on,” she said. “It’s always very interesting conversations that we have, and I think it’s good to have those kinds of conversations in public space.”
Should have just built a blocking robot to do it… Or like… A crate.
Has it been set illegal to disobey “multiple commands” of a privately owned robot?
When police say somebody ignored commands, they mean from them. They don’t get paid to enforce robot commands.
But can they order you to move because you are standing in the way of a robot? Disobeying an order is arrestable, fair enough. Blocking a person is probably illegal (depending on how it’s done). So I’m uncertain of the activity necessary to block such a robot. Just standing straight up an down in front of it sounds legal. Actively and continuously stepping in front of it to block it at least sounds worse. But how do you enforce this? What if a dog blocks or attacks a robot? What are robot/corporations rights?
It has nothing to do with robots having rights - which they don’t. It’s about deliberately obstructing what another person is doing. Calling it “just standing straight up an down” doesn’t change that, any more than if you refused to make way for somebody pushing a cumbersome shopping cart. How do you enforce this? Well, in this example the cops tried to tell the woman to move along, and arrested her when she refused. If a dog damages property you can sue the dog owner. If you have more questions please look them up yourself.
Of course it changes that. No where in time or space on earth have there been autonomous deliveries moving about in the same space as you or me. So the interesting philosophical and practical question is “who has the right of way”. And as you say - “deliberately obstructing what another person is doing” when there is no person being obstructed. Someone may if may not be waiting. If I was on the receiving end of that meal, I would expect another drone delivering my food. Just as I expect packages to be rerouted if a delivery truck has a break down.
So the answer is “no one knows right now”. Or to be presice, “no one, and especially not you, knows right now. And I for one will find it interesting when it is solved. Just not from you”.
If you want more answers, please go look them up you yourselves - don’t waste my or others time posting it here.
Police get a lot of leeway when telling people to move. I suspect her blocking the robot, may be considered a public nuisance (like blocking traffic or a sidewalk). Her ingore a lawful command to move = jail.
note: this is not support of the robots, just indicating the fact that they are probably allowed under current laws.
This is basically the start of the counter to automation. We still tell fables about people who stood againt the devaluation of workers like this.
The temerity!
You know… I’m surprised that no one has… Done more? I’m surprised hunting these things isn’t a trend…
I imagine that the non-violent sport of ‘Robot-hassling’ will emerge from pioneers like this before long. Tying a rope around it and to a tree will only be the start, with championships and awards for the simplest, cleverist and most-effective. Getting one to lose it will be high-ranking. There’ll need to be a special section for electronic tricks and traps, and another for reality-shifting. Getting one to forget it’s job and help you with gardening would be one fine example.
Probably within a year Uber starts building these with extendable cattle prods that shock people to the ground that are in their way and then just crawl over them to finish their delivery.
I think hungry people are going to start stopping these because they have food in them.
This is the stupidest thing
Broke: “Uber should hire real humans, not robots!”
Woke: “Uber is a complete rip-off with a deceptive pricing model that is doing nothing but fueling obesity rates, regardless. Never use it.”
What a badass.
Steal one and inject a virus into it and then make it run into a wall a bunch of times, ensuring the complete destruction of the device… 😜 Call the nearest news outlet and claim that the robot was suicidal-homicidal and was trying to smash you and it into a wall and wait for a news report. The robots get pushed back by skepticism of safety towards humans.
inject a virus into it
i see you don’t know how the news works recently…
If there’s people who believe the rogue ai news reports, there’s people who will believe that a delivery drone was trying to kill them.
my point was that the news will happily push a story like the “rogue AI” bullshit, since it is in the best interest of the people who own the media companies, but will completely ignore or actively suppress stories that are afainst their interests…
Well I think the rogue Ai thing was also pushed so that the owners of Ai company’s can have the platform to get people to listen about how we shouldn’t be accelerating the use and expansion of Ai but rather, trying to make more regulations surrounding it.
I think bad news for good publicity, happens more than we think and I think that in this economy, an economy where people are choosing between groceries and medication people can’t afford to lose an opportunity to earn.
I think that making a hacked delivery drone bash into a wall with a person who knows it’s gonna happen move out of the way at the last second while the drone goes at high velocity, could be the bad publicity for good purposes. It’ll make a lot of companies contemplate the roll out, it’ll prolong it from happening and it’ll give more people time to protest.
☝🏻 However, it is a crime to steal, hack and destroy a delivery drone and I do not promote nor condone the actual attempt.
The comments section on that article truly was a ride.
You weren’t kidding. The amount of confidently incorrect comments in there is astounding.
Instead of fighting innovation I think she should be fighting for workers to share its benefits. For example, when automation means less human labor is needed for a task, what if the workers who do that task could benefit by working fewer hours with no cut in pay? In our current system the owners get all the benefits in the form of increased profits - why can’t they be shared? I would think a college professor would be smart enough to see that and work on figuring out how to make it happen, rather than simply standing on the sidewalk.
In a world that worked according to her standard, we would still have armies of bookkeepers doing manual arithmetic and writing numbers in ledgers, because businesses that tried to use computerized accounting systems would have been boycotted. As a result the whole computing industry would have developed much more slowly, if it developed at all, and we wouldn’t have forums such as lemmy for discussions like this.
It really pisses me off how pristine and undamaged that piece of shit looks.
It’s fine to not order stuff online yourself. Preventing others from getting what they ordered isn’t.
She should find a hobby which isn’t purely about annoying her environment. Want to be an activist? Well, United Healthcare still exists…
