• Sheepie@aus.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 hours ago

      @ajsadauskas But seriously I’ve lost count the number of stories I’ve read of these robots forcing people off sidewalks & ramps, including elderly and people in wheelchairs, because it demands the smoothest path.

      Literally (as opposed to figuratively, not just as an emphasis word) barging in to peoples shins to get them to move and half knocking them over.

      I’m glad we don’t have these in Australia, and I completely endorse any actions taken against these robots.

      • Patrikvo@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Just keep some bricks around. Put some under it, lifting the wheels from the ground. No vandalism needed.

  • Jay@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think “fled” is the wrong word here. “Fled” means “running from” which implies some sort of conscious decision making usually reserved for living things. If you throw a rock and it bounces off Sam Altman’s head, you don’t say the rock fled from Sam. You just say “Nice shot”

    • Patrikvo@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      If you throw a rock and it bounces off Sam Altman’s head, you don’t say the rock fled from Sam. You just say “Nice shot”

      Who would be sick to do such a thing? Complimenting yourself is so not done.

    • Arola@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      If you cause a human to flea the scene (or rob a bank or whatever) through force, threat, or coercive acts you would be held responsible - the key point here is if the person/people (the ones who makes decisions at the shitty tech company responsible for the job-stealing delivery automaton) will be allowed to use the get out of jail free card “it wasn’t me that injured those people / hacked that competitor / stole the crypto” or if accountability actually means nothing for the bourgeoisie in 2026 if they own robots and AI.

    • zero924@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      24 hours ago

      If a driver hits someone without realizing it and drives off to continue their day, that’s still legally fleeing the scene

      • Jay@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Maybe, but that’s still based on a human that should be aware of what they’re doing, even if they weren’t at the time.

        To me it’s more like a rolling truck running someone over and continuing on down the street. Whoever was in charge of the truck should be liable for not securing it, but the truck at no point fled the scene… it has no awareness or capability to understand.

        • King_Bob_IV@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          21 hours ago

          The issue with this argument is in order for us to allow these vehicles to operate on the road they NEED to have this awareness. If they can’t be aware then they shouldn’t be permitted to operate. We don’t allow people who’s awareness is impared to legally operate on the road, why should we let computers without awareness operarate in the same conditions?

          By holding them to the same(or in my preference higher) standards is the only way we have if ensuring there is accountability for the companies operating these things. They cannot be allowed to pass off that liability.

      • frunch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s wild to think we’ve managed to outsource the very act of driving to another country. Nothing drives innovation quite like capitalism 🫠

      • Natanael@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s a mix. They’re like a Sim in The Sims, humans give them instructions and then they run path finding trying to implement it. The humans can take full control if the robots gets completely confused.

  • jtrek@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 day ago

    As the spokesperson put it, the robot’s actions may legally constitute fleeing the scene of a traffic incident, meaning Starship Technologies could very well be on the hook for the incident.

    Good. Nail them to the wall.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s funny how everyone is getting riled up about this story. You’re only hearing about it because it’s unusual. Over 100 people die on the road every day in America, die at the hands of human drivers, not bots.

    Flip it around. Wouldn’t this seem an odd story if a pedestrian or driver caused this accident? No one would care.

    • nullptr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      there is nothing funny and your argument is weak. This is a new risk which comes into play, producing entirely new deaths/injuries, which previously weren’t be produced. It is pretty obvious that introducing such risk for the benefit of “cheaper/faster ramen delivery” is worth considering seriously

    • TheQuadel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      24 hours ago

      How any cars are there one the road everyday? And how many of these “robots”? Put it in perspective.