[reaperducer]

when I came close it stopped, as they do when sensing an object in front of them

The security robots at one of the big skyscrapers down the street from me do not stop for people. My wife got knocked into by one when we were standing in the plaza looking up something on her phone. (They're not little delivery robots. They're about five feet tall.)

Good thing she was confused by what happened, because she's also the type who would have knocked the robot over and asked me to shove it into traffic if she had her wits about her.

[vorpalhex]

And shoving it into traffic - or at least calling the police and pressing charges - would have been the right thing to do!

If you want to use robots, fine. You are still responsible for them and any people they bowl over!

[bluGill]

Probably. This seems like a public space so almost certainly. However if this was private space sometimes the rules are different. Once in a while I have to go into our factory (not even once a year, but sometimes), and they always make it clear that forklifts have the right away so watch out. (forklifts have poor visibility, so by giving them the right of way they ensure nobody expects them to stop - in practice a forklift driver will stop if they see you, but this way they are not expected to see something that is impossible to see)

[Melatonic]

Forklifts though also are pretty dang loud and have a highly trained operator driving them.

Did not even realize we had "security robots" yet like this - now I am curious what the hell this thing looks like!

[mywittyname]

I don't think this shields the company from liability. Instead it provides some ammunition to use in the event of a lawsuit.

Things are very different between employees and the general public. I imagine a jury would find that a lady-busting security robot is negligent by default. Whereas, a fork lift driver would be assumed to be doing his job and that situational negligence would need to be proven.

[bluGill]

Note that my company does a lot of mandatory training before you are allowed to enter the manufacturing areas. Forklift safety is only a part of it (though a large part as everything else is common sense says you wouldn't do this while forklifts don't follow common sense rules)

I agree if this is a public place a jury would and should find the robots at fault. (unless the robots are running some sort of arrest her routine, or knocking her over because a bad fall is still better than some other danger)

[foobarian]

Obligatory forklift training video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTV2HdLnN7I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forklift_Driver_Klaus_%E2%80%9...

[marcosdumay]

Well, if you invite people over your private space, you can't go and assault them.

[outworlder]

> shoving it into traffic

Right, let's cause a full blown accident because a robot bumped into me.

[recursive]

I generally object to the use of the word "accident" for "car crash", but in this case, it seems particularly inapplicable.

[mbg721]

This is one of the rare situations where people might actually empathize with those who make up "traffic".

[Melatonic]

Seriously. What if this thing bowls into a child and seriously injures them? Or a dog that is confused on what the hell is going on? I'm not even against them for mobile surveillance but they need to be safe.

And if these things are really 400 pounds with a low center of gravity as people are linking below.......well then I guess you will just have to enlist the help of one other friend in order to knock it over to prevent it from hurting anyone else.

[jakub_g]

What are "security robots" for the uninitiated?

[Tempest1981]

This is one I've seen in the wild. The K5 rocket-shaped model is heavy, 400 lbs (180 kg)

https://www.knightscope.com/

[jcrawfordor]

"rocket shaped" is sort of a generous way to describe it.

My first exposure to security robots was actually a company marketing a repurposed remote-controlled lawnmower platform. It was nearly the size of a Smartcar but low to the ground and designed to cross difficult terrain. Even so, a similarly designed lawnmower tumbled down a hill and killed its operator around the same time frame (I don't think from the same company). That all makes the KnightScope design rather surprising, it seems like these things falling over and injuring people is an inevitable liability. But at least my outside perspective is that the companies using these things don't seem to have much of a head for avoiding liability issues as they're often fielded in ways that end up in negative press coverage at least... not even really due to any kind of fault per se but just the user's lack of consideration of the optics of deploying a large, er, rocket-shaped robot to programmatically harass homeless people.

Some might remember the decade-ago jokes about "do not enter elevator with robot" signs and other artifacts of robots coexisting with humans. It sort of feels like the situation hasn't really advanced that much, we're just getting used to it and actively making use of the present inability of robots to coexist in polite society.

[KennyBlanken]

Shape ! = center of gravity. All the power and movement stuff is likely very close to the ground, and thus the robot very difficult to tip over.

https://www.dannyguo.com/blog/my-seatbelt-rule-for-judgment/

[jcrawfordor]

I'm not just inferring from the shape, the operational history of these things suggests that they are very prone to falling over.

[adhesive_wombat]

It's more rocket-shaped than Jeff Bezos's cocket ship.

[throwhauser]

What does it do that can't be accomplished with something the size of a remote controlled car?

[hermitdev]

Pure speculation on my part, but having it around 5 feet tall is presumably for the optical cameras to have a better view of the majority of adult human faces. If you're talking a remote control car (at least like the one I had as a kid), any camera is either going to get great photos of people's ankles & shins, up their noses if they're close, or lose detail because they'll have to be too far away to get a decent angle to look at a face.

[joveian]

Above skirt height is hopefully more than just a good idea for a camera with a upward view.

[mcguire]

It's more intimidating. (IIRC, they can be remotely controlled by an operator and have loudspeakers and such for the operator to yell at people.)

[renewiltord]

These boys https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40642968

The ennui of their life clearly leads to their prematurely choosing one answer to Camus’s great question.

[adhesive_wombat]

Hilarious as that final image is, nearly 200kg of hardware able to drive itself about and randomly fall down stairs is incredibly dangerous.

[ck2]

Ha the British made real Daleks (yes yes I know they aren't bots with living organism inside)

Eventually learn to self-upgrade to overcome stairs, then you've got a problem.

[bradknowles]

Run into me with a robot, and it is likely to get knocked over and very heavily damaged, if not pushed out into the street, or off a cliff, or whatever I can find nearby.

And I’m a pretty beefy guy. Run into my wife with a robot, and I will make sure that you really wish you had just run into me instead.

[dv_dt]

2 out of 3 times I've seen one those robots, they've been lying on their side.