Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jakub_g 1583 days ago
What are "security robots" for the uninitiated?
2 comments

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

https://www.knightscope.com/

"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.

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/

I'm not just inferring from the shape, the operational history of these things suggests that they are very prone to falling over.
It's more rocket-shaped than Jeff Bezos's cocket ship.
What does it do that can't be accomplished with something the size of a remote controlled car?
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.
Above skirt height is hopefully more than just a good idea for a camera with a upward view.
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.)
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.

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