Because what could possibly go wrong.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
4 points

There is a difference between being full of shit and plausible deniability. Their statement is as follows:

“We pledge that we will not weaponize our advanced-mobility general-purpose robots or the software we develop that enables advanced robotics and we will not support others to do so. When possible, we will carefully review our customers’ intended applications to avoid potential weaponization.”

Which in layman’s terms is:

“We don’t SUPPORT groups weaponizing the robots and we won’t give them special software to do so buuuuuut if they buy a robot for search and rescue purposes (and put that down for their use-case) only to later strap rifles to it? Well that’s on them for using it against our wishes. We can’t help what people do with their property”

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points

Are you defending makers of murder bots at me right now buddy?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

BD doesn’t make murder bots. They make incredibly advanced robot platforms that other people have made into murder bots. You seriously can’t tell the difference?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

This is sarcasm right?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology@stad

!tech@lemmy.stad.social

Create post

Technology News and Opinion

Community stats

  • 10

    Monthly active users

  • 31

    Posts

  • 98

    Comments

Community moderators