lemm.ee

-1 points

11 months ago

Yes exactly. To me they are makers of murder bots, but to you they are not. For me to understand why you feel this way I have to ask right.

For me if a company has a contract in place to provide robots to any entity that are going to be weaponized they should be held responsible.

It doesn’t seem to be the case for some people and that’s what I was wondering about. But now I’m just kind of tired of responding to a bunch of non answers.

report

[ - ]

money_loo@lemmy.world

1 point

11 months ago

If somebody uses a bat to kill someone, do you think Louisville Slugger should be held responsible? Yes or no and why.

report

[ - ]

1 point

11 months ago

No because Louisville doesn’t have a contract in place to provide Sluggers to said hypothetical lunatic.

BD does have a contract in place to provide these to the Military though do they not?

report

[ - ]

money_loo@lemmy.world

1 point

11 months ago

So say they have a contract to provide them to Phillies fans via a stadium deal, and then someone bludgeons a guy to death in the parking lot, what about now?

report

[ - ]

1 point

11 months ago

Depends I suppose those really aren’t comparable and I’d think there would be liability for it somewhere, but probably with the stadium. But that’s not a bat that’s been modified outside of specs, certainly not with prior knowledge to Louisville.

This is more like should Louisville be held responsible for striking up a deal with a nail company that turns their sluggers into maces and then somebody gets bludgeoned. In which case yes they should be held responsible.

report

[ - ]

money_loo@lemmy.world

1 point

11 months ago

OK, but the military is not just a nail company. They make way more stuff than just weapons, a lot of regular things came out of military funding.

For all the seller knows they could be using it for search and rescue. They are not responsible for the end result of what happens to their product when it ends up in the consumers or buyers hands.

Only in cases of negligence does that apply.

The military using these robots as weapons is very different from Boston dynamics using these robots as weapons

It’s really quite simple.

That said, you seem to think the seller of a product has a responsibility to sell only to safe places that won’t go against their own morals and values, and you may have a valid point to that but that’s an entirely different thing than saying “Boston dynamics is itself making robot death machines”.

They make machine that become death machines when modified, would be a more correct statement.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

11 months ago

The marines have this video showing exactly what they are doing with them. You aren’t doing search and rescue with a grenade launcher.

I’m not concerned with this ending up in court either. Boston Dynamics is 100% responsible because without them there wouldn’t be murder bots because the military wouldn’t have their bots to build on. Could the military build their own? Of course but they are buying them from BD instead and that’s why we should absolutely hold them responsible.

report