Robots being used to get rid of Homeless people

Chrongen

my3cents wrote: »

Makes me wonder how long it will be before they put advertising on these robots, which also make me think they would be potential targets for tagging and graffiti artists?

I would imagine shooting these robots with paintball guns will soon become a trend. People will do "drive-by's" and riddle the robots with multi-coloured shots leaving the thing looking like a half-melted Slurpee :pac:

Grayson

To be fair, these particular robots don't seem to be that good

The people in the encampments showed their displeasure with the robot’s presence at least once. Within about a week of the robot starting its automated route along the sidewalks, some people setting up a camp “put a tarp over it, knocked it over and put barbecue sauce on all the sensors,” Scarlett said.

Malayalam

donegaLroad wrote: »

In a way, I'm looking forward to checking out of here.

Come on Be brave. Us haggard dissidents will move to the Badlands and carry live wires to short circuit the overlords if we encounter them, we will become sharp shots at taking down drones and experts at scrambling holograms, and we will live out our brutish existence eating stolen Franken-sheeps and supplementing with wild nettles. It's gonna be awesome.

Vincent Vega

Gatling wrote: »

Don't see any big deal with them ,by all accounts they have helped make areas more safe for everyone ,
But that's not going to stop anyone getting the wrong end of the stick and getting all faux raged

Personally I think I'd feel safer with the homeless being left to themselves and only bothered to help with the problems they already face, as opposed to adding to them.

I can't see how vilifying them, pushing them around and keeping them constantly on edge helps anybody. Surely it would only make them more hostile if anything?

I guess moving them on makes them a bit less visible though, which I'm sure many people are ok with.

server down

weldoninhio wrote: »

You’d be ok with a group of homeless sleeping outside your house? Leaving needles, breaking into cars in the area??

The homeless have been in San Francisco for decades. Many are probably there longer than the new inhabitants kicking them out. And yes I did in fact live in that situation.

El Tarangu

Vincent Vega wrote: »

Personally I think I'd feel safer with the homeless being left to themselves and only bothered to help with the problems they already face, as opposed to adding to them.

If you had to step over a load of dirty syringes when going into the office every morning, as was the case with the SPCA employees in the article, you might feel differently.

Beasty

Always thought they'd find a use for these chaps eventually

Boom_Bap

They should make robots to get rid of the robots.

CruelCoin

conorhal wrote: »

I think you misunderstand my position. The issue is an ethical one.
The homless problem is a product of a series of failures and abdications of responsibility all down the chain, including those causing anti-social problems on the streets.
Beware those who think that dealing with the problem is best done by robot street sweepers, sweeping actual people off the streets. They're the real problem. They aren't demanding any hard choices at any level, not at a governmental level to address homlesness and it's causes, not at a policing level, which would be mean and costly and not at a human level because they would actively replace them and give automotons with AI the authority over human beings.
It's like The trolley dilemma, could you push one man in front of a tram to stop it crashing into 5? If you couldn't, could you pull a lever to send the tram into one person and away from 5 people?
The automation of community policing is the lever. Which is in effect the subversion of empathy. If automated street sweepers of humans are moving on the problem we don't have to feel responsible for it or fix it or even face it. The problem has been automated away out of sight.

You and others are equating this robot to be somehow at the behest of the government which it isn't. A privately operated charity is using it.

Can you imagine if a potential adoptor got aids/hep a/b/c/insertletterhere while trying to adopt a dog?

I really don't feel like the SPCA in this scenario are trying to ignore homelessness or the plight of the homeless, but rather that they'd prefer their customers not get aids/their cars broken into while adopting.

I really would have thought that to be pretty fair. Surely the adoptees rights trump those of people smashing cars or failing to use safe needle zones, hmm?

topper75

Would make a great Tomorrow's World episode back in the 80s.

"....telephones which you can carry in your pocket! Now, you may have often passed a homeless on the footpath and been offended by the smell and put out by the awkward begging even though we live in a welfare state, well, some scientists have been working on a solution...Colin has more."

conorhal

CruelCoin wrote: »

You and others are equating this robot to be somehow at the behest of the government which it isn't. A privately operated charity is using it.

Can you imagine if a potential adoptor got aids/hep a/b/c/insertletterhere while trying to adopt a dog?

I really don't feel like the SPCA in this scenario are trying to ignore homelessness or the plight of the homeless, but rather that they'd prefer their customers not get aids/their cars broken into while adopting.

I really would have thought that to be pretty fair. Surely the adoptees rights trump those of people smashing cars or failing to use safe needle zones, hmm?

Yeah, but none of that explains why robots are the solution to the problem? Why not hire a security guard? Why not insist on the effective policing of the area? It's the ideology behind this solution that's perturbing.

CruelCoin

conorhal wrote: »

Yeah, but none of that explains why robots are the solution to the problem? Why not hire a security guard? Why not insist on the effective policing of the area? It's the ideology behind this solution that's perturbing.

For the same reasons why every industry tries to automate as much as it can.

Breakdowns aside, robots don't pull sickies, they don't get sick children, they don't need holidays, they don't get intimidated, etc. They do the job you program them to do. We've all seen the guards at industrial estates that barely look up from the paper when they lift the gate for you.

These reasons dictate that you would need two guards, or you need to outsource which is hideously expensive.
I'd make a sizeable bet that a robot is cheaper than a human alternative, and for a charity like the SPCA, every penny counts.

Effective policing costs money, and it's just not there. Not while you (the US) have a military larger than the next 20 countries combined.

weldoninhio

donegaLroad wrote: »

The cost of one of these robots would be enough to establish some sort of emergency dwelling for homeless people.

Why would a private company want to provide a dwelling for the homeless thieves and junkies that sleep near or on their campus?

donegaLroad

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why would a private company want to provide a dwelling for the homeless thieves and junkies that sleep near or on their campus?

We keep running into each other on these homeless threads

weldoninhio

server down wrote: »

The homeless have been in San Francisco for decades. Many are probably there longer than the new inhabitants kicking them out. And yes I did in fact live in that situation.

We were here first. This is real life, not a playground. They’ve no right to be on private property. Ground spikes and sprinkler systems would probably be cheaper than robots though.

Lukker-

Since Giuliani left it’s gotten harder to harvest hobo organs. San Francisco should just do what NY did

Ipso

donegaLroad wrote: »

My point is that they could go and be homeless in the shelter the authorities could provide with the money they decided to spend on a robot.

The homeless problem in San Francisco goes beyond providing shelter. Some parts are like the walking dead, there is a severe mental illness and addiction issue and throwing money at it (and they throw a lot) does not help.

bazz26

What goes around comes around:

donegaLroad

Ipso wrote: »

The homeless problem in San Francisco goes beyond providing shelter. Some parts are like the walking dead, there is a severe mental illness and addiction issue and throwing money at it (and they throw a lot) does not help.

I re-read the full article in the OP, it is a different scenario than the thread title suggests. Throwing money at a problem of that scale would be futile. There is a similar homeless, addiction zombie apocolyse situation in Vancouver that the authorities had turned a blind eye to.. maybe its changed now. It would be nice to think that there would be somewhere that people like this, who may be desperate, could go to for somesort of sanctuary. Get them off the street first, ask questions later.

CruelCoin

donegaLroad wrote: »

I re-read the full article in the OP, it is a different scenario than the thread title suggests. Throwing money at a problem of that scale would be futile. There is a similar homeless, addiction zombie apocolyse situation in Vancouver that the authorities had turned a blind eye to.. maybe its changed now. It would be nice to think that there would be somewhere that people like this, who may be desperate, could go to for somesort of sanctuary. Get them off the street first, ask questions later.

There are.

Problem is they are drug-free zones and the zombies choose the drugs over shelter.

Horse, water.

Kamili

conorhal wrote: »

Yeah, but none of that explains why robots are the solution to the problem? Why not hire a security guard? Why not insist on the effective policing of the area? It's the ideology behind this solution that's perturbing.

It's already explained in the article.
Cost of security guard $14 per hour
Cost of robot rental $6 per hour (yes they are renting it from the manufacturer)

I suspect they already have asked for policing, and got nowhere so rented the robot.