> if your job is to arrest people with outstanding warrants, how would you go about it?

How about: go to their place of residence and knock on their door?

Or: go to their place of work and knock on the door?

After those have failed, try getting a wiretap warrant for their telecom devices. Only after you've got that wiretap warrant, locate them and arrest there.

You know... the stuff that law enforcement is _supposed_ to be doing...

Following a vehicle whose license plate, or its owner, is associated with outstanding crimes makes sense. Following a random vehicle which has not yet committed a crime is wrong. Following a vehicle because it has black people in it is illegal, unethical, and racist. Following a vehicle because an occupant shows up on a face search database should be morally reprehensible for the very same reasons.

Robots will do all those things you suggest simultaneously, and watch every street with cameras, scan faces at every store, pull over cars remotely, turn off your power in your house, get your fired from your job, etc... This is better than racist cops?

By being outraged at one cop's admission of a short cut to finding people who are due in court we are bringing the abomination of robots down on our heads.

> Robots will do all those things you suggest simultaneously, and

And... humanity needs to have a serious discussion about the merits and risks of all of that before we rush to deploy AI.

My point was that people aren't looking for a real solution, they are just outraged irrationally about current events and not seeing how the masses are being steered towards a worse result than they currently have.

No, it's still wrong, immoral, to kill that innocent person to save the crowd of people.

You may, however, still choose to do it anyway, knowing full well that it's immoral.

If killing one innocent person will somehow magically save one million, that too is immoral. And I'd kill that one person to save the million regardless, accepting that it is an immoral act. It's a worthwhile thing to live with, to save so many. Obviously this is in the land of outlandish hypotheticals. Non-the-less, the morality is just the same if the ratio is 1 to 10, 1 to 100, or 1 to one million: intentionally killing - murdering - an innocent person is immoral in all circumstances.

c’mon guys, this is the old trolley dilemma:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.iflscience.com/editors-bl...

> Can a robot be racist?

Yes, it most certainly can. It can use the same priors that people use to be racist. In fact, it usually amplifies the racism of its training data.

Can, and has. [^1]

These are the documented instances, but it can be difficult to determine when such systems are being used in the first place:

Muckrock and Rutgers have been asking governing bodies (via FOIA) whether they're using automated decision-making systems and, if so, how. Many reject their request. [^2]

The practice of "parallel construction" could further conceal their use.

[1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2166207-discriminating-... [2]: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/list/?projects=84

Gross. God that New Yorker article was onto something.