It's considered a robot by its manufacturer (https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...), the police who own it, and California state law, so I am confident in my choice of terms here.

When the subject of Robot + lethal force are combined, people think of Robocop, specifically the ED-209, not the cyborg. That's the implication. An autonomous robot which carries out "justice."

It would be appropriate to call it by it's modifier, a remote-controlled robot.

I’d buy that for a dollar!

Today I learned my toaster is a robot

Observing this disagreement without having first read the article, you're coming off as unreasonable in your details, though your original criticism may make sense. Autonomy is not, in practice, a prerequisite for the label "robot", no matter how much we would like it to be (and I would like it to be). This is especially true of standins for dangerous operations. We all know that e.g. bomb disposal robots are robots in normal writing and normal conversation. It seems like a bad-faith nit-pick to assert otherwise.

Even if you disagree that this is the "common" understanding, the sarcastic exaggeration is meaningless.

I agree with another commenter, that a more reasonable criticism would be that it should be called a "remote controlled robot", rather than just a robot.

I'm agreement with you but think that the phrase "robots with lethal shotguns" is scare mongering.

What's the CA legal definition of a robot?

According to Merriam-Webster, a "robot" is: > 1. a machine that resembles a living creature in being capable of moving independently (as by walking or rolling on wheels) and performing complex actions (such as grasping and moving objects) > 2A. a device that automatically performs complicated, often repetitive tasks (as in an industrial assembly line) > 2B. a mechanism guided by automatic controls > 3. a person who resembles a machine in seeming to function automatically or in lacking normal feelings or emotions

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot

Maybe a remote control device could fit the definition of 2B, but it's a stretch, as that's so broad that an alarm clock could be a "robot".

Northrop-Grumman calls this specific model a robot in their press release.

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...

Sometimes companies exaggerate their products in order to charge higher prices. No doubt there is some strict, technical definition of "robot" that this satisfies, but it's not what people generally think of as a "robot". There's also a strict definition of "tool" that is satisfied by a rock or a stick, but that's not what I'm looking for when I ask about tools at Home Depot (and apart from the pedants, everyone generally understands this).

Just some friendly advice, that you might wanna watch where you're pointing that accusation of pedantry.

I'm not being pedantic, and I'm not accusing anyone in particular of pedantry, I'm saying it would be pedantic to consider a stick or a stone to be a tool in the context of Home Depot.

Personally, I don't think opening a thinly veiled accusation with "just some friendly advice" does much to mitigate the rudeness.

It was described in the article. That a police, which already is accused of using excessive force, gets a new means of killing people, remotely.

The police call the machine in question a robot, the army calls it a robot, even the manufacturer calls the machine in question a robot.

> Robots act autonomously and automatically.

In the way most people colloquially use the word "robot", that's not necessarily true; surgical robots aren't autonomous, for example, nor are telepresence robots. The word "robot" is actually surprisingly vague. A dishwasher operates autonomously, but many people don't consider it a robot. Elevators are vertical L5 autonomous vehicles, but most people don't consider them robots, either.

More importantly, though, if a device has software-activated weapons and is connected to the internet, it is theoretically possible for a hacker to load code onto it to make it an autonomous death machine, even if its OEM firmware was intended for human-controlled teleoperation only.

I'm sure the distinction between teleoperated machine and autonomous robot will be very important to the family killed by this machine the next time the Oakland police do a no-knock raid on the wrong house.

Whatever kind of machine this is at the end of the day it's a force multiplier. That's why it is used. It lets law enforcement leverage more force against people and it allows them to do so with further impunity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdokBQW7Suc

It's always disconcerting when people don't see a problem with that.

How much force projection should law enforcement have anyways?

How much is too much? Is it subjective or objective?

What are the checks and balances on this kind of equipment?

The criticism was that the title is clickbait, not that there is no problem with "increased force projection". The latter doesn't justify the former.

Clickbait-accusation seems to imply "do not waste your time reading this." I think you are equivocating.

Clickbait means the title is more sensational than the article delivers, it doesn't mean that the article isn't worth reading (lots of unsensational things are worth reading). An article about the lethal potential of a remotely guided bomb disposal machine is entirely worth reading, but that doesn't justify describing it as a "lethal shotgun equipped robot", which is textbook equivocation--pretty bold to suggest that I'm the one equivocating.