• Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The robot tried to cross the street against a Don’t Walk signal it should have obeyed. That behavior is a defect, which the manufacturer should be responsible for. Whether the robot “fled the scene” is only an issue if the robot is smart enough to recognize that it caused a problem, and left to avoid the consequences - which I srsly doubt. I mean if the robot were a live dog we wouldn’t expect it to understand the situation enough to flee, we would assume it just ran off because it’s a dog.

    • Napster153@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      These techs are seemingly developed with minimal coordination between companies let alone governments. With serious effort and planning, this could’ve been avoided with software providing both real time info or direct link with the city traffic system.

  • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    As the spokesperson put it, the robot’s actions may legally constitute fleeing the scene of a traffic incident, meaning Starship Technologies could very well be on the hook for the incident.

    I don’t understand. It darted into a moving bus regardless, even if it hadn’t fled. The bus sure as hell isn’t responsible…

    • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Yes, the real issue is that it disobeyed a Don’t Walk signal, which is clearly a defect for a robot allowed on public streets. People saying it “fled the scene” are just making noise.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      14 hours ago

      “The fault lies with one of our subcontractors, one of the janitors is to blame, send him to prison. Anyway, we will keep doing business as we are a corporation and therefore a person and therefore none of us who own the company are at fault whatsoever.”

    • Taldan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      There was no actual collision

      The injuries were from hitting the brakes. I’ve certainly has to brake for people and animals in the roadway before, never considered it an incident. Guess it’s different because there were injuries in the bus, which I wouldn’t have expected from just braking

      • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Ok, but that’s still the robot’s fault. I’m sure the driver thought it was an animal or child at first. People don’t get to just wander into the road against a light.

  • froh42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 day ago

    Oh nooo the robot was blinded by traffic lights says the company.

    WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 day ago

    Don’t shift the blame to bright ad boards or similar external factors. If the device can’t deal with it, it does not belong in that environment.

    • Taldan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      That’s the same reasoning that forced pedestrians out of basically every roadway

      Have we considered modern urban design is terrible for pedestrians? Humans make this same mistake with regularity. We’re only able to cross roads at specific places and times that are solely designed around cars

      But no, we’ll keep blaming all the people who get hit for it, as well as all the robots. Couldn’t possibly be bad design that neither humans nor robots can consistently safely cross

  • eicker@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    If a delivery robot can’t reliably distinguish traffic lights from advertising, it’s clearly not ready for public roads. Urban environments are unpredictable by nature, not exceptional circumstances. And a software failure could affect an entire fleet, not just one robot. Autonomous delivery may have real benefits, but public safety cannot become collateral damage in the race to automate everything.

    • captain_solanum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Wheres the proof its not reliable? I think there’s about a hundred of them operating in the city since at least 2022 based on what I can see. So just based on the information here I’d have to assume each one causes an accident once every (100*365*(2026-2022)) = 146000 days which seems pretty okay to me, even if its a tenth of that.

      • non_burglar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        There’s a substantial difference between mitigating for errors by human drivers and accepting a percentage of undesirable behaviour as part of a system run by logic.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I hope they told their bus drivers to not brake for those robots next time. If stopping in time means putting the passengers at risk of injury, run the damn clanker over.

    • Taldan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Just asking for them to hit a runaway stroller they mistook for a delivery robot

    • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      22 hours ago

      In split second decisions, you don’t want to run the risk that the driver thought for a moment it’s a robot and not a small kid. Safety first. Let the robot go and sue the company.

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    you know how to solve this in the most effective way?

    same way we solve for gun violence.

    arrest and charge the person who ordered the food.

    I promise after the third time, people will stop ordering food from places that use these delivery bots, eventually the companies that support them will go out of business, and nobody will ever do this again.

    is it ethical? no. is it morally dubious? absolutely. will it work? 100%

  • Taldan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The bigger issue here is 9 people being injured from a bus having to slam on the brakes

    Seems like there is a safety review that should happen

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        We have them here in Scandinavia, and they’re technically mandatory. Nobody uses them but they’re there and encouraged to use.

  • AeronMelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    Whomever allowed that robot outside is to blame. If they have grievances, they can sue whomever wrote the software or built the device. Keep sending the buck up until it reaches the top.

    • eicker@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      The responsibility should lie with the company that decided the robot was safe enough to deploy. How it distributes liability among its developers, manufacturers and suppliers is its problem, not the public’s.

      • xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        When it’s a criminal matter, the assigment of blame is absolutely a public matter. If you or I caused a car accident with irresponsible use of an RC car or a consumer drone, we would be facing criminal prosecution. The fact that no one is likely to face charges in this case is a huge failure of public policy.

        • eicker@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          💯 That’s an important distinction: Civil liability determines who pays for the damage, while criminal responsibility addresses whether someone’s negligence was serious enough to constitute a crime. And that question absolutely deserves public scrutiny. Automation must not become a shield against criminal accountability.

  • Matt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    The robot was heard yelling “Bite my shiny metal ass!” as it ran away.