cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/53250107

Police confirmed they had responded to a report of "criminal mischief involving a robot" on the 1200 block of Filbert Street around 1:16 p.m. on Wednesday. A woman on the scene ignored "multiple commands" to move, they said, resulting in a criminal violation notice for disorderly conduct.

Uber declined to comment.

Marvin, who plans to contest the charge on the grounds of her First Amendment right to protest, has been undeterred by the arrest. She plans to continue blocking Uber Eats robots and chatting with curious passersby who ask what she's doing.

"It allows me to talk to people about what's going on," she said. "It's always very interesting conversations that we have, and I think it's good to have those kinds of conversations in public space."

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 day ago

I guess no one gives a F for the person waiting for their food in this post.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    Why wasn't uber arrested for obstructing this woman's path with their shitty robot?

  • source
  • [–] 438 points 4 days ago (20 children)

    What is the charge? Blocking a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?!

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • load more comments (12 replies)
    [–] 52 points 3 days ago (15 children)

    If you can block bots online, why can't you block them in the physical world?

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (15 replies)
    [–] 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

    This is basically the start of the counter to automation. We still tell fables about people who stood againt the devaluation of workers like this.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 18 points 2 days ago (9 children)

    Has it been set illegal to disobey "multiple commands" of a privately owned robot?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 days ago* (8 children)

    When police say somebody ignored commands, they mean from them. They don't get paid to enforce robot commands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (7 children)

    But can they order you to move because you are standing in the way of a robot? Disobeying an order is arrestable, fair enough. Blocking a person is probably illegal (depending on how it's done). So I'm uncertain of the activity necessary to block such a robot. Just standing straight up an down in front of it sounds legal. Actively and continuously stepping in front of it to block it at least sounds worse. But how do you enforce this? What if a dog blocks or attacks a robot? What are robot/corporations rights?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    It has nothing to do with robots having rights - which they don't. It's about deliberately obstructing what another person is doing. Calling it "just standing straight up an down" doesn't change that, any more than if you refused to make way for somebody pushing a cumbersome shopping cart. How do you enforce this? Well, in this example the cops tried to tell the woman to move along, and arrested her when she refused. If a dog damages property you can sue the dog owner. If you have more questions please look them up yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Of course it changes that. No where in time or space on earth have there been autonomous deliveries moving about in the same space as you or me. So the interesting philosophical and practical question is "who has the right of way". And as you say - "deliberately obstructing what another person is doing" when there is no person being obstructed. Someone may if may not be waiting. If I was on the receiving end of that meal, I would expect another drone delivering my food. Just as I expect packages to be rerouted if a delivery truck has a break down.

    So the answer is "no one knows right now". Or to be presice, "no one, and especially not you, knows right now. And I for one will find it interesting when it is solved. Just not from you".

    If you want more answers, please go look them up you yourselves - don't waste my or others time posting it here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

    Police get a lot of leeway when telling people to move. I suspect her blocking the robot, may be considered a public nuisance (like blocking traffic or a sidewalk). Her ingore a lawful command to move = jail.

    note: this is not support of the robots, just indicating the fact that they are probably allowed under current laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    "Public nuisance" is definted as an illegal act, condition or thing that interferes with the rights of the general public.

    Robots are not members of the general public, and have no rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    You know.. I'm surprised that no one has.. Done more? I'm surprised hunting these things isn't a trend..

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 182 points 3 days ago (26 children)

    There are Waymos that drive through my workplace all night long. Like literally every 10 minutes. They cause problems all the time, as we have semi tractor-trailers trying to dock, and they'll block their movement and then just sit there waiting. They started putting up cones so they wouldn't pull through but now all the legitimate traffic has to get out and move them around every time they want to come through.

    One time I blocked 3 of them in for several hours by trapping them by putting more cones behind them, such that there was no exit. That was fun.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 93 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    Robot cones that block the bots but move out of the way for cars would be fun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (16 replies)
    [–] 133 points 3 days ago (23 children)

    If she was not touching the thing then why didn’t it try and get out of her way? It should not be on the sidewalk in the first place, and should not have right of way.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 152 points 3 days ago (17 children)

    That's always one of the tricks these companies pull. They take some communally-owned thing that used to have a clear purpose and start using it for their different for-profit use.

    Take sidewalks. They're surprisingly expensive to build, but they're built from community tax money so that people walking don't have to walk on the road. Now Uber is using them as a place where they can drive their robots. Are they paying anything? I assume not. Sidewalks have also become a favourite parking spot for rental scooters. Do the scooter companies pay for that? Of course not. Even when they're parked well they reduce the space available for walking, and when they're parked badly they can force pedestrians out into the street.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • load more comments (17 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    Next thing to do, put a VR headset on it, and let it take a magical mystery tour!

  • source
  • [–] 75 points 3 days ago (10 children)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 62 points 3 days ago
    [–] 59 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    I think hungry people are going to start stopping these because they have food in them.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 76 points 4 days ago

    What a badass.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 3 days ago (32 children)

    "I know they're taking the jobs of human delivery workers and so, I have been protesting them whenever I saw them by standing in front of them and preventing them from going forward," Marvin said.

    I mean fuck. Do we want people working as delivery drones? Really? The other post in fuckai about this doesn't even mention she's been doing this for month which obscures why she's been arrested.

    And climate change is real you know? A small robot takes little energy compared to a full sized car.

    Ideally delivery robots should be state owned and accountable to democratic processes. They are a valuable and useful innovation to solve logistic problems. A way to reshape how neighborhoods are build and planned and make them more energy efficient.

    This dogmatic opposition to anything AI is really becoming more and more irrational, less and less grounded in facts and rational arguments. AI needs to be regulated. Like China currently does AI regulations best, but we can't even imagine things like that any more because people just accept neoliberalism as the new world order and screaming is the only thing left to do apparently instead of demanding regulations or nationalization of certain AI infrastructure. Maybe this is linked to some kind of anti-democracy propaganda campaign. Divide and conquer, and don't even let talk about regulation enter the public discussion.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • load more comments (32 replies)
    [–] 32 points 3 days ago

    Act surprised when it's revealed Uber sells the camera feed to flock.

  • source
  • [–] 55 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    "criminal mischief involving a robot"

    Sounds like a cool name for an upbeat song by an avant garde electro-jazz group.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›