this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
1151 points (99.0% liked)
memes
17680 readers
2699 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are they waterproof?
Aim for the battery!
You can also shine high power lasers in their eyes. Without some mechanism to quickly block sudden brightness (tech which exists as I understand) it will burn out the camera. Battery removal is the last resort shut down procedure so the battery has to be somewhat exposed in case of emergencies. Their joints are also vulnerable, and could be gummed up.
Signal jamming, drone hacking, there's so much potential. They scare people, but they are pretty vulnerable.
There's nothing about a drone with a gun mounted to it that doesn't scream "free gun"
You know why the drones in Ukraine are on super long fibre optic cables? Because it turns out it's really easy to jam them and the only way you're actually able to get a clean signal is through a cable. Either these robots are gonna be easy to jam, or you can cut the wires leading back to their handler and they'd just stop working.
There are already diy heat shields that can be made for a few dollars and have been proven against microwave emitters. You act like ppl aren't already fighting drones and high tech weapons.
So somehow this tiny little robot has 40 tons of equipment for every possible scenario but is able to hop around like it's nothing but plastic and wires.
Sure....
I'm not talking about an isolated individual Rambo, I'm talking about well coordinated, disciplined guerrilla warfare.
I'm not saying the tech isn't effective, I'm saying it's vulnerable, and I think that the right tactics could give us an advantage.
Just the way you seem to think about these things is very silly
And power it how, run it from an extension cord?
if you need to get close hammers or other blunt weapons would be very effective on fragile joints and battery compartments. nice way to disable them after you fry the optics
That's true, it would be impossible to fix.
It would cost an arm or a leg to replace it
...Dad?
Possibly!
Ah, finally, a message of hope.
AI AI-powered turret mounted on the top that has machine accuracy, super-human reflexes, and sufficient strength to carry hundreds of lbs of ammo.
You'd need ambush tactics
Smoke and rockets. At least until supplies run out. Then you get crafty: sticky bombs, fire traps, optical illusions, nets...
The last one is interesting since I bet they're not dexterous enough to undo knots, let alone handle being tangled up in something. Once you know how they're programmed, you hit them outside that envelope.
For sure, it will be a form of high-tech guerrilla warfare.
Cool, so as long as you can shoot the inhumanly fast robot with a laser, or close the distance, work out how to remove it's battery and then do so, or gum up its joints - before it shoots you with a bullet - you're safe from gun-wielding robots.
Of course, protective lenses can be added to robots designed for the military or security, so even the safest of those options is unlikely to be at all feasible.
So I'm not talking about going solo against a fleet of lethal bots, I'm talking about coordinated guerilla tactics that neutralize and permanently disable them. I have a copy of the tech manual for those robot dogs, eh, somewhere on my PC. The point is you wouldn't figure out how to remove the battery, like the previous person said, you could aim for the battery to disable it, you'd already have knowledge of it.
The lens protection that I already said exists, still blinds the camera, it just protects the camera from getting burned out. It doesn't mean its completely ineffective, but it is a way to disable one of its primary sensors. A lot of police bots also have infrared tech, I'm not sure how that works, but its just an engineering problem.
My point is there are multiple things one could to to temporarily or permanently disable a robot that wouldn't work on a human.
~~I do find of funny that you stress the AI, and that is the main flaw in your argument.~~ You assume that these systems will actually work. A fleet of military robots sold to police doesn't have to work, it just has to work well enough to trick dumbass bureaucrats that it works. We already know how fucked up and unreliable AI is, and you just assume in your comment that the AI works as intended. AI is a buzzword scam meant to fleece the morons in control of public funding.
If you think ai police bots are anything but a scam that couldn't be overcome through human ingenuity, I have some waterfront property I'd love for you to take a look at
Frankly there's really a lot of over thinking going on in this thread. A good toss with a molotov still solves 90% of problems.
Very practical!
All the robot then has to do is move quickly and you won't be able to keep the laser aimed at it precisely. Extra sensors would enable it to shoot at sources of light triggering this protective mechanism, and extra cameras would make it impractical to disable all of them.
I didn't mention AI.
But since you mentioned it, computers are good enough at mapping the environment and detecting people in it for Waymo to be doing very well, meaning that robots capable of doing this kind of thing are probably already possible and held back by militaries wanting a human in the loop.
We're imagining a dystopian future here, so it's not like the robots need to err on the side of caution - they can just shoot anything that seems like a threat.
What does this even mean in this context? The situation we're imagining is not where you have a single problem to overcome, you design a solution, then implement it, then you're done. It's more like an arms race. If you engineer a solution to one problem, the next iteration of the robots will make it less effective.
The original image is a joke, because the developments in legged robots is not really what's important here; wheeled or tracked or flying robots don't have to solve that complicated problem and can guard the drinking water easily, too.
Idk I lost the plot at some point I just started robot posting in the middle of Walmart. Pretty silly.
For the flying drones, motors that could carry anything larger than a few kilos are like crazy expensive. So spraying or shooting something that was sticky, hard setting, or corrosive could be useful.
You could also do signal jamming, this tech already exists.
You're not fighting the bots you're fighting whoever sends them. So anything that disables I argue would always be possible and maybe even trivial
Salt water.