- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Well now I’m definitely going to have to save up $10,000 for a flame-throwing robot dog.
How else am I going to protect myself from all the flame-throwing robot dogs?
The only defense against a bad guy with a flame throwing robot dog, is a good guy with a flame throwing robot dog
How else am I going to protect myself from all the flame-throwing robot dogs?
Build a tesla coil for $100.
What if their flame thrower range is longer than the range of my Tesla coil?
Also, how will I get my revenge?
The nice part of that is that the fire conducts along the electricity
Edit: this was like two weeks ago but it was the other way around I am dumb
“Flame-throwing robot dogs don’t kill people, people kill people”
Dear ladies and gentleman of the jury. I will now argue that the LLM that programmed the fire breathing dog, did so in such a manner as to make it sentient. The dog was able to and did act of it’s own accord when it killed the woman, Ms Smith. The defendant here did not create sentience in the dog, nor could he have known turning the dog on, outside, may result in the fire breathing dog torch a bystander to death.
You can see here, the dogs walking and urination patterns closely align with a real, organic dog. This definitively proves that the dog killed the woman, and now the defendant, who only released the dog into nature. Thank you very much.
That’s a legit point under common law. The owner or keeper of a wild animal is generally strictly liable for damage caused by the animal, except if the animal is local fauna, in which case liability terminates on the animal’s escape back into the wild. I don’t know of any place with native flame throwing robots.
Theoretically if Amazon drones become wide spread in the environment and I capture one, attach a flamethrower to it, and the above scenario happens after I release it back into the wild, would that defense then apply as Amazon drones are native to the environment?
That would probably fall under intentional torts rather than strict animal liability. If you do, put up some vague “is this your drone?” flyers with a blurry photo, wait a bit, take the drone to the vet and pay the bill in your name, and build the evidence of your keepership, because you’ll have to admit being a keeper for the defense to work. Also, owners or keepers are liable, and this is one of those rare times in law when or also means and, and Amazon will probably help you defend the case in chief, though they will probably come after you next. This does not constitute legal advice.
What if enough flame throwing robot dogs escape into the local environment for them to become an endemic invasive species? Then could we be able to terminate any liability associated with the barbequing of the general public?
Obviously then yes it would be fine.
Now that’s one hell of a ‘hot dog’.
Also: Which 2 states are the sane ones where this would be illegal?
Edit: California and Maryland. And you can have one in California, if you get a special permit.
Where’s the robot to clean up the flaming, decapitated gopher carcasses off my lawn?
Where’s the robot to clean up the flaming, decapitated gopher carcasses off my lawn?
Not needed, because they get flamed while they’re in their burrows underground. So all you have to do is plug up the holes after the bot comes out and you’re done.
What possible use case is there for this that isn’t a felony of some description?
Roofing
throw flames at your enemies from your roof
Hmmm. Don’t tell Vedal.
Nah, DO tell Vedal and start a gofundme so he can put Evil Neuro inside.
Fungal towers not gonna like it
IIRC, fire kills fungal beds effectively but doesn’t actually take out the fungal tentacles.
I generally treat discretion as the better part of valor and get out of Dodge if fungus is present.
“The Mechanical Hound slept but did not sleep, lived but did not live in its gently humming, gently vibrating, softly illuminated kennel back in a dark corner of the firehouse”
Here we go…
Why do people keep reading dystopias as instruction books?
Your guess is as good as mine. Let’s just hope that they didn’t also see any copies of The Limits to Growth as well. It was a scientific report published in 1972 by a think-tank. Using computer models developed at MIT, the authors warned that continuing on business-as-usual population and consumption growth trajectories would likely lead to societal collapse within the next 100 years.
I don’t know about you but I’m excited!
