Scientists are teaching drones to hunt down human screams(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Scientists are teaching drones to hunt down human screams
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/17/drone-human-screams/
69 comments
Yup. And a great example of the clickbait dystopia we live in. Dishonesty reigns in the public sphere.
It's interesting, the difference is only in the intent, the technology itself doesn't express any preference between these headlines.
The kindest thing I could say about the clickbait version is that it has the ring of a riddle. I'm sure I'm not the only one who took a moment to consider what it could really mean. Although, that in-and-of-itself is making it effective at garnering attention, just via a different psychological route!
That said, the verb phrase "hunt down" is an important part of the "color" that, if you were describing it to a computer you'd leave out.
That said, the verb phrase "hunt down" is an important part of the "color" that, if you were describing it to a computer you'd leave out.
But, intent is everything. "Man forces widespread epidemic of cutting on society at large" vs. "Biden advocates for nationwide vaccination" are similarly not particularly distinct at a technical level but quite different headlines.
Well, unless you're an anti-vaxer then I suppose they are identical in multiple ways.
Well, unless you're an anti-vaxer then I suppose they are identical in multiple ways.
What does "Man forces widespread epidemic of cutting on society at large" even mean?
Man encourages people throughout society to be jabbed with pointy things?
My two examples are meant to be alternative ways to describe the vaccine rollout but one with the intent removed and replaced with a sensationalized headline. You could describe getting vaccinated as being cut, it isn't entirely incorrect, it's just extremely misleading.
My two examples are meant to be alternative ways to describe the vaccine rollout but one with the intent removed and replaced with a sensationalized headline. You could describe getting vaccinated as being cut, it isn't entirely incorrect, it's just extremely misleading.
In case of technological progress, intent is nothing.
Not to pick on this comment too much, but people's quick trigger to label something "dystopia" contributes to this dishonesty. Editors write headlines like this for the same reason people like "dystopia" -- it's usually inaccurate, but it gets attention.
Assuming the technology will not be used for nefarious purposes seems incredibly naive
What's the nefarious use of finding someone who is already screaming?
Eliminating survivors
There needs to be a name for comments that are so sociopathic and terrifying that I jump in my seat. HN seems to do this more than Reddit, which is also disturbing.
Replying to myself because I can't edit the comment.
As someone who has spent time in a combat unit, I can't come up with tactical or strategic advantages that this would create, even if you fully set morality aside. There are so many easier ways to suppress dissent or eliminate survivors that worrying about weaponizing this particular technology is like worrying about dropping toilets out of bombers; yea, you can kill people that way, but it's so impractical you have to ask if anyone is really going to try.
I was asking this as a serious question, in case I was missing something. But I still don't see it. This feels like it's so specialized that it'd be a dead end for anyone trying to weaponize it.
As someone who has spent time in a combat unit, I can't come up with tactical or strategic advantages that this would create, even if you fully set morality aside. There are so many easier ways to suppress dissent or eliminate survivors that worrying about weaponizing this particular technology is like worrying about dropping toilets out of bombers; yea, you can kill people that way, but it's so impractical you have to ask if anyone is really going to try.
I was asking this as a serious question, in case I was missing something. But I still don't see it. This feels like it's so specialized that it'd be a dead end for anyone trying to weaponize it.
More generally, listening and detecting human speech and intent has plenty of military uses, and they are the main buyers of drones. It seems quite common for technologists to come up with humanitarian justifications for what is really new military hardware.
More generally, sure. But it's not like you'd derive that from this tech, you'd just create it from some of the generic pieces that are already laying around. Finding people that are hurt and trapped and most importantly trying to be found is really useful in non-combat situations; on a battlefield, not so much, as far as I can see.
I don’t know, it seems likely that this tech could be easily repurposed. Recognising screams implies recognising other things that aren’t screams. Do we know that there’s already generic technology for drones to pick up accurate ground audio?
Isn't one of the hottest movies right now about monsters that kill anything that makes a noise?
Locating winning lottery tickets?
Suppression of dissent.
Thank goodness.
For second there I thought terminator was becoming real in my lifetime.
Or that military drones may be equipped with this sort of tech to find civilians/soldiers then deliver an explosive payload just for kicks.
Glad we are starting to use it for good. For now at least.
For second there I thought terminator was becoming real in my lifetime.
Or that military drones may be equipped with this sort of tech to find civilians/soldiers then deliver an explosive payload just for kicks.
Glad we are starting to use it for good. For now at least.
I thought my wife was about to get swarmed.
>The sub-headline:
The sub-sub-headline: Researchers develop military tech to hunt down targets that have only been wounded!
The sub-sub-headline: Researchers develop military tech to hunt down targets that have only been wounded!
That's a relief! If they teach them to replicate themselves, many more people could be rescued.
But they might not be able to reach people who are hidden under the rubble of a collapsed building, for example. Ideally the drones would be built using nanotechnology, allowing them to be so small that they're almost invisible. Of course, coordinating their movements would require quite a powerful AI...
Related existing tech is Shotspotter. Placed on rooftops in cities it can detect and triangulate the sound of gunfire. Picks up the occasional backfiring car though.
https://www.shotspotter.com/
https://www.shotspotter.com/
The television show Person of Interest had an episode that featured a technology called "ShotSeeker" that was modeled after ShotSpotter. In the storyline, ShotSeeker is paired with human oversight to help distinguish real gunfire from other sounds. However, the police develop such high confidence in the results that the program is co-opted to both hide real crimes (by declaring actual gunshots fake) and to set up an attempted murder by effectively "swatting" one of the characters.
https://personofinterest.fandom.com/wiki/ShotSeeker
https://personofinterest.fandom.com/wiki/ShotSeeker
There's this cool application of using old smartphones to locate chainsaws in the rainforest indicative of illegal logging.
https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/eco-citizen/topher-...
https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/eco-citizen/topher-...
> Picks up the occasional backfiring car though.
It picks up more than occasional backfires besides actual gunshots, which is connected to concerns about its use being a pretext for selective policing in minority communities (or even outright manufacturing evidence to support police narratives):
---
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolinehaskins1/police...
---
“...a study of Chicago police data found that over a nearly 22-month period ending in mid-April, almost 90% of ShotSpotter alerts didn’t result in officers reporting evidence of shots fired or of any gun crime.” https://apnews.com/article/chicago-police-crime-shootings-be...
---
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/jun/19/pros-and-cons-gunshot-... (The series of “ifs” used in the police lieutenant's defense of the value of the system is...quite impressive.)
---
Simmons was accused of firing the first shot and charged with the attempted murder of a police officer, among other offences. Recordings by ShotSpotter were used against Simmons at trial, but evidence surfaced that the service had initially categorized loud noises in his neighborhood as the sound of a helicopter overhead — until Rochester police notified the service that an officer-involved shooting had taken place. ShotSpotter would then change the number of gunshots that it had reportedly detected from three shots to four shots, and then five shots.
After spending 18 months in jail and eventually being cleared of attempted aggravated murder, aggravated assault of a police officer, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, Simmons is now suing the city of Rochester, two police officers, a former police chief, and ShotSpotter. Matters were complicated when Paul Greene, the Forensic Services Manager of ShotSpotter, admitted in court that the audio file from the time of Simmons’ shooting was gone. Greene also admitted that unlocked or unencrypted ShotSpotter audio files can be altered by ShotSpotter employees or police.
https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/gun-violence-po...
It picks up more than occasional backfires besides actual gunshots, which is connected to concerns about its use being a pretext for selective policing in minority communities (or even outright manufacturing evidence to support police narratives):
---
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolinehaskins1/police...
---
“...a study of Chicago police data found that over a nearly 22-month period ending in mid-April, almost 90% of ShotSpotter alerts didn’t result in officers reporting evidence of shots fired or of any gun crime.” https://apnews.com/article/chicago-police-crime-shootings-be...
---
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/jun/19/pros-and-cons-gunshot-... (The series of “ifs” used in the police lieutenant's defense of the value of the system is...quite impressive.)
---
Simmons was accused of firing the first shot and charged with the attempted murder of a police officer, among other offences. Recordings by ShotSpotter were used against Simmons at trial, but evidence surfaced that the service had initially categorized loud noises in his neighborhood as the sound of a helicopter overhead — until Rochester police notified the service that an officer-involved shooting had taken place. ShotSpotter would then change the number of gunshots that it had reportedly detected from three shots to four shots, and then five shots.
After spending 18 months in jail and eventually being cleared of attempted aggravated murder, aggravated assault of a police officer, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, Simmons is now suing the city of Rochester, two police officers, a former police chief, and ShotSpotter. Matters were complicated when Paul Greene, the Forensic Services Manager of ShotSpotter, admitted in court that the audio file from the time of Simmons’ shooting was gone. Greene also admitted that unlocked or unencrypted ShotSpotter audio files can be altered by ShotSpotter employees or police.
https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/gun-violence-po...
I don't think any of that is an indictment of the system. If 10% lead to arrests for gun crimes that might have otherwise been missed, then that's pretty good.
> I don't think any of that is an indictment of the system.
How on earth is having a system that not onlt can be altered to fit police narratives but which actually is not an indictment of the system? Among the other issues...
> If 10% lead to arrests for gun crimes that might have otherwise been missed, then that's pretty good.
Yeah, its a system that’s problems are concrete, but benefits rest on a lot of optimistic “ifs”.
From the first cited source:
---
But a study of the St. Louis Police Department found that while ShotSpotter increased the number of calls for service for gunfire, it did not actually reduce crime or result in many arrests.
Over 19,000 calls for service were activated by ShotSpotter over a decade. Out of these 19,000, only 13 arrests were "uniquely tied" to ShotSpotter — arrests that couldn't have happened without the technology.
---
That's less than 0.1%, not 10%.
How on earth is having a system that not onlt can be altered to fit police narratives but which actually is not an indictment of the system? Among the other issues...
> If 10% lead to arrests for gun crimes that might have otherwise been missed, then that's pretty good.
Yeah, its a system that’s problems are concrete, but benefits rest on a lot of optimistic “ifs”.
From the first cited source:
---
But a study of the St. Louis Police Department found that while ShotSpotter increased the number of calls for service for gunfire, it did not actually reduce crime or result in many arrests.
Over 19,000 calls for service were activated by ShotSpotter over a decade. Out of these 19,000, only 13 arrests were "uniquely tied" to ShotSpotter — arrests that couldn't have happened without the technology.
---
That's less than 0.1%, not 10%.
> Picks up the occasional backfiring car though.
Never really used it, but from what I've heard (which is just comments on the internet) it's unreliable enough that it's not particularly useful.
Never really used it, but from what I've heard (which is just comments on the internet) it's unreliable enough that it's not particularly useful.
> it's unreliable enough that it's not particularly useful.
Any machine or black box that law enforcement can use either as pretext for doing whatever they want, or as something to point to to absolve themselves of responsibility, has value.
Any machine or black box that law enforcement can use either as pretext for doing whatever they want, or as something to point to to absolve themselves of responsibility, has value.
> Any machine or black box that law enforcement can use either as pretext for doing whatever they want, or as something to point to to absolve themselves of responsibility, has value.
I think you left out “negative social” before the last word there.
I think you left out “negative social” before the last word there.
Actually it is extremely useful. However it won't work as well if you use a silencer. (Which are better named suppressors, the gun is still quite loud but won't be doing as much damage to your hearing.) As in, we can make it work. But making it sensitive enough to catch quieted guns inside of houses will also make it sensitive enough to generate a ton of false positives.
This is one of the main reasons why there is a debate about the use of silencers. And people who want to be able to use silencers have an agenda to make the technology seem less useful than it is.
This is one of the main reasons why there is a debate about the use of silencers. And people who want to be able to use silencers have an agenda to make the technology seem less useful than it is.
Did you know lawn mowers, weed whackers, and automobiles already use this verboten technology? Otherwise known as the innocuous 'muffler'.
Don't kid yourself, there's agendas on both sides, and a hefty chunk of law related to firearms accessories is nothing more than prosecutorial/political window dressing to provide ammo for throwing massive numbers of charges at defendant's to increase the likelihood an AG can secure a conviction through plea deal, or strip yet another citizen of a fundamental civil right.
Note how the involvement of a firearm in anything can double or triple the number of charges that can be levied against a person. It means anyone unfortunate enough to develop a passion for firearms as a hobby has an uphill battle to fight just to prove that by default "they didn't do anything wrong". Those same silencers also protect the hearing of those around a shooter as well. Add the ATF to the mix, and simply having tools and trying to modify a firearm for better ergonomics can land the unaware in hot water when the ATF finds out and make a determination you illegally converted something into something else, and they don't like it one bit.
The humble remote hole punch has become a favorite poster child for the more authoritarianly bent to convince people to part with Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
I have no silencers/suppressors other than on previously mentioned equipment, and possess no firearms for which I'd be interested in acquiring any, but I did do a short stint wading through the regulatory more that is firearm regulation in the United States.
Abandon all hope, you who enter the domain where a string and a rifle can become constructive possession of a machine gun.
Don't kid yourself, there's agendas on both sides, and a hefty chunk of law related to firearms accessories is nothing more than prosecutorial/political window dressing to provide ammo for throwing massive numbers of charges at defendant's to increase the likelihood an AG can secure a conviction through plea deal, or strip yet another citizen of a fundamental civil right.
Note how the involvement of a firearm in anything can double or triple the number of charges that can be levied against a person. It means anyone unfortunate enough to develop a passion for firearms as a hobby has an uphill battle to fight just to prove that by default "they didn't do anything wrong". Those same silencers also protect the hearing of those around a shooter as well. Add the ATF to the mix, and simply having tools and trying to modify a firearm for better ergonomics can land the unaware in hot water when the ATF finds out and make a determination you illegally converted something into something else, and they don't like it one bit.
The humble remote hole punch has become a favorite poster child for the more authoritarianly bent to convince people to part with Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
I have no silencers/suppressors other than on previously mentioned equipment, and possess no firearms for which I'd be interested in acquiring any, but I did do a short stint wading through the regulatory more that is firearm regulation in the United States.
Abandon all hope, you who enter the domain where a string and a rifle can become constructive possession of a machine gun.
Do you work in law enforcement? This sort of tech seems particularly useful to move units in to respond to in progress shootings especially to reinforce and pinpoint the source of distress for 911 calls.
Some law enforcement seems to love it, though others have rejected it (some after using it for a while) because of cost, studies of its low reliability (particularly, high false positives), low benefit because actual gunshots tend to get as much information from 911 calls as Shotspotter provides, and community relations concerns.
Is there any open source project like this? Locate a sounds direction using multiple microphones?
How many goats will it find. Ever hear a goat "scream"? Very human-like.
Sheep more than goats, and more like a belligerent drunkard than somebody in distress...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y07TDTFSSMQ
They sound like Serious Sam bomb guys.
In the morning to you too!
Awesome. When the kids play outside, it's nonstop screaming. Now they'll have extra targets for their water/nerf guns
It’s a pretty distinctly different kind of scream though — the same reason we don’t currently get scared when we hear kids playing.
Excited-screaming, maybe. "My brother just threw my favorite toy in a mud-puddle" screaming? Nope, that sounds exactly like death or dismemberment is happening.
Sure. I can tell when my kid's hurt over the din of the rabble... mostly. But sometimes nothing's actually wrong and it seems like a cry for attention and I run outside for nothing. Just takes one kid recognizing that screaming bloody murder summons the bots...
Right, and there's no reason to worry about machines mistaking one kind of scream for another.
I don't see any way this could go wrong.
But in all seriousness, would this replace or augment current IR detection of survivals in natural disasters? Searching from high up might not be the most ideal position to search from - this could work well outfitted on a rover. In fact, I would love to see a tiny little rover that can crawl into spaces and search for survivors, sounds and body heat.
But in all seriousness, would this replace or augment current IR detection of survivals in natural disasters? Searching from high up might not be the most ideal position to search from - this could work well outfitted on a rover. In fact, I would love to see a tiny little rover that can crawl into spaces and search for survivors, sounds and body heat.
> I don't see any way this could go wrong.
We asked to robots to maximize the number of screaming humans they found... it turns out that metric proved quite easy to game.
We asked to robots to maximize the number of screaming humans they found... it turns out that metric proved quite easy to game.
Paperclip maximizer.
Taunt not the Clippy, for his will be the clarion call of your destruction.
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/paperclip-maximizer
Taunt not the Clippy, for his will be the clarion call of your destruction.
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/paperclip-maximizer
Reminiscent of "the world's funniest joke".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_funniest_joke
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_funniest_joke
Doesn't seem the most practical way to go about it, with drones being so noisy and all. It probably doesn't make sense for this to replace cameras (visible and IR), for all sorts of reasons. But I could see it being helpful as an extra input in some cases.
Sound has the advantage of going around corners though...
If you're terrified of drones, that's an interesting feedback loop.
Useful for rescue operations and military err... applications.
Breaking News: Couple threatens lawsuit against city for drone that lit up bedroom with high intensity flash beams during wild BDSM sexcapade
Motels are going to have a hard time with this one.
Sounds like the working title of a Harlan Ellison short.
Or a ripoff of PKD’s “Second Variety”.
[deleted]
All-Access Digital
€5 every 4 weeks
or just €50 €20
for the first year
The headline!
> Researchers developed a drone-carried acoustics system to find people calling out for help
Quite a contrast!