Scholarlink

<p>Recent advances in robotics and machine learning have revived the idea of police robots – machines that could patrol public spaces, conduct traffic stops, and interact with citizens with near-human competence. Proponents emphasize potential gains in officer safety, operational efficiency, and consistent rule enforcement, and international policy discussions increasingly treat AI and robotics for law enforcement as an emerging reality rather than science fiction. This paper offers a philosophically grounded argument for a strong infeasibility thesis: police robots that are like humans or almost like humans in the core social dimensions of open-ended policing cannot be built. The claim is not that robots cannot assist police work, or even replace officers in some narrowly specified tasks, but that they cannot become role-equivalent agents in situations requiring socially heterogeneous interaction, discretionary norm application, and accountable coercive authority. We draw here on our work on the limits of Artificial Intelligence documented in Landgrebe and Smith (<CitationRef CitationID="CR13">2025</CitationRef>; hereafter L&amp;S) and applied to the case of robot cops in (Smith <CitationRef CitationID="CR27">2021</CitationRef>). L&amp;S develop a critique of AI in dialogue, social norms, and moral behavior emulation, and they explore the implications of this critique for current interdisciplinary scholarship on policing legitimacy, discretion, accountability, and machine ethics. We argue that human-like police work depends on intersubjective understanding, context-sensitive norm application, and a facility for holistic moral judgment in dynamic behavior settings. These capacities are not merely engineering challenges; they violate inherent limits to both stochastic and neurosymbolic AI models, and they also expose structural gaps in data, modeling, and responsibility attribution that would persist even under optimistic assumptions about future AI.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Why police robots will not become human-like: social interaction, machine ethics, and limits of AI

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月26日

查看全文
  • Konrad Szocik,
  • Barry Smith

摘要

Recent advances in robotics and machine learning have revived the idea of police robots – machines that could patrol public spaces, conduct traffic stops, and interact with citizens with near-human competence. Proponents emphasize potential gains in officer safety, operational efficiency, and consistent rule enforcement, and international policy discussions increasingly treat AI and robotics for law enforcement as an emerging reality rather than science fiction. This paper offers a philosophically grounded argument for a strong infeasibility thesis: police robots that are like humans or almost like humans in the core social dimensions of open-ended policing cannot be built. The claim is not that robots cannot assist police work, or even replace officers in some narrowly specified tasks, but that they cannot become role-equivalent agents in situations requiring socially heterogeneous interaction, discretionary norm application, and accountable coercive authority. We draw here on our work on the limits of Artificial Intelligence documented in Landgrebe and Smith (2025; hereafter L&S) and applied to the case of robot cops in (Smith 2021). L&S develop a critique of AI in dialogue, social norms, and moral behavior emulation, and they explore the implications of this critique for current interdisciplinary scholarship on policing legitimacy, discretion, accountability, and machine ethics. We argue that human-like police work depends on intersubjective understanding, context-sensitive norm application, and a facility for holistic moral judgment in dynamic behavior settings. These capacities are not merely engineering challenges; they violate inherent limits to both stochastic and neurosymbolic AI models, and they also expose structural gaps in data, modeling, and responsibility attribution that would persist even under optimistic assumptions about future AI.