In November, the San Francisco Police Department proposed approving the use of remote-controlled robots with deadly force. This was after a law came into effect requiring California officials to define the authorized use of military-grade equipment. It would have allowed police to equip robots with explosives "to contact, incapacitate or disorient violent, armed or dangerous suspects." San Francisco's Board of Supervisors approved this proposal, initially, despite opposition by civil rights groups. However, during the second of two required votes, the board voted to ban the use of lethal force by police robots. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, this is unusual as the board's second votes typically echo the first results.

In late November, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors has approved a proposal that would allow the city's police force to use remote-controlled robots as a deadly force option when faced with violent or armed suspects. The supervisors voted 8-to-3 in favor of making it a new policy despite opposition by civil rights groups, but now they seem to have had a change of heart. During the second of two required votes before a policy can be sent to the mayor's office for final approval, the board voted 8-to-3 to explicitly ban the use of lethal force by police robots. As San Francisco Chronicle notes, this about-face is pretty unusual, as the board's second votes are typically just formalities that echo the first ones' results. The San Francisco Police Department made the proposal after a law came into effect requiring California officials to define the authorized uses of their military-grade equipment.

As artificial intelligence works its way into industries like healthcare and finance, governments around the world are increasingly investing in another of its applications: autonomous weapons systems. Many are already developing programs and technologies that they hope will give them an edge over their adversaries, creating mounting pressure for others to follow suite. These investments appear to mark the early stages of an AI arms race. Much like the nuclear arms race of the 20th century, this type of military escalation poses a threat to all humanity and is ultimately unwinnable. It incentivizes speed over safety and ethics in the development of new technologies, and as these technologies proliferate it offers no long-term advantage to any one player.

More than 2,400 AI researchers recently signed a pledge promising not to build so-called autonomous weapons--systems that would decide on their own whom to kill. This follows Google's decision not to renew a contract to supply the Pentagon with AI for analysis of drone footage after the company came under pressure from many employees opposed to its work on a project known as Maven. Paul Scharre, the author of a new book, Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War, believes that AI researchers need to do more than opt out if they want to bring about change. An Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan and now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, Scharre argues that AI experts should engage with policymakers and military professionals to explain why researchers are concerned and help them understand the limitations of AI systems. Scharre spoke with MITTechnology Review senior editor Will Knight about the best way to halt a potentially dangerous AI arms race.

When Dallas police officers told their chief, David Brown, that they planned to attach an explosive to a remote-controlled robot and kill the man who they believed had fatally shot five officers on Thursday night, he gave his approval, and told them not to "bring the building down." That's how the chief described the situation at a press conference on Monday. The goal is always to "make sure we do everything we can to go home to our loved ones," he said. The plan worked, marking what is believed to be the first time a United States police department killed a person by attaching an explosive to a robot. Much of the resulting conversation has centered around the robot, which, as many have reported, basically amounted to a remote-controlled car with an arm and a bomb, not something sophisticated, such as a drone flying above the clouds.

This is a guest post. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent positions of IEEE Spectrum or the IEEE. Last week, the Dallas police killed a suspected gunman with a bomb-delivering robot. It was a desperate measure for desperate times: five law enforcement officers were killed and several more wounded before the shooter was finally cornered. Of course, the shooter needed to be stopped; preventing further murder and mayhem is always a priority. But the method, a robot bomb, was so unorthodox that it raises many ethical and policy questions, if not also legal ones.

In the mourning over the murders of five police officers in Dallas, and relief that the standoff had ended, one unusual detail stuck out: the manner in which police killed one suspect after negotiations failed. "We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was," Chief David Brown said in a press conference Friday morning. "Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased … He's been deceased because of a detonation of the bomb." That use of a robot raises questions about the way police adopt and use new technologies.

After sniper fire struck 12 police officers at a rally in downtown Dallas, killing five, police cornered a single suspect in a parking garage. After a prolonged exchange of gunfire and a five-hour-long standoff, police made what experts say was an unprecedented decision: to send in a police robot, jury-rigged with a bomb. "We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was," Dallas Police Chief David Brown told a news conference Friday. "Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased as a result of detonating the bomb."

The Dallas PD's actions appear to mark the first time in US history authorities have used a robot or drone armed with a bomb to kill a civilian. This comes at a time when police forces across the nation are being criticized and scrutinized for using military-style tools. After a police officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black man, in Ferguson, Missouri, last year, riots broke out in the area and police responded with weapons, vehicles and gear intended for military use. Images of Ferguson police in military-style body armor holding assault rifles sparked a debate about the militarization of police forces across the United States. Armed robots are the latest tool to transition from the battlefield to civilian life.

Still, the fact remains that the police deployed a robot with the intent to kill a suspect, which some say sets a worrying precedent about lethal force that's completely separate from the ethical considerations of shooting a gun. "The legal framework for police use of force assumes human decision-making about immediate human threats," Elizabeth Joh, a professor of law specializing in policing and technology at the University of California Davis, told HuffPost. "What does that mean when the police are far away from a suspect posing a threat? What does'objectively reasonable' lethal robotic force look like?" Joh recognizes that this wasn't a complex killing machine, but she argues its deployment indicates how easy it would be for police to launch more advanced weaponry without oversight.