Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

loradicarlo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#81

Post by tebs1200 »

jbob2000 wrote: post #63
tebs1200 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes down to semantics, but based off the opening paragraph on "Robot" it seems that it would fit the definition: "A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer— capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. Robots can be guided by an external control device or the control may be embedded within. Robots may be constructed to take on human form but most robots are machines des…

Is an articulating cordless drill a robot? Because that’s all this thing is. It’s still an electronic, but it’s not a robot. If this thing could learn and sense which movements produced the best effects, then it would be a robot. But it’s no different than a remote control car, and we don’t call those robots.

No - An articulating cordless drill can't carry out a "complex series of actions" and it can't do anything automatically.

It stated in the article that the device's operation could be tailored to each individual's preferences.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#82

Post by foldr »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #77
foldr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying "don't complain about sexism in tech when there are female programmers". The fact that CES doesn't operate a 100% efficient program of sexist discrimination doesn't show that Lora DiCarlo didn't experience sexist discrimination.

No, it’s not. A simple examination of the circumstances demonstrates that sexism is the least likely explanation here. There is nothing to suggest that may have been the case, and the weak reasoning they do provide is demonstrably false.

Sexism isn't "the explanation", it's the background structure that makes it easier for stuff like this to happen. Trying to isolate sexism as a discrete causal component would be like trying to isolate the causal role of capitalism, or American culture. If your landlord evicts you for not paying the rent, they're probably not thinking "I must follow the principles of capitalism" while they're doing it. But it's still something that happens in the context of a particular economic structure.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#83

Post by dwild »

bjourne wrote: post #75
dwild wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got an answer from someone else earlier than this comment that you didn't answer. There was vibrator, from women founder, who were at CES. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18872924 You are bending yourself backward trying to ignore that sexism or discrimination may have not been the issue here. If theses others products were there, why wasn't they banned too if there is sexism? That article is only one side o…

I didn't respond to that comment because the argument is fallacious. Just because someone has previously acted without prejudice does not mean that they will always act without prejudice in the future. It is the "I'm not Racist, I have many black friends!" argument in disguise. Especially when it comes to non-personal entities there is no firm expectation of consistent behavior. I'm not privy to the details of this s…

> Those who discard that as even a possibility are biased.

You are the only one discarding possibilities here.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#84

Post by danillonunes »

jeroenhd wrote: post #27

As impressive as this toy sounds, I don't see how it is related to robotics. The comparison between a vibrator and a full sex robot does not make sense to me; a sex bot needs to articulate joints and show human expressions, a vibrator needs to make some ver slight movements in very specific places. I don't blame the author for being upset about this because I can't see a reason to retract the submission to the contes…

Problem is: The toy already won the robotics award and it was only withdraw later.

The conclusion that can be taken from your explanation is that CES have a bunch of robots experts in the judging team of a robotics contest and they could’t tell what is or isn’t a robot before awarding it a prize.

That’s even worse in my opinion. If I was them, I would rather stick with the accusation of sexism.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#85

Post by [deleted] »

tebs1200 wrote: post #81
jbob2000 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is an articulating cordless drill a robot? Because that’s all this thing is. It’s still an electronic, but it’s not a robot. If this thing could learn and sense which movements produced the best effects, then it would be a robot. But it’s no different than a remote control car, and we don’t call those robots.

No - An articulating cordless drill can't carry out a "complex series of actions" and it can't do anything automatically. It stated in the article that the device's operation could be tailored to each individual's preferences.

[deleted]

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#86

Post by lawnchair_larry »

foldr wrote: post #82
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it’s not. A simple examination of the circumstances demonstrates that sexism is the least likely explanation here. There is nothing to suggest that may have been the case, and the weak reasoning they do provide is demonstrably false.

Sexism isn't "the explanation", it's the background structure that makes it easier for stuff like this to happen. Trying to isolate sexism as a discrete causal component would be like trying to isolate the causal role of capitalism, or American culture. If your landlord evicts you for not paying the rent, they're probably not thinking "I must follow the principles of capitalism" while they're doing it. But it's still…

This logic just doesn't make any sense. The relationship between charging for a rental and capitalism is obvious. Nothing that transpired even hints that sexism could have played a role, conscious or otherwise, and the data that we do have suggests the opposite. Why are you digging your heels in and insisting that there must be a bias component involved in this decision?

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#87

Post by foldr »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #71
foldr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think CES's half-formed "this is immoral" and "this is not a robot" excuses would have been less likely if the product was targeted at men.

CES did not say it was immoral, that was deceptive on the part of the author.

Their initial response was to cite the following text:

> Entries deemed by CTA in their sole discretion to be immoral, obscene, indecent, profane or not in keeping with CTA’s image will be disqualified. CTA reserves the right in its sole discretion to disqualify any entry at any time which, in CTA’s opinion, endangers the safety or well being of any person, or fails to comply with these Official Rules.

So, if they didn't call it immoral, they called it obscene, indecent or profane.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#88

Post by cannonedhamster »

vilda wrote: post #36
jeroenhd wrote: post #27

As impressive as this toy sounds, I don't see how it is related to robotics. The comparison between a vibrator and a full sex robot does not make sense to me; a sex bot needs to articulate joints and show human expressions, a vibrator needs to make some ver slight movements in very specific places. I don't blame the author for being upset about this because I can't see a reason to retract the submission to the contes…

To add, there's not much inclusivity in a company of single female-only product, in a market of overwhelmingly female-oriented products. Doesn't that fit into "majority" category? Has there been any inovation for men toys?

The posting literally describes sex toys for men at CES being displayed. There have also been numerous sex toys over the years by multiple partners and companies. I'm not sure why the award was withdrawn, however none of the options make CES look good.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#89

Post by cannonedhamster »

noptd wrote: post #80
icebraining wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Tech for a better world" category seems to be a catch-all, including such things as the Nissan LEAF, a smart pet bed, and a wine preservation opener.

Agreed. Unfortunately the organizers seem to limit the innovation award to PG-rated products :/

Which should have been covered in the entry section before the award was even made. They received an award that was rescinded for either puritanical reasons, bad category reasons, or political reasons. None of these are anything other than ineptitude or bias. I can say I'd not want to put money forth for CES given that they can't even get their awarding process straight.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#90

Post by fermienrico »

calgoo wrote: post #69
fermienrico wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Along the same lines as, if the only difference between two people doing the same job is their gender, and one gets paid more, then that's prejudice." I agree BUT: How do you know the only difference between the selection of the robots was specifically and exclusively gender? May be other robots contending for the award deserved it and they were actually better robots!?

Well, if there where better robots, then they would have won the award in the first place. the strange thing here in regards to that, is that they won the award and then CES came and said, sorry we take it back, with no real reason why.

Ah, good point. That’s really strange.
Post reply on HN