211–220 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
If someone had said ‘what if’ during the setup of this thing, maybe it would have gone better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A ski lift that breaks legs one day per thousand would never be acceptable. People are injured getting off ski lifts all the time.
Ski lift fatality rate is about 1/10 of cars, with only one death per 700 million miles traveled and average of 0.34 deaths per year. Ski lift is one of the safest modes of transports known to man. It probably saves many lives vs someone walking up the mountain. That is, unlike the chess robot it creates a comparative net decline in risk for achieving the task of climbing a mountain. A wildly overbuilt (for the task)…
You say "probably". Means you have no clue whether it is a fact or just invention of your mind. Then why bring it up as an argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A robot designed to move chess pieces should never have enough power to break anything. Could be run from as little as 2 AA batteries. This is simply bad engineering.
I think that’s challenging to achieve if you also want the robot to play well under time pressure. Even if you manage to build an actuator that can grab a piece quickly but can’t break anything, the required rapid movement of the arm still can break things.
Seems very human proof and also exciting to watch in action.
The answer from the federation is unconscionable. They blamed the boy and then said they could not be held responsible. Fuck off, a kid made a reasonable kid movement. If the robot wasn't ready to be around children, it shouldn't have been deployed around children. And there should have been a big red button that immediately everything, within reach of every player.
>a kid made a reasonable kid movement What do you mean? There's no reasonable time where you and your opponent are touching the pieces at the same time. Nor is there a reasonable time where you reach for the same piece.
Children are literally wired for physical experimentation and echopraxia.
Kids also want to be seen as helping. If this robot put a piece down poorly, the kid might be trying to straighten up after it.
All of which are eminently reasonable for a kid who has no concept of operating around dangerous machinery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are in fact times when we need to think about children. If we don't, humanity won't have much of a future.
Quite the contrary, I think. Society has become "soft", for lack of better words. If we had been so risk-averse centuries ago, the industrial revolution would have never happened.
If a machine is 20x faster than human labor, and making it safe knocks off 10%, that's fine. And it'll leave you with better employees over time. It's only a problem if you're in a race to the bottom that doesn't care about worker safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AGI alignment is a vastly bigger problem. Of course poorly built and deployed ML systems will kill and injure people - but these are tragedies of the kind humanity can endure and overcome and has overcome. Poorly aligned AGI is nothing less than the entire species at stake.
> AGI alignment is a vastly bigger problem But also far less likely to happen anytime soon. A bigger danger is when someone thinks a machine is sentient or "semi-conscious" (whatever that means) and naively uses it to do tasks it shouldn't.
Again, an improperly aligned AGI could kill the entire human race. I'm not sure what harm incorrectly believing a machine is sentient might do, but I don't think it would be as bad as human extinction or enslavement which are both real possibilities with AGI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not. It's a massive country with many different races and cultures in it. Painting them all with one brush isn't very nice.
This is Moscow though. I think it’s fairly likely the culture in Moscow is fairly homogenous.
I would imagine the place has some shared cultural understandings, generally, but that a big city is going to be much more heterogenous. But maybe I'm thinking too micro scale.
The answer from the federation is unconscionable. They blamed the boy and then said they could not be held responsible. Fuck off, a kid made a reasonable kid movement. If the robot wasn't ready to be around children, it shouldn't have been deployed around children. And there should have been a big red button that immediately everything, within reach of every player.
That's not what they said. They said they weren't responsible for the robot, and which is true. Same as if a human player injured another player. The robot's operator is responsible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a demo/photoshoot of the company's own equipment. You would think they know what they're doing: they make the damn things! On the other hand, we have some russians that have already proven themselves incompetent. Doesn't have anything to do with intellegence. It has to do with engineering professionalism.
Quoted post unavailable.
If you hadn't specifically asked about "the japanese", we'd be talking about chess programmer vs. robot engineer.