> The poster has not stated that robots would be inherently unsafe. (And if they were judged so, it would also be in consideration that humans also are.)
But he has. The statements
> This is appalling. There is no world in which an industrial robot like that should be operating next to a child.
> I assume you are referring to driverless cars. Those aren't inherently unsafe. Neither are six axis robots. As I mentioned, cobots are well suited for this sort of situation.
Together form a very easy to interpret implicit argument that "industrial robots" are "inherently unsafe" (since that was used to distinguish them from driverless cars) and that cobots are, by virtue of not being "inherently unsafe" (like "industrial robots"), well suited. Even just the choice of words for "industrial robots" lay bare a moral judgment of using them for entertainment purposes near children. Is there anything less "industrial" about the 500KW motor on a tesla?
If you want to claim that he didn't _directly_ and _explicitly_ state that argument outright, then you're right. It doesn't take a lot of reading between the lines to come to the conclusion that he considers there to be some difference.
> Anyway: the difference is in explicit projectual intention. [...]
So what's the argument here? That driverless cars were made to be safe and this chess playing robot wasn't? With how driverless cars have been pushed onto the roads with over the top promises and negligent safety features, how do you even begin to substantiate that argument?