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

Tianjin robot incident raises alarm over public safety and robotics

businesskorea.co.kr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Tianjin robot incident raises alarm over public safety and robotics

#21

Post by glenstein »

pj_mukh wrote: post #12

Why does this article read like the robot actually got angry at a spectator. It did not, it does not have that capacity. This was definitely a glaring safety issue and the company should review all its failure modes that show up in public but an ”emotional” response this was not.

I understand the concern but I feel like it was on the right side of the line. The article says:

>displayed aggressive behavior

>swinging its arms in a manner described as aggressive and violent, similar to human behavior

I can understand aggressive and violent as descriptions of behavior that don't necessarily (on charitable interpretation) imply an internal emotional state.

Re: Tianjin robot incident raises alarm over public safety and robotics

#22

Post by v9v »

Seems to me that it loses its balance and extends its arms in order to rebalance itself, similar to what's happening in their demo videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtPs_ygfaEA?t=24 I've worked with their robot dogs before and they kick their legs really fast when they sense that they are falling over.

Re: Tianjin robot incident raises alarm over public safety and robotics

#23

Post by bumby »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #7
themanmaran wrote: post #2

Video of the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JiOAqNpxlE

It is ridiculous to attribute intent to the motion, but I understand why people do — it really does give the impression of an aggressive, upset human. That’s unfortunate.

There is an often unaddressed risk in robotics because there is a lack of theory-of-mind. We’ve evolved to intuit what others humans are thinking (based on words, body language and other context) which helps us predict behavior and mitigate risk. Unfortunately we can’t do the same with robuts so there is a potential for more latent risk (same as dealing with “crazy” humans where our mental models fail to predict behavior).

IMO this means we won’t be comfortable with robuts and safety critical applications until they are well, well beyond human capabilities. This is where I think the crowd that aims for “human-level performance” is wrong; society won’t trust robuts until they are much, much better than humans.

Re: Tianjin robot incident raises alarm over public safety and robotics

#24

Post by bluSCALE4 »

mattlondon wrote: post #16

Years ago when I was a student at uni I volunteered to take part in a research study with robots. I went to a rented house near campus where they had a normal living room set up and sat me down on a dining chair in the room and handed me a box with a button on it. "The robot will approach you. Just press the button when you feel like it is getting too close" they said. They left the room so I was alone, and a few min…

Terrifying. I get the sensation playing VR games and have robots swing at me. Don't enjoy it at all.

Re: Tianjin robot incident raises alarm over public safety and robotics

#28

Post by digbybk »

pj_mukh wrote: post #12

Why does this article read like the robot actually got angry at a spectator. It did not, it does not have that capacity. This was definitely a glaring safety issue and the company should review all its failure modes that show up in public but an ”emotional” response this was not.

The AI emotion discussion is interesting, but at the end of the day, does it matter? The question is, is it safe? And if it's not safe, how unsafe is it?

Re: Tianjin robot incident raises alarm over public safety and robotics

#29

Post by janalsncm »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #7
themanmaran wrote: post #2

Video of the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JiOAqNpxlE

It is ridiculous to attribute intent to the motion, but I understand why people do — it really does give the impression of an aggressive, upset human. That’s unfortunate.

Doing that unpredictably is almost worse. Functionally, the point of anthropomorphizing is to tell a story that makes things predictable. In other words, “unsafe if angry, safe otherwise”.

But if you can’t tell if it’s “angry” then we have to assume it’s always unsafe. Of course this was always true.

Re: Tianjin robot incident raises alarm over public safety and robotics

#30

Post by givemeethekeys »

pj_mukh wrote: post #12

Why does this article read like the robot actually got angry at a spectator. It did not, it does not have that capacity. This was definitely a glaring safety issue and the company should review all its failure modes that show up in public but an ”emotional” response this was not.

"As you can see from the smile on the robot's, let's call it face, your honor, this was clearly a friendly gesture."
Post reply on HN