Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020) • Hacker News Board

Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)

#51

Post by JabavuAdams » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

fvncc wrote: post #24

JabavuAdams wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy weapons are expensive to build. Chemical weapons are cheap. The War of the Machines is going to be all nerve gas, all the time. :(

Actually chemical weapons don’t do well on “cost effectiveness”, apparently: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...

There are also important questions about warning time and strategic responses.

Let's say an upstart AI or group decide to wipe out humanity, or at least a country or continent. What is the time from initial detection to the realization that we as humans are at the end of the world? What do we do then? Do we nuke someone? Something? Everyone?

Any upstart taking over the world strategy is going to have to grapple with this. Chemical weapons have immediate effects. Bio-weapons will take time to spread - time during which they could be detected and possibly mitigated.

I'm sure a lot of actors have taken note of COVID-19's asymptomatic transmission. I'm sure people are thinking of bio binary weapons. Step 1) Silently infect the target population. Step 2) Flip the kill switch and they all die simultaneously.

Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)

#52

Post by undoware » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:05 PM UTC

JabavuAdams wrote: post #49

jcims wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biological are even cheaper.

I dunno. Chemical plant seems relatively crude and cheap compared to the equipment needed to design and build a reliable, effective, and controllable bio-weapon. Two-photon microscopes and nanopore gene sequencing aren't cheap. If it doesn't have to be reliable or particularly effective, and especially not targeted, then maybe you're right. What am I missing?

Hey all,

Quick/friendly reminder that this is a dangerous conversation to be having in public -- there is no telling what will happen to old comments in a few years (or decades,) when the disruption is further along.

Quite serious. History tends to happen when you least expect it to.

Personal web history, doubly so.

Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)

#53

Post by HeyLaughingBoy » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:09 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #30

robotresearcher wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. Canadian chain restaurant 'Boston Pizza' can't prevent you using the word 'pizza', though it's directly concerned with their business. General Dynamics predates Boston Dynamics by decades. ('General Dynamics' is a wonderful company name. Imagine if you'd heard it for the first time today. Cool name.)

It's very 1950s. * General Dynamics * General Atomic * General Houses (briefly, late 1940s) following, of course * General Motors * General Electric

I was about 25 when I tried to trademark General Magic and was pissed to find out I was not the first. General Products was also taken; guess there are a lot of Larry Niven fans out there.

Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)

#54

Post by undoware » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

undoware wrote: post #52

JabavuAdams wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. Chemical plant seems relatively crude and cheap compared to the equipment needed to design and build a reliable, effective, and controllable bio-weapon. Two-photon microscopes and nanopore gene sequencing aren't cheap. If it doesn't have to be reliable or particularly effective, and especially not targeted, then maybe you're right. What am I missing?

Hey all, Quick/friendly reminder that this is a dangerous conversation to be having in public -- there is no telling what will happen to old comments in a few years (or decades,) when the disruption is further along. Quite serious. History tends to happen when you least expect it to. Personal web history, doubly so.

This got downvoted, so it's anecdote time!

A former employer once forwarded me a deep-dive article about a guy who was archiving old '90s usenet posts. He explained the process by reference to a sample post, chosen at random, from the whole of the Usenet, '91-'99.

That guy's sample-post? A one-off I'd made, complaining bitterly about JDK licensure or something, from around 1998, when I was a loudmouth teenage Stallmanite.

It now occasionally comes up for discussion during job interviews. It came up when I applied for a work visa to USA.

Stay safe, and don't let your next job interview turn to the topic of [checks notes] resource-efficient weapons of mass destruction.

Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)

#55

Post by robotresearcher » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #53

Animats wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very 1950s. * General Dynamics * General Atomic * General Houses (briefly, late 1940s) following, of course * General Motors * General Electric

I was about 25 when I tried to trademark General Magic and was pissed to find out I was not the first. General Products was also taken; guess there are a lot of Larry Niven fans out there.

General Robotics also taken. Defense contractor.

Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)

#56

Post by heavyset_go » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 1:17 AM UTC

joreilly wrote: post #37

heavyset_go wrote: post #8

I have an tangential question about open source projects and names. "Boston Dynamics" is a trademark of Boston Dynamics Inc. Can using "Dynamic" like this project does cause legal problems, considering the name can be an allusion to the trademark?

In this case, "Dynamic" is likely referring to the fact that the robot is dynamic, not the company Boston Dynamics. In fact, Dynamics is literally just the study of forces and their effect on motion, so I feel like it would be a stretch for them to try and own a term used in every undergraduate mechanics class [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_%28mechanics%29

I figured that, but if their marketing references Boston Dynamics, like the headline of the submission did before dang changed it, I can see an argument that says that a layman might assume this project and Boston Dynamics are related in some way.