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

51–60 of 65 posts

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

#51

Post by robomartin »

Hopefully this starts a discussion/trend towards failure-tolerant robotics. Much as we have seen on commercial aircraft, relying on such things as a single sensor (or not being able to tolerate the failure of a single sensor) could spell trouble and even tragedy.

Having been involved in failure tolerant design for mechanical, electronic and software systems, I think I can say that this is an aspect of engineering that is well understood by those working in industries that require it.

Generalizing --perhaps unfairly-- I imagine that most engineers working on this class of robot have had little, if any, exposure to failure tolerant designs. They cost more, require more attention and analysis of designs and lots of testing. However, as robots of many forms interact with humans, this type of resiliency will become critically important.

A practical home or warehouse robot that can lift and manipulate useful weights (say, 20 or 30 Kg) will have enough power to seriously hurt someone. If a single sensor failure, disconnection or error can launch it into uncontrolled behavior, the outcome could be terrible.

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

#52

Post by glitchcrab »

thallavajhula wrote: post #34

This was one of my major concerns when Elon announced Tesla Optimus. There's a real need for government regulation on the bot specs. I blogged about this a while ago. Something like: 1. They shouldn’t be able to overpower a young adult. They should be weak. 2. They should be short. 3. They should have very limited battery power and should require human intervention to charge them. 4. They should have limited memory.

I don't disagree with you, but at the same time if you cripple the robot too much then it has no value - no sane company would develop a product which nobody would want. That's commercial suicide.

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

#54

Post by pinkmuffinere »

bumby wrote: post #23
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beha…

Ya, that makes sense to me, this is roughly how I feel about self driving cars as well — I want very good proof that it outperforms even the best drivers by a wide margin before I’ll actually use it. I feel that my friends and I are better drivers than average, even though I know that’s mathematically unlikely. So I need the self driving to be _really_ good before it attracts me. I know this is irrational; what I feel does not obey rational rules.

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

#55

Post by thallavajhula »

glitchcrab wrote: post #52
thallavajhula wrote: post #34

This was one of my major concerns when Elon announced Tesla Optimus. There's a real need for government regulation on the bot specs. I blogged about this a while ago. Something like: 1. They shouldn’t be able to overpower a young adult. They should be weak. 2. They should be short. 3. They should have very limited battery power and should require human intervention to charge them. 4. They should have limited memory.

I don't disagree with you, but at the same time if you cripple the robot too much then it has no value - no sane company would develop a product which nobody would want. That's commercial suicide.

True. I guess, there has to be a balance to get to a sweet spot.

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

#56

Post by janalsncm »

digbybk wrote: post #28
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?

Right. We don’t need to debate whether a loose tiger is angry, confused, or hungry in order to know that they’re not safe around people. We can leave understanding the contents of its mind to the philosophers.

What is very clear from the video is that the robots are an order of magnitude heavier and stronger than a person. That’s all you really need to know.

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

#57

Post by bicepjai »

>> The manufacturer, Unitree Robotics, attributed the incident to a "program setting or sensor error." Despite this explanation, the event has heightened ethical and safety concerns regarding the use of robots in public venues. The local community is calling for urgent measures to ensure that robots' actions align with social norms, emphasizing the need for regulatory and legal frameworks to govern robot-human interactions.

I did not think I’m going to see this in my lifetime after watching Animatrix

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

#58

Post by pj_mukh »

glenstein wrote: post #21
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.

Aggressive is totally the wrong word. Malfunction is the right word. So it's really waaay off the line.

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

#59

Post by whamlastxmas »

glenstein wrote: post #21
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.

If I trip and fall and throw an arm out to catch myself instead of face planting, and my arm accidentally hits someone, this is not aggressive behavior. This is exactly what happens in the video, the robot lost balance and was jerkily trying to correct itself. This article is terrible clickbait trying to stir controversy

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

#60

Post by stubish »

pj_mukh wrote: post #58
glenstein wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aggressive is totally the wrong word. Malfunction is the right word. So it's really waaay off the line.

'described as aggressive and violent'. It is the right word, as it was what the spectators experienced. How the malfunction was perceived is kind of what the article is discussing. Things malfunction all the time. Malfunctioning in a way that scares people, potentially causing stampedes and death and trauma in extreme cases, is best avoided, even if the malfunction itself was harmless.
Post reply on HN