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

We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

loradicarlo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#61

Post by foldr »

specialp wrote: post #56
foldr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think CES's half-formed "this is immoral" and "this is not a robot" excuses would have been less likely if the product was targeted at men.

Without an example of them showing bias by actually giving an award to a product that is much like theirs that targets men this is sheer conjecture, and presumption of bias. Has the CES ever given an award for an adult product? Perhaps it could be due to the USA having very puritan views on sex still to this day (Violence OK on broadcast TV, but no nudity/sex).

Yes, CES has previously given awards to sex toys - even to sex toys targeted at women.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#62

Post by ericb »

forkLding wrote: post #55
jeroenhd wrote: post #27

As impressive as this toy sounds, I don't see how it is related to robotics. The comparison between a vibrator and a full sex robot does not make sense to me; a sex bot needs to articulate joints and show human expressions, a vibrator needs to make some ver slight movements in very specific places. I don't blame the author for being upset about this because I can't see a reason to retract the submission to the contes…

It does match the definition of a robot as based on this dictionary's second definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot There was also likely a long process for awards, its a pretty scumbag move to suddenly just not give the award/honor after announcing it, I can imagine my anger too if someone was going to give me an award and then not. CES is in the wrong here, they've been quite unprofessional. T…

When the reason for rejection is "obscenity" and they are letting exhibits play porn in the exhibit hall, I'd be pissed too.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#63

Post by jbob2000 »

tebs1200 wrote: post #54
jeroenhd wrote: post #27

As impressive as this toy sounds, I don't see how it is related to robotics. The comparison between a vibrator and a full sex robot does not make sense to me; a sex bot needs to articulate joints and show human expressions, a vibrator needs to make some ver slight movements in very specific places. I don't blame the author for being upset about this because I can't see a reason to retract the submission to the contes…

It comes down to semantics, but based off the opening paragraph on "Robot" it seems that it would fit the definition: "A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer— capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. Robots can be guided by an external control device or the control may be embedded within. Robots may be constructed to take on human form but most robots are machines des…

Is an articulating cordless drill a robot? Because that’s all this thing is. It’s still an electronic, but it’s not a robot.

If this thing could learn and sense which movements produced the best effects, then it would be a robot. But it’s no different than a remote control car, and we don’t call those robots.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#64

Post by mc32 »

forkLding wrote: post #55
jeroenhd wrote: post #27

As impressive as this toy sounds, I don't see how it is related to robotics. The comparison between a vibrator and a full sex robot does not make sense to me; a sex bot needs to articulate joints and show human expressions, a vibrator needs to make some ver slight movements in very specific places. I don't blame the author for being upset about this because I can't see a reason to retract the submission to the contes…

It does match the definition of a robot as based on this dictionary's second definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot There was also likely a long process for awards, its a pretty scumbag move to suddenly just not give the award/honor after announcing it, I can imagine my anger too if someone was going to give me an award and then not. CES is in the wrong here, they've been quite unprofessional. T…

Awards get retracted from time to time, mostly political reasons. I think it’s silly. Once you award, you shouldn’t take it back, but it’s not unheard of.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#65

Post by jeroenhd »

foldr wrote: post #50
ubercow13 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of that chain of events would lead to a sexist outcome? Where's the gender bias introduced?

I think CES's half-formed "this is immoral" and "this is not a robot" excuses would have been less likely if the product was targeted at men.

I won't say anything about the immorality because differentiating between male and female sexual experiences is incredibly bigoted and I don't believe this is what was meant by their message at all.

I'd expect a similarly advanced fleshlight to be refused on the same grounds as this toy, despite being built for men. I don't think it's fair that this product, advanced as though it might be, is put in the same category as fully articulated sex robots.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#66

Post by fermienrico »

undecisive wrote: post #6
fermienrico wrote: post #4

I’m trying to link the accusation of gender bias and LGBT rights with the act of conceding the Innovation Award. Looks like their reason is that “it does not fall under Robotics category” which the article debates well. But, what actions and indications lead to gender bias? If I am a woman and I get rejected from a job, I don’t immediately start accusing the interviewer of gender bias. It hurts the cause for real iss…

I guess the argument is that if the only difference between two "robots" is the gender of their intended audience, and one gets banned, then that's prejudice. Along the same lines as, if the only difference between two people doing the same job is their gender, and one gets paid more, then that's prejudice. They're not wrong. Of course, CES could argue that it's bad timing - that the new product came out just as CES…

"Along the same lines as, if the only difference between two people doing the same job is their gender, and one gets paid more, then that's prejudice."

I agree BUT:

How do you know the only difference between the selection of the robots was specifically and exclusively gender? May be other robots contending for the award deserved it and they were actually better robots!?

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#67

Post by stevespang »

I could not have said this better: "Spending half the page blabbering about empowerment of women and LBQTI+ only detracts from their argument. Their baseless claim of mysoginy and homophobia distracts from their reasons for why they should be included in the first place and should not have been included in this response. It makes the author of the piece look very unprofessional and desperate for help from some of those action groups that take to the streets the moment they see the word "discrimination". "

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#68

Post by foldr »

jeroenhd wrote: post #65
foldr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think CES's half-formed "this is immoral" and "this is not a robot" excuses would have been less likely if the product was targeted at men.

I won't say anything about the immorality because differentiating between male and female sexual experiences is incredibly bigoted and I don't believe this is what was meant by their message at all. I'd expect a similarly advanced fleshlight to be refused on the same grounds as this toy, despite being built for men. I don't think it's fair that this product, advanced as though it might be, is put in the same category…

Like I said, this isn't about intentions. It's entirely possible to unintentionally differentiate between male and female sexual experiences.

I don't understand why you think it shouldn't be in the same category as a sex robot. A robot doesn't have to be some kind of fake human to be a robot.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#69

Post by calgoo »

fermienrico wrote: post #66
undecisive wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the argument is that if the only difference between two "robots" is the gender of their intended audience, and one gets banned, then that's prejudice. Along the same lines as, if the only difference between two people doing the same job is their gender, and one gets paid more, then that's prejudice. They're not wrong. Of course, CES could argue that it's bad timing - that the new product came out just as CES…

"Along the same lines as, if the only difference between two people doing the same job is their gender, and one gets paid more, then that's prejudice." I agree BUT: How do you know the only difference between the selection of the robots was specifically and exclusively gender? May be other robots contending for the award deserved it and they were actually better robots!?

Well, if there where better robots, then they would have won the award in the first place. the strange thing here in regards to that, is that they won the award and then CES came and said, sorry we take it back, with no real reason why.

Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back

#70

Post by lawnchair_larry »

ericb wrote: post #62
forkLding wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does match the definition of a robot as based on this dictionary's second definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot There was also likely a long process for awards, its a pretty scumbag move to suddenly just not give the award/honor after announcing it, I can imagine my anger too if someone was going to give me an award and then not. CES is in the wrong here, they've been quite unprofessional. T…

When the reason for rejection is "obscenity" and they are letting exhibits play porn in the exhibit hall, I'd be pissed too.

That wasn’t the reason though.
Post reply on HN