Tianjin robot incident raises alarm over public safety and robotics • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by stubish » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:39 AM UTC

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?

It isn't the AI emotion. It is how the malfunction is perceived. If something is perceived as aggressive, or unsafe, then it is unsafe as it causes panic and trauma. And a very real chance of death in crowds.

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

#62

Post by stubish » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:47 AM UTC

janalsncm wrote: post #14

The video is pretty unsettling, kind of showing how strong robots can be compared with humans. (We already knew this, but it’s good to remember.) Reminds me a bit of the chess robot that broke a child’s finger: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/24/chess-robot-gr... What annoyed me at the time was them describing the child as having broken some “rule” about waiting for the robot or something. We should reject…

Nearly 20 years ago, arm-wrestling arcade machines needed to be recalled because it turns out people are strong enough to break their own arms (mainly male youths). https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna20376173

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

#63

Post by stubish » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:56 AM UTC

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.

It is how humans operate. We don't critically analyze the situation to decide if the danger is from an autonomous device or human action, or if the animal is being playful or aggressive. Panic is panic, the whole point being to bypass critical thinking and act immediately. And causing panic is dangerous. The robot acts aggressively no matter if it is autonomous, or the operator spilled their coffee, or the operator is doing it deliberately. Just like a person can act aggressively even if they are just playing around.

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

#64

Post by inglor_cz » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 7:51 AM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #47

inglor_cz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For self-driving cars, safety is probably not taking a back seat, otherwise there wouldn't be much profit in them. We just have an unrealistic expectation that they can and must be 100 per cent harmless, which we would never extend to human drivers. The vast majority of previous transport tech, including horses and mules, was way more gory and dangerous than self-driving cars are. This includes quite recent developme…

One? Heselden's the only one to come immediately to mind. That the owner of the company should drive its product off a fatally high cliff is embarrassing, but still quite literally n=1.

I know of at least one fatality in my acquaintance circle. "A drunkard cracks his skull when falling from a Segway onto hard pavement in a tourist zone" isn't the kind of story that makes international news, unlike Heselden's demise.

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

#65

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 12, 2025, 2:38 AM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #64

throwanem wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One? Heselden's the only one to come immediately to mind. That the owner of the company should drive its product off a fatally high cliff is embarrassing, but still quite literally n=1.

I know of at least one fatality in my acquaintance circle. "A drunkard cracks his skull when falling from a Segway onto hard pavement in a tourist zone" isn't the kind of story that makes international news, unlike Heselden's demise.

[deleted]