Good catch!
Robots
- Thread starter Ellipse
- Start date
lilies
The Living Force
Tell this assembled crowd in a major video announcement on those large screens, that there are already Hybrids and "Chip"-named robots walking among them, courtesy of Orion STS mechanical-bio factories:
- Walkin' lookin' and quacking just like you! Have a nice day!
As you might have seen, Musk tells us about the Optimus robot things like: “it can/will babysit your baby and/or child.“
Now, wait a minute. First of all, who in their right mind would allow such a robot to come anywhere close to their own children? And more extreme then that, babysit your baby/child? The answer is probably that there would be more people out there than we would think who would do such a thing.
Secondly, if babysitting involves any physical contact with the child, how on earth could anyone allow any kind of autonomous robot doing that to their children?
I mean, would you trust an autonomous robot to touch, let alone, hold or lift up a baby? I mean, even if you would build such a robot specifically for that task by MAKING SURE that no parts of their movements can physically/mechanically generate, in any way, mechanical forces that are strong enough to hurt the baby, who would do that?
I mean, just imagine, even if you have a robot build/designed exactly with that strikt mechanical LIMITATION in mind, could you trust it to not hurt the child? I don’t think so. Let’s say the robot has such a mechanical limitation build in, which by definition would involve very slow movements and a clear mechanical limit of physical grab force: so, the robot starts to grab the baby in that fashion (to change diapers, for example). But what happens then? I can imagine a myriad examples where probably even a force that is a lot weaker as that limit could seriously hurt the baby! And that isn’t even taking into account that the baby is a living being! So, what if the baby moves/behaves in unpredictable ways (who would have thought!!!) when the robot has it in his hands? A nightmare. Because then for example, the build in limitations that you need (namely, slowness and weak forces, for example) could be exactly the things that will hurt the child! The robot grabs the baby wrongly for example or the baby makes movements that require the robot to react VERY quickly and with a lot of force. But he is build to not be able to do that. Not to mention what psychological damage children must endure if a robot “takes care“ of them. I could go on for hours.
So, in summary, I think the only way you could ever make an autonomous robot “safely“ take “care“ of a baby/child is by VERY strictly building in the following limiting parameter: “NEVER touch a human being and/or living creature! NEVER!“
So, the only “safe“ and maybe worthwhile thing such a robot could do in that regard would be: to monitor the child 24/7 without touching it and calling a HUMAN for help as soon something needs to be done.
But then, the big question is: why would you need that robot in the first place besides that monitoring function? Wouldn’t it be far cheaper and safer to just buy/use a baby cam for example?
The other way “it could work out“ is by what we have just seen with the Optimus presentation: A HUMAN remotely controls the robot and every movement of it. But even then, would anybody trust a robot being able to physically handle a baby, remotely, through a human agent? I mean, the same mechanical limits/dangers apply there… Also, who would, as the remote human agent who controls the robot, dare to even try to touch a baby afar through robot arms/fingers? Would you do it? I wouldn’t, because I would justifiably fear hurting the baby.
So, also in that szenario we come back to: why would you need such a HUMAN remote controlled robot in the first place? Wouldn’t it be far easier, safer and better for the child if we just: Let a human handle it?
Now, wait a minute. First of all, who in their right mind would allow such a robot to come anywhere close to their own children? And more extreme then that, babysit your baby/child? The answer is probably that there would be more people out there than we would think who would do such a thing.
Secondly, if babysitting involves any physical contact with the child, how on earth could anyone allow any kind of autonomous robot doing that to their children?
I mean, would you trust an autonomous robot to touch, let alone, hold or lift up a baby? I mean, even if you would build such a robot specifically for that task by MAKING SURE that no parts of their movements can physically/mechanically generate, in any way, mechanical forces that are strong enough to hurt the baby, who would do that?
I mean, just imagine, even if you have a robot build/designed exactly with that strikt mechanical LIMITATION in mind, could you trust it to not hurt the child? I don’t think so. Let’s say the robot has such a mechanical limitation build in, which by definition would involve very slow movements and a clear mechanical limit of physical grab force: so, the robot starts to grab the baby in that fashion (to change diapers, for example). But what happens then? I can imagine a myriad examples where probably even a force that is a lot weaker as that limit could seriously hurt the baby! And that isn’t even taking into account that the baby is a living being! So, what if the baby moves/behaves in unpredictable ways (who would have thought!!!) when the robot has it in his hands? A nightmare. Because then for example, the build in limitations that you need (namely, slowness and weak forces, for example) could be exactly the things that will hurt the child! The robot grabs the baby wrongly for example or the baby makes movements that require the robot to react VERY quickly and with a lot of force. But he is build to not be able to do that. Not to mention what psychological damage children must endure if a robot “takes care“ of them. I could go on for hours.
So, in summary, I think the only way you could ever make an autonomous robot “safely“ take “care“ of a baby/child is by VERY strictly building in the following limiting parameter: “NEVER touch a human being and/or living creature! NEVER!“
So, the only “safe“ and maybe worthwhile thing such a robot could do in that regard would be: to monitor the child 24/7 without touching it and calling a HUMAN for help as soon something needs to be done.
But then, the big question is: why would you need that robot in the first place besides that monitoring function? Wouldn’t it be far cheaper and safer to just buy/use a baby cam for example?
The other way “it could work out“ is by what we have just seen with the Optimus presentation: A HUMAN remotely controls the robot and every movement of it. But even then, would anybody trust a robot being able to physically handle a baby, remotely, through a human agent? I mean, the same mechanical limits/dangers apply there… Also, who would, as the remote human agent who controls the robot, dare to even try to touch a baby afar through robot arms/fingers? Would you do it? I wouldn’t, because I would justifiably fear hurting the baby.
So, also in that szenario we come back to: why would you need such a HUMAN remote controlled robot in the first place? Wouldn’t it be far easier, safer and better for the child if we just: Let a human handle it?
Last edited:
Totally agree Cosmos, the idea is just beyond the pale. As for using the above line as a sale pitch, it is chilling from the point of view that so many people will not stop and really think what he is saying.
Adding to the above: What is the common denominator we can see in all the videos I posted above on Tesla‘s new Optimus robot?
1= The robot never touches a human being.
2= Each robot is surrounded by a bunch of Tesla employees at all times who keep a very close watch on the robot.
In several videos you can even hearthe robot the human talking through the robot saying that he can‘t touch people. And in some videos “the robot“ says that he needs people to be quite far away from him “to operate“. Now, again, keep in mind that those robots are not even autonomous but remotely controlled by humans!
So, why would you think that is? Because Tesla doesn’t want the robots to get damaged? Well, maybe that is one reason, but I don’t think that is in any way the main reason. Because Tesla wants to avoid bad publicity, maybe? Well, right there I think we come much closer to the real reason!:
They don’t want to risk the robot hurting a human on the scene, like, by shaking/squeezing a hand too hard or high fiving someone too hard. Or generally malfunctioning in some ways that could hurt people.
And that is with a robot that is essentially fully remote controlled by a human mind! So then, how could anyone imagine a fully autonomous robot on our level to even remotely be “safe“ toward interacting with living creatures on any physical level?
Again, the only thing I could imagine making that somewhat “safe“ is to strictly disabling it mechanically and programming wise to touch a human being! But as explained above, even that could make it more dangerous! But let’s discard that for a moment and ask, can that be safe? What if it fails to operate suddenly for example and falls over on a human being? Like when the battery goes out, or it doesn’t have a internet connection or freezes like a computer? Or when it gets hacked? Or when a human or animal pulls a wire out?
Ok, lets say that all those dangers “are eliminated“, what if it throws or propells stuff against a living thing for example? I mean, that wouldn’t count as touching a human but still can seriously hurt a human being!
1= The robot never touches a human being.
2= Each robot is surrounded by a bunch of Tesla employees at all times who keep a very close watch on the robot.
In several videos you can even hear
So, why would you think that is? Because Tesla doesn’t want the robots to get damaged? Well, maybe that is one reason, but I don’t think that is in any way the main reason. Because Tesla wants to avoid bad publicity, maybe? Well, right there I think we come much closer to the real reason!:
They don’t want to risk the robot hurting a human on the scene, like, by shaking/squeezing a hand too hard or high fiving someone too hard. Or generally malfunctioning in some ways that could hurt people.
And that is with a robot that is essentially fully remote controlled by a human mind! So then, how could anyone imagine a fully autonomous robot on our level to even remotely be “safe“ toward interacting with living creatures on any physical level?
Again, the only thing I could imagine making that somewhat “safe“ is to strictly disabling it mechanically and programming wise to touch a human being! But as explained above, even that could make it more dangerous! But let’s discard that for a moment and ask, can that be safe? What if it fails to operate suddenly for example and falls over on a human being? Like when the battery goes out, or it doesn’t have a internet connection or freezes like a computer? Or when it gets hacked? Or when a human or animal pulls a wire out?
Ok, lets say that all those dangers “are eliminated“, what if it throws or propells stuff against a living thing for example? I mean, that wouldn’t count as touching a human but still can seriously hurt a human being!
La société chinoise Engineai Robot a dévoilé un robot humanoïde grandeur nature appelé SE01. Contrairement à ses homologues, le nouvel humanoïde a une démarche plus naturelle, semblable à celle d'un être humain.
en.engineai.com.cn
Shenzhen ENGINEAI Robotics Technology Co., Ltd._ENGINEAI Robotics
The gait looks like Michael Jackson on stage. No moon walk though, at least not yet.
Yeah, I was thinking something similar. I was waiting for it to break out into dance steps. Maybe it was because of the music they were playing?The gait looks like Michael Jackson on stage. No moon walk though, at least not yet.
lilies
The Living Force
Chinese crowd-control robot.
At least it doesn't look like Terminator. Its shape and function - toppling activists and throwing nets onto them - feels acceptable. Most of it is covered by rubber, so speeding these into an angry WEF-financed crowd of activists - looks like - can topple people. Maybe multiple robots like these can break a charging crowd? Great idea! Safest, it seems. First civilian interviewed could be made into a scene for a Monty Python show.
That's all the positive aspects I could find. First I thought it was CGI / computer generated imagery. :D
At least it doesn't look like Terminator. Its shape and function - toppling activists and throwing nets onto them - feels acceptable. Most of it is covered by rubber, so speeding these into an angry WEF-financed crowd of activists - looks like - can topple people. Maybe multiple robots like these can break a charging crowd? Great idea! Safest, it seems. First civilian interviewed could be made into a scene for a Monty Python show.
That's all the positive aspects I could find. First I thought it was CGI / computer generated imagery. :D
