17 ms·

The answer from the federation is unconscionable. They blamed the boy and then said they could not be held responsible. Fuck off, a kid made a reasonable kid mo

• twayt 4y ago
  • kstenerud 4y ago
    This is why in civilized societies the government mandates minimum safety standards so that a company is not even allowed to place such dangerous equipment around people. You wouldn't be allowed to build a mangler anymore in a civilized society, waiver or no.
    • imachine1980_ 4y ago
      That why in civilized societies use illegal immigrants or put the factory in other countries who have less safety regulations and then import it, or have corporationsso big that they are untouchable.
      • kstenerud 4y ago
        [flagged]
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  • beached_whale 4y ago
    If this was any workplace in many countries, the robot owner would totally be culpable, even if it wasn't a child. There's a reason that people are not allowed near robots in many cases.
  • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    You can't just 'waive' criminal responsebility - if I have a dangerous dog or industrial machinery that chops off hands, it doesn't matter what piece of paper the kid or the legal guardians sign, If I purposefully let kids play with them, I have put kdis in harms way.
    • cjohnson318 4y ago
      > industrial machinery that chops off hands In the US South there's a ton of poultry workers that have lost fingers and parts of hands to machinery. It's gotten a lot better lately, but for a long time it was a very bad problem. Since most of these workers were Black or from Latin America, there was very little was done to protect them.
      • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        That's trully atrocious. When it comes to children there is an additional level of responsebvility that cannot be 'waived' away. For instance if children tresspass onto your land and hurt themselves, you could be held legally responsible under the doctrine of 'Attractive nuisance'
      • chrisweekly 4y ago
        "Since most of these workers were Black or from Latin America," more like, "Since most of these workers are poor,"
        • birdyrooster 4y ago
          It’s America and it’s about race because if you look like the people this country historically extracted free labor from, then you are much more likely to be treated poorly for profit. Being poor is different than being poor and black or latino in America. Our livelihoods ride on the manufactured failure of specific groups of people for political reasons. Then here you come calling it all poor people, erasing the specific struggles that enable the system. If you are going to argue on behalf of white people, which ones? What are the lineages of people who were affected most? Who cause the harm? Was redress made? American Descendents of Slavery haven’t gotten their reparations yet, and LatAm is still an American-managed cluster fuck.
  • kortilla 4y ago
    >people sign a disclaimer about the risks, they can not be held responsible. This isn’t adequate in civilized countries. You can’t run an amusement park that severs the limbs of 1% of the participants under the protection of a disclaimer.
    • wferrell 4y ago
      https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/data-details/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-o...
    • DonHopkins 4y ago
    • jameshart 4y ago
      There is a threshold where it’s acceptable though. For example: the general rate of skiing injuries is about 1 injury per thousand skier days. Ski resorts will sell a day pass to let you experience that 0.1% injury risk as Long as you sign a disclaimer.
      • notch656a 4y ago
        A ski lift that breaks legs one day per thousand would never be acceptable. Risk imposed on you by someone else or a machine operated by someone else is not at all like a risk imposed on yourself by you personally skiing with your own legs off the mountain, into an unmechanized tree. IMO there is a huge difference between something that brings mechanical force to you (robot, ski lift) vs you bringing mechanical force onto something else (crash into rock/tree while skiing).
        • stickfigure 4y ago
          > A ski lift that breaks legs one day per thousand would never be acceptable. People are injured getting off ski lifts all the time.
  • makeitdouble 4y ago
    Setting responsibility on guardians for not having forseen or prevented that is a slippery slope, or at least leads to unintended consequences. Imagine a world where guardians will never let a kid go somewhere or do something that they don’t have 100% knowledge of, or aren’t 100% sure it’s perfectly safe. In this specific case: - you wouldn’t expect that issue at first sight - it looks fun enough to give it a try - the kid disn’t die. It truely hurts and can have long lasting damages if not treated properly, but a finger broken is not the end of the world for the kid.
  • gaudat 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure there is only a tiny fraction of the population that is even willing to press the emergency stop when something bad happens. Most likely they will scream or freeze in place instead. Quoting from anothing reply: Video of the incident: https://twitter.com/xakpc/status/1550224137041371144 https://twitter.com/xakpc/status/1550224137041371144 There is not even an e-stop. Although I can imagine what it sounded like at the scene though. "Ay Blin" and then people scurrying around looking for the power plug of the robot or hopelessly trying to overpower a heavily geared joint motor.
• godelski 4y ago
  Honestly, as someone that researches ML, this is my major concern. It isn't AGI that has the potential to kill us, it is current ML systems that can't handle OOD data and engineers put it in place because "that's the user's fault." Same reason we have Teslas crashing. AI safety might talk about AGI a lot, but their main area of research is modern systems and concerns over that. OOD data is really hard to deal with FWIW. But personally I don't feel confident that adding more matrix multiplies won't generalize in a way such that OOD isn't of major concern.
  • salawat 4y ago
    By OOD, do you mean Out Of Domain?
    • jeabays 4y ago
      Out of distribution.
    • etrautmann 4y ago
      Not the parent but presumable “out of distribution” meaning being faced with inputs outside of the statistics of the training data set.
      • godelski 4y ago
        Yes, this
      • salawat 4y ago
        I suppose that's a nice way of saying "We never trained it not to break someone's finger".
    • raegis 4y ago
      These acronyms are destroying my will to live.
  • throwaway894345 4y ago
    Genuine question: is Tesla’s autopilot crashing more often or more severely than human drivers?
• charcircuit 4y ago
  >a kid made a reasonable kid movement What do you mean? There's no reasonable time where you and your opponent are touching the pieces at the same time. Nor is there a reasonable time where you reach for the same piece.
  • krallja 4y ago
    Seven-year-old boys are known for always doing things that are reasonable, and never doing anything unreasonable.
    • charcircuit 4y ago
      I agree especially since he "is among the top 30 chess players in Moscow under the age of nine."
      • elliekelly 4y ago
        He’s still just a little kid. Even the most precocious kids are still kids.
      • cowtools 4y ago
        It does not excuse such a reckless use of industrial equipment around people without appropriate failsafes. A robotic arm like this not a toy, is a deadly machine with a lot of force and a lot of mass. If you were standing next to it for some reason it could unexpectedly swing around and break your neck in an instant. Engineers should be careful to design such systems with failsafes that account for any action the operator might take.
    • causality0 4y ago
      He's "one of the top 30 chess players under nine in Moscow". Still the robot's fault, though.
      • naniwaduni 4y ago
        So you're saying he's already done at least one unreasonable thing...
• lupire 4y ago
  That's not what they said. They said they weren't responsible for the robot, and which is true. Same as if a human player injured another player. The robot's operator is responsible.
  • carbadtraingood 4y ago
    I disagree, if they are running the event, they are responsible for ensuring the safety of participants. You go skydiving and the chute fails in a totally predictable way, the company who takes you up shouldn't just shrug and say, "well, we aren't responsible for the chute, that was provided by another company"
• zuminator 4y ago
  If that is the official statement of the federation, I agree it's abysmal. But i question whether Lazarev really blurted all of that in one go, or if he was asked a series of leading questions and then his answers were misleadingly pasted together to make him sound as callous as possible.
  • carbadtraingood 4y ago
    To be clear, any answer short of, "this was a failure on our part to protect the children who attended, and as the leader of the organization, responsibility falls on me. We will make this right for the family and I will tender my resignation" is not adequate.
    • burnished 4y ago
      >> I will tender my resignation whats with this attitude?
      • carbadtraingood 4y ago
        He's responsible for a gross oversight in safety that led to an injured child. There were obvious and simple safety precautions that were missed. This wasn't just, "whoops", this was fairly gross negligence.
        • burnished 4y ago
          Then you don't want a voluntary resignation, I think you want them ousted. The kind of person to learn from their mistakes through honest self reflection (and hence would voluntarily resign) is probably the kind of person you might want to keep around, or at least not decide to make a public example of.
• userbinator 4y ago
  Are you really going to go for the "think of the children" argument...? Although I do agree with you about having an e-stop.
  • Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    There are in fact times when we need to think about children. If we don't, humanity won't have much of a future.
    • userbinator 4y ago
      Quite the contrary, I think. Society has become "soft", for lack of better words. If we had been so risk-averse centuries ago, the industrial revolution would have never happened.
      • ALittleLight 4y ago
        Why is it children injured by robots who need to toughen up rather than the people nostalgic for a past they never experienced?
      • usefulcat 4y ago
        That sort of argument might work well for a time when slavery was a recent memory and children frequently worked in factories instead of going to school. That doesn't mean it works equally well for the present day, or for the kind of future most of us would probably prefer.
      • Wowfunhappy 4y ago
        I meant it literally. It's difficult to raise children without thinking about them, and if we don't raise any children...
      • dmingod666 4y ago
        'dont wish upon others that Wich you yourself cannot endure'
      • 4y ago
• Aeolun 4y ago
  Now it broke a finger, which sucks, but’ll heal. But what if it had taken out an eye?
  • rowanG077 4y ago
    • lostlogin 4y ago
      If someone had said ‘what if’ during the setup of this thing, maybe it would have gone better.
      • rowanG077 4y ago
        Honestly a broken finger is pretty far down the spectrum of things to go wrong when near heavy machinary. Such a robot should have never been rolled out. The state of robotics is simply not advanced enough that I would ever trust one near me. Maybe those Boston dynamics ones. But they are on a completely different level.
• roenxi 4y ago
  • nerdawson 4y ago
    > there should be some debate about whether this is even a significant enough incident to require an apology. The robot behaved in an unexpected way which caused injury to a child. An apology is the absolute bare minimum they could do. As a parent, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect event organisers to have put adequate safeguards in place. We don’t need to put kids in front of a bear to teach them about the wonders of nature. Likewise, they don’t need to be in the path of a dangerous robot to discover machines.
    • roenxi 4y ago
      > As a parent, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect event organisers to have put adequate safeguards in place. Literally everyone thinks that. Who is going to say that they expect event organisers to put inadequate safeguards in place? The issue is that things can go wrong even with adequate safeguards. Life be risky. > We don’t need to put kids in front of a bear to teach them about the wonders of nature. Likewise, they don’t need to be in the path of a dangerous robot to discover machines. Attempting to kill kids does seem like a bad strategy. But if you want them to learn about nature, they will actually have to go out into nature. And that'll be a lot more risky than this robot - nature is not safe either.
  • carbadtraingood 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • roenxi 4y ago
      > Your lack of empathy borders on sociopathy. I broke a bone at school - I have lots of empathy. It is very painful. Not international news, and nobody apologised to me. At the end of the day it wasn't a big deal.
• yessirwhatever 4y ago
  • worstestes 4y ago
    Is this supposed to be a joke? The kid was a participant.
• jrumbut 4y ago
  It's appalling the robot was designed to ever use that much force in the grip. Even if the chess pieces were made of lead I can't see it being needed. In general, more attention to failing safe. But the kid is some kind of local chess champion, I can't fully fault the decision to have him play with the experimental chess robot. Is it more dangerous than a lawn mower or a blender or any other machine that 9 year olds might begin to operate?
  • NamTaf 4y ago
    Correct. The fact they made a robot that could crush a human hand means they paid no attention to this hazard. Competent execution of Safety in Design concepts would demand limiting the grip force to only what's necessary to reliably move the pieces, which almost certianly wouldn't break bone. If that isn't possible, then it would imply the requirement to find some other way to resolve this hazard in the heirarchy of controls. Relying on a human is the last option, not the default, when it comes to safety. Human adaptability is not a licence to hand-wave away design responsibility. The most glaring example is Tesla, who is unforgivably guilty of this. This is bog-standard competent engineering in almost all domains of engineering. It is the table stakes-level expectation of a reasonable approach to safety. I'd literally end up in jail if something went wrong and I had been found to not consider these factors. Software- and computer-related domains of engineering are a conspicuous outlier when it comes to this philosophy.
    • jrumbut 4y ago
      You would think that much force would lead to broken actuators and chess pieces often enough during development that someone would land on the idea of setting an upper limit on all forces just to save money.
• imtringued 4y ago
  The kid tries to beat a piece before it was even placed and then the robot tried to place the piece on his piece while his hands were still covering it. This could have lead to a minor injury even with a human opponent. What is strange is that they insisted on using such a powerful robot arm without any compliance in the actuators.