11 ms·
This is appalling. There is no world in which an industrial robot like that should be operating next to a child. Their force sensors are not nearly sensitive en
by drew-y 4y ago
This is appalling. There is no world in which an industrial robot like that should be operating next to a child. Their force sensors are not nearly sensitive enough to stop before causing serious injury. Going fast enough, they can absolutely kill you. This just screams negligence to me. Cannot believe they tried to blame it on the child.
There are robots, called Cobots, designed specifically for this type of environment. They are highly specialized and extremely sensitive to unpredicted forces. Even then, you'd likely have a light curtain to stop the motion when anything crossed over into the table.
- brador 4y agoA robot designed to move chess pieces should never have enough power to break anything. Could be run from as little as 2 AA batteries. This is simply bad engineering.
- Someone 4y agoI think that’s challenging to achieve if you also want the robot to play well under time pressure. Even if you manage to build an actuator that can grab a piece quickly but can’t break anything, the required rapid movement of the arm still can break things.
- jhpaul 4y agoHow about a magnetic base on each piece and a table built on top of a pair of xyz movements holding two magnets. That way the brain can at any time grab its piece and make a move while nudging any obstructions out of the way temporarily. It could probably made to filp the polarity on the lower magnet causing the opponent piece to topple gently when appropriate. Seems very human proof and also exciting to watch in action.
- yakshaving_jgt 4y agoIt doesn’t even need to be that complicated. The moving pieces can move between other pieces. For example: https://youtu.be/JhoLEbUOYlk https://youtu.be/JhoLEbUOYlk
- jhpaul 4y agoNeat, and very cool that they're open sourcing design and software elements. The video had me thinking that this kind of thing must have been made before. It's exactly the sort of thing they used to sell in the skymall catalog. Sure enough: https://youtu.be/mrDy0dF8aQw https://youtu.be/mrDy0dF8aQw
- hyperman1 4y agoA small plastic tube sucking air in to lift a piece would also do well.
- Someone 4y agoThe Milton Bradley Grandmaster had that in 1983: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kEV7WRGYwGI https://youtube.com/watch?v=kEV7WRGYwGI
- pmoriarty 4y ago> How about a magnetic base on each piece and a table built on top of a pair of xyz movements holding two magnets Cheap chess playing devices like this have been available on the consumer market at least since the 80s. My parents got me one from Toys R Us about 40 years ago. The problem is that such devices are not as much of a spectacle as a big robot arm that moves by itself.
- divan 4y ago> This just screams negligence to me. This is very much a default mode for ex-USSR countries, especially russia. While russian bureocracy is extremely procedural, it has nothing to do with efficiency or safety (most of the regulations and laws in post-soviet countries are written not to increase safety or utility for population, but for controlling power and money flows and benefeting someone on the top).
- foverzar 4y ago
- EUROCARE 4y agoNo, there's something wrong with the people who go around this and don't say a thing because it's not even weird to them.
- foverzar 4y ago
- EUROCARE 4y agoNot letting people (and much less children) around industrial robots is not virtue signalling, it's basic safety and common sense. Where's everyone's protective headgear anyways? What if it starts spinning around because of an error in the Gcode? This thing could kill everyone around it with one swing. Where's the emergency stop button?
- foverzar 4y agoDon't switch the topic. You were saying something about blaming the kid and suddenly you are discussing the safety issues. Also, you haven't seen much chess robots, have you? "Industrial robot", my ass. Have you actually seen one? The one that "could kill everyone with one swing" is a tad different.
- foverzar 4y ago> Cannot believe they tried to blame it on the child. Whut. What makes you think anyone did?
- benj111 4y ago"moved a piece on the chessboard earlier than he should"?
- 88840-8855 4y agoGuess what, that's not blame, but en explanation of the bug.
- drew-y 4y ago> The child moved the figure, then the robot must be given time to react. But the boy was in a hurry and the robot grabbed him. We have nothing to do with the robot,” commented Moscow Chess Federation President Sergey Lazarev.
- baby 4y agoBlaming something on the user is very very common everywhere. For example with car accidents (drunk drivers), guns (mentally ill people), etc.
- smusamashah 4y agoCar accidents and guns are not the same as an automatic robot. You could compare this to tesla. Users are blamed when it's the sole responsibility of user on how that thing can be used.
- amelius 4y agoEh, even Tesla blames the user and their shady EULA lets them get away with it.
- EUROCARE 4y agoIt's the law and courts that let them get away with it, not EULA.
- amelius 4y agoWell, as a company you can choose to do the right thing, or you can choose to weasel your way out of uncomfortable situations using lawyers and the fact that the law is always lagging behind technological development.
- Ekaros 4y agoYes, and some countries even allow car sized robots to operate next to pedestrians. That level of carelessness is something I can't understand. Almost as if they want to explicitly kill people.
- drew-y 4y agoI assume you are referring to driverless cars. Those aren't inherently unsafe. Neither are six axis robots. As I mentioned, cobots are well suited for this sort of situation. Just to reiterate, I am not trying to make some any sort of statement about the country. I'm just expressing my disgust in how this specific incident was responded to and the multiple failures in oversight leading up to it. Mistakes like this happen everywhere.
- delusional 4y agoI'm genuinely curious, because I don't see it. What's the property that makes these robots "inherently unsafe" while driverless cars aren't?
- mdp2021 4y agoThe poster has not stated that robots would be inherently unsafe. (And if they were judged so, it would also be in consideration that humans also are.) Anyway: the difference is in explicit projectual intention. Some systems are created with a dimension (contextually, safety) as a key performance indicator, some other as just a factor to be sensibly taken into consideration. If you are drawing the project for a plane, a main thing you'll keep in mind is that it will have to stay up; if a toy, safety is required but not part of the function.
- delusional 4y ago> The poster has not stated that robots would be inherently unsafe. (And if they were judged so, it would also be in consideration that humans also are.) But he has. The statements > This is appalling. There is no world in which an industrial robot like that should be operating next to a child. > I assume you are referring to driverless cars. Those aren't inherently unsafe. Neither are six axis robots. As I mentioned, cobots are well suited for this sort of situation. Together form a very easy to interpret implicit argument that "industrial robots" are "inherently unsafe" (since that was used to distinguish them from driverless cars) and that cobots are, by virtue of not being "inherently unsafe" (like "industrial robots"), well suited. Even just the choice of words for "industrial robots" lay bare a moral judgment of using them for entertainment purposes near children. Is there anything less "industrial" about the 500KW motor on a tesla? If you want to claim that he didn't _directly_ and _explicitly_ state that argument outright, then you're right. It doesn't take a lot of reading between the lines to come to the conclusion that he considers there to be some difference. > Anyway: the difference is in explicit projectual intention. [...] So what's the argument here? That driverless cars were made to be safe and this chess playing robot wasn't? With how driverless cars have been pushed onto the roads with over the top promises and negligent safety features, how do you even begin to substantiate that argument?
- nkko 4y agoMaybe it is a feature and not bug? Do we know if kid was cheating?
- Bost 4y agoIn Russia, losses up to 4% are fine.
- lotusmars 4y agoThere is a quote attributed to Zhukov, Stalin’s army general: “No sparing soldiers, women will give birth to more of them!”
- KuiN 4y agoThis is a falsely attributed quote. There's zero record of Zhukov (or anyone, particularly none of the various people this quote has been attributed to) saying this. It's a lazy stereotype of the CCCP's strategy during WWII and absolutely incorrect.
- lotusmars 4y agoYet it is still valid for their strategy during the invasion of Ukraine. They don’t need sophisticated weaponry or artillery. Just a slow push until the opponent is exhausted. Losses are irrelevant: they can always be hidden or denied because you control media.
- cpursley 4y agoBigotry is against hn policies.
- DonHopkins 4y ago
- cpursley 4y agoAre you suggesting that since Russia has a position on gays that you don't agree with, bigotry and hatred of Russia is justified?
- DonHopkins 4y ago