3 ms·

There isn't yet a humanoid robot that can autonomously play those sports, though.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
I don't know, Voight-Kampff tests don't seem reliable.
viridian 4y ago
From what I've read on this exact topic w.r.t. robotics, there are a few select places you could probably replace humans with a robot using current technology, and achieve almost perfect results. Kickers in American football, free throws in basketball are two such examples.
- lupire 4y ago
  You could just put a robot on a basketball team, take a pass from the tip off, and shoot a 3-pter. Like Air Bud
  - viridian 4y ago
    Ain't no rule says a robot can't play basketball.
- goatlover 4y ago
  Kickers have to sometimes tackle, run fakes, kick onsides, deal with mishandled snaps or holds, and adjust for the conditions, like wind or how the opponent is trying to bother the kick. Plus the kick is from different parts of the field, unlike a free throw. But it doesn't matter, since someone taking a free throw has to be already in the game playing. There's no designated FT shooter.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    At some point, being able to score 3 points from unlimited range just breaks the game of football to the degree that an increased risk of mishandling a bad snap/hold doesn't really matter, and you won't ever need to kick onside, either.
lelanthran 4y ago
> There isn't yet a humanoid robot that can autonomously play those sports, though. Why does it have to be humanoid? The chess engine isn't.
- philwelch 4y ago
  Chess is a game of symbol manipulation. It isn't played in the real world and its rules don't require human bodies the way field sports do.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > Chess is a game of symbol manipulation. It isn't played in the real world and its rules don't require human bodies the way field sports do. I didn't mean "humanoid" as in "C3PO sitting across from the player at a table", I meant humanoid thought processes. As far as I know, none of the chess engines are humanoid in the way they determine the next best move. For one, they are all using far, far more instant-recall capacity than any human, ever. > its rules don't require human bodies the way field sports do. Which rule in football, tennis, american football, baseball, basketball or hockey requires humanoid players? They may preclude robots as players, but that's a post-hoc fallacy - "they require all players to be humans, so therefore robots cannot replace humans like in Chess".
    - philwelch 4y ago
      > I didn't mean "humanoid" as in "C3PO sitting across from the player at a table", I meant humanoid thought processes. As far as I know, none of the chess engines are humanoid in the way they determine the next best move. Sure, and if you had android basketball players or soccer players, they would probably play the game differently as well. > Which rule in football, tennis, american football, baseball, basketball or hockey requires humanoid players? The totality of the rules put together tend to require that. For instance, in the NFL, whether or not a player carrying the ball is considered "down" depends upon their elbow or knee touching the ground, which implies that they need to have elbows and knees. Whether or not a catch is considered in bounds depends upon both feet touching the ground in bounds, which implies that they need to have feet. And so forth. Soccer has specific rules about the hands, feet, and head, while basketball's rules around dribbling specify hands and footsteps. Obviously you could build a robot that looked like a dalek with a pneumatic cannon and design the robot to shoot a ball, and that robot would probably be better than human players at shooting baskets or completing football passes, but it wouldn't actually be able to play the full game according to the same rules that apply to human players.

I don't know, Voight-Kampff tests don't seem reliable.

From what I've read on this exact topic w.r.t. robotics, there are a few select places you could probably replace humans with a robot using current technology, and achieve almost perfect results. Kickers in American football, free throws in basketball are two such examples.

lupire 4y ago
You could just put a robot on a basketball team, take a pass from the tip off, and shoot a 3-pter. Like Air Bud
- viridian 4y ago
  Ain't no rule says a robot can't play basketball.
goatlover 4y ago
Kickers have to sometimes tackle, run fakes, kick onsides, deal with mishandled snaps or holds, and adjust for the conditions, like wind or how the opponent is trying to bother the kick. Plus the kick is from different parts of the field, unlike a free throw. But it doesn't matter, since someone taking a free throw has to be already in the game playing. There's no designated FT shooter.
- philwelch 4y ago
  At some point, being able to score 3 points from unlimited range just breaks the game of football to the degree that an increased risk of mishandling a bad snap/hold doesn't really matter, and you won't ever need to kick onside, either.

lelanthran 4y ago

> There isn't yet a humanoid robot that can autonomously play those sports, though. Why does it have to be humanoid? The chess engine isn't.

philwelch 4y ago
Chess is a game of symbol manipulation. It isn't played in the real world and its rules don't require human bodies the way field sports do.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > Chess is a game of symbol manipulation. It isn't played in the real world and its rules don't require human bodies the way field sports do. I didn't mean "humanoid" as in "C3PO sitting across from the player at a table", I meant humanoid thought processes. As far as I know, none of the chess engines are humanoid in the way they determine the next best move. For one, they are all using far, far more instant-recall capacity than any human, ever. > its rules don't require human bodies the way field sports do. Which rule in football, tennis, american football, baseball, basketball or hockey requires humanoid players? They may preclude robots as players, but that's a post-hoc fallacy - "they require all players to be humans, so therefore robots cannot replace humans like in Chess".
  - philwelch 4y ago
    > I didn't mean "humanoid" as in "C3PO sitting across from the player at a table", I meant humanoid thought processes. As far as I know, none of the chess engines are humanoid in the way they determine the next best move. Sure, and if you had android basketball players or soccer players, they would probably play the game differently as well. > Which rule in football, tennis, american football, baseball, basketball or hockey requires humanoid players? The totality of the rules put together tend to require that. For instance, in the NFL, whether or not a player carrying the ball is considered "down" depends upon their elbow or knee touching the ground, which implies that they need to have elbows and knees. Whether or not a catch is considered in bounds depends upon both feet touching the ground in bounds, which implies that they need to have feet. And so forth. Soccer has specific rules about the hands, feet, and head, while basketball's rules around dribbling specify hands and footsteps. Obviously you could build a robot that looked like a dalek with a pneumatic cannon and design the robot to shoot a ball, and that robot would probably be better than human players at shooting baskets or completing football passes, but it wouldn't actually be able to play the full game according to the same rules that apply to human players.