> > the robot simply determined that “the most efficient way to eliminate the threat was to push the worker into an adjacent machine.” > This seems inflammator

> > the robot simply determined that “the most efficient way to eliminate the threat was to push the worker into an adjacent machine.” > This seems inflammatory and highly misleading. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt it: the robot didn't "determine" anything. It had assembly instructions to follow, and it followed them. The worker got in the way and was struck. I was prepared to argue with you, but upon reading the article, I agree that the description you quote makes a huge category error. I think it's believable that we'll soon get AIs that are advanced enough they can do agent modeling and that some subgoal-maximizer accident could happen where the robots determines "the most efficient way to accomplish <objective> is to take out that human so he doesn't turn me off", in which case the article's poetic description would be correct. Except the quoted paragraph is talking about an industrial accident in 1981, so the whole "eliminate the threat" presentation is obviously absurd.