4 ms·

Discarding ideas out of hand is easy & cheap. Why do you think this so absolutely unacceptable an idea? A factory seems like a big space where there could perh

Discarding ideas out of hand is easy & cheap. Why do you think this so absolutely unacceptable an idea? A factory seems like a big space where there could perhaps be a predictable well known radio spectrum, and where that spectrum could reliably be monitored for stability. Unlike most spaces, there's a lot of possibilities for controlling the environment well, if you wanted; no end-user devices allowed, nothing but known systems. This feels like you could very quickly get to some kind of known state. "We will be able to send priority signals within under 2ms." Or some such quality metric. Keep a signal analyzer going: any time this isn't met, everything goes into an independent failsafe shutdown mode until the issue is debugged and started up again. Our instincts to judge & discard ideas & possibilities is so dangerous, is such a deep human peril. Your instinct feels like it comes from a good place, feels correct, but ultimately, this is acting in fear uncertainty & doubt, & your execution rests on no contentions other than it's own self certainty. I think we must be much more thorough in our thinking & arguing, must not leap to discard ideas so quickly totally & casually; FUD must be rooted out deep within ourselves & challenged. Let not progress be onstructed by meek wills.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
I think it is easy to dismiss because you should always keep squishy humans away from the unthinking machines. If they are always separated during routine operation, you have eliminated potential failure modes that could result in a fatal injury. Sure, engineer the machines to immediately halt if a human is detected, but also design the system so that close physical proximity is never required.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  Have you done anything other than restate the initial FUD? I think I have gone through efforts to elaborate why I think high reliability is achievable over wireless systems. It seems irrational to me to hate wireless so. If I were a squishy human in a factory, I feel like I would far far far prefer some highly reliable central systems with near godlike omniscience of the factory floor watch things, & use well quantified known wireless channels (albeit no WiFi that exists today, without a lot of other promises) to communicate, than rely on individual robots relying on embodied knowledge. You all sound like cranks to me, given how incredibly fantastically super seriously I would want the former, not the latter.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
> Why do you think this so absolutely unacceptable an idea? Because industry standard safety practices are there for a reason and taken very seriously. The parent poster said: > allows a worker to step in front of a robot and > depends on a wireless communication mechanism for safety But industry standard safety practices would ensure at least one of those is not true. What the person you are replying to is suggesting is that you can have robots with wireless safety mechanisms or you can have robots which people can walk in front of (which have wired safety mechanisms), you just do not want both. That is a pretty mild claim you are responding to. I am a robotics engineer and we are very aware of the risks robots pose to human beings. Furthermore business management is very aware of the liability concerns these risks pose to the business. It isn't FUD to say that we would not put humans in the path of a robot which had wireless safety systems. That's just a fact of standard practices.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  Which standards? Are you saying no other standards for safety could ever be possible?
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    There are at least OSHA and ANSI standards on the subject of robotic safety and I suspect what I say would be in accordance with both of those. https://webstore.ansi.org/industry/robotics/safety https://webstore.ansi.org/industry/robotics/safety https://www.osha.gov/robotics/standards https://www.osha.gov/robotics/standards Of course the standards could be changed, or other standards could be adopted. But you really went on a pretty long rant about open mindedness in reply to a person who was making a factual and industry-standard statement about robots in factories. In the airline industry they say the safety rules are written in blood, because after someone is killed they do a detailed investigation and update safety rules accordingly. I suspect that it is similar in robotics as industrial robots kill people all the time. Safety rules could be changed, but it's a perfectly normal thing for a person to say "you are unlikely to encounter said scenario because it violates the normal rules for doing the thing". If a person said "you are unlikely to see a new passenger car sold without seatbelts" that is not cause to chastise them about open mindedness, that is a boring normal statement that is factual and makes sense.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago

I think it is easy to dismiss because you should always keep squishy humans away from the unthinking machines. If they are always separated during routine operation, you have eliminated potential failure modes that could result in a fatal injury. Sure, engineer the machines to immediately halt if a human is detected, but also design the system so that close physical proximity is never required.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
Have you done anything other than restate the initial FUD? I think I have gone through efforts to elaborate why I think high reliability is achievable over wireless systems. It seems irrational to me to hate wireless so. If I were a squishy human in a factory, I feel like I would far far far prefer some highly reliable central systems with near godlike omniscience of the factory floor watch things, & use well quantified known wireless channels (albeit no WiFi that exists today, without a lot of other promises) to communicate, than rely on individual robots relying on embodied knowledge. You all sound like cranks to me, given how incredibly fantastically super seriously I would want the former, not the latter.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

> Why do you think this so absolutely unacceptable an idea? Because industry standard safety practices are there for a reason and taken very seriously. The parent poster said: > allows a worker to step in front of a robot and > depends on a wireless communication mechanism for safety But industry standard safety practices would ensure at least one of those is not true. What the person you are replying to is suggesting is that you can have robots with wireless safety mechanisms or you can have robots which people can walk in front of (which have wired safety mechanisms), you just do not want both. That is a pretty mild claim you are responding to. I am a robotics engineer and we are very aware of the risks robots pose to human beings. Furthermore business management is very aware of the liability concerns these risks pose to the business. It isn't FUD to say that we would not put humans in the path of a robot which had wireless safety systems. That's just a fact of standard practices.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
Which standards? Are you saying no other standards for safety could ever be possible?
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  There are at least OSHA and ANSI standards on the subject of robotic safety and I suspect what I say would be in accordance with both of those. https://webstore.ansi.org/industry/robotics/safety https://webstore.ansi.org/industry/robotics/safety https://www.osha.gov/robotics/standards https://www.osha.gov/robotics/standards Of course the standards could be changed, or other standards could be adopted. But you really went on a pretty long rant about open mindedness in reply to a person who was making a factual and industry-standard statement about robots in factories. In the airline industry they say the safety rules are written in blood, because after someone is killed they do a detailed investigation and update safety rules accordingly. I suspect that it is similar in robotics as industrial robots kill people all the time. Safety rules could be changed, but it's a perfectly normal thing for a person to say "you are unlikely to encounter said scenario because it violates the normal rules for doing the thing". If a person said "you are unlikely to see a new passenger car sold without seatbelts" that is not cause to chastise them about open mindedness, that is a boring normal statement that is factual and makes sense.