3 ms·

> 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 par

> 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.

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.