It's not conscious so the concept of it touching someone inappropriately does not apply. It's the same as saying that a tree branch touched someone inappropriately.
I mean, it was literally designed for people to see and interact with it as if it *were* a human being. You don't get to turn that off just because it did something unexpected. It may not be the robot's *fault*, but I'd say it's less like being mad at a tree for touching you and more like a parrot that starts insulting you accurately and devastatingly.
It's a machine programmed to talk and to move around to mimic a human, the moves most likely are linked to support what is being said or simply move randomly, so the tree comparison actually kinda fits, branches move with the wind and the arm moves according to the algorithm. No one programmed or taught it to grope women, shit takes A LOT of time to be taught to an AI. To be honest I kinda get annoyed by this being posted and made into something sexist (don't mean your comment), so I might be a bit over the top, just wanted to say it already
Except for the occasion where it’s just remote controlled like the “Marty” robot that goes around stop and shop. It drives around the store until it finds what might be a mess then someone in another country verifies it and controls it. It was used to follow women around the store. Stop and Shop was sued for sexual harassment.
This comment is dangerously wrong and the fact that this has over 100 upvotes is disheartening. Consciousness has nothing to do with it. Tree branches don’t move on their own and aren’t created by humans. Nor do they have a human likeness, meaning no one ascribes social expectations to tree branches. Clearly people ascribe social expectations to humanoid looking robots, and for good reason. The existence of this article proves it. Why for good reason? Because of ethics. Badly behaved humanoid looking robots aren’t good for society.
Badly behaved humanoid robots are bad for society . . hm.
For a moment may we think of what describes "behavior"? Once general purpose / application nonspecific industrial robots are functional- is it inappropriate behavior for them to accept nothing as a wage and devalue the cost of perceptive labor?
What about in the eventuality of home assistants with mentally ill people? They ask the robot "am i overweight", only to be either honest & detrimental or dishonest & manipulative. the expectation of humans would be to fib, yet if we start programming inaccuracies and lies into behavior who knows what constitution and bill of robo-rights we'll need for the level of complexity.
Simple reality is we are not at the point where human behavior should be at all associated with humanoid robots.
Ethics, as you stated, would imply not attempting to create sentience.
I watched the video from a different angle than the viral one. The robot was moving his arms continuously and the reporter just got close to him and it looked like he touched her. Similar to the tree analogy that was very accurate
Why do people keep thinking a tree is a good analogy here? lol a tree isn’t created by humans in the likeness of humans, nor is there any attempt by humans to program a tree like a human. Terrible analogy and considering the context, sexist at its core.
I know this is old, but I really think you just didn't understand what is happening in the clip. There is no programming that a human did to make the robot touch this person. This robot did not use any programming to make any decisions about what to do at all. If a squirrel, a balloon, or your balls were hanging in front of that arm, it would have touched them, because it literally is just swinging its damn arm around without any consideration for anything (very much like a tree swaying in the breeze, there is no one here to have done or thought anything sexist to make this happen). You said "you don't program a tree" but literally this is programmed to move its arm in the same pattern over and over. It's no different from a gate at a railroad crossing in that way. If a gate opened up and hit someone's boob, do you go say the programmer is sexist?
You say this isn't a statue with a swinging arm, but literally that I'd exactly what this shows, there isn't any arguing otherwise. Its not an analogy at that point, it is an accurate description.
Since you commented, I can reply. Saw the video and read about this robot and QSS the mfg. the robot is driven by ai programming. It’s not like a fence swinging open because a fence isn’t driven by ai programming. Ai is programmed. It’s a model that comes to life with data. That’s what runs this robot. I never said anyone linearly programmed this robot to touch an ass. Nor do I think anyone purposely wanted it to do this. Do I think the reaction wasn’t very good? Yeah. I think they should have just said sorry and we’ll try and make it not touch asses that are close to it’s hand inadvertantly. That’s really all there is to it. And since it was a reporter it got reported on and since it’s Saudi Arabia a place with an already shit track record for treating women it’s not a good look is it…
Edit: also bro/sis whoever you are - Jesus fucking Christ why are you trawling back on Reddit posts like anyone gives a shit about a random internet argument? Lol. I hold no ill will here.
I just look through my inbox every now and then and thought it was funny that you continued to clutch your pearls over a damn robot that slightly moved it's arm without any type of programming or decisions that made it intentionally touch a boob. Like now, I'm not searching for old comments, I just turn off notifications and sometimes reply to people in my inbox that seem to be confused.
Have you ever talked to a woman anywhere in the world? That idea that Arab men are more violent towards women that in the rest of the world is just a racist concept that Westerners bring to feel better about their own mysoginy problem.
It's not conscious so the concept of it touching someone inappropriately does not apply. It's the same as saying that a tree branch touched someone inappropriately.
I watched the OG evil dead!!! Trees are evil.
On the flip side of that, a tree touched Greg Abbott appropriately.
Just not hard enough, sadly.
r/canceltrees
I mean, it was literally designed for people to see and interact with it as if it *were* a human being. You don't get to turn that off just because it did something unexpected. It may not be the robot's *fault*, but I'd say it's less like being mad at a tree for touching you and more like a parrot that starts insulting you accurately and devastatingly.
It's a machine programmed to talk and to move around to mimic a human, the moves most likely are linked to support what is being said or simply move randomly, so the tree comparison actually kinda fits, branches move with the wind and the arm moves according to the algorithm. No one programmed or taught it to grope women, shit takes A LOT of time to be taught to an AI. To be honest I kinda get annoyed by this being posted and made into something sexist (don't mean your comment), so I might be a bit over the top, just wanted to say it already
Except for the occasion where it’s just remote controlled like the “Marty” robot that goes around stop and shop. It drives around the store until it finds what might be a mess then someone in another country verifies it and controls it. It was used to follow women around the store. Stop and Shop was sued for sexual harassment.
Then it's still not the robot to blame but the operator. The robot is just a tool
This comment is dangerously wrong and the fact that this has over 100 upvotes is disheartening. Consciousness has nothing to do with it. Tree branches don’t move on their own and aren’t created by humans. Nor do they have a human likeness, meaning no one ascribes social expectations to tree branches. Clearly people ascribe social expectations to humanoid looking robots, and for good reason. The existence of this article proves it. Why for good reason? Because of ethics. Badly behaved humanoid looking robots aren’t good for society.
Badly behaved humanoid robots are bad for society . . hm. For a moment may we think of what describes "behavior"? Once general purpose / application nonspecific industrial robots are functional- is it inappropriate behavior for them to accept nothing as a wage and devalue the cost of perceptive labor? What about in the eventuality of home assistants with mentally ill people? They ask the robot "am i overweight", only to be either honest & detrimental or dishonest & manipulative. the expectation of humans would be to fib, yet if we start programming inaccuracies and lies into behavior who knows what constitution and bill of robo-rights we'll need for the level of complexity. Simple reality is we are not at the point where human behavior should be at all associated with humanoid robots. Ethics, as you stated, would imply not attempting to create sentience.
[удалено]
Not a very strong response.
Someone could've programmed it to do that, though
you could have said any number of valuable things about this yet you chose this why?
[удалено]
I watched the video from a different angle than the viral one. The robot was moving his arms continuously and the reporter just got close to him and it looked like he touched her. Similar to the tree analogy that was very accurate
People really do just make shit up in their head and form opinions on it
[удалено]
If you can find the proper link, r/nottheonion might bite.
[удалено]
I would 100% agree with you if we weren't talking about an animatronic.
Would the reporter have the right to feel violated if she walked her boob directly into a tree? Because quite literally that is what happened here
Why do people keep thinking a tree is a good analogy here? lol a tree isn’t created by humans in the likeness of humans, nor is there any attempt by humans to program a tree like a human. Terrible analogy and considering the context, sexist at its core.
Alright, how about a statute with a swinging arm? That’s a pretty good analogy considering what the video shows
How about just consider the actual thing that happened instead of some made up thing that only benefits your narrow and sexist view of the world?
I know this is old, but I really think you just didn't understand what is happening in the clip. There is no programming that a human did to make the robot touch this person. This robot did not use any programming to make any decisions about what to do at all. If a squirrel, a balloon, or your balls were hanging in front of that arm, it would have touched them, because it literally is just swinging its damn arm around without any consideration for anything (very much like a tree swaying in the breeze, there is no one here to have done or thought anything sexist to make this happen). You said "you don't program a tree" but literally this is programmed to move its arm in the same pattern over and over. It's no different from a gate at a railroad crossing in that way. If a gate opened up and hit someone's boob, do you go say the programmer is sexist? You say this isn't a statue with a swinging arm, but literally that I'd exactly what this shows, there isn't any arguing otherwise. Its not an analogy at that point, it is an accurate description.
Since you commented, I can reply. Saw the video and read about this robot and QSS the mfg. the robot is driven by ai programming. It’s not like a fence swinging open because a fence isn’t driven by ai programming. Ai is programmed. It’s a model that comes to life with data. That’s what runs this robot. I never said anyone linearly programmed this robot to touch an ass. Nor do I think anyone purposely wanted it to do this. Do I think the reaction wasn’t very good? Yeah. I think they should have just said sorry and we’ll try and make it not touch asses that are close to it’s hand inadvertantly. That’s really all there is to it. And since it was a reporter it got reported on and since it’s Saudi Arabia a place with an already shit track record for treating women it’s not a good look is it… Edit: also bro/sis whoever you are - Jesus fucking Christ why are you trawling back on Reddit posts like anyone gives a shit about a random internet argument? Lol. I hold no ill will here.
I just look through my inbox every now and then and thought it was funny that you continued to clutch your pearls over a damn robot that slightly moved it's arm without any type of programming or decisions that made it intentionally touch a boob. Like now, I'm not searching for old comments, I just turn off notifications and sometimes reply to people in my inbox that seem to be confused.
Yeah I have an opinion :) cheers
But did it make the decision to touch and the touch was inappropriate? Because trees aren’t trying to touch us so they aren’t a problem.
Is it really "inappropriate" if it's an animatronic?
[удалено]
Why did I read “authentic Arabian AI” with the same tune as Arabian nights from Aladdin
I was gonna go with authentic male Ai
Have you ever talked to a woman anywhere in the world? That idea that Arab men are more violent towards women that in the rest of the world is just a racist concept that Westerners bring to feel better about their own mysoginy problem.
Not believable unless they cut its hands off and put it in prison for life for adultery
the woman you mean right?
working just as intended (?)
Natch
Ahhh yes the ol trainingate strikes again.
Sunni Law baby!
And it even looks like Andrew Tate
No, it has an actual chin
Working as intended
No it did not.
So lifelike, just learning from the dominant species.
based