Came here for a Will Smith I, Robot reference. Did not leave disappointed–thanks!
Yes, especially with the new silica rules in place. Engineered solutions to exposure are preferable. Also, these two remote control rigs appear to be designed for interior or close-quarters work. Again, being able to isolate the operator from debris hazards, noise, and potentially dangerous atmospheres appears to be the purpose of these rigs.
And besides, who wouldn’t want to run a remote-control breaky thing…
Big demo will still require articulated monsters with guys in cabs for the time being.
Sure, you say that now. But what if the operator were to get too close to the “remote controlled vehicle” and then that vehicle grabbed his controls? Then, it could do anything.
Not by me.
Well sure, but no one and nothing is the final arbiter of language. Words change meaning depending on use and once enough people decide upon a usage, it doesn’t matter one little bit what you and I consider correct.
Oh, I know that. But in the process we lose a word to distinctly describe something else. E.g. what do we now call what you and I used to call a robot if we specifically want to refer to a thing that is not merely used via a remote control?
If the controls in a cab were not hard-linked but were fly-by-wire, would that be a robot? Does it take the elimination of the wire for people to commandeer ‘robot’ for that type of device (as seems to be the case here)?
All rhetorical questions, of course. I’m just saying …
The future yes, now… no.The machines need some further development. Check out the before & after.This was one demo job and not a big job.
ETA PS for me, if the sensors are sensors linked to programming it’s a robot. If the sensors are human senses such as vision linked to direct control even if wireless, it’s not a robot.
EAT Oops - meant to edit own comment, ended up replying.
Classic RoboCop 2 move.
It’s Monday so yeah, you get a big ol pass for that
I agree with your distinction but I think the operating words people seem to use these days are autonomous, semi autonomous, and remotely controlled. Clumsy to nearly German levels if you ask me but precise enough to work.
Destroying that stairway was way too slow and the guy in the first video had better be wearing ear protection or maybe he’s already deaf.
But while all your attention was focused upon Husqvarna, Komatsu was eyeing you from behind.
Ah, just imagine all the fun you can have terrorising your neighbors with one of those!
Well, we’ve heard not a peep out of them about automation taking American jobs so far, so I don’t know why they’d start actually attributing job loss to the correct thing now. Instead, I think we’re more likely to see right wingers look directly at the robot and say, “Look at that shiny, square Mexican taking American jobs!” or “Look at that pile of regulation destroying American jobs!”
Around here, I’d expect that job to be done with an air hammer, a huge tow behind compressor, and a guy making $14 an hour. Turning a boring and draining job into one that’s just boring seems like a win to me!
That’s what it gets for going after Sarah Connor.
If you think that’s bad, just wait until those demolition robots start to take everyones philosophy major jobs too
That was painful to watch, operator needs a haptic glove!
Even allowing for the second photo being a “pile of parts” that may or may not be related, if you compare the dimensions and angles of the pieces which are likely related it’s clear they’re not from the same model of machine as the first photo.