HR Geiger eat your heart out
2 Likes
Iâve looked before. Itâs usually under the tag âGuroâ. I learned to blacklist that one the hard way.
Then the word ârobotâ is completely useless, since it could also apply to a regular axe. Even if we were to arbitrarily exclude simple machines, it still applies to a chainsaw.
Go to a Home Depot and refer to chainsaws as robots, see if theyâll even allow you to buy one.
1 Like
Iâm with @L_Mariachi here. If youâre going to exclude machines that operate without human intervention without offering a specific definition for robot, or a counter example of one, then thereâs really no point in using the word at all.
I would consider an autonomous car to be a robot, but thatâs just a machine programmed by humans to execute a task. So itâs just being controlled by a human. So therefore itâs not a robot.
All things follow their programming, if you want to talk about this from a philosophically naturalist point of view.
By your definition of control, then all man-made objects are under our control. Even if we donât happen to be there when doing their thing. Because they do the things by nature of us making them capable of it and therefore are controlled by our manufacturing process.
as @LDoBe notes, I havenât offered a definition of the word myself (although they proceed to argue as if I had, and that it was the same as Elladanâsâconfusingly considering this was the very definition I argued against); Iâm just noting that @Elladan 's dismissal of this particular thing as ânot a robotâ based on a flawed definition. You seem quick to assume that if I were to attempt a definition, it would be one that makes any tool a robot. I have not implied this to my knowledge. I actually suspect a proper definition of what is or is not a robot would have something to do with the degree to which the machine automates a task; from what I understand this tree cutter attachment does a fair bit of its work autonomously, so itâs somewhere on the borderline but isnât clearly ânot a robotâ just because a person is sitting in the cab.
2 Likes
This article is biased to suggest this machine is itself only capable of deforestation. That is a decision of the users of the equipment. Itâs up to them to selectively harvest and replant. Donât blame the technology for being good at something.
2 Likes
Youâre right. The users could just as easily employ it in a daycare center.
Honestly, it would be fairly unsurprising.
Periodically I have to defend my property from enormous machines sent by the county or state. Usually itâs large tractors with flail mowers mounted on huge articulated booms, but sometimes itâs graders and the like. The operators never know where the property lines are, and assume that they have the right to chew up anything within reach of the road, which is not true. They strip the branches of my spruce, hemlock and firs from ground level to about 7â off the ground. Occasionally they even try to grind up my split-rail fence with the big flails.
Totally not kidding!
Another use for the flamethrower?
2 Likes
YEAH BUT DID YOU GET THE FUCKEN NEWSLETTER OR WHAT
3 Likes
Following a wildfire, I have actual need for one of these (or perhaps the terrifying chip-in-place variation). Does anyone know where I can find someone (in Northern California) to come do a couple of daysâ work with one of these?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
