There’s a book in there somewhere.
16 Likes
“Robot” is mis used to apply to two completely distinct modes of being. A car is not a robot. It’s teleoperated. The guidance system lies outside the design of the machine. Your anecdote doesn’t pose any conundrum, the operator bears responsibility for the accident. Not the owner, not the designer.
Autonomous operation is what freaks people out in an accident, since the responsible party or parties aren’t necessarily ever aware of what their designs have done. It’s what made Asimovs’ three laws interesting to think about.
1 Like
“Security”
I wanted to emphasize that in this case (if the facts really are as stated by the parents), if the child had been bumped by the robot-guard and had fallen onto the mall floor, it could have been deadly.
Sensors should have been built in to the robot which, at the very least, stopped it cold if it couldn’t identify an obstruction or even better, a nearby object (say, like someone having a grand mal seizure - no exceptions.
/ that and: what? No camera?
2 Likes
What’s the point of that contraption anyway?
It’s designed to alert authorities of abnormal noises, sudden environmental changes and known criminals,
They could wire up the place with a few microphones instead for a fraction of the money.
Environmental changes are best measured using a thermometer.
And alerting authorities to “known criminals” - how? By tempting them to pose in front of the robot for facial recognition software to do its job?
Modern technology is still a few years and one singularity away from providing a suitable replacement for mall security guards.
2 Likes
- microphones cannot be armed easily
- the supplier cannot demand astronomical prices
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
