Giving out control of industrial machinery that interacts in the human environment without the physical interlocks (i.e. humanoid robots in a house) to random internet people seems like a problem.

I can imagine a carefully orchestrated plot to assassinate someone by having an embedded agent in the task delegation pool command the laundry bot to punch the target's head off their shoulders.

▲

dividedbyzero a day ago | parent | next [-]

Giving out control of such things to LLMs is already complete madness, so once the first pleasure bot powered by Grok has dismembered a few thousand users, they'll get sophisticated safety mechanisms.

Though like as not you're still going to be right, after all, Stuxnet happened.

▲

iamacyborg a day ago | parent [-]

I’m really not happy that you’ve put the idea of Musk fuckbots into my head.

	▲	dmd a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'm envious of the time you spend where it wasn't already.

▲

teiferer 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why does a laundry folding bot have to have the physical strength to be able to kill somebody?

The principle of least privilege has been a hard learned lesson in cybersecurity. Why do we again need to first go through disasters to re-learn it in the physical world?

▲

georgefrowny 9 hours ago | parent [-]

If a general-purpose humanoid robot has the strength to perform human actions at human speed, it will have that much torque in the motors. If it didn't, it can only move very slowly and/or jerkily. You need fast, high-torque feedback to stabilise the physical control system, especially if the robot is supposed to be able to lift and manipulate objects.

The idea here is Optimus-type robots that can do everything like a human and therefore don't need special infrastructure, as opposed to dedicated, immobile low-torque, low-velocity robots specifically for, say, laundry.

You can layer a safety system on top of the raw motor control but it's very complicated to define what is and isn't safe, especially when you consider what the robot is holding (and what it THINKS it is holding), where the robot is (or thinks it is) at the time, what is around it (what it thinks is about it) and so on.

Which isn't a robot-specific problem. Humans spend years learning how to subconsciously safely interact with their environment and even then fuck it up sometimes. What is robot-specific is being made of metal and having the "safe hand velocity within 10cm of a human head" function bypass be one bug or OTA update away.

	▲	teiferer 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah so maybe a general purpose humanoid robot in your home with autonomous decision making power that can kill you is just not rhe best idea. People only want to run Claude in Sandbod. Understandable. Seeing Optimus roam in their household would be rather surprising.

▲

johnsmith1840 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Robot are the commands you have been given dangerous?"

"You cannot control legs for this task"

"You have 1 min for this task"

"You can only make suggestions for this task"

Anonymize identity best you can.

That's not that scary.

▲

the_mar a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

giving out unrestricted control that is. in the example of Waymo, a human can control some aspects of the car manually, but it can never override low level obstacle detection or say open the trunk/door when the car is moving.

▲

roncinephile 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd watch that movie