A ski lift that breaks legs one day per thousand would never be acceptable. Risk imposed on you by someone else or a machine operated by someone else is not at all like a risk imposed on yourself by you personally skiing with your own legs off the mountain, into an unmechanized tree.

IMO there is a huge difference between something that brings mechanical force to you (robot, ski lift) vs you bringing mechanical force onto something else (crash into rock/tree while skiing).

> A ski lift that breaks legs one day per thousand would never be acceptable.

People are injured getting off ski lifts all the time.

Ski lift fatality rate is about 1/10 of cars, with only one death per 700 million miles traveled and average of 0.34 deaths per year.

Ski lift is one of the safest modes of transports known to man. It probably saves many lives vs someone walking up the mountain. That is, unlike the chess robot it creates a comparative net decline in risk for achieving the task of climbing a mountain. A wildly overbuilt (for the task) industrial robot as designed in this configuration here creates a net increase in risk vs playing against a much weaker human hand.

https://www.missionridge.com/sites/default/files/NSAA%20Lift...

Fatality rate from ski lifts may be very, very low. But number of broken limbs per user are probably relatively high compared to other modes of transportation. (Especially I think in small pull-based lifts)

>>> A ski lift that breaks legs one day per thousand would never be acceptable.

>> People are injured getting off ski lifts all the time.

> Ski lift fatality rate is about...

I see what you did there.

Wow you are incredibly clever, would you like a cookie? The best you could do is sometime, somewhere, people get injured a ski lift. The same could be said for people walking up a mountain. AT least I provided some data, including a study that showed injuries.

>"It probably saves many lives vs someone walking up the mountain."

You say "probably". Means you have no clue whether it is a fact or just invention of your mind. Then why bring it up as an argument.

Well I do have a "clue." Fatality rates for walking are imperfect but some studies have put them around ~37/billion kilometers walked [0]. For Ski lifts, it is 0.93 per billion kilometers. That's over an order magnitude worse for walking.

Now most people don't walk on mountains, so it's not a direct comparison. Walking on sidewalk is often a well paved, but with the risk of cars. Cars usually aren't on mountains, but on the other hand the conditions are oft very inclined with ice/snow, with difficult walking that can lend towards inducing casualties. My educated guess are these tradeoffs aren't enough to overcome the order of magnitude higher rate found in walking vs ski lift in our imperfect comparison across studies.

The honest answer is the word "probably" was used to denote the evidence points my mind in that direction, in a way that appears reasonable at least to me and probably many readers here. But if I want to use the bad faith accusatory tone you've presented, then I'd just say I said it to annoy persons such as yourself for my personal amusement.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221414051....