Re:A chess robot in Moscow has broken the finger of its huma...
by numpad0 on Sunday July 24, 2022 @04:21PM
(#32217298)
I think it’s an inference from domain specific common sense in robotics.
“Inherently safe” is a technical term. It’s an ideal form that almost never materializes, so “functional safety” substitutes it and arguments are made as to what risks exists or how they should be mitigated.
“Inherently unsafe” as reverse of that means an object cannot be safe no matter what; A bomb next to a person can be an example. Had a driverless car inherently unsafe, it cannot be placed on public road.
The original argument therefor means, that it is established that cars and robots can be safe-fied with functional safety standards and measures such that only tolerable risks exist, so they cannot be inherently unsafe, so generally they can be let be on public roads or around people with conditions.
“Inherently safe” is a technical term. It’s an ideal form that almost never materializes, so “functional safety” substitutes it and arguments are made as to what risks exists or how they should be mitigated.
“Inherently unsafe” as reverse of that means an object cannot be safe no matter what; A bomb next to a person can be an example. Had a driverless car inherently unsafe, it cannot be placed on public road.
The original argument therefor means, that it is established that cars and robots can be safe-fied with functional safety standards and measures such that only tolerable risks exist, so they cannot be inherently unsafe, so generally they can be let be on public roads or around people with conditions.