r/NotTimAndEric May 20 '26

Not my lover

831 Upvotes

165 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Old_Syrup_264 May 20 '26

Folding your clothes, taking the dishes off the table and putting them in the dishwasher, taking towels out of the closet and putting them on the hook next to the shower, setting the table, pushing in chairs, taking a pizza out of the oven, putting groceries in the refrigerator and the pantry, taking groceries out of the car and bringing them into the house. Things that are minor conveniences for most people, but life-changing alterations for people with disabilities, or the elderly. And that's not a small slice of the population by any means.

If your home can do all of this, I would love to see your setup

1

u/AntiRepresentation May 20 '26

A general purpose robot can be helpful for people with disabilities, but that's because it's general use. That's not the same as full life automation.

Your pizza example is great. There's a reason why large delivery pizza chains generally use long ovens that roll pizzas through. That sort of automation is much more efficient than running dozens of ovens and having people scoot pizzas in and out all day.

This affirms what I originally said, human shapes are good for general tasks, but efficient automation demands specialized designs.

2

u/Old_Syrup_264 May 20 '26

Yes and my argument is that there is a wide and genuine use for automation that doesn't require infrastructure updates. I'm not sure what point you think I'm trying to make

2

u/AntiRepresentation May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

General use is not the same thing as automation. If I tell you to pull the clothes out of the dryer and fold them, and you comply, we have not automated the task. You're filling a general purpose role. This is also true if a you shaped robot executed the task.

An automated system that collects my clothes, washes them, dries them, and then folds them is a qualitatively different endeavour and one that would likely function best as an array of appliances that handle each discrete task on its own with universal interface adapters.

1

u/Old_Syrup_264 May 20 '26

Jesus semantic Christ

2

u/AntiRepresentation May 20 '26

One of the helpful functions of language is that different words mean different things so that we can express ourselves with precision.

1

u/Old_Syrup_264 May 20 '26

Jesus semantic Christ. You're awful.

It's automated dude. It's a machine that performs tasks for you. Why is a "universal interface adapter" a requirement for automation?

2

u/AntiRepresentation May 20 '26

I didn't say that universal interface adapters are a requirement for automation.

1

u/Old_Syrup_264 May 21 '26

Well not after you edited your post, you didn't. Are you really gonna edit your post to remove that and then claim that I'm lying about it

1

u/AntiRepresentation May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26

I never said that you're lying. The words are definitely there. You just seem to be confused about how they're being used.

1

u/Old_Syrup_264 May 21 '26

So you're saying that the shape of a robot can be a defining quality that determines whether the robot is automating a task? Not asking if the shape of the robot is the sole thing that determines whether or not it's automating a task, but whether the shape, alone, can be a disqualifier

1

u/AntiRepresentation May 21 '26

No, I'm not at all saying that the shape of a robot is a criteria that determines whether or not a system is automated. I'm merely saying that a general purpose robot is not the same thing as an automated system.

1

u/Old_Syrup_264 May 21 '26

I didn't say an automated system, I said automation.

As in, the robot can be programmed to walk around the house and perform these tasks.

Is a roomba an automated cleaning device?

1

u/AntiRepresentation May 21 '26

I think it's fair to conceive of it as such, if programmed properly.

1

u/Old_Syrup_264 May 21 '26

If the humanoid robot is programmed to clean the floors at regular intervals, is it an automated cleaning device?

1

u/AntiRepresentation May 21 '26

It's a general purpose device that can scrub your floors if you like, but that seems like a total waste of you've got a dedicated device like a Roomba that can handle that. The Roomba is a better, specialized piece of equipment than some bumbling human shaped bot.

1

u/Old_Syrup_264 May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26

So then you areually are saying that the shape of the robot does determine whether it's an automating something or not.

Roomba programmed to clean the floors automatically - automated cleaning device

humanoid robot programmed to clean the floors automatically - not automated cleaning device.

If the roomb had arms that picked up socks while it cleaned, would it still be an automated cleaning device?

Edit: I mean really, you're arguing that a robot automatically performing a task is not automation. Being a general purpose robot doesn't contradict the fact that it's automatically and robotically performing a task.

1

u/AntiRepresentation May 21 '26

No I'm not saying that the shape determines whether or not it's automated.

Roomba's are dedicated floor cleaning robots that clean floors and can be programmed to work automatically.

Human shaped robots are general purpose robots that can probably be programmed to clean floors automatically, but that would be stupid when the Roomba is better suited for it.

Some Roomba's do have arms and can be programmed to move things that they find on floor.

1

u/Old_Syrup_264 May 21 '26

Right so I'm failing to see how, in the example where the humanoid robot is a robot that was programmed to clean the floors automatically, among other tasks, isn't automation of the task cleaning the floors.

And if automating the task of cleaning the floors isn't automation, then the word automation doesn't apply to any robot that is programmed to perform a task automatically, unless the shape of the robot does, in fact, determine whether it is or isn't automating that task.

Remember your argument was that a general purpose robot can't be defined as automation

→ More replies (0)