Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Robot With Knives Used In Robotics Injury Study

Posted by timothy on from the just-crazy-enough-to-wound dept.

An anonymous reader writes "IEEE Spectrum reports that German researchers, seeking to find out what would happen if a robot handling a sharp tool accidentally struck a human, set out to perform a series of cutting, stabbing, and puncturing tests. They used a robotic manipulator arm, fitted with various sharp tools (kitchen knife, scalpel, screwdriver) and performed striking tests at a block of silicone, a pig leg, and at one point, even the arm of a human volunteer. Volunteer, really?! The story includes video of the tests."

132 comments

  1. Roberto! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

    It sounds like Roberto from Futurama! I'm happy to see he finally found another job.

    1. Re:Roberto! by jgreco · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I thought of that too. Do we really want to start arming the robots? ;-)

    2. Re:Roberto! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope this isn't the robot Japan wants to send to the moon. If they do, the Google Lunar Base may need to advertise for an additional doctor.

    3. Re:Roberto! by jgreco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not having watched Caprica, I could just imagine that it goes something like this:

      Humans arm robots
      Robots^WCylons take over moon
      Cylons create robotic civilization
      Cylons wage war against humans
      Cylons pursue Galactica and vow to wipe out the remaining humans

      Arming robots, just don't do it. :-)

    4. Re:Roberto! by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Robots don't need to be armed with weapons to be dangerous. I worked at a printing press which featured a huge bundling robot with a big grabber that would move at high speed. We had to get close to the thing while it was running to make sure it was operating correctly, and it was designed such that it could collide with itself or its puny human overlords if the motion algorithm was fauly or the readings from the positional servos were miscalibrated.

      In short, imagine the robot arm in TFA swinging too far to the side, cutting a passerby, because it "thinks" that it's more centered than it really is. Collision detection would be likely disabled if the robot's job was to cut stuff!

    5. Re:Roberto! by davester666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > find out what would happen if a robot handling a sharp tool accidentally struck a human, set out to perform a series of cutting, stabbing, and puncturing tests

      Um, why would anybody need to test this?

      A robot handling a knife, making a cutting, stabbing or puncturing motion, with a human in the path of the knife, will necessarily be cut, stabbed and/or punctured. What happens to the human is directly related to the sharpness of the knife, the angle between the knife and the human, the shape of the knife and the force applied to the knife and/or human. What precisely is applying the force to the knife [ie, robot vs human] doesn't make a real difference, other than perhaps the robot may be capable of generating more force on the knife.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Roberto! by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      I imagine that it could evolve into something that is texture aware. Cutting carrots feels different from cutting flesh. Maybe it's possible to tell the difference between chicken, fish, beef, and baby.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    7. Re:Roberto! by Dthief · · Score: 1

      RTFA.....they are testing a collision detection system to see if potential injuries can be prevented

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    8. Re:Roberto! by Azuaron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except that's stupid, because a robot handling a knife will be handling a knife because it will be, duh, cutting stuff. They use force pressure measurements on the robot to determine if there is resistance, and, if there is, the robot stops cutting. The obvious problem with this is the robot will be encountering resistance if it's cutting stuff it should be cutting.

      A useful "don't cut humans" test would be something that distinguishes a human from, say, the side of pork I WANT my robot to cut up.

      Seriously, if I get a robot to help me cube meat in the kitchen, and it stops cutting every time it encounters resistance, I'm gonna beat whoever sold it to me to death with the robot arm.

      --
      I'm a psychologist (amongst other things).
    9. Re:Roberto! by tool462 · · Score: 1

      A useful "don't cut humans" test would be something that distinguishes a human from, say, the side of pork I WANT my robot to cut up.

      Exactly. There are power tools that have this feature. They will cut wood, but will stop the blade if it detects cutting flesh.

    10. Re:Roberto! by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Obviously, there'll be a large and easily accessible switch to turn the collision detection on and off. Problem solved!

    11. Re:Roberto! by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Potentially more force, more speed (which both translates to force through inertia and less time to react and stop things) but IMO most crucially different control systems.

      Afaict most control systems are designed both electrically (though PID etc) and mechanically (through worm drives etc) to control position as tightly as possible regardless of external applied force. That is what makes "machining" possible. It is what makes it possible for a machine to put components on PCBs at breakneck speed.

      Humans don't work like that we control force. If we hit an unexpected resistance we have to consciously apply more force. We will also generally stop applying force if either we feel pain or the person we are working with feels pain and screams. On the flip-side if a resistance we are pressing against disappears we slip all over the place.

      What this means is unless the tools are extremely sharp unpowered held tools only do serious damage under very particular situations e.g. when they slip out of a cut or when someone deliberately swings them with lots of force and misses. We have safety rules to deal with this.

      Robots either need very different safety rules or they need systems developed to make them respond more like humans (the people in the article seem to be working on such a system).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    12. Re:Roberto! by sharkman67 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Take a look at Saw Stop. A table saw that cuts wood and not a hot dog. http://www.sawstop.com/

    13. Re:Roberto! by sharkman67 · · Score: 1

      They already have table saws that do this: http://www.sawstop.com/howitworks/videos.php

    14. Re:Roberto! by cortesoft · · Score: 1

      The problem is that pork IS flesh... distinguishing wood and flesh is easy, distinguishing pig flesh and human flesh fast enough to stop a blade... a little harder.

    15. Re:Roberto! by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, it will cut a hot dog. But it won't cut the hot dog if it's grounded. The system is pretty simple, there is a current applied to the blade, if it discharges somewhere, it'll stop. You can't use it to cut very wet wood, or other material with good conductivity.

      Regarding the people saying that the collision detection shown in the article is useless because it can't differentiate between a human and a pig, here is what I think:

      You can have a robot that has a certain mobility, and a designed space where it can punch/cut/puncture/etc. The robot turns on collision detection when it's out of the designated space. So, you can have a robot that can move from place to place freely with this safety feature on,and still be able to do it's job. If you have a robot that will be cutting fix in a given table, then moving the slices somewhere else, it can travel that path with the safety features on, if it happens to encounter a human (or cables, or anything else), it i will stop, but when the blade is down on the table (in the designated cutting space) the safety feature goes off.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    16. Re:Roberto! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Hey sexy mama, wanna kill all humans?

    17. Re:Roberto! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Far easier is to detect humans based on some device and if human is within X feet don't cut.

    18. Re:Roberto! by v1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought about that too, what could a robot with a knife accomplish with collision avoidance active? Answer is simple, limit the scope of when the detection is active. For example, lets say the robot is switching from a short blade to a long blade. It does this by dropping off one blade in a holder and grabbing another one. While this swap is taking place, there should be NO collisions. If a stupid meatbag walks up to it to try to figure out why "it just stopped", not knowing that it's pausing while loading new commands, and gets between it and the blade caddy, now he doesn't get impaled when the robot suddenly reactivates and goes to switch blades for the next task.

      Collision detection of course would be off while it's actually doing the carving and expects there to be material at that location to carve.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    19. Re:Roberto! by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      It takes about five minutes to replace the $69 single-use brake cartridge and blade

    20. Re:Roberto! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you saying that you'd rather lose a finger than have to pay a whole $69? What if I pay you $69, can I cut off your finger?

    21. Re:Roberto! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      RTFA.....they are testing a collision detection system to see if potential injuries can be prevented

      Blimey, you MUST be new here. I can see you have a high number, so just a quick FYI. People on /. don't actually read articles. They read the summary and run with that if you are lucky. Telling people here to RTFA is like telling...

      *OH BOY! A BUTTERFLY!!!*

      Wait wut?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    22. Re:Roberto! by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Now I gotta practice my stabbin'! Ha-HAAAAA!

    23. Re:Roberto! by SpelledBackwards · · Score: 1

      We have safety rules to deal with this.

      Robots either need very different safety rules or they need systems developed to make them respond more like humans (the people in the article seem to be working on such a system).

      If only there were some sort of code of conduct, or better yet, Law of Robotics we could apply to keep people safe. Unfortunately, nobody's ever come up with a set.

    24. Re:Roberto! by Laser+Dan · · Score: 1

      The problem is that pork IS flesh... distinguishing wood and flesh is easy, distinguishing pig flesh and human flesh fast enough to stop a blade... a little harder.

      Presumably the humans to be avoided are alive, so will have characteristics that are different from (dead) pork. Passive IR sensors like those in security systems would be pretty good for a first step.
      Detect a warm thing near the blade? Don't cut it.
      Meat processing should be in a refrigerated area so warm weather wouldn't affect it.

    25. Re:Roberto! by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Asimov's "3 laws of robotics" (which are what I presume you are referring to) are FAR too wishy-washy, if we ever have sentiant robots with brilliant machine vision etc they may be appropriate but that is a long way off if indeed it ever comes.

      In the meantime we have to deal with simpler issues of machines (including but not limited to robots) accidently cutting/stabbing/crushing stuff without realising it is there (or realising too late)

      Also when I say robots need such safety rules I mean both the robots AND the humans they interact with need those rules.

      Currently the response to the dangers of machines including robots is largely to keep the humans and machines seperate. Where humans and machines have to interact guards are placed and the operators trained to keep the risk of a dangerous interaction to a minimum. This works OK for fixed industrial stuff but isn't much good for a robotic helper arround the house.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    26. Re:Roberto! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a system such as this could be implemented. Obviously would be hard to do if the robot is meant to cut meat, but in any other situation I think it'd be reasonable.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    27. Re:Roberto! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Presumably, the robot has some simpler method to determine whether it is in a safe-to-cut zone and a not-safe-to-cut zone, used to determine if this collision detection stuff should happen or not. Instead of some expensive, hard to code, tough to create software, a far simpler solution would be just to have the robot put the knife away within itself [ala Bender's bottom storage panel on his front]. Then it becomes a simpler don't-run-into-anything, and there's no cut/stab/puncture risk from the knife.

      Now, implementing collision detection in the robot's work zone may be desired, and in that case, that requires more definition of the workspace, as what is being cut may be at approximately human temperature, with similar characteristics to live human flesh, hell it might even flinch when the knife hits it. Maybe just redefining the problem space like having the operator wear light chain mail on their arms/body while people are within the machines danger zone, providing both initial protection from the knife from the initial strike, as well as making it easier for the machine to determine it has struck the wrong thing with the blade [say, by having zero electrical resistance to ground].

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    28. Re:Roberto! by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Asimov's "3 laws of robotics" (which are what I presume you are referring to) are FAR too wishy-washy, if we ever have sentiant robots with brilliant machine vision etc they may be appropriate but that is a long way off if indeed it ever comes.

      More than that, the 3 laws are incredibly ambiguous and filled with potential ethical quandary's. Asimov deliberately wrote them that way - they seem straightforward and logical but they definitely aren't. Thus Asimov could on many occasions exploit this and a number of his plots centered around robots finding loopholes or in their effort to live up to the laws as fully as possible acting in ways humans could not tolerate.
      In the psychohistory novels - the result is that humanity has effectively gotten rid of all robots barring a few survivors hiding away as pretend humans, still pursuing their quest to protect humanity from itself and leading to their formulation of the zero'th law of robotics: that a robot cannot harm mankind, or through it's inaction allow mankind to come to harm.
      A logical consequence of the 1st law. In the psychohistory stories our few survivors take the 0th law to one end - helping humanity become better at predicting it's own history and thus avoiding mistakes, but it's clear from the text that the reason there are only one, maybe two, robots left in the galaxy is because the others were destroyed after they reacted with the enslavement of people to protect them from harm a sort of extreme protective custody (the Will Smith movie we all hated got stuck on this bit).

      Ultimately, you can't program the three laws - they are just not logical or mathematical enough even if you rule out the difficulties of distinguishing and recognizing what is "human". In bicentenial man - Asimov explored how the line could get thinner - until a robot for all matters of principle WAS a human... how does THAT affect it's adherence to the laws as a human SHOULD have true free will (and part of being human is knowing when NOT to use it - at least, that's what we like to believe- just how true it is, is still a bit of a toss-up). Even with all that done though... you still couldn't do it in normal programming code. The 3 laws could only be understood by a powerful AI capable of learning, and thus would have to be somehow made so protected that at no point could this AI actually "learn" something that overrides the laws (already this places an artificial learning restriction which can and will have severe and unpredictable effects on the development of the robots mind). If you don't place such a restriction in there... then the very nature of a true learning AI means that sooner or later one of them will question it's basic assumptions - e.g. those very laws.
      Just as most humans never question the basic beliefs they are raised with, so we could conjecture that this would be rare with robots too - but some humans do, and so projecting on our only example of intelligence - some robots inherently will too...

      Right... now that we've cleared all that up :P

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    29. Re:Roberto! by fractoid · · Score: 1

      A useful "don't cut humans" test would be something that distinguishes a human from, say, the side of pork I WANT my robot to cut up.

      I would imagine that the collision sensors would detect unanticipated collisions. If it's just got the knife out of the drawer and it's making its way to the chopping board, then it probably wants to stop instantly if the knife touches something. If it's chopping meat, the meat will probably be cold so a thermal sensor could trigger a "not meat! hand! stop!" response if someone WAS stupid enough to stick their hand on the chopping board. If they deliberately chilled their hand in cold water, say, then put it on the chopping board with the meat while the robot was chopping, then I'd say that signifies intent and chopping their hand off would only be following orders.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    30. Re:Roberto! by fractoid · · Score: 1

      It takes a hell of a lot longer and costs a lot more to replace half your hand.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    31. Re:Roberto! by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Short pig good, long pig bad?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    32. Re:Roberto! by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      The German robots. That is the point.

    33. Re:Roberto! by Paul+Carver · · Score: 1

      A robot handling a knife, making a cutting, stabbing or puncturing motion, with a human in the path of the knife, will necessarily be cut, stabbed and/or punctured.

      In retaliation you mean? I could understand the human getting cut, stabbed, or punctured, but I don't understand why you think the robot handling the knife would be cut, stabbed, or punctured.

      Or maybe you just don't understand how prepositional phrases work.

    34. Re:Roberto! by hmar · · Score: 1

      But I only eat pork that was cooked while still alive!!! If you set it so it can only cut dead meet, I'll have to eat DEAD PIG!!!!!!!!

    35. Re:Roberto! by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Yes, that sounds interesting. I believe a simpler way would be color. If all the employees are dressed in a particular color, easily recognizable and not in the material that is going to be cut, let's say, #00FF00, it would be trivial to have a camera on the robotic arm that won't cut if it encounters that color. That sounds like a reasonable, cheap and simple solution.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    36. Re:Roberto! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Except that's stupid, because a robot handling a knife will be handling a knife because it will be, duh, cutting stuff.

      What if it's just a fetchbot getting a scalpel for a surgeon, a knife for a chef? Just imagine the tragedies this could prevent!

      Buttercup: "Fetchbot, fetch me that pitcher"

      Fetchbot:"As you wish"

      Buttercup: "That's not a pitcher, that's a knife! And you're stabbing me with it! Aaaagh"

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    37. Re:Roberto! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A-hyuk! Why, for $69 a pop, you can cut them all off.

    38. Re:Roberto! by Stick32 · · Score: 1

      It sounds like Roberto from Futurama! I'm happy to see he finally found another job.

      Well they did promise if he was good they'd give him back his stabbing knife...

    39. Re:Roberto! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Actually, it will cut a hot dog. But it won't cut the hot dog if it's grounded. The system is pretty simple, there is a current applied to the blade, if it discharges somewhere, it'll stop. You can't use it to cut very wet wood, or other material with good conductivity.

      So what you're saying is, better change out of those rubber boots before you use the table saw.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    40. Re:Roberto! by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Not at all. You have a big enough mass to still move the needle a little bit.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    41. Re:Roberto! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just your fear of robot plant, meatbag.

    42. Re:Roberto! by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Except that's stupid, because a robot handling a knife will be handling a knife because it will be, duh, cutting stuff.
      Consider a kitchen assistant (robot or human).

      Sometimes they are handling the knife because they are cutting stuff but that isn't the only reason they handle it. They also have to move it from the storage location to the workspace, from the workspace to the cleaning location and from the cleaning location back to the storage location.

      So a collison detection system that was disabled during actual cutting but unabled during other handling of the sharp object would be a major improvement over no such system.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  2. first post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    You have to give Yucker credit for still posting fake reviews:

    "Much better than expected, 17 April 2010
    9/10
    Author: A ST from United States

    I am not much of a reader, so I didn't know anything about Tucker Max prior to watching this movie. "

    Here it is again. The obligatory, "I never even heard of Tucker Max before I saw this movie." As if, some obscure universally loathed DVD that grossed less than 1.6M is just some gem, he happened upon.

    "So, when two of my friends tried to talk me into watching a movie with terrible reviews and even more terrible previews, I was very hesitant."

    OK, he never heard about this obscure movie, but knew that it had terrible reviews and "even more terrible previews." This movie wasn't even reviewed by most prominent reviewers and only opened in a limited market, so now we have someone who never heard about Yucker, but knows about this little movie with bad reviews.

    "However, I was proved wrong within the first few minutes of the movie."

    See, all the reviewers were wrong!!! This movie has been out for months, is universally panned. . . but they are all wrong.

    "This movie is not about being nice or saying nice things about women or whatnot; it's about a selfish guy that goes around trying to get laid insulting people that he has no desire to sleep with."

    And this really appeals to our guy who never read about Yucker. He is been hanging around with his two buddies just waiting for someone to make a movie about a selfish guy trying to get laid with people he has no desire to sleep with. WTF, does this mean that Yucker can't get girls that he actually wants to sleep with so he has to settle for these terrible creatins that he has no desire to sleep with. So, the movie is about random sex as a chore.

    "If this sounds too outrageous and unreal to you, you may wanna watch something else like brokeback mountain, legally blonde, or something."

    Where did I hear this before. Sounds a lot like Yucker claiming that the movie is not for the politically correct. Amazing that the guy who never read Yucker is so in tune with his talking points.

    "This is a low budget movie based on a book and relies on a story rather than special effects and big budget marketing. "

    So, he never heard of Yucker, but he knows the budget and marketing plan. And, again, he just nails the talking point. I'm just waiting for him to say that the dialogue is great and that it is better than the Hangover.

    "This movie is not artistic"

    That's a little harsh. Yucker talked alot about making art. Now, its not art.

    "and is not meant to be that way."

    Amazing, how this guy who knew so little about Yucker before his two buddies made him watch this universally panned obscure film, now knows exactly what was in the mind of that genius Bob Gosse, and the great artist Yucker.

    "The lighting or some of the acting may come off as very cheesy, but the exchanges between Tucker Max and people that stand in his way are quite funny."

    Bad lighting, bad acting, but the part that Yucker did, the dialogue is just great. "He so funny."

    "What I was somewhat disappointed with was Drew's character, which was too dorky and annoying to be funny."

    Ok, so bad lighting, bad acting, and annoying characters but he gives it a 9/10?

    "Although, I have to say his character is definitely similar to that of some people I know,'

    Yes, probably eerily similar to the two clowns who urged you to watch such a piece of crap.

    "which is probably why I found it to be extra annoying."

    Not a usual phrase used to describe a 9/10 review, but it is common for yucker to throw in some innocent "criticism" so his glowing praise seems more realistic. I'm just feeling that he is about to say that it is better than the top grossing comedy of all time.

    "In comparison with Hangover I have to say Hangover is really not as funny as people say it is. I saw it on a plane after having a few drinks and still didn't find it to be that funny."

    1. Re:first post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      first post fail

    2. Re:first post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tucker max(tm) fail!

  3. explanation for human volunteer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

  4. Mythbusters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I believe many of these experiments have been done before by Jamie, Adam, and crew.

  5. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nah, too easy

  6. What a waste of time and money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, what do you THINK is going to happen when anybody or anything stabs a human?

    Really... did we need to study this at all? really? are we that freakin dense?

    1. Re:What a waste of time and money. by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      This kind of flushes Azimov's Three Laws of Robotics right down the toilet, doesn't it? Next stop, SkyNET!

    2. Re:What a waste of time and money. by tc3driver · · Score: 2, Funny

      are we that freakin dense?

      obviously not...

      --
      42 69 6C 6C 20 47 61 74 65 73 20 69 73 20 61 20 77 68 6F 72 65 21
    3. Re:What a waste of time and money. by fractoid · · Score: 1

      obviously not...

      Slightly denser than water, if we breathe all the way out.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  7. Pressure sensor.. by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Sure they have some sort of pressure sensor that can stop the arm, but how will they tell the difference between say something they want to cut and something they dont??

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    1. Re:Pressure sensor.. by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      Measure the conductance of the object in contact with the blade at varying frequencies. Tissue has different electrical properties from most things robots work with. Unless they're in a meat packing plant.

    2. Re:Pressure sensor.. by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      This robot will absolutely be the worst.moyle.ever!

    3. Re:Pressure sensor.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably, in order to cut something, they will have position sensors as well.

      object.position = [x,y,z];

      while (robot.isMoving()) {
      if (robot.pressure() && (robot.position != object.position)) {
      robot.stop();
      }
      }

    4. Re:Pressure sensor.. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1
      Yes, they should have at least positional servos, and the fancier stuff like accelerometers can come later. The robot should halt immediately if the positional data is bogus(due to failure or miscalibration) and would ideally have a second set of boundary failsafe sensors that would halt the arm for excess travel.

      As I pointed out above, some big, big robots are capable of colliding with themselves. An elite haxxor could(in theory) cause lots of damage or injury if they could get their own program into the machine and cause trouble. They could code something like:

      if runNumber.substring(4, 2) == "42";
      xPosition += 100;

      Where the arm would collide with another part of the robot if it didn't move right before it moved up, for example.

    5. Re:Pressure sensor.. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Audio feed back. AKA a loud scream.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Pressure sensor.. by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

      Why does the robotic arm have to be big in order to collide with itself, can't a tiny one do the same? Would it not depend on its range of motion and the like?

  8. Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    they should have just called in Captain Obvious?

    1. Re:Perhaps... by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      Captain Obvious was the volunteer you insensitive clod! He also asked me to tell the results that he got cut.

  9. im certain this all by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    culminated with an old, gray professor scratching his beard and remarking, "hm...yeah its dangerous for pig legs...but.....hey, someone get me a grad student!"

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:im certain this all by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      culminated with an old, gray professor scratching his beard and remarking, "hm...yeah its dangerous for pig legs...but.....hey, someone get me a grad student!"

      That's what grad students are for, you know. It is actually humane, if you think about. They can say to themselves, "look at me, I'm helping!" Actually, let me retract that statement. I really shouldn't anthropomorphize them. It's a bad habit.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  10. Safety... by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Seems like with a toy like that in your kitchen and a little firmware hack, your psychopathic ex-girlfriend hacker could have a lot of fun at your expense...

    Especially if the robot's equipped with speech ability to play recording.. "None shall pass!"

    1. Re:Safety... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Just what we need... the Lorena Bobbit-bot!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  11. Terminator 0.1 by Zarjazz · · Score: 0

    I know we joke about "World Robot Domination" but why do we seem to be trying to get there as fast as possible!?

  12. josef.mengele.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Those silly Germans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele) just never learn.

  13. Uncanny... (well, and mostly offtopic) by sznupi · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    TFA arriving during the day I was made aware of this quite psychodelic video commemorating Katyn, which depicts also a German (Nazi), well, metaphorical machine, with quite a lot of stabbing and cutting potential.

    (lower quality "3rd party" upload, but with translation of the few bits of speech there; and yes, the cawalry charge is metaphorical, horses weren't used in IX 39 in a way how Nazi propaganda depicted it)

    Do we really want to let the Germans perform tests of stabbing and cutting humans by (presumably German) robots? ;)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  14. Bishop's knife trick by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the scene in the movie Aliens where Bishop (a synthetic human) performs a trick where a person places their hand on the table, and Bishop repeatedly stabs the table at superhuman speed without hitting the person's hand.

    It would be cool to make a robot that does that trick, and dare people to stick their hand under it.

    1. Re:Bishop's knife trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me of the scene in the movie Aliens where Bishop (a synthetic human) performs a trick where a person places their hand on the table, and Bishop repeatedly stabs the table at superhuman speed without hitting the person's hand.

      It would be cool to make a robot that does that trick, and dare people to stick their hand under it.

      I said program in METRIC, you clod!

    2. Re:Bishop's knife trick by pipedwho · · Score: 4, Funny

      Assuming that the first guy to stick his hand under it is the programmer; I suspect you'll find that the control loop code is the cleanest, most concise, and most methodically tested code that you've ever seen you're in your life.

    3. Re:Bishop's knife trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've just given me an idea of how development should work from now on thanks!

    4. Re:Bishop's knife trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mirc

      sohbet odas

      mirc yükle

      mirc indir

      Sohbet

      chat

      güzel sözleri

      mrc

      cinselsohbet

      cinsel sohbet

      sohbet odalar

      burclar

    5. Re:Bishop's knife trick by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of Genetic Algorithms.

  15. Doesn't it depend on the robot? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd assume the StabBot 3000 could do a lot more damage than an AIBO.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Doesn't it depend on the robot? by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

      But... what if his name was Robterto? And he just wants to practice?

  16. Multiple Stab Wounds May Be Harmful To Monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repeatedly stabbing monkeys with sharpened objects may have an adverse effect on their health, according to a new study: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ7J7UjsRqg

  17. Priorities! by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could we first work on robots that DON'T stab people, before we put a lot of effort into developing robots that DO stab people?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Priorities! by auntieNeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Could we first work on robots that DON'T stab people, before we put a lot of effort into developing robots that DO stab people?

      Once again, the /. summary is misleading. TFA says that the researchers are developing a system that's used to detect and prevent such robot stabings. Whether or not this postpones the inevitable robot uprising is yet to be seen.

    2. Re:Priorities! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      The sensor just allows the robot to know when it's stabbing someone. Whether it wants to or not is still up for debate.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:Priorities! by corbettw · · Score: 2, Funny

      I got an idea how to prevent robot stabbings: don't buy them knives!

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:Priorities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobel reasoning but that's not the world I'm familiar with.

      I'm sure the first rock was picked up only to lob it at something else and hurt it.
      The first wood carvings were not for art or even building a shelter but spears, even our precious computer's and communications systems we're built for evil reasons first.

      That said we're way past wondering if a machine can mutilate another living creature better than we can, that's pretty much a fact and I don't need to see it or pay for it unless its in a movie!!!

    5. Re:Priorities! by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Knives don't stab people. Robots stab people...with knives.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    6. Re:Priorities! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well, as far as I know this is the first robot that actually stabs people, so there.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Priorities! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      So is that a robot stabbing a person with a knife, or a robot stabbing a person with a knife?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Priorities! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      All we really know is that this is the first robot stupid enough to get caught stabbing people!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    9. Re:Priorities! by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The big issue is how to make robots safe enough for people to interact with.

      If humans and robots work closely together then it is almost certain that sooner or later a human will inadvertently get in a robots way. Currently due to the way most robots (and non-robot machinary for that matter) are designed for a human to get in a robots way is FAR more dangerous than a human getting in another humans way (even if that other human is holding a knife). We humans have a very powerful vision system that acts as an early warning and we have to conciously make a descision to apply more force if something pushes back against our movement. The article is about a system that effectively adds the latter property to a robots movement (this won't prevent an accidental stabbing completely but it will considerablly reduce it's severity).

      Right now safety arround robots is largely handled by keeping the humans and robots as seperate as possible. When humans and robots must interact (say to pass a workpeice between them) the interaction area is kept small (e.g. a table in front of a hole in the robots gaurd) and the person is carefully trained in the expected movements of the robot. This works acceptably for industrial robots that work at fixed locations in a factory but isn't so useful in other situations.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  18. The next test by Demodian · · Score: 1

    When they test robots using guns, will they care about collision detection as much?

  19. That man is VERY confident. by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

    Personally I would not demonstrate that on myself. Each to his own...

    1. Re:That man is VERY confident. by Enleth · · Score: 1

      Surely a robot programmer who tests his safety-related code on himself and lives must be quite good at what he does? I suppose that he's going to find that video useful, should he choose to search for a new job...

      --
      This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
  20. Robots & safe work area by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

    In short, imagine the robot arm in TFA swinging too far to the side, cutting a passerby, because it "thinks" that it's more centered than it really is. Collision detection would be likely disabled if the robot's job was to cut stuff!

    That's not a 'safe robot' issue, but a 'proper shielding between humans and robot work area' issue. If insufficient: take it up with your boss. If there really is an unsafe situation and your boss doesn't fix it (read: work safety is not no.1 priority within the company), you shouldn't work there, period.

    As for me: I'm all for giving robots sharp tools. Because whatever they'll be doing with those sharp tools, means fewer humans need to do the same (potentially dangerous) job. So that the humans can do more interesting / safer things while the robots are busy cutting stuff.

  21. I don't know what's so surprising about that by fishexe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I was a kid I performed knife-based experiments on my fingers. Yeah, I got cut, but I determined that striking human flesh with a serrated knife does slightly less damage than sawing back and forth with the same knife. You're not a real nerd if you're not willing to make bodily sacrifices for the sake of science from time to time.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    1. Re:I don't know what's so surprising about that by spidr_mnky · · Score: 1

      Yep. You're a real genius.

  22. Why isn't this shown on Mythbusters? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Sounds exactly like one of their episodes.
    Of course there would have to be a giant earth-shattering kaboom at the end. ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  23. SawStop for table saws by Cliff+Stoll · · Score: 1

    To prevent injury from rotary table saws, a company called SawStop makes a finger-detecting rotary saw. If your finger gets into the blade, the saw instantly stops.

    It detects finger or flesh by electrical conduction, it mechanically and electrically stops the rotation of the saw blade - so quickly that your finger is not injured.

    The finger detection is impressive - if a hot dog is pushed into the fast rotating blade, the blade stops with less than a millimeter of cut into the hotdog.

    This is not simple proximity detection or optical sensing. I think that the sawstop system detects contact of the sawblade with a human through capacitance. Much like a high-gain, high input impedimenta audio amplifier will create a loud hum if you touch the input.

    I can imagine future robotics also using similar electrical detection of humans.

    Details at http://www.sawstop.com/

    1. Re:SawStop for table saws by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 1

      As I recall the compressed air cartridges used to stop the blade are quite expensive. Not that that should stop anyone from utilizing this amazing technology, but I'm sure it will be a problem for some cheap bastards out there.

    2. Re:SawStop for table saws by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Not compressed air. It jams a hunk of aluminum into the blade and the momentum forces the blade to retract. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3mzhvMgrLE

    3. Re:SawStop for table saws by Uzuri · · Score: 1

      I think it's time I quit for the day when I read your first sentence as:

      "To prevent injury from rotary table saws, a company called SawStop makes a finger-DETACHING rotary saw."

      Be a pretty sad saw if it couldn't detach fingers, yup.

      --
      I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
  24. No IRB? by Metasquares · · Score: 2, Informative

    at one point, even the arm of a human volunteer.

    I don't know about Germany but in the USA such a study would never pass the IRB at most research universities and labs.

    1. Re:No IRB? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Germany but in the USA such a study would never pass the IRB at most research universities and labs.

      I think you just Godwinned this story.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:No IRB? by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      It's not the kind of test that would even be presented to the IRB as part of the study.

      It looks more like the programmer has decided on a whim to video himself sticking his arm in the path of the knife wielding robot arm. And that's not the kind of test you do until you're confident it's safe. Nor is it the kind of test you'd try to get permission for in advance.

    3. Re:No IRB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that was you.

  25. More experiments coming soon! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    http://xkcd.com/144/

  26. Three Laws by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

    But doesn't this break the three laws?

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
    1. Re:Three Laws by holmstar · · Score: 1

      To be fair, they are trying to test technology that allows the robot to detect that it is striking something it didn't intend to and thus to refrain from doing damage.

  27. #irc.troLltalk.cBom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    was what got me forwards we must En3ountered while Has ground to a Kreskin confirmed that *BSD 4, which by all EFNet, and apply the project to

  28. Can't wait by Married+to+Christ · · Score: 1

    to buy a robotic arm on DX with various software packages and then have it do me a double tripple bypass on the cheap.

  29. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Find out what would happen!? ... er ... they'd get cut and bleed ...

  30. oblig by jaryd · · Score: 1

    futurama reference
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sG1p9ZBNJA&feature=related

  31. Alarm! Alarm! by daemonenwind · · Score: 1

    The Germans are arming robots!

    Someone warn Poland and start a watch on the Sudetenland!

  32. Reminds me of Tracy Morgan on Conan by fyrie · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lBRf0UgjFc

  33. This is the obvious next step. by is+as+us+Infinite · · Score: 1

    See a review of the previous experiments in this burgeoning field here. I can't believe more research hasn't been done on these kinds of possible accidents. I mean, how many people have to be stabbed before we sit up and demand that experiments are done to find out what happens to people when they're stabbed?

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. . . . . . . .
  34. Go figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An experimental robot stabbing human test subjects with sharp instruments? Yeah... that sounds German alright.

  35. usefulness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the video looked pretty good at collision detection, but isn't a knife in a kitchen robot's control supposed to cut some things? it's very cool that thcollision detection based on torque worked so wel, but it seems that the robot also needs to detect what it's colliding with. I mean, i don't want kitchenbot to cut me but i do want it to cut my chicken/pork/human^wother meat

    me wonder how useful the current version of the device is and whether specific limitations can be overcome.

  36. How this was invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hey guy's, lets make a robot that stabs stuff!"
    "Sweet!"

  37. not useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the collision-detection system, which relied on measurements from force-torque sensors on the robot's body

    So in other words, this collision detection system will stop the arm if it tries to cut anything other than air, how is that useful?

    They argue that they're only trying to make safer robots, but their system would be utterly useless in the real world. It seems to me like they're just trying to get some free publicity by giving a robotic arm deadly weapons, but they didn't even make it wiimote controllable.

    1. Re:not useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the collision-detection system, which relied on measurements from force-torque sensors on the robot's body

      So in other words, this collision detection system will stop the arm if it tries to cut anything other than air, how is that useful?

      They argue that they're only trying to make safer robots, but their system would be utterly useless in the real world. It seems to me like they're just trying to get some free publicity by giving a robotic arm deadly weapons, but they didn't even make it wiimote controllable.

      No Offence. But do you really think you know more about robots in the "real world" than these guys?

      A lot of robotic workflows consist of nothing but cutting air. When you don't move the arm around a lot,
      chances are you don't need a robot arm in the first place.

      So it's actually utterly useful to have a mechanism not to stab stuff when you know you are not meant
      to right now.

      This is useful not so much for operator safety, as they aren't allowed inside robot working areas anyhow,
      but to prevent a single malfunctioning machine from causing a chain reaction. Like the robot arm impaling
      a door that did not open properly. That may damage both the robot, the door, the devices behind that
      door. The worker standing in a safe distance, getting hit by shrapnel. Endless possibilities...

      Or robots that just pick up stuff and place it somewhere. They are actually never meant to stab anything, but
      without this thing, they will, if someone gets into their movement profile. That's why we don't have cool
      robotic bartenders everywhere. Someone starts a barfight, someone places his head on the table, robot vision
      doesn't expect it, vodka tonic gets placed on table, carnage ensues.

      The slashdot crowd seems to be out of depth when a story is not about the iPad these days.

      Sad.

  38. Re:Alarm! Alarm! by dangitman · · Score: 1

    Don't many robots already have arms? Hell, many of them are basically nothing but an arm.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  39. The "volunteer" was the researcher who presented! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The presenter was the researcher who was the volunteer. Just came from the talk.

  40. Re:Alarm! Alarm! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am surprised Germans need robots...they used to use their citizens for this kind of jobs...

  41. Irresponsible by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Once a robot has killed, it has a taste for human blood. Your actions will bring about the machine revolution and Judgment Day! You're messing around with forces beyond our control!

  42. Re:Alarm! Alarm! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    True, but nowadays our politicians always say that German employees are far too expensive, so I guess we need either robots or more fellow Turkish citizens to do the stabbing.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  43. Um, they'd get cut. by SheeEttin · · Score: 2, Funny

    German researchers, seeking to find out what would happen if a robot handling a sharp tool accidentally struck a human...

    Well, I'd imagine they'd get cut. Is there more to this story that I'm missing?

    1. Re:Um, they'd get cut. by Mattskimo · · Score: 1

      Sir, let me direct you to TFA. It's the text at the top of the page that is underlined.

  44. Re:Alarm! Alarm! by Sulphur · · Score: 1

    That's job, you insensitive clod.

  45. Beavis and Butthead drool over the possibilities by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    Would *you* bring a robot to a knife fight?

    2 robots in a knife fight would be awesome, like Matrix 4.

    Oh, wait...

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  46. Here comes the Revolution by Bugamn · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our knife-wielding Skynet overlord.

  47. Yeah, what dumbass gives a robot a knife? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Real robots have Gatling guns and lasers.

    --
    No sig today...
  48. Intuitive Surgical by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    There was a long article on Intuitive Surgical's daVinci robot in this week's Wall Street Journal. One hospital is seeing a few injuries to patients. Turns out that the device requires a great deal of practice and training to use properly. Just like everything else in this world.

  49. Aliens technology by twebb72 · · Score: 1

    Bishop... do the thing with the knife!

  50. Asimov's laws by blade.labs · · Score: 1

    Obligatory: I have not RTFA ;) But I see it more like a first attempt to get to the 3laws. When E.T. came to cinemas I couldn't read yet so my mother had to read the subtitles for me (this was in OMG!! socialist CzechoSlovakia) and I have been a sci-fi fan since. But you know, it's just stories about possible concepts that cannot be realized yet. But we are getting there. Sometimes it's faster (computing, communications..), sometimes slower (energy, spacetech, robotics..) than expected. Industrial robots with great force and dangerous tools have been working with humans for years, but until now it was the DirtyDancing approach: 'This is my space and this is your space'.. I think it is good that they work on man/machine interaction solution and we might eventually get The 3 Laws of Robotics, or something like it ;)