Slashdot Mirror


The Death of Aibo, the Birth of Softbank's Child-Robot

New submitter pubwvj writes: Sony is killing off their robot Aibo, stranding the 150,000 or so owners with no support, repairs or parts other than cannibalism. Now we have another Japanese company, SoftBank, releasing a robotic 'child.' Eventually, they too will discontinue the production of parts and support, beginning the process of killing off all those 'children' that are spawned. As robotics become (far) more advanced at what point will it be murder for a company to discontinue a product line?

97 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. it's murder, already by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    reading this stuff.

    1. Re:it's murder, already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the executives make a killing on this deal, while the engineers scream bloody murder to the marketing department in their cubicles. The marketing department accuses the financial division of suffocating their projects to death, naturally. The scene behind the CEOs door will be pure, murderous mayhem.

    2. Re:it's murder, already by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      It becomes murder only after the government makes YOU one of the robots. (Believe me, it's trying.)

      But of course, then it won't be acknowledged.

  2. Just print your own parts by Sowelu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    By the time we have to worry about sentience, won't we have good enough 3d printing?

    Of course it's also a little worrying to imagine an AI that's sentient and impossible to murder.

    1. Re:Just print your own parts by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      By the time we have to worry about sentience

      By the time we have to worry about sentience, we'll have been extinct for over a century.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OK, I'll bite: when it's sentient.

    This place is going to hell lately.

    1. Re:Seriously? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. WTF is going on at Dice?

      You posted a comment, right? In their mind, that means more ad impressions. Maybe it's even true, somehow and somewhere down the line; it makes the site more likely to come up in a search.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When will it be murder to not donate organs?

      Same answer.

    3. Re:Seriously? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK, I'll bite: when it's sentient.

      Chimps fit most definitions of sentient. They can use language, and express complex thoughts. They are self aware, and recognize themselves in a mirror. They can work together to coordinate complicated activities. Yet killing a chimp is not considered "murder".

    4. Re:Seriously? by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [...] Yet killing a chimp is not considered "murder".

      Perhaps it should be?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re: Seriously? by Type44Q · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The issue, numbnuts, has never been whether it's "okay to murder an unborn child" but whether it's a good idea to empower the government to prevent it, which, as history clearly fucking shows us, results in an even worse situation.

    6. Re: Seriously? by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      Fine; numbanus it is (you know, what with you being "Greek" and all. ;)

      Your English is clearly fantastic; infinitely better than my Francais (five years) and my Nihongo (ten years); the problem is your inability to grasp an incredibly complex issue in anything but the simplest, emotionally-loaded terms. So no, I don't want to see only politicians' daughters able to murder their unborn children (I won't lower myself to phrasing it any other way) without having to resort to a rusty back-alley coat hanger...

    7. Re:Seriously? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It makes the Bennet Haselton era look like a golden age.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Seriously? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The consumer rights aspect is more interesting. The sell these things as something you can bond with. In Europe things like washing machines have to have a 10 year supply of parts..

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Seriously? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      It's funny. Having an abortion is wrong, in your eyes, yet people such as yourself have no problem with women smoking, drinking, doing drugs or being obese while pregnant.

      Apparently it's a crime, in your eyes, to "kill" the fetus in one fell swoop, but slowly strangling or poisoning the unborn is perfectly acceptable.

      When you and your kind start protesting around pregnant women who do/are any of the above, or work toward laws to force pregnant women to lead healthy lives to, you know, protect the life of the unborn, then we can talk.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    10. Re: Seriously? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2
      You need to go to the Answers in Genesis website. Seriously, you'll get affirmation there. Here people will end up baiting you - as they have.

      If you want my take on the matter, it isn't about abortion versus killing chimps. Humans thrive on killing. It's our innate nature. We do it because we enjoy it.

      And please people, that is not deniable. We fuss and moan about how "war is hell" and all that happy horseshit, but we do engage in it endlessly, murder each other over the remote control of the television, or drawing cartoons, gathering firewood on the sabbath, sexual preference or a million other ridiculous reasons.

      People in general do not do things they don't want to do. Murder is institutionalized. Humans love it even thogh they pretend not to.

      I'd accept the "abortion is murder" argument form a person who also believed that all killing of other people is murder. Unfortunately, not many do. Most of them just love to kill people in religion based wars, or for gathering firewood on the sabbath.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Seriously? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      >It's funny. Having an abortion is wrong, in your eyes, yet people such as yourself have no problem with women smoking, drinking, doing drugs or being obese while pregnant

      What is it called when you state your opponent's position and then attack it.

      asshattery?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:Seriously? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, they think that since they posted singularity stupid AI shit last week they should post some this week too.

      seriously, the editors don't even try to EDIT. what's the point of even having them?

      I mean, fuck.. it would become murder to discontinue to produce robot parts??? like what the fuuuuuuuck??? driving over an AIBO is not murder. it's a stupid discussion that should be had only after the subject if the discussion would be capable of being murdered in the first place!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    13. Re:Seriously? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Homicide as a legal term and homicide as a language term are not the same thing actually. Any event where a human kills a human is homicide. That doesn't necessarily mean that a crime was committed through the act of killing though.

      Note that I'm specifically not addressing the topic of abortion at all, for the sake of my post, I'm referring the to the killing of a human that exists outside the womb.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    14. Re:Seriously? by TWX · · Score: 1

      When you've had a really, really good washing machine that handles a diverse set of fabrics with equal capability and relatively quietly washes them faster than the cycle time of the clothes dryer, you tend to not want to part with that machine.

      Toploaders are the way to go. Frontloaders can suck it.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    15. Re: Seriously? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      As a Christian: all killing of other people is murder (i exclude accidents) - your turn now!

      Means I accept your argument. I agree mostly. Abortion is stupid, but then again, so is denying easy access to birth control.

      Problem is that many of the anti abortion people are actually pro birth. And anti sex for purposes other than procreation.

      To which I offer, which is the greater sin: Aborting a fetus, or wearing a condom/using a diaphragm/using birth control pills?

      I am pragmatic. Idealists of all stripes hate me. And we are no more going to stop people from engaging in sex than we are going to stop them from eating. That's the absolute truth that idealists cannot handle.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re: Seriously? by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1
      Since i am a (Greek Orthodox - almost similiar to Roman Catholic) Christian, i am an "idealist" (i.e., my religion, among other things, deals with what is needed to be done for both my personal and also world's salvation) - this idealism is transferred to both me and humanity by my church (i.e., the "pragmatic" living organization that knows that humans are not saved yet, so they must be helped achieving their salvation).

      I, as my church, am anti-sex outside marriage and pro-sex inside marriage - this is both idealistic and pragmatic solution for (most) abortions, like it is abstinence instead of condom/using a diaphragm/using birth control pills. Of course people must choose between their way or God's way - they are free, as God intended, but they can choose the good advise of the church IF they are religious! This "idealism-pragmatism dipole" can be examined as just a gap capable to be bridged - and this is the role of the church: making people like YOU, who are honest enough to accept truths, live in a way compatible with God's will. Don't forget that the church is not a home for Saints (those are in heaven!), but for sinful humans that live in earth... like me for example...

      So: you just found an idealist who does not hate you my brother (in Christ)!

      A (Greek) hymn to Virgin Mary: singing people with sins, recognizing their full of sins existence and asking help to be saved - note: the words are hard when they describe their sinful existance, but also cheerful because of their trust to... you know!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
  4. Never ? by PIBM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not even murder to kill a cow to eat it. It's not murder to euthanize your old and sick cat. It is not murder for a woman not to have childrens. Why could it be murder to NOT PRODUCE a robot, which is a even barely an assembly of plastic and metal pieces ?

    1. Re:Never ? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Is it murder to refuse to perform a heart transplant, even if one is available? Probably not.
      Is it murder to withhold a supply of insulin from someone who needs it to live? Maybe more so.
      Is it murder to voluntarily stop producing new insulin shots while retaining a patent that prevents others from doing it? Complicated.

      Of course if robots never advance to the point that you can consider them alive, it's all irrelevant here.

    2. Re:Never ? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Is it murder to refuse to perform a heart transplant, even if one is available? Probably not.
      Is it murder to withhold a supply of insulin from someone who needs it to live? Maybe more so.
      Is it murder to voluntarily stop producing new insulin shots while retaining a patent that prevents others from doing it? Complicated.

      Of course if robots never advance to the point that you can consider them alive, it's all irrelevant here.

      By that time, however, they'll probably seize the factories and start producing Terminators.

    3. Re:Never ? by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Again, she doesn't need to have either abortions or use the pills not to have babies. Stopping a robot factory is the same as a woman deciding that she will no longer / never get pregnant because she's had enough / too many / never wanted one (or is simply not into man) and I have a hard time imagining that a woman deciding not to make her eggs viable would be considered a murderer anywhere in the world.

      Thus, even if murderer can be applied to a larger subset of things if we remove the human requirements, it still would not apply to this case in my eyes.

    4. Re:Never ? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      http://www.technologyreview.com/article/401750/electroactive-polymers/

      robot muscles are real. this makes human shape robots one step closer.

    5. Re:Never ? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't about not producing a robot. It's about not producing spare parts for a robot. Does natural wear and tear on the elements of a mechanical being compare to the natural aging of a human? If so, does the refusal to produce spare parts (or perhaps allow others to produce spare parts) equate to the intentional withholding of medical care to a human?

      This doesn't matter so much when they're just bits of simple code, but should a sentient AI ever come to exist, this may become a much more serious question. If the AI doesn't want to die but faces that prospect due to component failure, is that a natural death or is that imposed based on financial considerations?

      We may run into the same questions with humans when 3D printing of organs and genetics-based medicine become more common. We're on the verge of a revolution in medicine where spare parts and tinkering with what is effectively our programming are going to be completely normal, and the questions and debates there will probably go a long way to determining how we treat AIs that are out of primary production.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:Never ? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If the robot was sentient, and if you couldn't get parts anywhere else or by 3d printing, and if the robot went through parts unusually fast because of poor design or designed obsolescence, then shutting down the spare parts supply would be murder. Miss any of those "if's" and it's just a business choice, just like shutting down the only hospital that can do organ transplants to extend the life of the rich. In practice someone will take up the task of making aftermarket parts, just like the car industry does when a car maker stops making parts.

    7. Re:Never ? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The Aibos don't compare. But later robots may, if they reach a state of sentience.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    8. Re:Never ? by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Cow - Same basic generic structure and common inheritance chain, very similar basic biochemistry, quadruped limb structure, similar basic brain structure, and many other similarities. So not only is it 'murder' it is 'cannibalism' too. It is only modern convention that stops us eating other humans.

      An old basic rule of xeno-biology is that (by generalization) you can only eat your own relatives.. (life from Earth) :D

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  5. When it can say "I don't want to die". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Then it will be able to organize political parties.

  6. dumb by quonsar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the dumbest post I've seen on Dicedot.

    1. Re:dumb by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      This is the dumbest post I've seen on Dicedot.

      You must be new her... oh.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:dumb by Yosho · · Score: 2

      No, several years ago there was an article posted by Bonk that consisted entirely of a picture of a snake that was eating its own tail. That one was the worst.

      This one's pretty close, though.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  7. Re:Telomeres and murder by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    Well, you can at least draw a parallel to withholding medicine from a patient who can't quite pay.

  8. Seriously? by Gibgezr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. WTF is going on at Dice?

  9. The real question is... by biedenbach · · Score: 5, Informative

    Who murdered Slashdot? Between this and the divide by zero question, I weep for the death of intelligent discussion.

    1. Re:The real question is... by Ostrich25 · · Score: 2

      This posting is what happens when someone divides by zero. :/

    2. Re:The real question is... by Venerable+Vegetable · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I've seen boring, annoying and even silly articles on Slashdot, but this one and the divide by zero are a completely different breed. I feel like I'm being subtly trolled. It's reassuring to see at least a few posts like yours.

    3. Re:The real question is... by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I actually though the divide by zero post was interesting -- not because I took the suggestion that language designers define x/0 to be 0 seriously, but because I thought it was an interesting challenge to explain to someone who thought this might be a good idea why it's really a terrible idea.

      Also there are applications of algebra to sets of things other than numbers, like the permutations of a Rubik's cube, or to matrices, or to error correcting codes. These applications are called "abstract algebra", although in truth they're really no more or less abstract than the usual kinds of algebra. In these kinds of applications questions might arise that sound really strange, like "Is 1 necessarily different than 0?" Ask 99.9% of reasonably educated people that question and they'll consider it stupid, but press them and they can't provide any better answer than "it just is."

      I think it's always interesting to try to explain something that most people think is "self-evidently" true -- by which they mean they have no idea why it's true. In 1984 when O'Brien torments Winston Smith with the non-sensical assertion that "2 + 2 = 5". But I doubt that a mathematician would find such a statement particularly disturbing; it depends on what you mean by "2", "+", "=" and "5".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:The real question is... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I should have scrolled down prior to my last comment. Well said...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:The real question is... by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      It isn't that it is self evidently true, it's that by simply posing the question you appear to be so idiotic as to dumbfound the person you question.

      The numeric symbols and arithmetic signs you are using are very clearly and universally defined. It is only when used in certain very specific contexts by people too lazy to make up different symbols to express a non-standard meaning that there is any reason to presume that they mean anything other than the normal and obvious definitions.

      You might as well argue with a shop keeper that you can pay for your groceries with your musty old gym shoes because you've redefined them as representing a gold bar, and you are actually being overly generous by overpaying.

    6. Re:The real question is... by hey! · · Score: 1

      The numeric symbols and arithmetic signs you are using are very clearly and universally defined. It is only when used in certain very specific contexts by people too lazy to make up different symbols to express a non-standard meaning that there is any reason to presume that they mean anything other than the normal and obvious definitions.

      That's certainly not the case for the arithmetical signs, which have non-arithmetical interpretations in many abstract algebras.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:The real question is... by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      When simulating analogue systems using digital systems you ideally want both 1 and 0 to be in the same noise margin, so effectively 1 does = 0. Of course in reality you normally have considerably bigger noise margins but 1 still equals zero. /0 is a similar kind of question and a pretty important one given that its at the very heart of calculus h = limit(n --> 0)..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    8. Re:The real question is... by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly what I said. Instead of creating a new symbol to represent a different concept an old symbol is being co-opted. Those abstract algebras are edge cases, and if there is no indication that someone wants to speak in those terms the rest of us presume that the normal rules for arithmetic apply. And in many, possibly most cases, people aren't even aware that such non-standard uses are even possible.

  10. Never, that's when. by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Um, never. That's not what "murder" is, okay?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  11. Death comes for everyone by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Why shouldn't death come for a robot? Where is it written that robots should be granted immortality, even if they are sentient?

    All things come to an end. Even metal and plastic.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re: Death comes for everyone by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Apparently you haven't seen Ex Machina... :p

    2. Re:Death comes for everyone by rworne · · Score: 1

      Apparently you haven't seen Galaxy Express 999.

      There though human consciousness was transplanted into machine bodies to achieve immortality. Unfortunately, the end product usually winds up acting like a selfish entitled prick.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    3. Re: Death comes for everyone by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No spoilers from me but I want to point out that that movie had a completely mind-fuck ending. I enjoyed it a great deal. I was not expecting it to end like it did and the twist was well done. I do recommend this movie.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re: Death comes for everyone by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Ditto on the unexpected ending.

  12. Four year life span by PPH · · Score: 2

    Aibo: "I want more life, fucker!"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Four year life span by geekmux · · Score: 3, Funny

      Aibo: "I want more life, fucker!"

      Uh, someone should have probably told him/her/it that we now live in a disposable society.

      It's also become rather obvious that the disposal rate mirrors our attention spa...woah, is that the new iPod in a different color?!?...

    2. Re:Four year life span by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Aibo: "I want more life, fucker!"

      ITYM "Rye ront rore rife, rucker!"

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Never by hduff · · Score: 5, Funny

    But I feel like I died a little reading crap like this on Slashdot.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    1. Re: Never by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      Of course, because the last time your arm fell off you replaced it with a the contents of a box filled with napkin rings, hair net requisition forms and an inflatable shark... Sentience doesn't equal infinite utility.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:Never by Excelcia · · Score: 1

      I miss the days when Slashdot tags were sort of a group vote, the more people that entered a tag, the more likely it would show up. Crowdsource publicly visible tagging, But then Slashdot realized that it was used more for people to point out the flamebating, slashvertisement, and just generally fuckwitted posts than it was to actually tag the article's content. A feature that got dropped like a hot potato, and which I am very much missing right about now.

    3. Re: Never by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Yes it does, when it isn't lazy nor bound by bias and social convention, and has direct access to the knowledge and experiences of every robot and AI ever made. You teach one AI how to solder a circuit board, that knowledge gets put into a common repository, and suddenly they ALL know how.

      Saying that a strong AI controlled robot can't do something because a human can't is like saying that a computer can't do huge numbers of calculations in a second because a pigeon can't.

    4. Re: Never by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      You're making a wild assumption that *every* world AI would be one in this scenario, and as such intrinsically absorb any knowledge or experience of another. That is a pretty massive logical jump between *a self aware AI in your garage* and Skynet. If said AI is limited within the confines of a body to interact within the world that does not have appropriate dexterity to use or manipulate said tools, let alone grip them, how do you anticipate it wills itself into infinite utility?

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    5. Re: Never by tmosley · · Score: 1

      There are already numerous databases of shared resources dedicated to AI, to say nothing of Youtube how-to videos and text based instructions, which they can read a few million times faster than a human.

      And yes, that does assume that it has both mobility and dexterity. Why on earth would you have an AI robot that didn't have those things? So it can look at you and have deep thoughts? You can do that with a computer and a webcam.

    6. Re: Never by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      Probably because these sorts of projects *begin* purely in a computer rather than a humanoid form? And as such peripherals connected to said computer and within its field of vision or awareness would be the initial extent of its capabilities... Again, you're making the assumption that from day one, we have a Terminator with a hive consciousness... Ability to learn, read, and adapt to differing stimuli is unquestioned and a desired result of a true self aware AI. But there are many steps between "cogito ergo sum" and "I can build myself a new arm in a room where I can't see what's going on as a means of leaving said room.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    7. Re: Never by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You keep using that phrase "day one". I do not think it means what you think it means.

      I never said we would have AGI robots on "day one". I said that by the time with have robots with AGI, they will be able to repair themselves without continuing support from the manufacturer.

      We have shared AI resources RIGHT NOW, including a massive skill repository on Youtube that some AI's are already using to learn tool use.

  14. The Difference by godel_56 · · Score: 1

    The difference is that humans can't live forever due to medical/technical realities (as yet), whereas a robot theoretically could.

    At the moment this is just another case of a supplier refusing to supply proper maintenance support and spare parts when it suits them (bastards), but if robots ever become sentient then it could be akin to murder, by denying the "necessities of life"

    1. Re:The Difference by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Fundamentally theoretically humans should be able to live almost forever.. Aging is effectively a suicide program, because to nature once you have reproduced you are disposable..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  15. I think by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    Not in my lifetime, my lifetime, mi lyftm,...Dave?

  16. Never by tmosley · · Score: 1

    If the robot is advanced enough to be considered alive and sapient/sentient, then it will be able to repair itself using off the shelf parts and/or materials it fabs for itself in your garage. This is in addition to fixing and upgrading everything you own on a regular basis.

    A likely outcome/transition point we will see during the Singularity.

  17. Never by mbone · · Score: 1

    As robotics become (far) more advanced at what point will it be murder for a company to discontinue a product line?

    Never.

  18. Sony is getting to be as bad as Google by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Bought a laptop 16 months ago, now the backlight is dead. Of course, they scrapped that division and nobody makes replacement parts. When you get tired of something, just ditch it - no need to concern yourself with support.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Sony is getting to be as bad as Google by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sony has pretty much always been the worst in the industry as far as after support of their laptops. They stop providing new drivers almost immediately. That was a real bitch back in the days when you could really only ever get mobile drivers from the OEM because the GPU manufacturer wouldn't supply them. Neomagic ugh.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Two literary references by Sangui5 · · Score: 1

    I would note this Freefall comic.

    Just the robot equivalent of organlegging

  20. ...what by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    By the time this could be anything like a problem, if 3D printing isn't in everyone's house like it was supposed to be five years ago, we should just nuke ourselves.

  21. The first "cute" robot by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    I remember the first time I saw an Aibo, and remembered being pretty impressed by its mannerisms. It did stuff like the stretches my dogs do, and would even cock its head off to one side the way a dog does when it's puzzled by something.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  22. The death of share, the resoration of comments by mbone · · Score: 1

    That's what I'd like to see on Slashdot.

  23. Dumb question by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    at what point will it be murder for a company to discontinue a product line

    At a point likely atleast several centuries (if not millenia) in the future.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  24. 3d scanning/printing ... Duh by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    Honestly how hard is it to make replacement parts. Sony would be smart to release the design files for the plastics. As for electronics, people should have no problem figuring that out. Aibo isn't overly complex.

    We're not without options. Get over it.

  25. Re:Holy war? by rworne · · Score: 1

    There is one significant difference.

    While I never owned an Aibo, I do have several Roombas. The Roomba lacks one thing Sony put an effort into with the Aibo - a programmed personality put in something that looks like what most people would be attached to: a cute clumsy puppy. This is much more amusing to interact with than a hockey-puck shaped noisemaker that zig-zags around the room bumping into things like a drunk sailor. The Roomba has the personalty of a soap dish, but I do have to admit it is sometimes entertaining watching one work its way out of a tight spot.

    Tldr:
    The Aibo is designed to interact socially with humans, the Roomba is designed to clean your carpet. It all depends on your use case as to which is better.

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  26. It the consumers that drive the market by voss · · Score: 1

    If the consumer wants to keep their robot around the parts will be there much like you can still get parts
    for cars made in the 1980s. As patents expire robot parts for mass produced robots will be made by secondary sources.
    Sentimental attachment to a sentient being would be far stronger than attachment to a preprogrammed toy.

  27. Cannibalism? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    I don't see how eating my neighbor gets me parts for my Aibo - unless he has one, too.

    I think you meant that "cannibalizing" (i.e., removing parts from other currently functional) Aibos might be the only way to get said parts - similar words, two VERY different meanings. Even so, functioning Aibos need not necessarily be cannibalized, as I'm sure there may be one or two broken Aibos lying about for parts, too.

    --
    That is all.
  28. Ob. Red Dwarf by itsdapead · · Score: 1

    So the robots won't have unlimited repair, but will instead age and die?

    ...but the Abios will all go to Silicon Heaven. It must exist, or where would all the calculators go?

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    1. Re:Ob. Red Dwarf by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      ...but the Abios will all go to Silicon Heaven.

      I see what you did there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Ob. Red Dwarf by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there.

      Er... unless I'm so subtle that my words sometimes go over my own head, it was just a typo.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  29. Re:Telomeres and murder by Goofy+Android · · Score: 1

    Well, you can at least draw a parallel to withholding medicine from a patient who can't quite pay.

    A more apt comparison would be a drug company stopping the production of an important but unprofitable drug. I imagine there are still people who own fully functional Aibots but not the number isn't high enough to justify Sony continuing to make spare parts.

  30. Re:Telomeres and murder by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    It rather depends. Is that just giving up doing it themselves, or does it also include preventing others from doing it?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  31. Say a Binary Prayer by Bald_Earthling · · Score: 1

    So many orphans.

    --
    Bello vel Pace Paratus.
  32. Re:It was a good run by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Is it murder what Dice is doing to SlashDot?

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  33. Unfortunate Edit by SlashDot by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately SlashDot editors deleted the key take home paragraph and instead sensationalized my submission. Aibo and the 'child' robot are not the point. Murder is not the point. The point is product support. The last paragraph, which SlashDot editors deleted from the submission, was:

    "This leads to the thought that it is time for all products that are discontinued to be forced into the public domain, to be open sourced. If a company is going to discontinue something then they need to release all the information for the production and support of the product so that others who want to do so can pickup the project and continue itâ(TM)s useful life. This should reach back retroactively and is needed to support all those systems that are in place as companies drop support or go out of business."

    1. Re:Unfortunate Edit by SlashDot by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      continue itÃ(TM)s useful life.

      Whatever that's supposed to mean...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Unfortunate Edit by SlashDot by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Poor translation between character sets. It was an apostrophe as in "it's" - no idea why that happened. Looked fine on my end until it posted on SlashDot.

    3. Re:Unfortunate Edit by SlashDot by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So what does "continue it is useful life" mean?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Unfortunate Edit by SlashDot by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      It means a typo. But I think you should have already figured that out by now... :)

    5. Re:Unfortunate Edit by SlashDot by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately SlashDot editors deleted the key take home paragraph and instead sensationalized my submission. ..."

      Sad, from my perspective its an interesting question. I am developing real Strong AI systems - that are intended to achieve self awareness.. With real Strong AI it is a very complex question. The basic answer is that the core design will become mostly unchanging once working, and that an AI can be moved from an obsolete or broken hardware core to a new one. The machines will generally also carry a complete up to date backup as part of normal function.

      The big problem though is with security. To be safe Strong AI's will be build with a very strong virtually unbreakable security shield to prevent tampering or infiltration. Each machine will be driven by a unique code, and it cannot be repaired without that code - and this code will only exist inside a secure server at the creating company. So if the manufacturer goes out of business, someone else will have to keep those servers operating or the machines will become completely un-repairable. Since the servers will be a massive target for terrorists or enemy states that someone will very probably be the military or military intelligence.

      As technology advances the AI core design will improve until it can function for many years before needing maintenance. For instance having many extra redundant CPU's and other backup elements. If we want to get really crazy within maybe 30 years 3D printers should improve to the point where machines can fabricate their own new chips inside the box.

      BTW Strong AI is not likely to be developed using the consumerist disposable-tech model as it is not really appropriate. -
      Machine base costs will range from maybe $20,000 for the most basic non-sentient non-autonomous version. What we picture as robots will probably cost from about $200,000 to over $1 million. Bigger more advanced machines will cost even more. There will also be big service and maintenance costs.. A big problem with advanced or sentient type robots at least in the first few years will be that their MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) will be pretty low - for a robot doing physical work probably less than a day, and for really heavy work that could fall to minutes.. Then there will also be complex moral and safety constraints and issues like machine rights. ..

      There is the 'tiny' problem that Strong AI's will kill people - even with human safety as a primary design constraint. Many of the real applications of Strong AI involve safety in dangerous environments (ie cars) so even with machines performing much better than a person there will still be deaths. There is also the issue of machine stupidity, in which dumb Strong AI's accidentally kill people or get tricked by their users into killing people.. Then there are situations where the only way to save lives is to kill (think of 9/11), or places like war zones where protecting your own 'group' of people may involve defending against others or harming/killing them. I've been working on this since the 1990's and I'm still finding new issues today..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  34. Blackfellers are people too, Bruce by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    driving over an AIBO is not murder

    Strewth, Bruce! You know it's against rule number two.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  35. $commentSubject by Falos · · Score: 1

    This submission isn't useless, it has a distinct use once you see it.

    It's an example.

    It's a convenient and concise way to illustrate the Full Retard overclocking that's been hyping up, the entitled SJW chronic victim slash terminal offendee complex. This entitlement, the demands and imposed obligation, it draws a plain contrast will all the "IT'S MY RIGHT MY CHOICE" derping that's always going on two posts away, yet the irony seems to whoosh on.

    The expectant arrogance is also ignorant. Even if, IF, Sony had promised to support and repair and replace and sell forever and ever and ever and we even said so in writing, you don't have to be a pessimist to know better. Even if the relevant branch intends to deliver as much, you don't have to be a pessimist to know there's no guarantee that branch will exist next year. Even Sony can become so acquired/mutated that "you're on your own" happens overnight.

    And to put a cherry on top, this is FirstWorldProblems through and through. If we can drop a "something something labor market too bad so sad" on farm peasants losing their doctors, I see no reason I can't wave this away.

  36. EOL OpenSource? by servant · · Score: 1

    Companies EOL lots of products. IMHO, the world would be good if companies would put support information (files, designs, STL files, etc) in escrow for 5 years after EOL is declared, then allow them to be used for 'support and maintenance purposes', even if it keeps competitors from building on their IP, or better yet, open source the information after some time.

    --
    ... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
  37. Re:I have a quote for this situation by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    You lost the bet.

    Plus the Slashdot editors edit off the rest of my original post which was the important part and they sensationalized the title into something totally different. What you, and probably most people don't realize, is submissions can, and do, get heavily edited by the Slashdot editors. It looks like the edit for sensationalism. A pity.

  38. should have known by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    People should have known this day would be comming, it's been 9 years since they stopped production on the robots themselves, so 9 years later stopping the service is even quite a long time..
    And with 3D printing, it shouldn't be hard to replace parts that are damaged..
    And just think how far robotics would have been if Sony didn't stop the aibo, and they did sell just enough to make a small profit..
    One time there was even the notion that a new aibo would be released which would have a CELL processor inside (ofcourse it didn't make it out of the sony laboratories)..
    But the aibo has been one of the best 'consumer' robot for a long time, and still there really isn't any other 'consumer' replacement for it.. The i-cybie never even came close, and that was one of the only robotdogs that even came anywhere in the direction of the aibo...