[robotresearcher]

> It would require an entirely different kind of robotics.

I was 100% with you until suddenly this technical claim pops out. You might feel this way, and might be right, but why? Changing a diaper is crazy hard, I absolutely agree, but you seem to be just declaring from vibes that we 'require an entirely different kind of robotics'. Can you put your finger on why this is true?

Not nitpicking for the fun of it - I'm genuinely interested. Robot person.

[nerdsniper]

The main limitation right now is that robotics are very limited in their sense of touch.

After that, they are limited in their understanding of physics. After that, perhaps understanding of physics and physiology would come into play - but perhaps superhuman perception and reaction time could reduce the need for intuitive understanding physics and physiology.

[nerdsniper]

s/"physics and physiology"/"baby behavior and physiology"

in case anyone was wondering why I proffered "physics" in two different sentences.

[shubb]

I think it needs a water gun. If the diaper was a spray on layered rubber, like a sponge then an impermeable layer, and then you sprayed a solvent to clear the old diaper and poop and then spray on a new one. You'd just need to slot them into styrups briefly or some socks on strings to move the legs into a good position.

But can this be done with baby skin and lung safe chemicals at a reasonable temperature?

Point being humanoid designs for robots that manipulate objects designed for humans are an artificially hard problem we have decided to fail at solving.

[camillomiller]

Yeah I also think we should just replace the baby with a spherical squishy lump of celluloid-wrapped fat with no limbs. Much more convenient.

[delichon]

It's more common to replace them with dogs.

[camillomiller]

I can see dog-walking robots happen

[Retric]

Zero failure rates not just 0.000…1 are a very different and unrealistic bar. Software must be treated as actively malicious from a hardware standpoint from multiple bit flip errors etc. So it comes down to designing hardware capable of the task that’s also incapable of causing harm even with hardware defects etc.

Meanwhile it must also be strong enough to move and restrain a range of infants which is a level of force capable of harm without any possibility to fail deadly.

[eru]

You can't get to zero failures.

You might always get hit by a freak accident. Or an unlucky combination of cosmic rays replaces all your software (including all the redundant and fail safe systems) all at once.

This is all extremely unlikely, but not literally 0.

Note: I specifically mention an unlucky combination of cosmic rays. You can protect against a single or even a handful of cosmic rays just fine.

[Retric]

> You can't get to zero failures.

For this device you agree with mine and the original posters position.

A Diaper however can be designed not to risk grievous bodily harm for an infant when used correctly by a human. If someone doesn’t change their kids dipper that’s neglect by the parents not a negative news story for the manufacturers. We’re a long way from this point when it comes to robots.

[dylan604]

Well, Mr Robot person, would you let today's robotics change your clothes right now? If you wouldn't, then why would you allow it any where near a baby? If you would, why? What robot with what tech would you allow?