[dylan604]

> your tolerance for injuring babies is basically zero.

Um, no it's not. Is absolutely zero tolerance. There is not weasel words out of this. If a robot was to cause any pain to the baby, there would be no remorse. There would be no front of mind thoughts to not repeat the same thing the next time. There would be no guilt for causing pain to the baby.

Why you would "basically" this the way you have is disturbing.

[robobenjie]

Sorry, this is me communicating like an engineer. In a technical sense risk of anything can only approach zero: never actually get there. I meant that there should be essentially zero chance, similar to holding a baby in your arms or putting it in a high chair, and probably less chance of injury than driving in a car with a baby in a car-seat. Basically zero.

[poly2it]

I don't think the parent comment advocates for hurting babies. It just, probably correctly, states that cherry picked examples won't be representative of roboty safety with infants in the next years, but that true safety will improve over time as well.

[trhway]

real world treatment of babies is very different from the zero tolerance you've described. From pregnant mothers smoking/drinking to medical care unavailability to doctor errors to various toxin contaminated baby products and the environment (Flint leaded water comes to mind) to babies left in hot cars and other abuse to poor availability of daycare (even less availability of daycare good for mental development) to ...

Granted most of this is unintentional. The same about injuries by robots - we're supposedly talking about unintentional injuries here. So, if robots save money/time/effort (like Flint water switch) i'm not sure that the society would suddenly change its current approach to unintentional baby injuries and implement zero tolerance.

To illustrate - Uber self-driving killed a woman, and another self-driving maimed a woman in SF. Uber case was an obvious criminal gross negligence running with explicitly disabled emergency braking), and the company wiggled out of it in part by having to shut down the self-driving. Where is in SF it was an obvious case of technology limitations and teething issue, so there were no real severe consequences as we're much more tolerant to honest technological accidents (at least when they happen not to us personally).

[eru]

> From pregnant mothers smoking/drinking to medical care unavailability to doctor errors to various toxin contaminated baby products and the environment [...]

You don't even need to go so extreme. Driving involves risk. And so does getting out of bed at all (or staying in bed..)

If the chance of the robot hurting your kid becomes orders of magnitude smaller than the chance of getting hit by a freak asteroid, you can probably call that save enough, even if it's not strictly speaking zero.

[otikik]

> Zero tolerance

Well that is simply not possible. Even mothers drop their babies to the floor sometimes (very infrequently, I hope). Even for humans the tolerance isn't zero.