AI Gone Wrong? Chess Robot Breaks Child's Finger at Russia Tournament (theguardian.com) 163
"It appears that we need the First Law of Robotics NOW!" quips Slashdot reader Bruce66423.
Mint reports: During a tournament in Moscow, a chess-playing robot fractured a 7-year-old boy's finger when the youngster attempted a quick move without giving the device enough time to finish its task. On July 19, at the Moscow Chess Open competition, the incident took place. The youngster is fine, but one of his fingers has been broken, according to Sergey Smagin, vice president of the Russian Chess Federation, who spoke to state-run news organisation RIA Novosti.
The boy, Christopher, is one of the top 30 young chess players in Moscow, and he is just nine years old. In a nation where chess has essentially become a national obsession and source of pride, that makes him very good.
"The boy is all right," the VP of the Russian Chess Federation assured Russia's state-run news organization. "They put a plaster cast on the finger to heal faster."
"The robot broke the child's finger," Sergey Lazarev, Moscow Chess Federation President, told Tass news agency. "This is of course bad." The BBC reports: A video shared on social media shows the robot taking one of the boy's pieces. The boy then makes his own move, and the robot grabs his finger. Four adults rush to help the boy, who is eventually freed and ushered away.
Mr Lazarev said the machine had played many previous matches without incident.
The boy was able to finish the final days of the tournament in a cast, Tass reports.
From the Guardian: Sergey Smagin, vice-president of the Russian Chess Federation, told Baza the robot appeared to pounce after it took one of the boy's pieces. Rather than waiting for the machine to complete its move, the boy opted for a quick riposte, he said. "There are certain safety rules and the child, apparently, violated them. When he made his move, he did not realise he first had to wait," Smagin said. "This is an extremely rare case, the first I can recall," he added.
Lazarev had a different account, saying the child had "made a move, and after that we need to give time for the robot to answer, but the boy hurried and the robot grabbed him". Either way, he said, the robot's suppliers were "going to have to think again"....
According to one 2015 study, one person is killed each year by an industrial robot in the US alone. Indeed, according to the US occupational safety administration, most occupational accidents since 2000 involving robots have been fatalities.
Reportedly the boy's parents have now contacted the public prosecutor's office.
"A Russian grandmaster, Sergey Karjakin, said the incident was no doubt due to 'some kind of software error or something.'"
Mint reports: During a tournament in Moscow, a chess-playing robot fractured a 7-year-old boy's finger when the youngster attempted a quick move without giving the device enough time to finish its task. On July 19, at the Moscow Chess Open competition, the incident took place. The youngster is fine, but one of his fingers has been broken, according to Sergey Smagin, vice president of the Russian Chess Federation, who spoke to state-run news organisation RIA Novosti.
The boy, Christopher, is one of the top 30 young chess players in Moscow, and he is just nine years old. In a nation where chess has essentially become a national obsession and source of pride, that makes him very good.
"The boy is all right," the VP of the Russian Chess Federation assured Russia's state-run news organization. "They put a plaster cast on the finger to heal faster."
"The robot broke the child's finger," Sergey Lazarev, Moscow Chess Federation President, told Tass news agency. "This is of course bad." The BBC reports: A video shared on social media shows the robot taking one of the boy's pieces. The boy then makes his own move, and the robot grabs his finger. Four adults rush to help the boy, who is eventually freed and ushered away.
Mr Lazarev said the machine had played many previous matches without incident.
The boy was able to finish the final days of the tournament in a cast, Tass reports.
From the Guardian: Sergey Smagin, vice-president of the Russian Chess Federation, told Baza the robot appeared to pounce after it took one of the boy's pieces. Rather than waiting for the machine to complete its move, the boy opted for a quick riposte, he said. "There are certain safety rules and the child, apparently, violated them. When he made his move, he did not realise he first had to wait," Smagin said. "This is an extremely rare case, the first I can recall," he added.
Lazarev had a different account, saying the child had "made a move, and after that we need to give time for the robot to answer, but the boy hurried and the robot grabbed him". Either way, he said, the robot's suppliers were "going to have to think again"....
According to one 2015 study, one person is killed each year by an industrial robot in the US alone. Indeed, according to the US occupational safety administration, most occupational accidents since 2000 involving robots have been fatalities.
Reportedly the boy's parents have now contacted the public prosecutor's office.
"A Russian grandmaster, Sergey Karjakin, said the incident was no doubt due to 'some kind of software error or something.'"
Frosty Piss (Score:2)
Re:Frosty Piss (Score:5, Funny)
It's probably Czech, mate.
Re: Frosty Piss (Score:2)
Re: Frosty Piss (Score:2)
Re: Frosty Piss (Score:4, Interesting)
Or have the human player wear [red/blue/green/orange] cotton gloves that the robot is programmed to avoid.
Is the robot "safe"? (Score:2)
This is a philosophical question, but can a robot that requires a human-interaction protocol for safety (e.g., the human must wait until after the robot finishes its move) be truly considered safe? The protocol might be necessary for functionality, but safety should be guaranteed in all situations, including with intentional violation of the protocol for functionality.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing philosophical about the question - it's an entirely practical question that the designers should have asked themselves.
No, the robot can't be considered safe. They should have had lock-outs, such as a light curtain as suggested elsewhere to ensure the movement space is clear of humans.
The simplest would be to have two dead man switches - buttons the player had to hold down (one with each hand) to allow the robot to make its move,
Re: (Score:2)
No, it can't.
Putting a child next to an active robot that lacks even basic safety features is absolutely insane. This robot could easily have killed that kid. What they did at that event would be a violation of basic safety protocols in a factory with trained workers, and they did it to a random kid at an age where basic human self-control mechani
Fine (Score:5, Funny)
The youngster is fine, but one of his fingers has been broken
This person has a different definition of "fine" than I do.
"The soldiers are fine, they're just in cold storage in a morgue. But you'll get your pension."
"Your pension is fine, it's just much smaller than you expected. But no complaints of course, it can't be helped."
Re: (Score:2)
Broken bones for children are 100% normal and 'fine'.. At least when I was a child.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it was his pinky? [youtube.com] nsfw
Re: (Score:2)
The video shows a moron pissing with a small shark. The shark swims off after the guy "gives him the finger".
Re: (Score:2)
Nice find, not many views on that video.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had and known people who had broken bones as kids. They are definitely not fine
Please define for us "fine" such that it includes children's broken bones.
Normal, yes (although not a majority condition for kids), but 'fine', no.
Re:Fine (Score:4, Funny)
The youngster is fine, but one of his fingers has been broken
This person has a different definition of "fine" than I do.
This is Russia we are talking about! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Fine is really an acronym for Fucked up, Insecure, Neurotic and Eccentric. So yeah, he's the boy is F.I.N.E.!!!
Re: (Score:2)
The soldiers are fine, they're just in cold storage in a morgue
Well, their condition is stable, can't argue with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fine (Score:2)
Seriously? Not fine would be like in pain or something like that.
Re:Fine (Score:5, Funny)
Not only that: apparently the trauma caused him to age two years.
Re: (Score:2)
How old? (Score:5, Insightful)
"During a tournament in Moscow, a chess-playing robot fractured a 7-year-old boy's finger "
"The boy, Christopher, is one of the top 30 young chess players in Moscow, and he is just nine years old."
Lovely proof-reading by Mint and slashdot. 7 != 9
Re:How old? (Score:5, Informative)
I have serious doubts about the claim this kid is in the top 30 "young chess players."
If you watch the video, he clearly moves a piece before the robot is even done with its move.
The robot (black) starts by moving the opponent's (white) Queen to the bin, then grabs its own Bishop to move it into the spot where the Queen was.
Before the robot has even picked up its own piece, however, the child has moved his Rook into the newly empty space. The robot then tries to put its Bishop in that spot while the child's hand is still in the way, and crushes it.
What kind of chess prodigy interrupts the opponent's move by messing with the board layout before they're done?
Stupid kid for sticking his fingers in while the robot was still moving, bad robot design/programming for not detecting an obstacle.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
I know .... (Score:2)
People can take a LONG time to make a move in chess, but that's ridiculous!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "under-nines" age-bracket would be children under 9 -- ages 8 and below. You mean the "under-ten", or the "nine-and-under", age-bracket.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not even a little bit clear from your comment. It looks like you're trying to say that we can identify some upper bound for the child's age, even given the conflicting information.
C3PO ?? (Score:5, Funny)
I'd suggest a new strategy. Let the droid win.
Re: C3PO ?? (Score:3)
Welcome (Score:4, Funny)
I for one welcome our new chess robot overlords.
Anti-cheat Mode (Score:5, Insightful)
The little punk wanted to make a move when it wasn't his turn and got punished. For me this sounds like the correct behaviour.
Also, can you think about any more Russian response than "This is of course bad"?
Re: (Score:2)
They blame the boy, not the robot.
Something is wrong here.
Re:Anti-cheat Mode (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you stick your arm into an industrial mulcher is it the mulchers fault for the consequences
Yes, it is the mulcher owner's fault in that case with some possible responsibility to whoever manufactured the industrial multure and whoever turned it on.
The industrial mulcher would be at fault for having the opening that a member of the general public could stick their arm into, which is an Unsafe condition. In some case it could be safe if the machine is kept in an area accessible only to highly trained in
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the robot "did it". But can you really blame a non sapient, not even sentient machine (even if the headline calls it an AI) for what it does?
Though imagine the scenario like this.
Someone lays out bear traps on a playground, perhaps for non malicious grounds because they are hunting down some wild animal. They also make sure to put up warning signs. But that's all they do.
So some child steps into one of the traps and gets their foot maimed.
Would you blame the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Anti-cheat Mode (Score:4, Insightful)
If the robot is designed to work in the same space as people, then yes, it is the robots fault. It is moving 20g chess pieces, there is no need for it to move with enough torque to break a finger. In addition there should be some sort of auto cutout that stops the current command if it detects movement over the board not initiated by the robot. This looks like they used an industrial robot arm and adopted it without taking care to gear it down to operate alongside the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do nitwits keep comparing a computer controlled machine to either simple mechanical devices or fucking basic tools?
Re: (Score:2)
This thing was supposed to be designed to actively interact with people.
Your comparison sucks.
Re: (Score:3)
The little punk wanted to make a move when it wasn't his turn and got punished.
No.. the robot had just moved and captured the boy's piece - in Chess that ends your turn, and your opponent could respond immediately. Apparently the robot design expected the boy to wait a little bit after its move was done, and the boy was supposed to wait but didn't... Still, this is obvious a failing of the robot.. a human opponent would not have grabbed the boy's finger.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, although it is still pretty funny (unless your the parents) when thought of as an anti-cheat feature, albeit a broken one since it was technically the boy's turn. I suppose the extra house rule was to wait for the robot to clear the field of play before making your move but it still seems odd the robot would grab the boy's finger or any piece at all since it's turn had just ended.
At the end of the day accidents happen around industrial machinery and I imagine the boy should of waited for the robot
Re: (Score:2)
If you watch the video, the kid mostly just hovered his hand above the chess board and didn't make any fast or sudden moves. After yanking a claimed chess piece away, the robot arm swooped back to the board quickly and outright clamped down hard on the kid's hand. Even an experienced adult could've easily been nabbed, let alone young kid.
Yet another case of nerds blaming the end user for the failure of technology.
Are we worried... (Score:5, Insightful)
that the robot just figured out that humans are breakable?
Re:Are we worried... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the problem is the opposite--that the robot doesn't understand that human are breakable. This is a long-standing problem in automated robotics, and why most manufacturing robots have safety precautions that you need to stay the hell out of their way when they are active.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... and the statistic of "1 person per year in the US" dying at the hands of an industrial robot is either grossly out of date or deliberately hiding information. Usually it is maintenance personnel that have to disable safeties (but should have different precautions in place).
Re: (Score:2)
Only 1 death a year would be absolutely amazing given how many people work around industrial robots in the USA alone.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I mean, it's deeper than that. The robot doesn't understand that humans ARE. It doesn't understand what breakable is. It doesn't understand that it is interacting with humans. It doesn't even understand that it is playing chess in the way that a human does. It doesn't understand at all, it's just following patterns. So there's not even a starting place from which to teach it how to make these kinds of value judgements.
Common safety? (Score:2)
In which other situation would adults think of putting untrained seven-year-olds close to unprotected industrial-grade machinery?
Re: (Score:2)
Russia.
Re: Common safety? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why isnÃ(TM)t there a light curtain or something to disable it
They have iron curtain instead
Re: (Score:2)
Any country that does any kind of farming, I'm quite sure.
Re: Common safety? (Score:2)
"Untrained 7 year olds" ... I would say there's no training you could give a 7 year old to make them safe around industrial machinery (other than maybe training them to stay away from it). If I "trained" a 7 year old how to use a bulldozer and then they drive it through my house, I'm still not blaming the 7 year old.
When it comes to machinery interacting with kids, it's up to the machinery designers to make sure it's kid safe.
Ya, no. (Score:2)
During a tournament in Moscow, a chess-playing robot fractured a 7-year-old boy's finger when the youngster attempted a quick move without giving the device enough time to finish its task.
Sounds like the kid's at fault here. Should have waited for his turn.
Re: (Score:3)
At the very least the kid should have taken his time, rather than Russian things ... :-)
The Ultimate Computer - We have been warned (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Computer overlords won't need to be welcomed.
Perhaps [xkcd.com] we'll be better off in some ways.
Re: (Score:2)
If AI got superpowers that let it really change society and humans had to obey whatever it said, I'm rather certain we would be better off.
In a perfect world that humans can never have, or at least my perfect world, everyone would more or less have the same amount of stuff, regardless of profession or ability. In exchange, the global AI government would identify at an early age how best to direct each individual toward their passions and nature proficiencies and then grow them from there with specific educa
Re: (Score:2)
You're describing "The Culture Novels" by Iain Banks. Though the nanny-AIs only "oppressed" naughty humans with nagging.
Why is the machine that strong? (Score:2)
Re:Why is the machine that strong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Why is the machine that strong? (Score:2)
Looks to me like they've repurposed an off the shelf industrial robot arm. Perhaps not the smartest idea for a scenario in close contact with people.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many methods of lowering the forces involved from a larger arm. For example, limiting top speed of motion, current
Re: (Score:2)
Repurposed industrial robot...programmer too focused on "OMG CHESS! AI! MACHINE LEARNING! MACHINE VISION!" to consider basic safety scenarios. It's not hard to wire up multiple E-stop buttons...it's probably already a hardware feature of the machine, and wouldn't have even required coding.
Re: (Score:2)
"OMG CHESS! AI! MACHINE LEARNING! MACHINE VISION!"
I mean, when you put it THAT way, it definitely sounds pretty cool. It literally just gave me this neat idea where you could maybe use some moving arms with magnets under the boarder to move the pieces while having some kind of camera watching the board. It sounds totally awesome actually.
Re: Why is the machine that strong? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of force required to grip a chess piece though is FAR less than required to break a finger. If the chess piece was being held with nearly minimum force the finger could have been pulled away without damage. It would not have required multiple adults to help break the robots grip to free the child.
Why is the robot so strong? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me the mistake is in making the robot strong enough to break a bone. Very little force is needed to pick up a chess piece and move it. The robot should only be a little bit stronger than necessary. This seems to be like the exploding console problem in star trek. There is no reason to run enough power through a console that is blows up and harms the user.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they repurposed an industrial robot (with much more strength) as a chess playing robot. Not the best approach imo.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be incredibly negligent behavior. That robot was not safe to be around people and yet it was interacting closely with children.
Re: (Score:2)
Love the tentacle.
Re: (Score:2)
Making robots weak is a difficult challenge. It needs to be strong enough to overcome it's own mechanics, and needs a margin for wear and tear. We can absolutely make robots gentle enough to pickup eggs. They cost an absolute fortune and are unreliable as heck.
Re: (Score:2)
That second reason seems to be more likely. The first is a design failure that a power surge was allowed to hit that equipment in the first place instead of their being some kind of breaker to stop it.
Needs motion shield (Score:3)
Any robot needs a motion shield around it to stop movement if there is something in its motion area as a safety system. Anyone who sets up a robot should know this.
AI logic (Score:2)
Goal: I win.
Information: Humans are breakable.
Inforrmation: Broken humans don't play chess.
Conclusion: Break human, he forfeits.
I got a winning strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Goal: I win. Information: Humans are breakable. Inforrmation: Broken humans don't play chess. Conclusion: Break human, he forfeits.
I got a winning strategy.
The goal is to crush your enemies. See them driven before you. But it’s not a real AI when indifferent to the lamentations of their women.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you can't change the rules afterwards!
This has nothing to do with AI (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. This is not a robot issue this is simply getting in the way of a poorly designed machine.
I am not sure why a chess playing robot even needs enough force/power to break a finger.
The design defect seem to be using an arm designed and built for much heavier industrial work to play chess.
Re: (Score:2)
Spend several months and 100's of thousands of dollars designing a robot arm to move chess pieces
or
Buy a used industrial unit?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure why a chess playing robot even needs enough force/power to break a finger.
fingers aren't that hard to break.
Also, the mechanical arm needs enough strength to carry itself and it's probably made of metal.
So maybe it makes some sense.
One person per year? (Score:2)
"one person is killed each year by an industrial robot in the US alone."
Let's count the number of people in industry killed by the mistakes of people. That's a pretty compelling case for automation.
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic it definitely argues for robot police.
Plaster cast? (Score:2)
More like saftey fail (Score:2)
It's my understanding that robots in production environments have shields to keep humans out of the area or sensors to keep the robot from running into things. A freewheeling robot can cause damage, the company should have planed for this and instituted some kind of safety protocol which it did not.
Same thing goes for any kind of robot, needs a fail mechanism, don't blame it on the AI, blame it on who ever made the AI (it's just code after all)
Forst law? Bullshit! (Score:2)
There is nothing in this machine that would be able to detect it is about to cause harm. The problem here is likely idiots not making sure automation is properly equipped with safety-features before allowing non-experts to do physical interaction. Not that this is actually easy to do. Friend of mine, expert in robotics, told me "There is no way I am going into that cage with the robot unless the power is completely off!".
inevitable escalation (Score:2)
The First Law of Robotics (Score:3)
People do realise that Asimov's laws of Robotics are just a literary device, right? Without general intelligence you can't implement the "rules". What this robot needed is a safety guard a sensors to stop if it detects a foreign object in its path.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is weird. (Score:3)
Does anybody else feel like the way this story is written is way more screwed up than what actually happened?
Old Glory Insurance? (Score:2)
No shit (Score:3)
I've said this for years! (Score:2)
Chess is dangerous, and someone's going to get hurt!
Russian Robot? Meet Your Biggest Rival (Score:2)
Let me introduce you to Mr. American Lawyer
It's actually just too competitive (Score:2)
That robot just really didn't want to lose that rook. Lucky the robot was stopped before someone had checkmate on it, they might have had their arm broken!
Re: Robot Chess (Score:2)
I think you have put your finger on it.