From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Aug 01 2002 - 00:13:22 MDT
Emlyn O'regan wrote:
>>Do it poorly the first time you do it for real, and the clerk likely
>>won't put up with your "stunt" (and kick your 'bot out of the store if
>>it ever shows up there again) even if you're 100% certain you could do
>>it flawlessly on take 2 - which would irrecoverably kill this idea, at
>>least for that clerk (and anyone he advises not to put up
>>with it...and
>>word does spread).
>
> You merely need to pretend that this device is being used by a disabled
> person; that should result in a more positive outlook, and acceptance of
> initial problems.
Why wouldn't a disabled person use more conventional means? Like,
again, just paying someone to run errands that said person can not do?
On the other hand, a 'bot sent to the corner store by someone who is
known to be just lazy would likely be accepted - *if the 'bot does not
overly inconvenience the person the 'bot is interacting with*. It
doesn't matter what excuses you come up with for the 'bot's presence: if
it can do everything a normal customer can without special handling by
the clerk, then the clerk can treat it as a normal customer. Otherwise,
you're just asking the clerk to do more work without any extra
compensation to the clerk, which most clerks will rightly object to.
(There might be minor benefit to the store by a 'bot shopper drawing
onlookers who could become customers, but the benefit of that is
obliterated and then some if the clerk has to lift so much as an extra
finger to help the 'bot.)
Produce an RC bot capable of physical manipulation within human norms,
and you have something useful for this purpose. Try to use an RC bot
that can't do human tasks to do human tasks, and you will fail, just
like if you try to pound (most) nails with a hammer that's just been
dipped in liquid nitrogen for a while.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:49 MST