The Ledger
Every statement that passed quotation and attribution checks. Mix any filter with any other: certainty 1/5, debate potential 5/5, or both at once.
why aren't all 8 resolved? a statement only gets an assessment when the public record can support or contradict it. opinions and what-ifs never can, and 0 checkable ones are still open, waiting for their date. predictions held up or didn't; assertions are supported or contradicted. on every card: ▮▮▮▮▮ certainty · ▮▮▮▮▮ debate potential. speakers are clickable
Fankhauser: ANYbotics signed an open letter with Boston Dynamics opposing robot weaponization
“Four years ago, we wrote a letter together with our friends at Boston Dynamics and others, right, who condemned the weaponization Of robots for exactly that reason, that as engineers, we don't want to see it being used, and we think it's just dangerous and ris…”
Fankhauser: ANYbotics does not build and has no plans to build military products
“Today we're not doing it, not intend to do it, right?”
Fankhauser: Chinese robots offer impressive hardware but lack complete solutions
“If you look at the robot from China today, that device is a piece of hardware that can walk. Beautifully, great engineering. Love it. Do backflips. But they're not solving the problem. Our customers don't compare a platform to the full solution that we have.”
Fankhauser: ANYbotics built a spark-proof robot certified for explosive environments
“Most importantly, we have a robot now that goes into explosive atmospheres, which is, you know, in oil and gas and chemicals, methane in the air, you're not allowed to, you know, create a spark. So we built a special robot that's guaranteed not to create a spa…”
Fankhauser: Commercial inspection robotics autonomy cannot be easily repurposed for military use
“No, autonomy is very different, right? So for example, we do autonomy, you have time to set up a robot, and it does inspections, all of that. In military, it's about millisecond being in, right? Remote controlled human in the loop, different communications, di…”