No. I have lived long enough using unreliable and buggy software to make me not to trust any of them with anything of value - and I would be extremely surprised if this opinion of mine would ever change, especially not before software quality improves, in overall. (Get off my lawn, lol)
But I see a downward trend in this regard. I also see a lack of demand for good quality software, so there is that.
Not in a public area, no. A robot can not be held liable for mistakes whereas a human has skin in the game. A company sufficiently big enough to mass produce these robots will have more lawyers than insert deity here and they will consider a certain threshold of workplace incidents acceptable and the cost of doing business. Also consider the robot will need at very least the strength of a human to keep the dog from harming smaller dogs and to protect the dog from bigger dogs.
Perhaps if there was a confined area that was impossible to harm the dog then that would be a big maybe once the robot has been proven to not have hardware and software bugs that could cause the dog to be harmed by the robot itself. I do not foresee this occurring in our great great grandchildren's lifetimes. Those that jump the gun a.k.a. risk takers will be causing unnecessary harm to dogs.
I agree on all points except one. I'm unlikely to ever be found without one. Put another way, I don't, and don't plan on, knowing life without one (a dog or two).
No. I have lived long enough using unreliable and buggy software to make me not to trust any of them with anything of value - and I would be extremely surprised if this opinion of mine would ever change, especially not before software quality improves, in overall. (Get off my lawn, lol)
But I see a downward trend in this regard. I also see a lack of demand for good quality software, so there is that.
Not in a public area, no. A robot can not be held liable for mistakes whereas a human has skin in the game. A company sufficiently big enough to mass produce these robots will have more lawyers than insert deity here and they will consider a certain threshold of workplace incidents acceptable and the cost of doing business. Also consider the robot will need at very least the strength of a human to keep the dog from harming smaller dogs and to protect the dog from bigger dogs.
Perhaps if there was a confined area that was impossible to harm the dog then that would be a big maybe once the robot has been proven to not have hardware and software bugs that could cause the dog to be harmed by the robot itself. I do not foresee this occurring in our great great grandchildren's lifetimes. Those that jump the gun a.k.a. risk takers will be causing unnecessary harm to dogs.
Dogs are pack animals and need to know where they (and everyone else) fit in the pack hierarchy.
Teach the dog that you aren’t the alpha, and you shouldn’t expect a well-behaved dog at all.
Absolutely not.
That's like building a robot to have sex with my partner for me.
Yup. The whole point of getting a dog is being compelled to leave the house, meet one's neighbors, touch grass.
It's like asking me to work more to pay for a thing that let's me work more.
I'd rather see a robot that takes the trash out, or goes to work for me.
IKR, kinda like playing Factorio or Star Fleet Battles.
Indeed, owning a dog is a job. In some ways, more than parenthood. In my observations, comparable to a parrot, about 10% of a horse.
Much as I love my fuzzy terrorist, I'm unlikely to have another.
I agree on all points except one. I'm unlikely to ever be found without one. Put another way, I don't, and don't plan on, knowing life without one (a dog or two).