'Human Vs. Robot' Cage Match Was Illegal, Says California (yahoo.com) 75
"A human defeated two of the three robots he faced in a cage fight recently held in San Francisco," reports the Los Angeles Times, noting that videos of the event drew more than 10 million views on YouTube.
But "the humans behind that fight could face a battle of their own — the legal type — if they want to hold another event like 'Human Vs. Robot,' the Sept. 18 competition that placed influencer Frankie LaPenna inside an octagon to battle three humanoid robots that were controlled remotely by a human operator in separate MMA-style fights..." Wearing spiked gloves, a helmet and protective padding, the 5-foot-6, 205-pound LaPenna held his own against all three bots. He dominated his first opponent, referred to at the fight as "the child robot." Next came an imposing "Terminator"-inspired humanoid, which was listed on the fight video as 6-feet and 200 pounds with a kick force of 850 pounds. The robot landed several hard kicks, including one that knocked LaPenna across the mat and another with an impact that brought the humanoid to the ground and caused its head to come off — but the human seemed to gain strength as the match went on and eventually stood triumphantly with his foot on the machine's crumpled body.
LaPenna was dominant early in his final match, in which he faced a robot that resembled a "Predator" from the movies of the same name. After landing several punches and kicks and taking his opponent to the ground multiple times, LaPenna eventually became fatigued and called for the match to be ended. "He doesn't get tired. He doesn't stay down," LaPenna said in a postmatch interview.
"The crowd of about 100 (humans, not humanoids) was thrilled," writes the New York Times. (After beating his first robot opponent, LaPenna told his interviewer, "Clankers zero, humans one.")
But the New York Times adds that "Those who know humanoid robots best highly recommend against fighting them." "It's very unfair to put a human in with a heavily motorized system that's only going to dominate," said Ken Goldberg, a professor who oversees the automation lab at the University of California, Berkeley. "There's nothing surprising about that...." He said he understood the appeal of the fights that Robot Entertainment Kombat (REK) was staging, noting that it tapped "into some of the fear and frustration with robots that people feel.... I mean, they love to see the human kick the robot's gearbox," he said. But the odds of that human fighter getting his gearbox kicked are much greater, Dr. Goldberg said, given that REK's humanoid robots can weigh several hundred pounds and are made of steel.
To be fair, it looked like sometimes the robot just fell over. (And the robots were human-controlled, not programmed with split-second reactions...)
But "Not everyone is a fan," adds the Los Angeles Times: On Sept. 23, the California State Athletic Commission sent a cease-and-desist order to REK, its CEO Cix Liv and "all persons holding, promoting, advertising or sponsoring unsanctioned human versus humanoid robot cage fight." The letter states that "any boxing or mixed martial arts contest, match, or exhibition, involving any human in the State of California" requires the prior approval of the commission and that it is a misdemeanor to hold such an event without obtaining a license or permit from the state. A spokesperson for the California Department of Consumer Affairs, which oversees the CSAC, said in a statement emailed to The Times that the commission is "committed to protecting the safety of the public and integrity of combat sports."
"Unsanctioned activity puts the physical and financial well-being of all those involved at risk and such activity will not be tolerated," the statement said.
But "the humans behind that fight could face a battle of their own — the legal type — if they want to hold another event like 'Human Vs. Robot,' the Sept. 18 competition that placed influencer Frankie LaPenna inside an octagon to battle three humanoid robots that were controlled remotely by a human operator in separate MMA-style fights..." Wearing spiked gloves, a helmet and protective padding, the 5-foot-6, 205-pound LaPenna held his own against all three bots. He dominated his first opponent, referred to at the fight as "the child robot." Next came an imposing "Terminator"-inspired humanoid, which was listed on the fight video as 6-feet and 200 pounds with a kick force of 850 pounds. The robot landed several hard kicks, including one that knocked LaPenna across the mat and another with an impact that brought the humanoid to the ground and caused its head to come off — but the human seemed to gain strength as the match went on and eventually stood triumphantly with his foot on the machine's crumpled body.
LaPenna was dominant early in his final match, in which he faced a robot that resembled a "Predator" from the movies of the same name. After landing several punches and kicks and taking his opponent to the ground multiple times, LaPenna eventually became fatigued and called for the match to be ended. "He doesn't get tired. He doesn't stay down," LaPenna said in a postmatch interview.
"The crowd of about 100 (humans, not humanoids) was thrilled," writes the New York Times. (After beating his first robot opponent, LaPenna told his interviewer, "Clankers zero, humans one.")
But the New York Times adds that "Those who know humanoid robots best highly recommend against fighting them." "It's very unfair to put a human in with a heavily motorized system that's only going to dominate," said Ken Goldberg, a professor who oversees the automation lab at the University of California, Berkeley. "There's nothing surprising about that...." He said he understood the appeal of the fights that Robot Entertainment Kombat (REK) was staging, noting that it tapped "into some of the fear and frustration with robots that people feel.... I mean, they love to see the human kick the robot's gearbox," he said. But the odds of that human fighter getting his gearbox kicked are much greater, Dr. Goldberg said, given that REK's humanoid robots can weigh several hundred pounds and are made of steel.
To be fair, it looked like sometimes the robot just fell over. (And the robots were human-controlled, not programmed with split-second reactions...)
But "Not everyone is a fan," adds the Los Angeles Times: On Sept. 23, the California State Athletic Commission sent a cease-and-desist order to REK, its CEO Cix Liv and "all persons holding, promoting, advertising or sponsoring unsanctioned human versus humanoid robot cage fight." The letter states that "any boxing or mixed martial arts contest, match, or exhibition, involving any human in the State of California" requires the prior approval of the commission and that it is a misdemeanor to hold such an event without obtaining a license or permit from the state. A spokesperson for the California Department of Consumer Affairs, which oversees the CSAC, said in a statement emailed to The Times that the commission is "committed to protecting the safety of the public and integrity of combat sports."
"Unsanctioned activity puts the physical and financial well-being of all those involved at risk and such activity will not be tolerated," the statement said.
Okay, but (Score:5, Funny)
How would he do against The Crushinator - or Destructo?
Re:Okay, but (Score:5, Insightful)
More seriously... I decided to watch the video of the guy against that "Terminator" non-autonomous robot. Just about everything the guy did had ZERO effect on the robot. The robot's attacks, on the other hand, were clearly dominant. But the robot fell over on its own, twice... and after the second fall the guy just walked over and declared "victory". It was pretty bogus.
Re: (Score:2)
The Robots mostly failed to deal with the slippery floor. Short, stout guy with rubber shoes on got knocked over several times by those kicks. I mean he's kinda lucky the Terminator didn't put a foot through his unprotected area. This guy could punch the robots all day and not do any real harm. I didn't see any mechanical failure like a broken gearbox or burned out motor. It looks like the human ran out of juice before any of the robot's batteries died.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To shreds, you say?
Re: (Score:2)
To shreds, you say?
Re: (Score:3)
How would he do against The Crushinator - or Destructo?
The Crushinator? Nah, a woman that fine needs to be romanced first.
Damn right it was! (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure what's meant to be demonstrated here (Score:5, Insightful)
It's perfectly possible to build a machine that will incapacitate a human at close range; all of the world's militaries have been doing it for years.
It's also possible to deliberately dial down the machine's combat effectiveness to the point where a fight against a human might not be a foregone conclusion.
OTOH, having done the latter, what have we learned? That we can design and build a robot that we nerfed just enough that it usually loses in hand-to-hand combat?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
we've learned the name of a 5'6" guy who thinks this is his ticket to fame.
Re: Not sure what's meant to be demonstrated here (Score:2)
Eh? Frankie is already pretty famous. I would say most of his content is some kind of physical stunt in a similar vein as Jackass. Dude is an absolute unit, his glutes alone could defeat most posters here, but I don't care for his comedy schtick so not really a fan.
Re:Not sure what's meant to be demonstrated here (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure what's meant to be demonstrated here
The extremely unsurprising excitement of AI boosters to see a person beat up by an anthropomorphic robot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
a human's kicks and punches can concuss a brain, impair blood/tissues, at best you might break a fleshy bone
but not one made of metal, human impacts aren't doing shit, even the celebrity points out it's not even getting tired
if we learned anything it's that you'd want robot-on-robot (see Real Steel, 2011) but even with human piloting you get awkward lumbering things that still don't really hurt each other, at best you'd work towards whoever gets an error first
boxing and such are fundamentally built on parti
Re: Not sure what's meant to be demonstrated here (Score:2)
Probably to watch a person fight the terminator and the predator.
People like spectacle.
WWE isn't for me, but it's incredibly popular, and I could see this becoming so too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not sure what's meant to be demonstrated here (Score:2)
It's perfectly possible to build a machine that will incapacitate a human at close range; all of the world's militaries have been doing it for years.
It's also possible to deliberately dial down the machine's combat effectiveness to the point where a fight against a human might not be a foregone conclusion.
OTOH, having done the latter, what have we learned? That we can design and build a robot that we nerfed just enough that it usually loses in hand-to-hand combat?
You could make the same observation about an obstacle course: completely artificial, simple engineering to make one no human can pass, but typically dialed just to where some humans can manage it.
What are weight classes other than a way to artificially give people opponents they can beat?
As far as sports go the point is simply that the outcome isn't guaranteed. That leaves room for human ingenuity, risk taking, and showmanship, with possibility of both reward and consequence. (In this case, even if the robo
Cix Liv? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Because there is a very real possibility that a well designed robot that doesn't have balance issues would KILL the human. If someone swings a 3 foot long pipe and hits you in the head with full force, do you really think you won't potentially die from the impact? Now, picture a robot that doesn't have programming designed to reduce the amount of force, and it's just using its arm to hit your head...yep, death is a definite possibility.
Laws are in place to try preventing stupid people from getting thems
I'm jus' a simple country engineer (Score:5, Interesting)
but don't a "boxing match" need *two* opponents?
Legally, isn't just livestreaming a workout with *very* specialized exercise equipment?
Re: (Score:2)
That's how they will frame the next one to get around California's nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, would a smart speedbag be illegal, if held?
More importantly this is all clearly theater, not a contest.
It almost seems like a MIC play to get people to be OK with humanoid soldiers.
The real Terminators can't lose to a human in martial combat.
Perhaps the boxing commission is complicit in the psyop.
Re: (Score:2)
If you advertised it as a "real fight," as here, then it would be an illegal contest.
If you advertise it as a theatrical play about humans fighting robots, then it's legal.
Re: (Score:2)
They advertised it as "real combat," and yes, a boxing match needs two opponents; both licensed.
If they advertised it as a workout, then it wouldn't need to be sanctioned.
Just like, a sparring match doesn't have to be sanctioned. Unless you advertise it as a fight.
Re: same old same old (Score:3)
Attending this cage match can expose you to chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer or, which are known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/
Re: (Score:2)
Attending this cage match can expose you to chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer or, which are known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/
Yes! so true. Even going into the hospital, you will see this posted on the entrance.
Re: same old same old (Score:2)
Yep and since a kid I knew from them banning all the fun diy car stuff to never move there with my talent and knack for starting businesses. Their loss. Michigan is happy to have us.
how to fight a machine (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think you can take on a forklift in hand to hand combat, think again. I recommend swimming or climbing a tree to get away. We humans can defeat the machines, but only on our own terms.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think you can take on a forklift in hand to hand combat, think again.
I do think I can take on a forklift in hand to hand combat. They aren't smart.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:how to fight a machine (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely this... In those videos he's fighting the robot as if it was a human opponent, trying to hit it in places like the head where a human would be vulnerable.
The robot looked to have some exposed wiring around the back of the head, in a real fight you'd go for the wiring or joints in order to incapacitate the robot, not repeatedly punch it in the face.
Also a robot designed to kill wouldn't be humanoid or try to fight with punches and kicks, it's more likely to come on wheels, tracks or rotors and be a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A fork truck moves predictably and has weak points, so yes you probably could beat it. Equally it could easily kill you if it was able to spear you with its forks.
If you were able to get around the forks, or even in between them you could start ripping out the hydraulic lines.
Re: (Score:2)
How are you finger nails? On models with pneumatic tires you might be able to let the air out, but don't count on it as many have solid tires.
I doubt being spear
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
phantomfive thought again, he passes, the rest of you failed.
Why do this in California? (Score:2)
They had to know the Cali government killjoys were going to intervene if they didn't get a piece of the action.
Go to Nevada. They will welcome you with open arms.
Re: (Score:3)
You could at least try reading the article.
"any boxing or mixed martial arts contest, match, or exhibition, involving any human in the State of California" requires the prior approval of the commission and that it is a misdemeanor to hold such an event without obtaining a license or permit from the state.
I suspect Nevada (and the rest of the country) has similar laws.
Re: (Score:1)
You could at least try reading the article.
"any boxing or mixed martial arts contest, match, or exhibition, involving any human in the State of California" requires the prior approval of the commission and that it is a misdemeanor to hold such an event without obtaining a license or permit from the state.
I suspect Nevada (and the rest of the country) has similar laws.
An exhibition, which often means little more than a demonstration where either NO contact or no intended harm (or real “win”) is the outcome 99% of the time, and is done for educational purposes in an instructional manner, needs prior approval from a commission? A commission to enforce what? Blatant anti-martial arts discrimination? Katas are literally part of the art. It is a training tool. One practitioners shouldn’t need to ask permission to do in front of others.
If you want to kno
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the law is a little more nuanced than a single sentence in a article? It might say things like:
"This chapter shall not apply to light and noncontact kickboxing and martial arts, and kickboxing and martial arts instruction and schools."
or
"An amateur contest or match does not include light contact karate, tae kwon do, judo, or any other light contact martial arts as approved by the commission and recognized by the International Olympic Committee as an Olympic sport."
I have doubts about their claim an
Re: (Score:2)
They advertise their event as "real combat." It is not advertised as "robots and humans doing katas together," or "humans and robots training together."
That's the basic problem. If they admit it's fake, like "professional wrestling," then the requirements might be totally different.
If you sell tickets for an illegal event it is unlikely that "it was fake" or "it was a scam" will operate as defense. Especially when the law in question primarily regulates public events.
Re: (Score:2)
A "contest" requires more than 1 human participant... When those laws were written they likely never considered someone fighting a robot.
Until recently any human fighting a "non human" would have meant fighting an animal, and there are separate animal cruelty laws to cover such scenarios. But there are no laws that forbid cruelty to machines.
A fight against a robot could be considered use of training equipment rather than a contest, although it might fall foul of other laws relating to dangerous equipment
WHY is it illegal? (Score:2)
The freedom to do stupid things would appear to be a part of what freedom means.
Re: (Score:1)
The freedom to do stupid things would appear to be a part of what freedom means.
Its not illegal to DO stupid shit.
Its illegal to do stupid shit without giving the state corruption their cut.
Someone more cynical than me (Score:1)
Good to know you exist. As to the downvoter of your comment - is he on contract to the State of California? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
People do stupid things all the time, but if people profit from the harm or death of others, there is something inherently messed up about that. Picture if Fox News started sending out crews of people to record pushing people in front of moving cars just for the ratings of having footage of a fatal car accident. Should anyone profit from the death or harm of other people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is still something twisted in the idea of making money off of someone else getting hurt, and making that a business model. Of course, that overgrown Oompa Loompa in the White House would probably make sure to set it up on the front lawn to showcase just what a neanderthal he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only did they not pay the licensing fees, but the rules also require things like insurance (for the human), planning for how to get the human to medical care if they are hurt, etc, etc.
There are all manner of stupid things that are legal, but require insurance and a special use permit. "But muh free dumbs!" isn't a defense for not buying the insurance and getting the permit. And no, putting a "sovereign idiot" sticker on your car doesn't change the requirements, either.
Behold the bureaucratic mindset at work (Score:2)
Yes, those things are desirable. That doesn't create a duty on the state to enforce them, which, of course, generates lots of lovely jobs enforcing them...
Re: (Score:2)
So your complaint is that... it creates jobs? Wow, you're an even bigger asshole than I thought!
Seriously? (Score:2)
Your interpretation of my post is that I'm concerned at the jobs being created? Wow!
To be clearer: I'm denying that the state should create and enforce these rules because it's not something the state should bother with. Why? Because as a matter of respecting the freedom of individuals, it is inevitable that it will be possible for people to do stupid things. The fact that introducing new rules creates jobs, and once created those post holders have an interest in those rules being kept in place, is a detail
Re: (Score:2)
That's just it, and that's why it isn't possible to communicate with you.
I didn't "interpret" what you said. I read it, and used the meaning of the words as the meaning.
Now you're saying junk with a completely different meaning.
And that's probably not what you mean, either.
They're just excerpts from your right wing hate religion's media programs that were adjacent to the subject other people are communicating about. You don't know what's going on in the world around you; you only know what hateful hyperbole
Make it fair (Score:2)
David (Score:2)
Calling him EditorDavid is too generous for someone who writes a title to a story and then proceeds to not address the title until the last paragraph.
We used to mock people with arts degrees as being useless, but David really needs an arts degree with a major in highschool level english.
There is No human there!!! (Score:1)
Shame on all people watching these sad and stupid behaviors.
Chinese Robots (Score:2)
This is NOT the ultimate battle you are looking fo (Score:2)
More like your Hey your POS car dinged my Tesla cyber truck neighborhood spat. The future of humanity is not in peril. Move along now.
I saw a clip of this (Score:2)
I immediately thought to myself "oh, this is the guy with the cartoonishly large ass in tight pants", and moved on. He's just a gimmick with a big butt.