Robot 'better than Messi' will be playing World Cup teams soon, say scientists
UCLA researchers claim humanoid robot ARTEMIS will compete with professional soccer players, despite current performance limitations
UCLA developed ARTEMIS, a humanoid soccer-playing robot with biomimetic muscles, claiming it's the world's fastest walking humanoid. While aiming to compete against World Cup teams by 2050, current demonstrations show significant limitations in basic soccer skills.
Faulty Likelihood Estimation
-9
The article presents 'faulty likelihood estimation' by stating:
“Enough that it could take on Lionel Messi at a game, they say."
This quote represents 'faulty likelihood estimation' because it makes an unrealistic prediction about a robot's capabilities compared to one of the world's best soccer players, despite the robot currently struggling with basic movements. This misleads readers by dramatically overstating the robot's current and near-term capabilities. Since this directly contradicts evidence about the robot's actual performance while supporting the main thesis about competing with human players, it warrants a -3 score multiplied by 3 for thesis relevance.
Misrepresentation
-6
The article presents 'misrepresentation' by stating:
“The robot has been named 'a robot that exceeds Messi in soccer' – or ARTEMIS for short. According to the UCLA website, they also refer to the robot as 'Advanced Robotic Technology for Enhanced Mobility and Improved Stability,' but Messi's explanation seems to be the favourite."
This quote represents 'misrepresentation' because it inaccurately suggests that the robot's name is primarily based on comparing it to Messi, when ARTEMIS is clearly an acronym for its technical capabilities. This misleads readers by emphasizing a sensational interpretation over the actual technical meaning. Since this directly supports the article's exaggerated thesis about competing with human players, it receives a -2 score multiplied by 3 for thesis relevance.
Faulty Assumption
-6
The article presents 'faulty assumption' by stating:
“They claim they want the robot to be playing the World Cup-winning team by 2050."
This quote represents 'faulty assumption' because it implies that having a goal of competing against World Cup winners by 2050 suggests current advanced capabilities, when in fact long-term aspirational goals don't indicate present abilities. This leads readers to conflate future possibilities with current capabilities. Since this directly relates to the main thesis about competing with human players, it receives a -2 score multiplied by 3 for thesis relevance.
Unqualified Source
-2
The article presents 'unqualified source' by stating:
“'This robot isn't very good at dodgeball and I didn't even see it attempt to play soccer. Looks like one day it'll make one hell of an Amazon worker, though,' wrote on YouTube commenter about the robot."
This quote represents 'unqualified source' because it relies on a random YouTube commenter who lacks any demonstrated expertise in robotics or sports technology. The inclusion of this unsubstantiated opinion undermines the article's credibility when discussing the robot's capabilities. Since this comment relates to a secondary argument about the robot's current performance, the base score of -1 is multiplied by 2x for a final score of -2.
Qualified Source
1
The article presents 'qualified source' by stating:
“According to the UCLA website, they also refer to the robot as 'Advanced Robotic Technology for Enhanced Mobility and Improved Stability,' but Messi's explanation seems to be the favourite."
This quote represents 'qualified source' because it cites information directly from UCLA's official website, which has authoritative knowledge about their own research project and robot naming. The institutional source provides readers with reliable information about the technical aspects of the project. Since this information is tangential to the main thesis, its positive score of +1 remains unchanged with a 1x multiplier.
Vague Sourcing
-6
The article presents 'vague sourcing' by stating:
“Enough that it could take on Lionel Messi at a game, they say."
This quote represents 'vague sourcing' because it makes a significant claim about the robot's capabilities without identifying who made this assertion about competing with Messi. The undefined 'they' prevents readers from evaluating the credibility of this ambitious comparison to a professional athlete. Since this claim directly relates to the article's main thesis about competing with human players, the base score of -2 is multiplied by 3x for a final score of -6.
Exaggeration
-6
The article presents 'exaggeration' by stating:
“Robots have been created for many things, but the latest might just trump humans' ability to play football."
This quote represents 'exaggeration' because it suggests that a robot could surpass all human ability in football, when the evidence shows the robot can barely kick a ball. This misleads readers by creating unrealistic expectations about the robot's capabilities. Since this directly supports the main thesis about the robot's potential to compete with humans, the base score of -2 is multiplied by 3x for a final score of -6.
Exaggeration
-9
The article presents 'exaggeration' by stating:
“Enough that it could take on Lionel Messi at a game, they say."
This quote represents 'exaggeration' because it makes an unsupported claim about the robot competing with one of the world's best football players, when the article later reveals the robot can barely kick a ball accurately. This creates a misleading impression about the robot's current capabilities. Since this directly relates to the main thesis about competing with professional players, the base score of -3 is multiplied by 3x for a final score of -9.
Slang
-3
The article presents 'slang' by stating:
“Boffins at the University of California, Los Angeles, have been working hard to create a sporty robot that can kick a ball to rival the most experienced of professionals."
This quote represents 'slang' because it uses the informal term 'boffins' instead of more appropriate terms like 'researchers' or 'scientists' in what should be a formal context. This casual language undermines the credibility of the scientific work being described. Since this relates to the secondary argument about technological advancement, the base score of -1 is multiplied by 3x for a final score of -3.
Anecdote not Data
-6
The article presents 'anecdote not data' by stating:
“During tests in the lab, ARTEMIS has been clocked walking 2.1 meters per second, which would make it the world's fastest walking humanoid robot, according to the UCLA researchers. It is also believed to be the first humanoid robot designed in an academic setting that is capable of running, and only the third overall."
This quote represents 'anecdote not data' because it makes broad claims about world records and capabilities without providing comparative data or verification from independent sources. The lack of comprehensive data comparing ARTEMIS to other robots prevents readers from evaluating the validity of these claims. Since this directly supports the main thesis about ARTEMIS being a significant technological advancement, the base score of -2 is multiplied by 3x for a final score of -6.
Quality of evidence
-10
The article presents 'quality of evidence' by stating:
“ARTEMIS was displayed at GITEX 2023, a large tech convention, but struggled to kick the ball in videos. It often kicked the air and occasionally clipped the ball."
This quote represents poor 'quality of evidence' because it directly contradicts earlier claims about the robot's advanced capabilities and potential to rival professional footballers. The actual demonstration evidence shows significantly lower performance than claimed, misleading readers about the robot's current capabilities. Since this directly opposes the main thesis about competing with human players, the base score of -3 is multiplied by 3x for a final score of -10.
Weak Causal Evidence
-2
The article presents 'weak causal evidence' by stating:
“The robot is said to be the 'first of its kind,' with actuators – devices that generate motion from energy – were designed to behave like biological muscles. This way they aren't as 'robotic' as other creations and would resemble a footballer more closely."
This quote represents 'weak causal evidence' because it claims that biomimetic actuators will make the robot move more like a human footballer without providing evidence of this causal relationship. The lack of supporting evidence or expert validation leaves readers unable to assess whether this design actually results in more human-like movement. Since this supports a secondary argument about biomimetic design, the base score of -1 is multiplied by 2x for a final score of -2.
Base rate neglect
-3
The article presents 'base rate neglect' by stating:
“During tests in the lab, ARTEMIS has been clocked walking 2.1 meters per second, which would make it the world's fastest walking humanoid robot, according to the UCLA researchers."
This quote represents 'base rate neglect' because it presents a speed measurement without providing essential context about typical walking speeds for humans or other robots, making it impossible to evaluate the claim's significance. Readers cannot assess whether this achievement is truly groundbreaking without comparative baseline data. Since this supports a secondary argument about technological advancement, the base score of -1 is multiplied by 3x for a final score of -3.
Inappropriate confidence
-9
The article presents 'inappropriate confidence' by stating:
“Robots have been created for many things, but the latest might just trump humans' ability to play football. Boffins at the University of California, Los Angeles, have been working hard to create a sporty robot that can kick a ball to rival the most experienced of professionals. It has been in the works for years, but the team are finally seeing some positive progress. Enough that it could take on Lionel Messi at a game, they say."
This quote represents 'inappropriate confidence' because it makes claims with unjustified certainty about the robot's ability to compete with professional athletes, directly contradicting the definition of appropriate confidence in scientific claims. The overconfident assertions mislead readers by presenting speculative capabilities as near-term achievements without acknowledging significant technological limitations. Since this directly relates to the article's main thesis about competing with professional players by 2050, the base score of -3 is multiplied by 3x for a final score of -9.
Conclusion
The headline's claims about competing with Messi are severely undermined by ARTEMIS's current inability to consistently kick a ball. While the technology shows promise in walking speed and design, the performance gap between current capabilities and stated goals is substantial.