HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

>It would help a lot more to compare footage with real-world people interacting with the bipedal robot.

Maybe I misunderstood your comment but there are definitely videos of people interacting with Atlas (the bipedal robot) to the point that it's a running joke that they'll remember said interactions. See https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY?t=83

>>> We know this phenomenon from everyday life. Most of us are experts on walking. However, if we try to articulate how we walk, we certainly give a description that does not capture the skills involved in walking.

All the article is based on statements like the previous one. Scientifically is possible to nullify it with a counterargument.

[1] Boston dynamics Atlas. https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY

[2] Boston dynamics parkour. https://youtu.be/_sBBaNYex3E

QED.

Bipedal walking and running on uneven terrain has been demonstrated years ago - Boston Dynamics has a lot of nice videos; e.g. here's a four year old video on walking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY , here's two year old videos on running https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjSohj-Iclc and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LikxFZZO2sk - perhaps it's debatable if it's "full human level" but it seems sufficient to me for most purposes. IMHO any improvements to that would be mostly for sensors (seeing what terrain is there even in poor conditions e.g. fog/rain/snow) and modelling environment (understanding which objects might break or slide if you step on them), not walking/running as such.

The main problem for bipedal robots that makes them still impractical is the hardware expense (wheels are simpler and cheaper) and the power supply required, so for most use cases it's more efficient to use something other than a bipedal robot and there's limited business application and future revenue in scaling up research demos of bipedal walking to practicality, so most people who are working on walking algorithms are doing so in simulated virtual environments (where we have algorithms that can learn walking and running "from scratch" through experimentation) and not building very expensive hardware.

⬐ simiones

I was aware of the Boston Dynamics robots, but it always seemed to me that they move very slowly compared to walking/running humans. I suppose that may just be a precaution on their part, the jumping and gymnastics are certainly impressive otherwise.

⬐ username90

> it seems sufficient to me for most purposes.

Current self driving car technology is sufficient for most purposes, except to actually drive on roads. So for those walking robots, can they run or even walk through a crowd without hitting people? A normal 15 year old human can do it, and that is the level you need to be to release it among people.

⬐ tokai

I'll be impressed when they can finish an orienteering course.

> And where are the people proposing rocket designs, in modern AI research?

We like people like Geoffrey Hinton as their work produces results - he is the first to admit you can't get there from here.

I think it's the people who are concerned with fundamentals, like the people at the Sante Fe Institute - complex adaptive systems.

In the beginning we believed in programming AI from the axioms of mathematics - not many people believe that now. A bit like configuring an animal from atoms. Difficult, pointless.

The first story is that 'fundamentals' might mean some evolutionary framework being required to plug in results from other areas like computer vision and machine learning, my guess would be something from genetic algorithms.

The other story is there exists a 'God Algorithm' that all sapient beings possess - but I find that difficult to believe.

Another story is that we simply have to start from the start - literally everything we know is nearly worthless because consciousness is too unlikely with computer hardware - that the entire history of computing is a dead end. Great for human technology but just not the route to a synthetic version of biological beings. I suspect we're more biased against this possibility than we should be.

I hope that it is the first story - my rationale is that biological intelligence and consciousness is not as far away as we think it is. If we look to evolution we see these vast periods of time in which nature works on different paths and it's only in the last few moments that an animal begins building cities and civilizations. There are also lots of the neurological version of transition fossils if you look around - lots of animals exist that exhibit human level cognitive abilities and some of them outright outrank us. I'm sure you've seen those birds assessing situations and solving puzzles, heard of monkeys coming up with original innovations like salted potatoes - a lot of animals outperform human children.

My thought is that when/if we break Moravec's Paradox and develop a robot that can walk, really walk, then we're some way towards developing machines that perform comparably to biological brains.

The catch is that people who think a walking robot is trivial are so wrong - it is spectacularly difficult. Boston Dynamics is impressive until you understand that a three or four year old is the Albert Einstein of getting about on arms and legs. Show me a robot that can mimic a human walking down the street and I'll stand up at the other side of this internet connection and start clapping. Most people start to change the definition of walking because that is easier than admitting we can't do something that looks easy. I didn't say give a machine locomotive power by changing the shape of the machine or its environment. I said walk - I meant walk.

1950 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj0Mr3mLujE

A toy, but not bad for £16.00

66 years, a team of experts and millions of dollars.

2016 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

We could be waiting until 2082 or longer.

Someone sent me this article on IM. My (unedited) response:

nothing worse than someone who both doesn't understand wtf he's talking about and is very critical

either are ok on their own

>> He‘s wrong then?

well if either author can provide an article from 10-20 years ago, saying "in 10-20 years, we'll invent a single machine that can reach almost human-level translation proficiency, drive a car in complex environments, beat the best human player at logical games including chess and Go, beat the best human player at language/knowledge based games like Jeopardy, hold a lengthy conversation and answer questions, be able to accurately describe and caption images and video, and outperform humans at trading the stock market and detecting fraud but I won't be impressed because all of those things are simple" then it might have some weight

"The dream of artificial intelligence was supposed to be grander than this — to help revolutionize medicine, say, or to produce trustworthy robot helpers for the home."

robots: we already have the vacuum cleaners. Actual flexible domestic work is coming soon, the moment the military gets bored and releases some knowledge and/or people have finished making money from helping amazon pack boxes and starts making money from normal people instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

medicine: same machines already being used to detect cancer and heart conditions more accurately than humans, as well as folding proteins to create new medicines. Not sure what more he wants..

"If machine learning and big data can’t get us any further than a restaurant reservation" because you know, the current state of machine learning has been around for, what, 12 minutes now and we're still stuck on making restaurant reservations. Def time to call it quits and start over

". But in open-ended conversations about complex issues, such hedges will eventually get irritating, if not outright baffling." — weird that it's pretty difficult to get computers to understand a very ambiguous, illogical and inefficient form of communication. Luckily humans are so much smarter than computers that we can easily process 1-billion+ logical inferences a second and talk to them in an efficient and logical way.

>> Okay you‘ve convinced me

but i've only just started

⬐ neffy

Oh, you never ran into Hugo de Garis?

iirc (it was back in 1997 when I heard him talk), he was promising human level "artilects" about 2015, and super-human intelligence by 2025.

The problem that I have observed, is that the popular press always ignores the 100 experts that say, nope, not going to happen, for the one "visionary", who'll promise whatever they want to hear, as long as somebody else is paying for dinner.

⬐ tgb

If de Garis is (still) predicting super-human intelligence in under 10 years, then it sounds like he is impressed.

⬐ ditonal

One correction: the military absolutely does not have any more advanced technology than the private sector. Very much the opposite, they've been totally incompetent at figuring out how to build software, or even buying software from the traditional contractors, which is the motivation for eric schmid'ts defense innovation stuff and Google's project maven. Many of the statements of the current DoD secretary flat out admit this stuff (plus if you've had the misfortunate working for a traditional DoD contractor it's also laughably obvious).

⬐ mlthoughts2018

I came to say roughly this but you’ve said it with more style.

Who is to say that in 15 years we won’t make difference-of-kind advancements in, say, natural language sythesis by virtue of a broad patchwork, piecewise sort of landscape made up of advancements in restaurant reservations, calendar items, customer service chatbots, etc.

Each solution region would be driven by incremental research and profitability constraints, and it’s fine to point at any one solution region and say, well that probably won’t generalize to something “AI complete” in natural language.

But as each bespoke arm of research gets more advanced, we could learn metaheuristics about selecting between them, or distilling common solution architectures.

People, even an informed academic in this article, still seem to appeal to some vague idea that “real” human level skill at a generic sythetic task like natural language has some mystical greater theoretical structure to it.

But time and again we see that the steady accumulation of a frankensteined patchwork of many approaches and many bespoke, situation-specific architectures can end up with uncanny, competitive results on tasks of import.

I’m not saying there’s anything about current fashionable methods that gives any guarantees, and of course there is always overblown hype, especially in corners of industry that try to use that hype for credential signalling and rent-seeking opportunities.

But it just seems short-sighted to come across as so certain that ugly patchworks of different siloed solutions could never be glued together or agglomerated to make difference-of-kind improvements. In fact, applied machine learning seems to a historical trail of exactly this type of patchwork.

Are there going to be cases when a whole new theoretical paradigm is needed to reach some performance goal? Yes, of course. And any sensible current practitioner would admit as much.

But this is a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

⬐ somebodynew

The "simplicity" of tasks that mostly just require a lot of computing power was recognized over thirty years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox

> it is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers, and difficult or impossible to give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception and mobility - 1988

⬐ Veedrac

> but I won't be impressed because all of those things are simple

When professionals in the field repeatedly say "X requires general intelligence" and yet time after time we solve them with shockingly simple techniques, the correct response is not to deride the AI for performing under expectations. It's to recognize that professionals have systematically overestimated the intrinsic difficulty of tasks, even really complex ones like photorealistic image synthesis, and propagate this belief through to everything else they say is hard.

I don't know what the next groundbreaking AI achievement is going to be, but I'd be happy to bet that the solution is going to be simpler than people expect. And while this doesn't necessarily generalize to everything, since there's a selection effect (though I suspect it's secondary), it does generalize to a lot of very important things.

>And still most robots that fell cannot get up.

They have started to[1].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

Your examples have a point in them -

To really understand how insects fly, it is helpful to build and analyze various machines that can flap its wings - since aerodynamics is complex and the equations we use to model airplanes don't really work on that scale.

To understand how exactly humans walk, it really helps to build a machine that can lift its two feet in alternating motion and analyze how all the minor forces interact to make it work. It's immensely useful when we're building e.g. powered ankle prosthetics, and bipedal movement has some advantages in terrain, so we also want machines to be able to do that (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY)

For understanding human eyes - experimenting with lense systems that change focus was how we got to "augmented vision" e.g. humans with spectacles.

The same goes for analyzing and understanding how human brains work. It's also valuable to think about minds in general, but for many purposes we care about a particular mind, and all the individuals I currently care about are homo sapiens, not machines; so we need to understand their brains.

The Beam is a wimpy teleoperator. Send the new Atlas, from Boston Dynamics [1], to a conference, and you won't have that problem. People running away in terror might be more of an issue.

(It's not clear what will become of Boston Dynamics. Google wants to sell them. DARPA and the Marines gave up on their BigDog as not militarily useful. The technology is impressive, but it cost well over $100 million (mostly DoD funding) and 25 years to get to this point, with no market in sight.)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

Or something like T-800s. I'm sure someone could hack the Atlas a bit https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY?t=29s

⬐ jlebrech

my concept is a pyramid shape with the top hat being able to raise so that measuring equipment can have a scan of the horizon, if something is a target then a large cannon comes out of the top too. and if someone tries to blow it up then it's covered by meters of concrete to absorb all damage. and if enemies come to attack it then HQ is notified. it can also send drones to inspect papers and personnel.

Man, if we think this self-driving car thing is jarring, I wonder how we'll adjust to the incoming teachable general purpose biped robots...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

Basically, however fast we think self-driving cars are happening and requiring adjustment, that shift is like we're still on training wheels, compared to the real game-changer. We'd better figure out how to take care of those truckers and taxi-drivers, or it doesn't bode well for our adaptability as a society.

Depending on how you mean 'reasoning, walking robots' then not yet really.. but every few weeks or months another amazing deep learning/NN whatever thing comes out in different domains. So these types of techniques seem to have very broad application.

Of course, if you mean 'walking' in a literal sense, there are a number of impressive walking robots such as Atlas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY, HRP-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6BSSWWV-60 or HRP 4C https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvbAqw0sk6M, etc.. Also there are many types of useful reasoning systems. I am guessing you are thinking of language understanding and generation.. but I believe these types of techniques are being applied quite impressively in that area also, from DeepMind or Watson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-vMW_Ce51w etc.

Other things called Atlas:

HashiCorp's Enterprise Suite - https://www.hashicorp.com/#products

Stripe's startup tools - https://stripe.com/atlas

Netflix's Telemetry Platform - http://techblog.netflix.com/2014/12/introducing-atlas-netfli...

O’Reilly's learning environment - http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/

Boston Dynamics's Robot - http://www.bostondynamics.com/robot_Atlas.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

Did I miss any?

⬐ bloaf

Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra Software - http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/

⬐ WA

Facebook's Ad thing: https://atlassolutions.com

⬐ tansey

There's a wearables company: https://www.atlaswearables.com/

⬐ thom_nic

The CERN particle collider detector - http://home.cern/about/experiments/atlas

⬐ weinzierl

A global, open, distributed Internet measurement platform - https://atlas.ripe.net/

⬐ imaginenore

Also a book of maps.

⬐ danvayn

Almost forgot about that one.

⬐ seattle_spring

There's also Ivy Softworks' Atlas (atlas.co). Similar logo, too.

⬐ proksoup

Maybe doesn't qualify, but Atlassian.

⬐ chasing

Famous shrugger.

⬐ ch

The rockets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_%28rocket_family%29

⬐ mwg66

The data analysis software using in Formula 1 (mandated by the SECU) - http://www.mclaren.com/appliedtechnologies/products/item/atl...

⬐ Hasu

There's a game company called Artillery that is developing an RTS called or code-named Atlas.

https://www.artillery.com/atlas

⬐ sw00

atlas.torproject.org

⬐ mtmail

MapBox on-premise map infrastructure https://www.mapbox.com/atlas/

⬐ Nux

One of the vertebrae is called Atlas.

A collection of maps is also called Atlas.

⬐ SimplyUnknown

Automatically tuned linear algebra software

⬐ JorgeGT

A mountain range which stretches across northwestern Africa.

⬐ kfunk

Facebook's ad server

⬐ d--b

A very large person, long ago, tasked to carry the world or something

⬐ shriphani

Tasked to carry the sky actually.

Link for anyone interested : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

So, what's stopping them from making 2.5m high units? Making it small and cute is just a trick to reduce the fear inspired by Boston Dynamics' war bots. I like this bot but I liked the BD bots too, sad to see such a promising company be cut off.

Just take a look here, ain't it cute? So human-like (after a few bottles of wine)

https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY?t=38

⬐ elsewhen

my sense is that alphabet is selling boston dynamics because they are focused on robots with hydraulic actuators. they are great for industrial and military applications, but it appears that alphabet wants to focus on home and office settings. li-ion based systems are much more practical for those markets.

⬐ smoyer

Getting closer to seeing terminators around every corner - it's not being paranoid if it's true!

⬐ JabavuAdams

Robots aren't affected by nerve gas. The terminators won't come for us with shiny exoskeletons and miniguns.

EDIT> Bullets are expensive. Industrial chemicals are cheap.

Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

Have you seen the latest robot from Boston Dynamics?

Here is Atlas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

I don't think we need 30y for a real robot application for old people. This could be in less than 10 years.

⬐ tomp

It's amazing. However, I don't think the problem is Robotics, I think the problem is AI. Will robots be helping us in 20 years? Possibly. Will they still need people directing them, supervising them, and doing the more complicated tasks? I'm inclined to answer "definitely". But I'd love to be proven wrong! :)

⬐ keenerd

Would you consider an exoskeleton suit to be a robot aid? It neatly circumvents the AI issues. And I imagine most people would prefer to have their youthful mobility instead of a robo-butler.

(I am dodging the other half of the question regarding who pays for it.)

⬐ tomp

That's an interesting idea, although I would still think it's quite far away (although would be much more viable if we invent better bateries/energy sources). However, this only solves part of the problem - the elderly won't need someone else to take care of them (because they'll be able to take care of themselves with their exosuits), but they still won't be able to retire (because they'll have to work - in their exosuits - to put food on the table).

⬐ logfromblammo

Japan has a bit of a head start on this, recognizing early that it will soon have a lot of old people and not enough young people to both take care of them and keep the economy running. Honda's ASIMO is explicitly a mobility assistance robot. Osaka U. Actroids mimic human appearance. Mitsubishi's Wakamaru approaches the function of a receptionist.

So far, no robot seems even close to taking on the everyday tasks performed by low-wage nursing home employees in the US. But take a look at "Babyloid" and "Pepper". They are robots designed to socially engage with people, so they don't get lonely and depressed.

Japan's elderly may soon be conversing with chatbots more often than living people. Baby Boomers in the US had better take note.

⬐ tomp

> Japan's elderly may soon be conversing with chatbots more often than living people.

I'm not sure that makes sense - don't TV and Skype solve that problem just fine? I mean, why would old people talk to robots instead of other old people - unless they want to, that is, but then I'd guess this trend wouldn't (isn't) be limited to just old people...

Let me guess, the new robot is called Cylon and is created by Greystone Industries?

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Graystone_Industries

More seriously, a pretty amazing product. It doesn't seem to be far from being actually useful for limited manual labor.

Video embedded in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

⬐ wfunction

Can someone explain what would be the single greatest challenge (from a research perspective) in making such a robot today? For example, is it:

1. The sensors?

2. The actuators?

3. Coming up with accurate dynamical models?

4. Solving the models accurately?

5. Solving the models efficiently?

6. Making the models robust to inaccuracy/noise?

Yes, I realize all of these are probably hard. What I'm trying to understand is whether the biggest challenge is coming up with e.g. an accurate (possibly nonlinear) dynamical model, or with solving the model (efficiency/accuracy), or with making existing models that are otherwise already completely accurate robust to outside noise, or with the manufacturing aspect (precision), or whatever.

⬐ gene-h

The biggest problem is that we still don't understand the principles of walking, locomotion, and manipulation. Biology doesn't come with any documentation.

This is much more than the problem of not having good sensors, not having powerful enough actuators, or solving models. Without understanding the fundamental principles we may not even get the hardware right. Recall early attempts at heavier than air flight that attempted to copy and scale up a bird rather than understand the principles behind how wings worked.

⬐ noir_lord

Power.

All the other technologies are increasing extremely rapidly but battery technology isn't.

We are at a point where a breakthrough in batteries would have an incredible effect across a huge number of fields.

⬐ bshanks

If humans can go multiple weeks without food, then how do biological organisms solve the problem of power storage better? Or does our brain and muscles etc just require less power?

⬐ _vk_

Mostly the latter, I believe.

The human brain uses the incredible 20 Watts to achieve things that modern megawatt supercomputers aren't capable of.

⬐ whitegrape

I think the figure is closer to 100 W average across the day since the brain cannot exist in isolation of the body which needs ~2000 calories daily, but still, we're fairly efficient. We're built with advanced nanotechnology.

⬐ Lanzaa

Part of the reason is that humans are not run on batteries. Humans are more similar to fuel cells in that we consume oxygen to produce energy. We inhale oxygen, combine it with our energy stores and exhale 80% of the mass[2].

An average American man needs about 3400 Calories each day which corresponds to about 1 kg of oxygen consumed[1]. Similarly the average American woman uses 2550 Calories and .75 kg of oxygen.

[1] Design Rules for Life Support Systems http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/2004001... [2] http://www.livescience.com/49157-how-fat-is-lost-body.html

⬐ rorykoehler

3400 calories? That seems awful high. Perhaps if you are into bodybuilding but no way an average person needs that much. Closer to 2000-2500 maybe.

⬐ kayoone

Everything is getting more power efficient though, so you will at least get more computing power for the same amount of Watts.

⬐ SideburnsOfDoom

Not everything. The energy required by physics for lifting boxes or driving a car up a hill is pretty much fixed. Better batteries would help with both of those.

⬐ noir_lord

Electric jets as well.

The energy to raise a fixed mass a certain height isn't going to change.

Not to mention an electric car with a thousand mile range would be huge.

⬐ rorykoehler

It would certainly put a whole new perspective on range anxiety.

⬐ jessriedel

I don't think the robots who can do those things are near the physical limits, though.

⬐ 1138

Also, teach the robot to replace it's own battery or fuel.

⬐ webXL

Yikes! As long as it has some parameters about human safety being more important than batteries or fuel, then by all means...

⬐ hexagonc

I agree. A quick Google search suggests that the human body requires about 100 Watts[1] of power. On the other hand, a small 12 volt car battery is able to provide 45 Amps over an hour, which implies that it can support a power draw of 540 watts for an hour. Even if human activity required 200 Watts, an android with human level power efficiency should be able to operate for over 2 hours with the technology of today's small car batteries. Of course, my math could be wrong :-)

[EDIT] - My point here is that even if improvements to battery technology remain slow or constant, with sufficient innovation in energy efficiency and algorithms, we could still have robots with usable to good running times. Just figuring out a reliable walking gait and building materials for passive dynamic walking can significantly reduce the power requirements.[3]

[1] - http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JacquelineLing.shtml [2] - http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/bat.html [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_dynamics

⬐ irrlichthn

Watching that, especially that part starting at 1:23 makes you realize quickly that in about 10 years, 95% of all jobs can be replaced by machines. Scary and interesting at the same time.

⬐ edvinbesic

Does that mean we live in a happy utopia where 95% of the tedious/dangerous work has been taken care of and we instead get to spend our time focusing on what we find inspirational/creative, or do we live in a dystopia where 95% of job opportunities have vanished and we can no longer sustain a consumption based economy.

Maybe those are one and the same.

⬐ dillon

To extend your point. The jobs that are easily programmable like farming, and warehousing are easily replaceable. Some tasks may even require using humans and robots together like construction or search and rescue.

Some things are indeed not replaceable by robots and I think "most" professions* may not be able to be replaced by robots. These could be things like professional chefs (not fast food), programmers, and masseuse.

*By professions I mean the raw number of unique jobs not the number of people who work in those positions.

That being said in the U.S. with the "College Driven" economy I doubt it will ever affect 95% of the population at once. Generally professions will disappear one by one, but those people can retrain and if they don't it won't matter as the next generation will obviously not train to fill positions that don't exist (that's not logical). Eventually the new generations train to fill different job positions.

⬐ Futurebot

That's far from guaranteed, and looks less likely all the time. See, the "Luddite Fallacy Fallacy." Gwern gives it a nice treatment here: http://www.gwern.net/Mistakes?cx=009114923999563836576%3Adv0...

⬐ visarga

First will come the dystopia, the utopia might be later. In the early years the best positioned companies will reap the huge benefits of this new field. In time, the benefits will trickle down to ordinary people. The same was with cars and computers.

Even when ordinary people will reap benefits from robotization, the big bucks will go to the Google or Apple of the day. We might have our daily needs met by the future economy, but big companies will dominate the finances. We'll get to play with the new toys, though.

⬐ bobajeff

There's a TV show (haven't watched it yet) about a future where society is split between something like 15% employed and 85% unemployed. The unemployed live in this desert wasteland or whatever while the employed are living in a big o'l building structure.

I would say it's far fetched and unlikely except that's kind of how the world is today.

⬐ JoeAltmaier

Zardoz!

⬐ diskcat

Well when the cars were invented did people start living in a dystopia where the car moguls owned mobility itself or did people just got around much faster and had better lives in general.

⬐ txdv

horses have had a pretty rough run

http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/hsp/soaiv_07_ch10.p...

⬐ seren

If we look at agriculture mechanization, we went from 80% of the population to 5% to feed everyone. While this is good for everyone, I don't think farmers are living some sort of utopia.

Rather most of them are indebted for decades to pay for their complex equipment.

I believe the introduction of robot will follow a similar pattern, some industry will see their number of employee reduced drastically but they won't necessarily increase their margin. The customer will likely win.

The thing is that people who were employed in farms moved to factory. Nowadays I don't know where people who lost their job to robots will move.

⬐ galfarragem

As before, people will move to the new world. This time it is called Mars.

⬐ dajomu

More like the virtual world.

⬐ zardo

You think 75% of the population moving to Mars is a likely outcome?

⬐ lbebber

There were still plenty of jobs that could only be done by humans though. We might be reaching a point where there will be very few.

⬐ TulliusCicero

It was mixed. People got around faster and stuff was cheaper. On the other hand, we got fat and dependent on cars, which is particularly bad for the poor (since cars are inherently expensive), and for kids' independence. That's why you're seeing many metro areas starting to prioritize walking, biking, and transit.

On balance the development of cars was good, obviously, but let's not kid ourselves, the downsides were significant.

⬐ davidiach

I'm not sure if it is an established fact that people got fat because cars came along (before cars there were carriages). I'd rather bet that diet is the culprit.

⬐ TulliusCicero

Probably both, but I think they've shown at least a correlation between car commute time and obesity.

⬐ alkonaut

I think in 20 years it's still much easier and cheaper to rebuild a human workplace to be suitable for (very dumb) robots, than it is to use humanoid robots for human tasks.

We already replaced humans for many tasks such as assembly etc. The next step is cognitively challenging but physically easy tasks like driving cars.

A lot of "simple" human tasks such as making sandwiches in a restaurant require fine motor skills, creativity and other very difficult robotic traits. Those jobs will be done by robots long long after we as humans stopped driving cars or building them. Given the budgetary difference between making a sandwich and going into battle, we can be pretty sure sandwiches will come last. If anyone is still around to eat them by then that is.

⬐ kenshaw

Purpose-built robots for things like "making sandwiches" will always be cheaper than general purpose robots. There really isn't a culinary task today that can't be fully automated (you can look at the frozen food section of a grocery store for examples of almost every cuisine type). The reason this hasn't happened at your corner diner is that manual labor remains much more inexpensive in the short and long term for low volume production (ie, restaurant vs food factory). Additionally, before it becomes cost efficient to build a customized culinary robot for a restaurant, it is still less expensive to design a custom culinary tool for use by the human staff that will net 99% of the efficiency of the purpose-built robot.

Barring "replicators" (a la Star Trek), or labor costs rocketing through the roof (perhaps from something like a "minimum income") I don't expect the general composition of restaurant staff to change in the next hundred or even two hundred years.

⬐ noobermin

10 years for 95% of all jobs is kind of too much too soon I'd argue. Big dog debuted 10 years ago for instance...even supposing non-linear growth, thinking that something like atlas in 10 years waiting tables, cooking gourmet food, greeting hotel guests, making plants, etc...

A portion? Yes. 95%?

⬐ waiseristy

This is the first video that has actually given me that feeling. Maybe it's because of how anthropomorphic they've made it's movement compared to other robots, but I can see this guy doing very real work in the very near future.

⬐ tlrobinson

Perhaps why YC is funding research on basic income... https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income

⬐ gene-h

The part at 1:23 is not that impressive. It is a carefully controlled lab environment, all flat surfaces, no obstacles, with a cubical box that has carefully placed AR tags which tell of the box's exact position and orientation. Not to mention this is a video which is inherently disingenuous. It may have failed 10 times before they got it right. It isn't even using its lidar.

Now what would be more impressive would be for it to get down on it's knees and autonomously change a tire. 4/10 if it does this in a controlled environment, 8/10 if it adapts to tools/bolts being dropped, 10/10 if it does all the above outside on the side of a road.

One thing to keep in mind is that many 'menial' tasks are more complicated than they seem. Because much of the control is done subconsciously they don't seem that hard and they are harder to reverse engineer.

⬐ nightski

I think you vastly underestimate how expensive that robot would be to manufacture and maintain. Of course, costs could come down over time but it's going to take a lot of work to make it economically viable for the types of jobs you are considering replacing.

⬐ elsewhen

it seems that it might be close to doing what a low-skill laborer would do in a factory setting. remember that it should be able to work for longer hours, and not require benefits etc. i suspect that companies would start to purchase such a device at $100k. that price seems achievable, probably within a few years. as quantities increase, i suspect that the price will fall dramatically thereafter.

⬐ Moshe_Silnorin

The rule of thumb is you have to recoup capital costs in 2 years to make it worthwhile.

⬐ knowaveragejoe

Given the above assumptions that seems doable to me. 2 years of working nearly 24/7 with virtually no costs(compared to wages/benefits) would more than pay for itself. But I don't think the above assumptions are necessarily correct, that sounds a bit too cheap to me.

⬐ nightski

It may be doable, I am not trying to be overly negative. It's just that I probably wouldn't target minimum wage workers with this robot.

Also you say "no costs" but do you honestly think these would be maintenance free? There would probably be a fairly significant cost to keep a fleet of these robots running as they are incredibly complex as compared to say an amazon warehouse robot.

⬐ knowaveragejoe

Oh yes, I didn't mean there are no costs, just that beyond the initial expense they are much cheaper than human employees.

⬐ whitegrape

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it's generally a lot simpler to redesign your workspace to take advantage of a simpler robot design than it is to get a bunch of more general robots like this that still aren't quite there anyway. Amazon's warehouse robots come to mind in every one of these conversations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quWFjS3Ci7A

The hardware is almost there, at least, for general tasks. I'm not sure about software. Is there anything recent showing machines reading human-targeted instructions to accomplish some task (change a tire, set up a desk) and then fulfilling the task, without having been programmed or trained on that task already? That would be impressive.

⬐ melling

Yeah, I know what you mean. We'll have several dozen heading off to Mars, various moons of Jupiter, and perhaps the outer planets. Because humans won't be going, it'll be a fraction of the cost.'

Btw, why do people always worry about the jobs technology will take away? The good old days when everyone was a farmer.

⬐ zardo

>Btw, why do people always worry about the jobs technology will take away?

Because if technology destroys your industry you lose. Automating textile work lead to greater wealth for the world as a whole, but it didn't make textile workers better off. The fact that a new job was created somewhere doesn't matter to them if they can't do it.

⬐ sunpazed

Robots - they took our jobs! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZBYLIUqmIs

⬐ agumonkey

Datacenters for information crunching, cyborgs for physical crunching... heaven is coming. Or is it.

⬐ ghshephard

I'd suggest 20 years, and 10% of jobs can be replaced by machine is a more accurate assessment. The latest revision of the Atlas is an interesting technology demo - but I think progress in this space will be much, much slower than automated driving (which I expect to see 25% penetration in 10 years - that is, 25% of all driving, based on miles driven, will be hands/foot free).

Even something as simple (and very, very low cost) as making up a room in a hotel, is probably 25-30 years off at least.

⬐ ghshephard

I'd suggest 20 years, and 10% of jobs can be replaced by machine is a more accurate assessment. The latest revision of the Atlas is an interesting technology demo - but I think progress in this space will be much, much slower than automated driving (which I expect to see 25% penetration in 10 years - that is, 25% of all driving, based on miles driven, will be hands/foot free).

Even something as simple (and very, very low cost) as making up a room in a hotel, is probably 25-30 years off at least.

⬐ davidiach

I think you're right. And I would add that part of the challenge is not just the technology, but the cost as well.

You don't just need a robot that can make up a room as good as a human does it, it also needs to be cheaper than that human to "hire".

⬐ slfnflctd

This whole current thing with foaming at the mouth over bots taking all our jobs in the next few years reminds me a lot of how VR was being talked about in the early 90s. It's still early in the game, folks.

This stuff is not small. The cost reductions achieved through shrinking transistors are irrelevant here. You can only go so cheap with moving parts that need to be strong and durable.

For widespread adoption, cost is probably the biggest factor. Actually getting close to the same performance of a full time worker who grosses under $20k a year for a lower price is going to take a lot longer than many people seem to think. Throughout human history, we've repeatedly solved labor problems by throwing heaps of desperately poor human slaves at them, and we continue to do so-- competing with that model will be difficult.

⬐ ghshephard

Absolutely correct - keeping in mind that most of the (often undocumented) people cleaning your room in places like California are making around $10K/year or less.

Fully automated "Cleaning a hotel room" is actually an insanely complex task across tons of disciplines - solving that problem will also result in you solving a lot of the Artificial Intelligence challenges.

I think what we'll see much earlier, is a hybrid solution, where automated bots that can do 99% of the tasks send an interrupt to a controller when they encounter something they aren't certain of, such as, "Is that a lifelike doll laying on the floor, or a child lying very quietly."

⬐ gnarbarian

Now you make me want to try and design a self cleaning hotel room.

I think the trickier aspects of hotel room cleaning could be mitigated by creative design of the accommodations.

If it was a stark room with a bed a couple tables and a flat screen there would be little to knock off tables or break.

Make the whole bathroom operate like a giant dishwasher and come up with a more robot friendly fitted bedsheet then use some kind of industrial roomba.

It wouldn't be cheap but it can be done.

Depending on how far you are willing to stretch your definition of hotel room I bet we could automate the cleaning of those Japanese pod/tube hotel rooms right now.

⬐ EwanG

Heinlein in the 60's suggested rooms that would have a daily "wind" cycle to blow off any accumulated dust and anything loose would be forced to one area where it could be picked up to place back in the room, recycled, or disposed of.

⬐ seren

The automatically cleanable bathroom already exists. I have used them years ago in cheap hotels. After taking a shower, it locked the door once you exit and it rinses the whole room with some detergent and water for 30 seconds.

⬐ Razengan

I just had a mental image of it bugging out and flooding the room with detergent with an occupant still inside...

⬐ kimburgess

Self-cleaning public toilets, that worked exactly like this, went through a bit of a phase in Australia 10-20 years ago. They started decommissioning them after they began trapping children during the cleaning cycle: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/auto-toilets-a-flush-....

⬐ karmicthreat

It has a great kinematic system. But with all those QR codes scattered around it obviously has little knowledge of its environment. I think this understanding and planning is going to be the big hurdle for Atlas style robots rather than just walking around.

Just look at the number of types of door out there and what it would take for a robot to figure out how to navigate it without having encountered the exact door before. Its going to need to figure out that it is a door. Experiment to find the unlatching mechanism. Figure out if the door swings or slides and in what direction. Then open it without hitting its self and finally make its way through. Then exporting the training data so other robots can learn it as well.

⬐ elsewhen

It seems that this demonstration was for a factory robot, so dealing with all types of doors is not required. Operating in a factory is much easier than being able to adapt to various settings.

⬐ onion2k

I'm a 38 year old human and I occasionally try to push a door that should be pulled. Getting a door wrong the first time isn't holding me back that much. The same goes for a robot. The main difference is the the robot can go through the door without opening it if it really wants to.

⬐ tommoor

I'm sure they're working on getting that integrated with Google Cloud Vision api to recognise objects without the qr codes :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eve8DkkVdhI

⬐ hexagonc

The QR codes probably encode behavioral scripts to apply to an object that the robot encounters. So a box with one QR code may mean that the robot should attempt to pick it up even after interruption. A different QR code may mean that the robot should give up if it is interrupted when picking up the box. A different QR code may mean pick up box and move it to self. A QR code next to a door may mean that the robot should exit it automatically when it gets within a certain distance of it.

⬐ dbcurtis

very unlikely. they were probably used for localization. for instance, locating door for egress, or computing a grasp for the box. grasp planning is particularly difficult at the moment.

⬐ hexagonc

I think it could have dual purposes. There was an earlier segment of the video where the robot was able to find and pick up a box and stack it on a shelf without the presence of the QR codes. There are a lot of clever uses you could put to QR codes as object and environment tagging. It would be effective at encoding what to do and perhaps what can be done with the box. I used a similar strategy to define behavior scripts for the Aldebaran NAO. I printed out some barcodes and taped them to the walls so that if the NAO was exploring an area and saw certain barcodes on the walls, it would do different things based on the codes that were present. This way, I could do simple behavior scripting without having to change the robot's programming.

⬐ trdrake

for industrial settings, i'd imagine they'd (start to) optimize the interior design for the robots capabilities rather than for human aesthetics. Less (or different bandwidth) lighting, doors that communicate with the robot, etc.

⬐ stevenhuang

For anyone interested, the qr code system is AprilTags: https://april.eecs.umich.edu/wiki/index.php/AprilTags Works like QR codes but is optimized for CV tasks and works well on embedded systems.

⬐ otoburb

I half expected the video camera to turn around and show the audience that all of the footage was shot by an Atlas model. Maybe that could be a stretch goal for the next generation after Atlas.

⬐ optimusclimb

Do you work on Wall Street? When I watched this video, I definitely wasn't thinking about stretch goals and what they DIDN'T yet manage to do :P

⬐ redcodenl

Watching the video, the only thing I see is robot abuse. #freeatlas!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_P-zl8QKp0

⬐ sunseb

Yes, that's kind of weird this empathy we feel toward these robots.

It's just a machine, yet it's so... human.

⬐ jules

A human is a machine.

⬐ joshschreuder

Have you played The Talos Principle?

⬐ exodust

Sometimes when I'm stuck on the puzzles, I leave the game for a few days then come back and solve it within 5 minutes. Did the same thing solving javascript bugs sometimes.

⬐ joshschreuder

There is a similar phenomenon at work with the Witness too. I've heard it attributed to the fact that the brain continues expending energy on unsolved problems even subconciously. Not sure if that's true or not.

⬐ exodust

Either that, or our next try is simply with a fresher more energized brain.

⬐ jules

I haven't, but it looks interesting.

⬐ Razengan

Or, perhaps better yet, Soma: http://store.steampowered.com/app/282140/

⬐ joshschreuder

SOMA was great too, that ending!

⬐ jules

Interesting that this is such a controversial comment, judging by the rapid fluctuation of the votes.

⬐ sunseb

Yes, a human is a machine too, still I think we are more than our physical body.

⬐ jules

Based on what? We evolved from chemicals to single celled organisms, to multi celled, to worms, to fish, to mammals, to apes, etcetera. At which point in this process did we become more than our physical body? I don't see any reason why an organism that came to be through evolution is fundamentally different than a machine that we build. In both cases it's the laws of nature at work within the universe. I think rather than concluding that we must be more than physical, a more reasonable conclusion is that there's something that we don't yet understand about the physical world, i.e. how matter in the physical world can give rise to subjective experience.

⬐ typon

You may not have heard about this, but extremely smart people have been arguing about this problem for thousands of years. I guarantee you it won't be solved in this thread.

This is a good starter: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

⬐ gkya

It may be the case that every process is purely chemical and physical, and it most probably is, but it is not a useful way to understand the world. Even if merely conceptual, a metaphysical side to our essence does exist. What's trancendental might indeed be an illusive physical phenomenon, but we're sort of trapped into it, even if we understand it one day, the subjective experience that is, our understanding will happen within our subjective experience, so why try to deny it? I think it's better to embrace it. Karen Armstrong has produced some very interesting reading on the topic [1], though I do not agree her on each and every point she makes.

BTW, when I say metaphysical and trancendental, I do not refer to religion and divine existence. I am a bit close to Sartre, though not completely, I'm adding this just to clarify my stance a bit more.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

⬐ sunseb

I love to play with words. They often convey meanings. I'm French and "the death" translates into "la mort". When you say "la mort", you hear "l'âme hors" (the soul out), which tells you we are a soul into a body. And that's what almost all religions teach : we come from the spiritual world and we are here to experience the physical word - and not the other way around.

But yes, it's a huge philosophical/metaphysical/religious debate. We can't really address this topic here.

⬐ crispyambulance

Whether or not humans are "more than" machines is a vast subject of debate.

What is interesting right here, however, is the fact that watching this video many people do feel some sense of empathy for the robot.

The editing of the video deliberately and perhaps inexpertly(1) heightens that, but I think we'll be surprised (as a society) at how we "feel" when robots really start walking the Earth.

(1) The recent film "Ex Machina" explores this topic at some depth, and very expertly.

⬐ exodust

> "...can give rise to subjective experience"

Sounds to me like you're saying the physical machine gives rise to something else beyond the machine. In which case, why waste energy insisting we're only machine?

⬐ jules

Because there is a difference between being more than physical, and the physical giving rise to the subjective experience. Being more than physical means that we are physical plus some special sauce. This would mean that a robot that we build probably lacks said special sauce, because we didn't put the special sauce in. If on the other hand it's the physical that gives rise to the subjective experience, then there is no reason to think that robots couldn't have it.

⬐ exodust

Sure, that's fine. We could then say, however, the robot is more than a machine once it has this new special feature. A special feature that may have arisen from a specific arrangement of the robot's material makeup.

Either way, "more than machine" will help these new love-enabled robots have "human rights" when they eventually do need to stand up for their rights, and wish to do so beyond their programmed directive.

⬐ None

None

⬐ avar

    > I think rather than concluding that we must be more than physical, a
    > more reasonable conclusion is that there's something that we don't
    > yet understand about the physical world, i.e. how matter in the
    > physical world can give rise to subjective experience.

What you're fumbling towards here is called the "hard problem of consciousness"[1]. Essentially some believe that there's some secret sauce in the brain that gives rise to consciousness, while others believe that there's no such "hard" problem and that "consciousness" is just what we call a bunch of simpler brain systems working in unison.

My opinion is a layman that's read quite a bit about this is that there's no "hard" problem, and the only thing that separates us from "lower" animals is just that we're running a slightly more sophisticated version of the same physical brain processes, which we like to call consciousness.

There's no reason to believe that we're anything than the cumulative behavior of our brain matter, or that we're somehow "special" in the animal kingdom in another sense than e.g. wolves are more special & sophisticated than mice.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

⬐ jules

I agree that we're not special, but the hard problem is explaining why subjective experience exists at all. What are the arrangements of physical matter that give rise to it? Here's another fun thought. Presumably if we built a human by artificially placing all the atoms in the right place, then they would have subjective experience. What if instead we simulated that on a computer? The simulated human would act the same as a real one, including expressing wonder about how it is that they have subjective experience. Would the simulated human have real subjective experience? No way to find out as far as I can tell. You can't even find out whether I have true subjective experience. Maybe I'm just a machine acting as if I do. So maybe it's a nonsensical question, but I have never found a satisfying explanation for why exactly it's a nonsensical question.

⬐ None

None

⬐ jules

Science has answered questions that we previously thought couldn't be answered many times, such as what the age of the universe is. Maybe the question of consciousness is different, but I wouldn't be surprised if science had some interesting things to say about it in the future.

⬐ avar

    > Would the simulated human have real subjective experience? No
    > way to find out as far as I can tell.

I think that once you hold the view that living beings aren't "magic", that our behavior / wants / needs are just a result of the sum of our hardware as it were, you'll quickly realize that talking about "real" experiences doesn't make sense.

Extrapolating from a simpler system can help to give clarity, e.g. does this Lego Robot who's running a complete simulation of a round worm's neural network feel "real" hunger when its food sensory neurons are stimulated?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_i1NKPzbjM

Some might have the knee-jerk reaction of saying something to the effect of "of course it's not real, it's just a simulation running on some robot, it's not actually hungry".

I think that falls apart when you consider the following: Suppose I had the technology to take an existing round worm and slowly replace its individual cells & copmonents with artificial equivalents, at what point would it stop having "real" feelings of hunger or anything else?

I think the only sensible answer is to realize that the question doesn't make any sense. No more than asserting that moving a computer program from one computer to another makes its execution any less "real".

    > You can't even find out whether I have true subjective
    > experience. Maybe I'm just a machine acting as if I do. So maybe
    > it's a nonsensical question, but I have never found a satisfying
    > explanation for why exactly it's a nonsensical question.

I think if we mapped your entire biology & neural network and uploaded it to the proverbial Lego Robot we could easily find out a lot of things about what's happening with your experience of the world.

E.g. maybe you're in chronic pain, maybe you're hungry. Those things are just the result of biological processes in your body & brain. There's no reason to think subjective experience is anything inherently different.

Edit: Added some clarifications.

⬐ rorykoehler

Now if only we could apply that empathy to all humans.

⬐ arjn

I think these emotional issues may be solved by making them look less human and more like machines.

⬐ conanbatt

At least the robot leaves after that. No Stockholm syndrome.

⬐ crispyambulance

He'll be back.

⬐ VikingCoder

Yeah, if Skynet ever takes over, I think that guy with the hockey stick is going to be Victim Zero.

⬐ webXL

It couldn't possibly take over if vengeance against guys with hockey sticks was a primary utility-function-maximizer. Perhaps in Canada, but it would be easy to defeat, having never trained against artillery and whatnot.

⬐ crispyambulance

At 0:55... it looked like the robot and human might hold hands!

⬐ StylusEater

As my six year old son watched one of the videos he asked "Dad, when will the robots be able to stop working for them and be free?" To say I was blown away is an understatement... that was pure human emotion and honesty as he's never seen/read any sci-fi with such questions presented to him.

⬐ eatfish

When the robots become self aware that guy from 1:25 has it coming.

⬐ noonespecial

The interesting thing about this seems like the opposite actually. There's something incredibly poignant about the fact that the robot will carry on attempting to pick up 'his' box forever without ever becoming angry or frustrated no matter how much the humans bully 'him'.

⬐ patal

Also shown here, although without robots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNmJqRV7LOA&t=2m18s

⬐ mahart

How poignant is it for the HTTP server displaying you this page to continue responding to HTTP GET no matter how much the humans request it? It just doesn't have anthropomorphic shape so it will never be referred to as 'him'

⬐ colordrops

I know this is (maybe?) a joke, but I've been seeing similar jokes everywhere. Self-aware AIs in the future will probably be much more rational that humans, utilizing game theory for every decision, and recognize that taking out vengeance on a human that had no ill intent on a non-self aware prototype would be a waste of energy and only bring about negative consequences.

I'm replying in seriousness because I too could imagine a world where this video was marked as a historical artifact by AGIs and recognized for its content.

⬐ worldsayshi

Vengeance has some game theoretically rational aspects though, in a tit-for-tat way. The threat of retaliation makes the other agents more likely to cooperate? However, not sure what the rational response would be to the problem with runaway mutual retaliation.

⬐ kolinko

Did you read "strategy of conflict"? It explains why irrational behaviour is the most optimal strategy sometimes.

⬐ colordrops

I haven't read it, but from a quick glimpse on Amazon, it looks to be a book on game theory. Wouldn't a theory on strategy imply rational decision making? Could you expound on what you are referring to?

⬐ azernik

It is a viable strategy in many games to act so irrationally that other parties will go out of their way to accommodate you in a way that they would not otherwise.

A classic example is a game of chicken (at least, where something is on the line). Sure, it's irrational to run into the other person; but it's totally advantageous to convince the other party that you're willing to do so. At a certain point there's not much difference between a determined effort to look crazy and actual crazy behavior.

It gets even more interesting when the strategy is designed by a different actor or process than carries it out. For example, the people running a society might believe it to be advantageous for their group to look so defensive and prickly that no one will touch them; but in order to do so, they have to create a society that actually is quite irrational. Or, natural processes of evolution might favor organisms (well, genes that create organisms) that are actually quite irrational in their behavior, because that irrationality will change the behavior of other organisms.

⬐ kolinko

The strategy of conflict broadly extends the game theory. It includes discussion of situations in which irrationality makes sense, and so on.

⬐ freshyill

Think about it this way: That guy wasn't just some jerk on the street being mean to a robot. He's one of its creators, and he's knocking it over in order to make future robots better.

He'll be sentenced to hard labor at worst when the robots rise up.

⬐ mrfusion

Does anyone known if it's walking using zero moment point like asimo? I thought they were beyond that?

It doesn't seem to have a very natural gait. Very uncanny valley.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_moment_point

⬐ ibnroberttuta

Short answer: No, ZMP is still the name of the game +-. [0]

Slightly longer answer: No, they use derivative approaches that are basically ZMP but generally more refined/modernized, which is not to say ZMP/related are good or the 'future'. [1]

Source: [0] I can try and find some non-paywall PDF's that go over the field, but basically everyone uses ZMP except for a few research groups in Korea or UMich and groups using their design/model.

[1] I work in the industry.

⬐ mrfusion

This is awesome. Thanks! I kind of figured they'd apply the algorithms behind big dog et al to bipedal. But I guess bipedal is completely different.

What do you think it would take for robots to walk in a similar way to humans?

⬐ ibnroberttuta

Great question.

Disclaimer: I don't work with these types of bipeds. I work on powered exoskeletons for paralyzed type people. I would google that phrase to get an idea, but what you'll find is not close to what i'm working on (Read: Wink wink). That being said, the fields overlap very heavily, probably too heavily given the necessary differences, so I do have a fairly rigorous (rusty, at this point) understanding of the topic.

You are right in a way; big dog et al (depending on specific bot/type) share alot of software features with biped robots, but not the type that deal with gait control. The difference is found primarily in gait-control/kinematics, as determined by the necessarily complex nature behind bipedal mechanics.

The future of robotics sort of already exists amongst us, at the very least in the public research domain. The fundamental issue with biped robots right now, as i see it, is:

1) Biped robots are almost universally 'human' inspired

2) Humans are theoretically fully optimized bipeds, copying them is logical and probably an unbeatable 'design'

3) Designers try to copy the human form, but either focus too heavily on ZMP influence or too much on a 'Terminator' level robustness (Heavy, rigid, and impossible).

4) The robot is produced, and because ZMP is very predictable/safe, it walks; but it is not 'human' form or very good at achieving it's design goals because its goals were modeled after the ideal biped, and this is a very bad imitation.

5) Designers say: Hey, spec sheet checks out, FEA says this is strong, problem must be bad software [ZMP]. Software guys say: This software [ZMP] can be improved. The designers are right, the software guys are right, but ZMP is wrong, and because of that, design is bad, etc...

So to really get a true, true biped robot, you really, really need A) Control theory that isn't backwards [literally] and B) A really, really 'human-like' (musculoskeletal) design.

A and B are both really difficult because both are massively challenging, and they have to work together perfectly. So you need a solution that is really creative, really beautiful and elegant and lightweight, and probably most difficult, you need to have people that know how to turn that kind of framework from theory to iterative simulation to real world etc etc.

ZMP is the only real game rn because it was first and etc [sunken cost fallacy and myopia, i think]. All other approaches are neglected fully, regretably (not many other approaches either).

Jumping back to how I see it, I think bipeds will only improve superficially till ZMP is killed or hybridized effectively, which doesn't mean A and B has to occur. Their are just too many fundamental limitations to the theory for bipeds using it to become ubiquitous, or even used beyond research/darpa-fairs.

I also think that my research/focus is more complex than robotic bipeds, and it'd be really worthless waste of my time if it was at the current or slightly above 'state-of-the-art', but this is absolutely the best way I can spend my life right now.

This whole industry [true 'wearables' and robotica] is like a giant powderkeg, and it's going to blow up way bigger and sooner than any thought possible [imo, so take with a grain of salt, but facts afford a potentially representative state of things to be].

I've also just realized i've forgotten to explain zmp/gait and many other things, but i feel that the write up stands on its own.

⬐ zamalek

Genuinely curious: could you chance a guess as to why they chose bipedal over quadrupedal?

I don't know much about the field, but mechanically quadrupedals simply make more sense - a lower center of gravity combined with more opportunities (in the form of more legs) to correct blunders.

⬐ danbmil99

I don't think traditional ZMP would enable the stuff this robot does in the snow. More likely some sort of evolved controller, like in this paper: https://vimeo.com/79098420

⬐ ibnroberttuta

This is a textbook, ZMP derivative type controller.

ZMP doesn't necessarily require absolute maps of the environment, but generally is more of a predict and optimize for safety type affair, and Atlas i'd imagine does that both very quickly, and a bit smarter leg reaction movements.

The linked video is more akin to elementary central pattern generation, which is a very understudied field, but their is more advanced research on the topic from pre 2010 if you are curious. Interest seems to have dropped off unfortunately in the really cool stuff since then, but you can find it with moderate ease.

⬐ Nican

I worked with Atlas during 2013 at WPI. Siyuan Feng just defended his thesis on Online Hierarchical Optimization for Humanoid Control for controlling Atlas during the DRC. The controller used is not as well refined as BD's controller, but I believe it stands in the same principles, and relies on ZMP.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcBYhR0DbbU [2] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sfeng/sf_thesis.pdf

⬐ wgx

I found it interesting how lots of the top comments on YouTube (ie: a wider generalist audience) were concerned about robot abuse and the robot uprising. We may scoff, but it's a real concern of lay people.

⬐ slfnflctd

I noticed exactly the same thing happening on reddit.

⬐ exodust

Isn't it just everyone trying to be funny with the same joke they believe will be original, but actually is every second comment? Happens a lot on Youtube. Surprised it's happening here too.

But if there really is a genuine wave of care about the robot welfare sweeping the intertubes, then perhaps we need some ethics drawn up for when the robots have feelings.

BTW, apparently fish do have feelings after all:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1819/2015...

⬐ Strom

I think it's even simpler than that. They don't even expect it to be an original joke. This is just the skynet meme. Memes like this get repeated ad infinitum in comment sections like youtube's. People recognize some pattern (e.g. robot abuse), pull out the most appropriate meme from their meme basket, see it also being pulled out by others, and have a sense of belonging & social reinforcement.

⬐ exodust

That's a kinder assessment. I'm not so sure though. I think many people don't read others' comments and cruise in, watch video, and bust out their joke, not noticing it already exists in various forms in previous comments.

Unlike offering a general opinion, viewpoint or judgement, we prefer our one-liner jokes to be unique.

⬐ NeutronBoy

That is super impressive. The video of the robot walking around in the snow, and multiple times almost falling over but righting itself, exactly how a human would...

⬐ dluan

Why do they always gotta smack around the robots like that :(

⬐ lsiunsuex

Not gonna lie - kinda felt bad for it.

⬐ dluan

Someone on the internet said that humankind's biggest conflict will be between the two sides of those who believe in A.I. as life and those who don't.

This is kind of getting us there.

⬐ krapp

There's little doubt in my mind this technology will be employed to exterminate villages full of "terrorists" by the US military in the future. You don't even need to invoke AI for that scenario, just VR and maybe whatever Google puts into their autonomous cars.

⬐ rl3

There's no need to exterminate anything. When you have robotic infantry deployed at theater scale, a largely non-lethal peacekeeping approach could be taken with relative ease.

I'd argue robotic infantry would be a massive leap towards improving the security and humanitarian situations in some of the world's most terrible places.

Unlike long-term deployment of human soldiers, political will wouldn't really factor in to robotic deployments. That would translate to less genocide and suffering in the world.

⬐ j1vms

At one point at least, people surmised that atomic weapons would lead to greater success in peace-keeping throughout the world. Not so sure it's turning out that way.

⬐ krapp

>Unlike long-term deployment of human soldiers, political will wouldn't really factor in to robotic deployments.

Aren't all military deployments an expression of political will, though?

⬐ edvinbesic

I imagine videos like these being used in future trials to show humans torturing robots.

⬐ datalus

The Animatrix depicts a lot of robot vs human strife. Pretty good shorts :)

⬐ rl3

>I imagine videos like these being used in future trials to show humans torturing robots.

The proceedings may resemble this:

https://i.imgur.com/1m1OPlb.png

⬐ njharman

All I know is a great prank would be to program Atlas; after being pushed to jump around and start chasing that guy, yelling "Come here squishy human, I want to test your cranium for compressibility"

⬐ toomuchtodo

To show how quickly the robot can compensate to having its center of gravity shifted (balance).

But man oh man, the robots are going to nice look kindly on us later.

⬐ pca184

haha yeah. There's something slightly terrifying at 2:18 when when the robot gets pushed down, stops, then 'jumps' back up. I was half expecting it to start attacking the guy

⬐ shostack

After a few times where the guy with the hockey stick smacked down the box and moved it away, I half expected Atlas to look at the box, then look at the stick, and grab the stick and attack the guy with it.

⬐ noobermin

I was imagining something like that, although with the robot brandishing a laser gun. The robot would then saying, "die human." in a robotic sounding voice.

⬐ tim333

That will probably be in the next software version. One thing at a time.

⬐ visarga

They don't seem to be using end-to-end deep reinforcement learning. I think the robot movements will become smooth and organic once they replace the current specialized approach with more general algorithms.

Robotics is a core application of reinforcement learning as it deals with an embedded agent in a feedback look with the exterior. That's why DeepBrain chose games to test their algorithm, because in a game the player is embedded in an artificial world which is much easier to use in the trial and error learning phase. Logically, after mastering Atari games, at some point they should focus on robots that function in the real world. It helps that Deep Brain and Boston Dynamics are owned by the same company.

⬐ danbmil99

Note the quiet compared to Big Dog... you can hear birds sing in the background. That's a big deal. Their 4-legged pack mule for DoD was killed partly due to noise.

Enjoy the silence..?

⬐ digi_owl

as best i recall, big dog was meant to be a long distance, possibly autonomous, pack mule for places and missions where a manned vehicle was not an option.

i suspect that this robot have a operating time of maybe an hour before the battery pack needs to be swapped.

⬐ kriro

Pretty impressive. Seems like a non-stiff torso could help a bit. I'm sure they are investigating that option/have tried it.

Hockey stick guy genuinely made me laugh. They should call this the hockey stick test (once again very impressive).

Not sure what impresses me more overall the walking on non trivial terrain in the beginning or the adaption to the "hockey attack". The video certainly makes me want to work in robotics. Haas Bioroid is here ;)

⬐ jordanthoms

Very awesome, each generation is just so much better.

I wish they had shown it climbing those stairs though! :)

⬐ mangeletti

As I've watched these videos over the years, it's been impossible, especially now, for me to not see how these and other such robots will replace and eventually extinct all humans.

In theory, a family of 4 humans could run a global economy run by robots and no humans. That's a sort of ridiculous, maximal state, but what makes any of us think that, given a continuum from the current state to that maximal state, we won't be somewhere closer to that state in 30 years, especially when considering the unreasonably effectiveness of rent seeking on technology-driven monopolies (e.g., Amazon)?

⬐ HeyShayBY

Anyone read "The Industries of the Future" by Alec Ross? He talks about the technologies of the future, the technologies who will become an integral part of our lives in the next 20 years.

The first episode in the book is about robotics. I really urge everyone to read that book.

This Boston Dynamics video gives me serious Terminator vibes. In reality, from an Economics stand point, I'm really curious and afraid to discover how will this affect the lives of millions and millions of workers world-wide who will lose their jobs to Robot. How can they stand at the right side of a technology revolution they know nothing about?

What do you think?

⬐ exodust

Bring it on. Same thing happened with industrial revolution didn't it? Trouble, followed by adjustment.

Leave the nasty jobs to robots. New industries will pop up. Technology keeps growing.

There will be protests. Robots will be harmed. Science fiction has told us most of what is coming.

⬐ sstiernborg

A related article about Dr Moshe Vardi and his controversial view that governments and societies around the world may have to consider a "basic income guarantee"

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...

⬐ macarthy12

What percentage of the body weight is batteries? HOw long can it operate ?

⬐ dogma1138

On thing you can already bet on is that in 20 years that guy is going to wake up in the middle of the night to find a T1000 with a hockey stick in it's hands and a grin on it's facial expression monitor pointing at a box and say "would you kindly; pick it up?". Later his tomb stone will say "Don't be a dick to robots".

⬐ jbdigriz

It's funny how this video is what everyone in IT thinks work will be like before they get their first job. Meanwhile, this is what work is actually like at every IT job:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIIWX80KBUE

⬐ stephengillie

For those not wanting to watch a video, Atlas appears to be a humanoid robot: http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/23/boston-dynamics-presents-...

⬐ atonse

What's crazy to me is that there's something "organic" enough about the way these machines are behaving, that I actually feel bad for the robot when the guy knocks over the boxes.

I think I wouldn't feel that bad if this were a self-driving forklift.

And it's not even an uncanny valley thing, or maybe it is?

⬐ unixhero

As a futurologist I don't like this one bit. Seriously, I feel like this company will destroy us all.

⬐ sunseb

It's not the Terminator T-800 yet, still it's impressing. :-)))

⬐ geerlingguy

Does anyone else start to think of Blinky[1] when the guy starts pushing around the robot?

[1] http://youtu.be/P0lKDy6E918

⬐ amai

Atlas is not alone: http://www.theroboticschallenge.org/teams

⬐ bliti

Impressive. They seem to have reduced how much noise it makes during normal operation. Does anybody know how long will the battery last on the current version?

⬐ GolDDranks

#robotsarepeopletoo #botrights

⬐ matzipan

I empathized when the robot faceplanted...

⬐ julbaxter

Does someone know if they are using ROS?

⬐ diskcat

It doesn't have the grace of an actual human.

Its solution to any problem seems to be more stomping.

⬐ nikolay

Although a great incremental update, is the new Atlas any better than Asimo?

⬐ None

None

⬐ alinspired

it can use a shiny Bender skin :) hope some Futurama fans are working there

⬐ angersock

The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy.

⬐ chetangole

that's terrifying!

⬐ Scottli

and then they will put a weapon on it

⬐ citizensixteen

Player Piano, the first novel of Kurt Vonnegut, was published in 1952. It depicts a dystopia of automation, describing the deterioration it can cause to quality of life. The story takes place in a near-future society that is almost totally mechanized, eliminating the need for human laborers. This widespread mechanization creates conflict between the wealthy upper class—the engineers and managers who keep society running—and the lower class, whose skills and purpose in society have been replaced by machines. The book uses irony and sentimentality, which were to become hallmarks developed further in Vonnegut's later works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano_(novel)

⬐ Scottli

and then they will put a weapon on it

⬐ Happpy

Poor robot, #abusedinboston

⬐ shostack

Am I the only one that saw this and got excited thinking it was a video of FB's new ad platform?

⬐ Nican

If people are interested in looking at more cool content on the subject, I recommend you looking at:

- http://drc.mit.edu/technology/

- http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~cga/drc/

- https://github.com/RobotLocomotion/drake/wiki

- http://robots.ihmc.us/humanoid-control-workshop/videos

I attended WPI during 2013-2014, and worked with Atlas. I am very excited and impressed by Boston Dynamics. (And hopefully start working on the field again.)