Yeah, after you have motion down, you would just need to be able to detect a heat signature and shoot at it. I doubt that's very difficult compared to what they've already done.
There are already robots for that. Not so fancy, but they somewhat work.
I wasn't speaking about "robot world domination". That implies intelligent machines and this is not. But it looks like this one is pretty efficient in recognizing obstacles, and shapes. Once they can recognize targets, humans just need to deploy them and they will be much more efficient, without the need of human pilots. And they can come in different sizes and shapes.
I find it quite scary, and the DARPA logo at the end of the movie does not help.
Or even better, attack dogs of the future. When I got home last night the first thing my roommate did was show me that video and then remind me of the "rat things" in Snow Crash.
I don't even think it's that apparent. It takes us 2 years to learn to walk, even with millions upon millions of years of evolution designing us perfectly to do it.
Yes, but many four-legged animals can walk mere minutes after having been born, and this is a more valid comparison for the task facing a four-legged robot.
Anyone with some robotics experience able to explain more about the floating base inverse dynamics control system and what sort of accommodations make it so much more powerful than PD?
I don't know too many specifics, but it looks like their PD example was controlling the joint position. That means that if the ground isn't where the robot expects it to be, the leg will still assume the same position and cause the robot to fall over.
The dynamic force control system is, instead of controlling the leg position, controlling the amount of force that the leg is exerting on the ground. This means that the leg may end up in a different position than the walking controller intended, but the overall effect on the main body should be similar to what was expected.
Its been said before, but needs to be repeated every time:
The implications of this line of R&D are horrific.
Removing the risk of say, US soldier casualties, combined with media control, and with "merely" the current level of inhumanity of political leadership, would be a very ugly mix indeed.
So yeah, its hard for me to get excited about the tech in this case.
I know I probably should be worried about this kind of technology, but I just can't help it - I see this and I'm excited like a little kid again. I want one of these :)
Until we devise a system where consumer products, or government grants, drive more research like this, the military war machine is necessary for this type of funding. Most public company's with deep pockets live quarter to quarter. Gotta beat those earnings estimates, by a lot.
They're only horrific if they're misused. Robots like this will also have plenty of non-military applications - especially in agriculture. Legged locomotion opens up the possibility of cultivating land which was previously inaccessible to conventional farming automation.
It should also be said that there is nothing inevitable about the close association between robotics and the military - it's just an artefact of American culture and the idiosyncratic way in which high tech research gets funded in America.
It doesn't justify anything. It just shows that we are already killing people in almost every way imaginable so another new one would not be anything all that new.
The same tech can also walk into a burning building to locate trapped people without endangering the lives of firemen, crawl through rubble to find survivors after an earthquake, power household robots to assist the disabled, and more. I know the source of funding here is distasteful, but this is a dual-use technology if ever I saw one.
As long as humanity will want to kill eachother, everything will be used as weapons. Computers are used as weapons (hell would computerized bombs and missiles be possible otherwise?) boats are used to kill people. Airplanes used to kill people. So now robots, why not its the next step. Knowing the US government they will manufature them without any bit of encryption and with a radioshack remote control someone can hijack one of these :P
Don't worry, we're much farther from that than you might think from this video. This robot can't see where it's going. It requires external cameras watching it from known fixed locations to figure out where it is. Not only that, but the cameras cannot look at a piece of terrain and figure out the 3D structure; the terrain must be mapped out in advance as a 3D mesh, down to the millimeter.
Agreed. Computer vision is a steep challenge and will limit autonomy. The derivatives of these types of devices will likely be deployed as drones in the meantime.
We are rushing headlong into robotic automation. Civilian and military uses will abound. The day when hiding our head from technology was a solution is long past. Responsibility is the only option left that doesn't involve war. Our "leaders" will only be as insane as we allow them. People don't get the government they deserve; we get the one we'll tolerate.
I just found the big stair demo cheap. That "jumping" behavior looked hard-coded (and it was implied by the narrator) and seemed to possibly damage the robot. Still impressive, but a lot less so than the other demonstrations.
The robot drives its motors at 400 Hz based on control signals coming in at 100 Hz from an external computer. 100 Hz is probably the limit of the sensing system they're using, which is a motion capture system external to the robot. (Notice the reflective marker balls on top of the robot and also on the terrain.) My guess is that's the limiting factor here, though supporting a higher rate would probably also require faster software, and I have no idea what the limb speed/precision limits of the robot are.
I personally find unseen UAV's raining missiles down on our heads to be much more terrifying. I'm actually quite excited about this tech. The first thing I thought when I saw this video was one of these things walking on the surface of Mars.
Agreed re: the UAV comment. Imagine a world where big brother is watching everything you do, and can kill you from the other side of the world with the press of a button, with absolutely no warning, with no way for you to defend yourself, and no way to attempt to explain your actions to someone.
A walking robot is much less terrifying.
The first thing I thought was that countries such as Cambodia could one day exist without landmines.
The most effective thing to get me off my ass and studying is to see something I should conceivably be able to create, but have no idea where I'd begin.
Can someone link to a good introduction to how the control systems for something like this work?
65 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 135 ms ] thread- running
- jumping
- seek and destroy
I wasn't speaking about "robot world domination". That implies intelligent machines and this is not. But it looks like this one is pretty efficient in recognizing obstacles, and shapes. Once they can recognize targets, humans just need to deploy them and they will be much more efficient, without the need of human pilots. And they can come in different sizes and shapes.
I find it quite scary, and the DARPA logo at the end of the movie does not help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash#Rat_Things
There's more information about the 'LittleDog' on the Boston Dynamics website: http://www.bostondynamics.com/
I was really impressed 2 years ago by their video of the 'BigDog': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww (check out t=40s)
And, if you'll forgive me, here's one additional link for anyone who hadn't yet heard of Big Dog. (Unlikely, I know...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXJZVZFRFJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5BPrlOVX2o
Birds can walk on two legs in very little time.
The dynamic force control system is, instead of controlling the leg position, controlling the amount of force that the leg is exerting on the ground. This means that the leg may end up in a different position than the walking controller intended, but the overall effect on the main body should be similar to what was expected.
The implications of this line of R&D are horrific.
Removing the risk of say, US soldier casualties, combined with media control, and with "merely" the current level of inhumanity of political leadership, would be a very ugly mix indeed.
So yeah, its hard for me to get excited about the tech in this case.
It should also be said that there is nothing inevitable about the close association between robotics and the military - it's just an artefact of American culture and the idiosyncratic way in which high tech research gets funded in America.
Given that this whole line of research is funded by the US military, what do you mean by "misused" ? Wouldn't "used" be more accurate?
Use of robots for the purpose of prosecuting a war crime
Use of robots to carry out an act of terrorism
Indiscriminate use of deadly force by autonomous robots
Use of autonomous robots in a military context without proper supervision (for example, not being able to deactivate them once deployed).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptyV1cpE14o
Or the decidedly low-tech genocide in Sudan. Or the genocides and crimes against humanity in all the other places.
Bottom line is Homo homini lupus. It's not like the risk of US soldier casualties is that much of deterrent.
Bombs, A-bombs, robots, not that different, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
As long as humanity will want to kill eachother, everything will be used as weapons. Computers are used as weapons (hell would computerized bombs and missiles be possible otherwise?) boats are used to kill people. Airplanes used to kill people. So now robots, why not its the next step. Knowing the US government they will manufature them without any bit of encryption and with a radioshack remote control someone can hijack one of these :P
I just found the big stair demo cheap. That "jumping" behavior looked hard-coded (and it was implied by the narrator) and seemed to possibly damage the robot. Still impressive, but a lot less so than the other demonstrations.
The robot drives its motors at 400 Hz based on control signals coming in at 100 Hz from an external computer. 100 Hz is probably the limit of the sensing system they're using, which is a motion capture system external to the robot. (Notice the reflective marker balls on top of the robot and also on the terrain.) My guess is that's the limiting factor here, though supporting a higher rate would probably also require faster software, and I have no idea what the limb speed/precision limits of the robot are.
A walking robot is much less terrifying.
The first thing I thought was that countries such as Cambodia could one day exist without landmines.
Can someone link to a good introduction to how the control systems for something like this work?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbBEfZ8fK9Y