There is one tiny little mention of Waymo in there but that's clearly the main push for Google in robotics now, and if that's where those robotics aquihires went maybe that's what they wanted.
I wonder if that's because self-driving cars are not how the general public expects robots to look like. C-3PO, R2-D2, and those orange arms in factories are what most people imagine when they think about robots.
But like the rest of the efforts listed, that's not on the market at the moment. It probably isn't that close either, since there is no official release date.
Or because it's a bigger market? How much do most Americans spend on transportation compared to say, things that come out of assembly lines? And how much value can robots add to each of those verticals?
A robot that prepares my dinner is more valuable to me than a self driving car.
Why? Well, when I leave work, I spend 45 minutes in the car, and another 45 minutes preparing dinner. With self driving cars, that will not change. But with self cooking chefs, that would add 45 minutes of quality time to my day.
According to the most recent data from the Department of Transportation, there are 11.3 million motor vehicle accidents a year in America, with 2.4 million people injured in said accidents. 2016 was the deadliest year in almost 10 years, with about 40,000 traffic deaths—up about 2,000 over 2015.
Note that these numbers are made up to a certain degree, much more so than the restaurant industry numbers, and so they are not necessarily comparable. The NHTSA puts the value of one life at $8.86 million (in 2010 dollars) [p. 114 of the report]. For 40,000 deaths, that's already $354 billion. They then add other costs, too, which are also hard or impossible to measure.
Things like this make me wonder if I just have an extreme lack of... grit, or tolerance for risking other people's lives or something. I mean, the idea of spending an hour and a half a day driving, experimentally, means I break after a few months even if the job is relatively stress free. (now, experimentally, I can ride a lot longer than I can drive, but I'm one of those people who can read while in a moving vehicle.)
I know this is a normal thing that normal people do; I know people who do it, but it is something I personally find incomprehensibly difficult.
Your car isn't the sum total of what you spend on transportation. Every loaf of bread and gallon of milk was also transported a fairly long distance to arrive at your local supermarket. All the Uber stories here would lead you to believe that the initial thrusts for self driving cars will be in transporting humans, but I find it much more likely that the initial rollout of self-driving technology will, instead, be focused on moving stuff.
Truck driver is, IIRC, the largest single job description in the US. That's a huge target market for self-driving technology and a massive societal problem that's looking when so many people are left jobless.
Thank you for this inspirational quote, which I distributed to the team at Infinite Food this morning to start our week! http://infinite-food.com/
We are building a network of automated food preparation and retail service locations for high density mainland Chinese cities, with a view toward international expansion.
In the transportation market, it may be possible to own the ordering and aggregation process , which in certain scenarios become something with a strong network effects, hence strong barriers to competition .
The article makes it sound like Google's bet failed because of ageism. Google hires young kids. Like all kids, they are interested in fun. The moment something is not fun anymore, kids lose interest. Acqhiring some smart old farts in robotics, then teaming them up with a bunch of kids just slowed the old ones down. Held back industry for 4 years.
Not a flattering narrative for Google's public image.
How about: Rubin left the company, no one picked up the robotics org in the way it needed, and now the vesting schedules are seeing people leave? I don't know why ageism is the most likely theory.
It's true, though, in my experience. But it's also ageist: I've seen plenty of people who are old enough to be on the second half of their life engage in this chasing the new shiny behavior. I refer to them as kids because they act like it.
Making young kids work with old farts may be very effective. Young people learn fast and old ones are chalenged to prove they are not outdated and can work with young kids. If both groups are open minded, the result can be great.
Alphabet held back robotics by purchasing a military industrial complex corp that produced excellent terminators and then couldn't handle the backlash from the public when videos started coming out of scary bipedal robots that could bring about the apocalypse.
They proceeded to tell their engineers to "cut it out" and started creating parameters like, "no more bipedal robots" and "stop scaring the public." And, actually, their engineers ignored them and kept doing it, which annoyed Alphabet further so they put additional pressure to stop work in that direction. Though, the irony is that this led to a pretty awesome terminator bot that uses wheels, moves ridiculously fast, can jump and balance better than their bipedal robots and therefore become your friend faster.
I don't personally feel they've held back robotics as an actual field, because the progress continued internally in spite of Alphabet's mismanagement and fear. However, Alphabet suppressed those robots from becoming mainstream products because they weren't the products they wanted and they were very sensitive about the impact on their public image.
That division fully had the capability to release robots that could help people or industries in various ways; military (pack bots, soldiers), police (peacekeepers), steal your job bots, medical (bots that help lift people out of bed, or keep old people from wandering out of their prisons), pets (pet dogs, cheetahs that can hunt down your ex with speed and accuracy, a spider that can climb in bed with you and inject you with life saving chemicals that extends your life before giving you a hug goodnight), companions (definitely think sexual here, perhaps even combined with some of those pet ideas), and so on.
It might have begat the dystopian future that keeps many of us, or just Elon Musk, awake at night. And, if that's the case be thankful Alphabet couldn't manage to get much into production.
The only real way they've held back robotics is by never releasing anything, beyond previous commitments of course.
Softbank now owns Boston Dynamics, and their CEO gave a good TED talk on the current state of their robotic development a few months back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO4In7d6X-c
Just to clear up an ambiguous sentence: It's the CEO of Boston Dynamics, Marc Raibert, talking at TED, not the CEO of Softbank.
It's a good talk, and probably the first time I've seen Boston Dynamics robot portrayed in a positive light. The videos they have released in the past, has always given of this Terminator vibe.
The article completely misses one key point - SV and the start-up cycle involve acquisitions that then result in payouts for founders, who then go on to fund additional companies, some of which exit and repeat the cycle.
Even if Google did exactly nothing with robotics (which seems unlikely), the infusion of capital to the people with expertise is good for the field.
They mention that in the part about vesting periods and executives leaving.
As a result I would expect to see a flourishing of robotics research in the near future, I'm just disappointed that they were stuck there for 4 years in the interim.
It makes me wonder if companies that are attempting to acquire smaller companies might not just be better off leaving them in situ and acting in more of an investment role than an ownership role. Buy 52% of the company for $x/1.9 instead of the whole thing, and in doing so provide them with funds but not interference.
The own/invest, but leave independent strategy assumes that Google itself hasn't benefited in some way from the work done.
Further, you are also asking a corporation to admit that it's not as good at deploying capital as the smaller company. That's may be true but is a tough position to take.
I'll take the capital infusion with 4 year delay versus no capital.
> Further, you are also asking a corporation to admit that it's not as good at deploying capital as the smaller company. That's may be true but is a tough position to take.
That's literally what they're saying by acquiring though. They're saying "We could use this money internally to build a clone but your company is operating at a discount to what we can do ourselves"
Well, its also that the target company already has a working and functional foundation, and possibly product, and has already gone through the effort of finding experts in the area, and have a bunch of employees trained to work on the system.
The choice is something like $5M acquisition or $1M building it + 2 years
For a large corporation, it makes sense that money is cheaper than time
Those founders were stuck at Google after their acquisition weren’t they? (The article implies that but I honestly don’t know.) The “talent” they brought with them to Google was held back from working for other robotics companies by the 4 year vesting requirement.
I can see where your idea has merit in the long term, google seems to have set back robotics by 4 years or so in the short term.
Because it's mentioned in the article, credit where credit is due to Willow Labs for their incredible work in pushing the open source side of the field forward.
Because of the nature of economics (vendors are either selling parts or complete systems), no one had incentive to work on a reusable OS / framework. This meant every lab project and product would start from scratch and rewrite the same stuff. From seeing this at a research lab ~2011, it absolutely impeded progress.
Grad students shouldn't have had to repeatedly reimplement all the utility bits just to test their ideas on a far more specific robotics problem.
I most certainly do! And shouldn't type before I've had Sunday coffee. (Especially as I pulled up Willow Garage's wiki entry out of interest before I typed that!)
49 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 125 ms ] threadWhy? Well, when I leave work, I spend 45 minutes in the car, and another 45 minutes preparing dinner. With self driving cars, that will not change. But with self cooking chefs, that would add 45 minutes of quality time to my day.
The difference is that a self driving taxi will be far cheaper than a taxi, partly because it can be shared.
A robot that prepared food already exists, it's called a factory, but food is far more variable in terms of people's desires.
The economic impact of car accidents is almost as staggering as the numbers of injuries and lives lost. The total economic impact of car crashes is a whopping $871 billion in the U.S. (http://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/13792/car-accidents-cause...)
The revenue of the entire restaurant industry is less than that total economic impact ($799 billion http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/Research/Facts-at-a-...)
The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
Note that these numbers are made up to a certain degree, much more so than the restaurant industry numbers, and so they are not necessarily comparable. The NHTSA puts the value of one life at $8.86 million (in 2010 dollars) [p. 114 of the report]. For 40,000 deaths, that's already $354 billion. They then add other costs, too, which are also hard or impossible to measure.
I know this is a normal thing that normal people do; I know people who do it, but it is something I personally find incomprehensibly difficult.
Truck driver is, IIRC, the largest single job description in the US. That's a huge target market for self-driving technology and a massive societal problem that's looking when so many people are left jobless.
It makes more sense for the dinner cooking robot to be making thousands of meals a day than just two for you each day.
We are building a network of automated food preparation and retail service locations for high density mainland Chinese cities, with a view toward international expansion.
Your statement concurs with the results of a study published in PNAS and reported in NYT recently regarding cross-demographic improvements in happiness resulting from increased spending on time-saving - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/18/1706541114.full and https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/science/study-happy-save-...
Even in the cost of buying the vehicle, it is already highly automated, how much can more robots decrease the price of the car?
Robotics in general may not have strong barriers.
Transformers are cars that drive themselves.
I think it's a case that will be reinforced with the first viable self driven car.
Not a flattering narrative for Google's public image.
I don't fucking understand what the fuck is going on? every group who complains about some of form "ism" ends up doing it.
That's the ageist statement. Google doesn't hire three year olds.
They proceeded to tell their engineers to "cut it out" and started creating parameters like, "no more bipedal robots" and "stop scaring the public." And, actually, their engineers ignored them and kept doing it, which annoyed Alphabet further so they put additional pressure to stop work in that direction. Though, the irony is that this led to a pretty awesome terminator bot that uses wheels, moves ridiculously fast, can jump and balance better than their bipedal robots and therefore become your friend faster.
I don't personally feel they've held back robotics as an actual field, because the progress continued internally in spite of Alphabet's mismanagement and fear. However, Alphabet suppressed those robots from becoming mainstream products because they weren't the products they wanted and they were very sensitive about the impact on their public image.
That division fully had the capability to release robots that could help people or industries in various ways; military (pack bots, soldiers), police (peacekeepers), steal your job bots, medical (bots that help lift people out of bed, or keep old people from wandering out of their prisons), pets (pet dogs, cheetahs that can hunt down your ex with speed and accuracy, a spider that can climb in bed with you and inject you with life saving chemicals that extends your life before giving you a hug goodnight), companions (definitely think sexual here, perhaps even combined with some of those pet ideas), and so on.
It might have begat the dystopian future that keeps many of us, or just Elon Musk, awake at night. And, if that's the case be thankful Alphabet couldn't manage to get much into production.
The only real way they've held back robotics is by never releasing anything, beyond previous commitments of course.
It's a good talk, and probably the first time I've seen Boston Dynamics robot portrayed in a positive light. The videos they have released in the past, has always given of this Terminator vibe.
Even if Google did exactly nothing with robotics (which seems unlikely), the infusion of capital to the people with expertise is good for the field.
As a result I would expect to see a flourishing of robotics research in the near future, I'm just disappointed that they were stuck there for 4 years in the interim.
It makes me wonder if companies that are attempting to acquire smaller companies might not just be better off leaving them in situ and acting in more of an investment role than an ownership role. Buy 52% of the company for $x/1.9 instead of the whole thing, and in doing so provide them with funds but not interference.
Further, you are also asking a corporation to admit that it's not as good at deploying capital as the smaller company. That's may be true but is a tough position to take.
I'll take the capital infusion with 4 year delay versus no capital.
That's literally what they're saying by acquiring though. They're saying "We could use this money internally to build a clone but your company is operating at a discount to what we can do ourselves"
And yes, certainly, capital is good either way :)
The choice is something like $5M acquisition or $1M building it + 2 years
For a large corporation, it makes sense that money is cheaper than time
I can see where your idea has merit in the long term, google seems to have set back robotics by 4 years or so in the short term.
There's a lot of money chasing some ideas. I wonder if tech would develop faster if there were a little less money involved?
Robotics is probably on the edge of this, between software (where it's probably true) and less-smart hardware (where it's probably false).
Having worked at a robotics lab, budget absolutely comes into play when you know what you need, but it's a custom part from a single vendor.
http://www.ros.org/about-ros/
Because of the nature of economics (vendors are either selling parts or complete systems), no one had incentive to work on a reusable OS / framework. This meant every lab project and product would start from scratch and rewrite the same stuff. From seeing this at a research lab ~2011, it absolutely impeded progress.
Grad students shouldn't have had to repeatedly reimplement all the utility bits just to test their ideas on a far more specific robotics problem.