3 ms·

I disagree. There are plenty of examples of robot hardware that would work great for valuable applications, but the software and sensing isn't there yet. It's

by tlb 11y ago

I disagree. There are plenty of examples of robot hardware that would work great for valuable applications, but the software and sensing isn't there yet. It's true that most research robots have crappy mechanics and integration. That's because they know that software is the unsolved problem, and hardware is mainly a matter of throwing resources at it. That can wait until the rest of the technology is ready. Check out a video of IPI's truck unloading robot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plo7SH9aBgg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plo7SH9aBgg That hardware more or less existed in the 90s. With the right software, two of those (one throwing, one catching) could unload a truck way faster than humans. But watching it, 90% of the time is sensing and thinking. Or this humanoid: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9673386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9673386 (video sped up 10x). The hardware could indeed be optimized, but it's good enough that it's not the limiting factor. With sufficiently smart software, that could be the robot butler of the future. If you put automotive-scale engineering resources behind it, the hardware would be slick, lightweight, and rugged.

fidotron 11y ago
Those robots, compared to biology, are utterly unimpressive. You aren't going to get a robot butler before you have a robot honeybee, but where is the robot honeybee? It's mechanically limited out of existence. Software etc. are simpler nearer to useful than our hardware is, but it's the hardware parts that are missing to make use of current software.
- tlb 11y ago
  It's true that robot honeybees will require super-advanced hardware, because the job of a honeybee is stupendously difficult. Long range, weather, precision landings, surviving collisions, etc. That's a long way off. Robot butlers won't need very advanced hardware, because we've designed homes to be comfortable and benign. Comfortable temperatures, power available, utensils and appliances designed for ease of use. Same with logistics. So yes, we're a long way from humanoid hardware that could compete in a rodeo, or win a soccer match, or survive in the wild. But butlering is physically not too demanding.
- nostrademons 11y ago
  The wing of a plane is incredibly simple compared to the wing of a bird. No muscles, no bones, no feathers - it doesn't even flap. And yet it gets the job done. Nature has a lot of path-dependence that can be avoided with design. Think of how much cruft accumulates in a software program after 15 years of continuous evolution, and then multiply that by a million. It's not unreasonable to think that whatever hardware we use to emulate various human tasks might be a lot simpler than the wetware that makes up an actual human.

by tlb 11y ago

fidotron 11y ago

Those robots, compared to biology, are utterly unimpressive. You aren't going to get a robot butler before you have a robot honeybee, but where is the robot honeybee? It's mechanically limited out of existence. Software etc. are simpler nearer to useful than our hardware is, but it's the hardware parts that are missing to make use of current software.

tlb 11y ago
It's true that robot honeybees will require super-advanced hardware, because the job of a honeybee is stupendously difficult. Long range, weather, precision landings, surviving collisions, etc. That's a long way off. Robot butlers won't need very advanced hardware, because we've designed homes to be comfortable and benign. Comfortable temperatures, power available, utensils and appliances designed for ease of use. Same with logistics. So yes, we're a long way from humanoid hardware that could compete in a rodeo, or win a soccer match, or survive in the wild. But butlering is physically not too demanding.
nostrademons 11y ago
The wing of a plane is incredibly simple compared to the wing of a bird. No muscles, no bones, no feathers - it doesn't even flap. And yet it gets the job done. Nature has a lot of path-dependence that can be avoided with design. Think of how much cruft accumulates in a software program after 15 years of continuous evolution, and then multiply that by a million. It's not unreasonable to think that whatever hardware we use to emulate various human tasks might be a lot simpler than the wetware that makes up an actual human.