3 ms·

And yet I don't see any broad robot-making movement even remotely similar to early 00s FOSS explosion. Neither an active startup scene (no doubt they are there

And yet I don't see any broad robot-making movement even remotely similar to early 00s FOSS explosion. Neither an active startup scene (no doubt they are there, just not getting much attention). Even 3D printing kind of lost coverage. While we're at it, let's make a robot that collects plastic bottles and other recyclable garbage? And also one that cuts Heracleum sosnowskyi and makes biodisel out of it?

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
This is my thinking as well. Robots have become the new jetpack it seems. Lots of conjecture and promises from people unfamiliar with the industry. I read these articles from time to time and they more or less assume we have some level of working AI and cheap robot arms and legs with the degrees of freedom and strength a person has. We're not remotely there. In fact, services like Google Now, Cortana, and Siri are comically well... stupid. Expert systems tied to various databases does not make for a very intelligent agent, at least on the level we're talking about here. The home robot market is also comically stupid and filled with things like Pepper or Jibo or Robotbase which are little more than ipads on wheels. As a robot hobbyist I'm very bewildered about all this empty futurism. What robots have these journalists seen that can trivially roll into McDonalds are start taking orders, for example. How are they handle natural language processing in a noisy and high speed environment full of fault prone humans? If robots like these are going to come about we'll first be seeing stuff like this on the hobbyist level, then in children's toys and other novelty seeking industries, and only later in places like retail or offices. I'm sure physical automation paired with intelligence will eventually eat the world, but eventually isn't two years from now. It might be more like two hundred. Or even two thousand. General purpose robotics is a hard problem. Its not remotely solved.
- thehoff 11y ago
  I agree here. Maybe this is part of the slow going evolution. We are kind of on the cusp of all these things that are very slowly starting to happen. We have robots that are taking the place of patrolling grounds, serving food, delivering medicines, vacuuming our floors. All somewhat mundane things. Now we have toys like what they are doing with Barbie (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/magazine/barbie-wants-to-get-to-know-your-child.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/magazine/barbie-wants-to-g...). This seems interesting as we are now starting to play with our emotions (as pointed out in the article with the AIBO) more and more. Seems that this is just moving a lot slower than everyone anticipated.
a3voices 11y ago
I think the difference is that you can make software using just a computer, whereas for a robot you need to order a bunch of physical parts and put them together. The cost is much higher and you can't just tweak physical parts like code. If you mess up, you have to buy more stuff. Also to make truly top quality robots, you need to know how to weld and cut metal, or mold plastic. If every kid had a warehouse in his backyard full of robot parts and tools, it might look more like the FOSS movement.
marcosdumay 11y ago
Robots have this unfortunate property in that they are expensive. I don't think there was ever a fast paced explosion of any expensive technology (at least by today's standards; by VII century standards, the steam engine exploded). But that does not mean there isn't rapid improvement. It's just not distributed, and will take a long time to get into everybody's home. Now, about this: > Even 3D printing kind of lost coverage. That's the natural pause between it being new and it getting useful.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

This is my thinking as well. Robots have become the new jetpack it seems. Lots of conjecture and promises from people unfamiliar with the industry. I read these articles from time to time and they more or less assume we have some level of working AI and cheap robot arms and legs with the degrees of freedom and strength a person has. We're not remotely there. In fact, services like Google Now, Cortana, and Siri are comically well... stupid. Expert systems tied to various databases does not make for a very intelligent agent, at least on the level we're talking about here. The home robot market is also comically stupid and filled with things like Pepper or Jibo or Robotbase which are little more than ipads on wheels. As a robot hobbyist I'm very bewildered about all this empty futurism. What robots have these journalists seen that can trivially roll into McDonalds are start taking orders, for example. How are they handle natural language processing in a noisy and high speed environment full of fault prone humans? If robots like these are going to come about we'll first be seeing stuff like this on the hobbyist level, then in children's toys and other novelty seeking industries, and only later in places like retail or offices. I'm sure physical automation paired with intelligence will eventually eat the world, but eventually isn't two years from now. It might be more like two hundred. Or even two thousand. General purpose robotics is a hard problem. Its not remotely solved.

thehoff 11y ago
I agree here. Maybe this is part of the slow going evolution. We are kind of on the cusp of all these things that are very slowly starting to happen. We have robots that are taking the place of patrolling grounds, serving food, delivering medicines, vacuuming our floors. All somewhat mundane things. Now we have toys like what they are doing with Barbie (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/magazine/barbie-wants-to-get-to-know-your-child.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/magazine/barbie-wants-to-g...). This seems interesting as we are now starting to play with our emotions (as pointed out in the article with the AIBO) more and more. Seems that this is just moving a lot slower than everyone anticipated.

a3voices 11y ago

I think the difference is that you can make software using just a computer, whereas for a robot you need to order a bunch of physical parts and put them together. The cost is much higher and you can't just tweak physical parts like code. If you mess up, you have to buy more stuff. Also to make truly top quality robots, you need to know how to weld and cut metal, or mold plastic. If every kid had a warehouse in his backyard full of robot parts and tools, it might look more like the FOSS movement.

marcosdumay 11y ago

Robots have this unfortunate property in that they are expensive. I don't think there was ever a fast paced explosion of any expensive technology (at least by today's standards; by VII century standards, the steam engine exploded). But that does not mean there isn't rapid improvement. It's just not distributed, and will take a long time to get into everybody's home. Now, about this: > Even 3D printing kind of lost coverage. That's the natural pause between it being new and it getting useful.