5 ms·

Kinda weird. I envisage robotics as being the next gigantic thing in technology so its a bit hard to understand why Google don't want this any more.

smpetrey 9y ago
AI and automation will unlock that era. For now it gets shelved.
venachescu 9y ago
Mostly because it was a rushed and not totally thought out acquisition - Boston Dynamics never wanted to leave Boston and has always been about legged locomotion, Google wanted them to change and they didn't.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Google has an office in Cambridge which is right next door to Boston.
  - venachescu 9y ago
    But all of their other robots that they bought are in the bay! Except for SCHAFT, who, apparently were also bought by SoftBank today so go figure.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
accountyaccount 9y ago
You don't understand why Google doesn't want to keep a company that works on military robots?
- Baeocystin 9y ago
  FWIW, I don't. The world wouldn't have the amazing space programs we collectively do if it weren't for the massive tech transfer that came from military missile research, for example. A humanoid robot that can be used for military purposes will have a vastly greater number of civilian uses. I used to work as a welder in a shipyard, and believe me, there were plenty of times I could have used a robotic aid to assist a dangerous maneuver, where one side is reasonably safe, the other Guaranteed Instant Death if the safeties fail. And if Uncle Sam wants to foot the bill for baseline research, why not? Pushing the coming of useful home/civilian robotics away because it could also be used for military purposes, to me, is akin to not wanting to smelt iron because you could use it to make a sword. In the meantime, people starve without metal plows, and the tech will be developed anyway, by someone else, who will do what they want. (It is better to be the one deciding what to do with the tech than the one waiting pensively to see what will happen.)
  - accountyaccount 9y ago
    More like not wanting to develop nuclear power because you don't want to also create a bomb... there's a rich history of regret on that one.
    - Baeocystin 9y ago
      Even Einstein, a pacifist, realized that it was more important to be the ones that created it than to pretend it wouldn't happen and lets either the Germans or the Russians take control instead. He claimed to regret it in retrospect, only because he learned after the fact that the Nazis were further behind than he thought. But the benefit of hindsight is not something we get beforehand. When he thought the risk real, he knew there was only one choice to be made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_... // On top of all that, nuclear medicine has saved more lives than the bomb ever took, by multiple orders of magnitude. // Please don't get me wrong- I am not some war hawk. I do not want people hurt or killed, and I don't want to personally build any weapons. But the sort of hand-wringing that some people do over 'evil' technology... Knowledge doesn't work that way. Information is morally agnostic. And if it has the potential to be used in a harmful way, the best way to avoid it is to be the one that sets the leading tone. Anything else, IMO, is just wishful thinking.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  As long as the military tech has substantial civilian applications, which load-carrying robots certainly do, it's morally pretty neutral.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- rl3 9y ago
  >You don't understand why Google doesn't want to keep a company that works on military robots? Military robots aren't automatically bad. If used correctly they could stabilize the security situation in some of the most hellish places on Earth, ultimately facilitating massive humanitarian aid.
- taneq 9y ago
  Those who don't live by the sword can still be slaughtered by those who do.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Related: those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
- wtf_is_up 9y ago
  What are you implying here?
- detaro 9y ago
  They bought said company that works on military robots before, so no.
dbcurtis 9y ago
Google wants to build robotic products. Boston Dynamics wants to build research robots in their well-funded play pen. Boston Dynamics robots have notoriously feeble reliability. No where near a consumer or even industrial product. Its a major culture clash with Google.
- ralfd 9y ago
  But how will that culture fair better under SoftBank?
romanovcode 9y ago
Google wants money, robotics doesn't bring short-term money, advertising does - so it's better to add a "built-in adblocker" that will whitelist google ads (and after removing all adblockers from google store) instead of building robots for better society.
- Symmetry 9y ago
  With Google's cash reserves I'm pretty sure short term money is at the bottom of their list of concerns.
huffmsa 9y ago
Automation of existing hardware is the next big thing. Self-driving freight, better assembly lines, etc.

smpetrey 9y ago

AI and automation will unlock that era. For now it gets shelved.

venachescu 9y ago

Mostly because it was a rushed and not totally thought out acquisition - Boston Dynamics never wanted to leave Boston and has always been about legged locomotion, Google wanted them to change and they didn't.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Google has an office in Cambridge which is right next door to Boston.
- venachescu 9y ago
  But all of their other robots that they bought are in the bay! Except for SCHAFT, who, apparently were also bought by SoftBank today so go figure.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

accountyaccount 9y ago

You don't understand why Google doesn't want to keep a company that works on military robots?

Baeocystin 9y ago
FWIW, I don't. The world wouldn't have the amazing space programs we collectively do if it weren't for the massive tech transfer that came from military missile research, for example. A humanoid robot that can be used for military purposes will have a vastly greater number of civilian uses. I used to work as a welder in a shipyard, and believe me, there were plenty of times I could have used a robotic aid to assist a dangerous maneuver, where one side is reasonably safe, the other Guaranteed Instant Death if the safeties fail. And if Uncle Sam wants to foot the bill for baseline research, why not? Pushing the coming of useful home/civilian robotics away because it could also be used for military purposes, to me, is akin to not wanting to smelt iron because you could use it to make a sword. In the meantime, people starve without metal plows, and the tech will be developed anyway, by someone else, who will do what they want. (It is better to be the one deciding what to do with the tech than the one waiting pensively to see what will happen.)
- accountyaccount 9y ago
  More like not wanting to develop nuclear power because you don't want to also create a bomb... there's a rich history of regret on that one.
  - Baeocystin 9y ago
    Even Einstein, a pacifist, realized that it was more important to be the ones that created it than to pretend it wouldn't happen and lets either the Germans or the Russians take control instead. He claimed to regret it in retrospect, only because he learned after the fact that the Nazis were further behind than he thought. But the benefit of hindsight is not something we get beforehand. When he thought the risk real, he knew there was only one choice to be made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_... // On top of all that, nuclear medicine has saved more lives than the bomb ever took, by multiple orders of magnitude. // Please don't get me wrong- I am not some war hawk. I do not want people hurt or killed, and I don't want to personally build any weapons. But the sort of hand-wringing that some people do over 'evil' technology... Knowledge doesn't work that way. Information is morally agnostic. And if it has the potential to be used in a harmful way, the best way to avoid it is to be the one that sets the leading tone. Anything else, IMO, is just wishful thinking.
CamperBob2 9y ago
As long as the military tech has substantial civilian applications, which load-carrying robots certainly do, it's morally pretty neutral.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rl3 9y ago
>You don't understand why Google doesn't want to keep a company that works on military robots? Military robots aren't automatically bad. If used correctly they could stabilize the security situation in some of the most hellish places on Earth, ultimately facilitating massive humanitarian aid.
taneq 9y ago
Those who don't live by the sword can still be slaughtered by those who do.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Related: those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
wtf_is_up 9y ago
What are you implying here?
detaro 9y ago
They bought said company that works on military robots before, so no.

dbcurtis 9y ago

Google wants to build robotic products. Boston Dynamics wants to build research robots in their well-funded play pen. Boston Dynamics robots have notoriously feeble reliability. No where near a consumer or even industrial product. Its a major culture clash with Google.

ralfd 9y ago
But how will that culture fair better under SoftBank?

romanovcode 9y ago

Google wants money, robotics doesn't bring short-term money, advertising does - so it's better to add a "built-in adblocker" that will whitelist google ads (and after removing all adblockers from google store) instead of building robots for better society.

Symmetry 9y ago
With Google's cash reserves I'm pretty sure short term money is at the bottom of their list of concerns.

huffmsa 9y ago

Automation of existing hardware is the next big thing. Self-driving freight, better assembly lines, etc.