6 ms·
Fascinating: "We observed that for precision grasps, such as the Tip Pinch grasp, Dactyl uses the thumb and little finger. Humans tend to use the thumb and eit
by pmohun 8y ago
Fascinating:
"We observed that for precision grasps, such as the Tip Pinch grasp, Dactyl uses the thumb and little finger. Humans tend to use the thumb and either the index or middle finger instead. However, the robot hand’s little finger is more flexible due to an extra degree of freedom, which may explain why Dactyl prefers it. This means that Dactyl can rediscover grasps found in humans, but adapt them to better fit the limitations and abilities of its own body."
The learning of "emergent" behavior, specifically when it creates improvements to natural human motion is one of the main reasons why this type of work is so important. Similar to the way that we imitate design from nature (e.g. wings, suction cups), we can now accelerate development by observing how the bots perform the task in a variety of environments
- sgillen 8y agoIt's a really cool phenomena, it also means we have to make our simulations better. These sorts of RL algorithms are so good at finding "exploits" in the physics engine they are in that help them "cheat" sometimes, compared to what the researcher wanted.
- TaylorAlexander 8y agoI agree, but FWIW in the linked work they did randomize some of the engine parameters during training to avoid fitting too much to a specific set of assumptions. Certainly though more accurate simulations, as long as they were still fast to compute, would be very useful!
- sgillen 8y agoyeah, I think a big reason why they needed to do randomization in the first place is because of inaccuracies in the simulation compared to the real world. And the extra randomization required almost two orders of magnitude more training time!
- jashmenn 8y agootoh, maybe finding "exploits" is all we ever do. I don't grip with my thumb and little finger because it hurts the back of my hand, but that isn't a problem for Dactyl.
- sgillen 8y agoSure but we want to find exploits in the physical universe not in the approximation that we call a physics engine.
- sitkack 8y agoThis is always true, by using the real universe as the simulation environment, the exploits are applicable.
- stcredzero 8y agoThis means that Dactyl can rediscover grasps found in humans, but adapt them to better fit the limitations and abilities of its own body. Then why not evolve commensurate dexterity with mechanically simpler manipulators than a human hand? I'd bet that a robot with 4 arms with 4 different specialist manipulators and a few specialist tools (like a generalized screw-threading tool) could eventually be more efficient than a human with 2 human arms. You can even see this happening in real life, powered by human brains. The kind of dexterity people can get out of a crude instrument like a backhoe is very impressive. The simpler device will always have an economic advantage.
- bluGill 8y agoThe simpler device might or might not have an economic advantage. There are a lot of variables. A backhoe is actually very complex - the simple device is a stick. A thousand humans with a stick can do as much work in a week as a single human with a backhoe can do in a day. It only takes a few weeks to pay off the more complex backhoe. Of course your humans can use their bare hands for a further reduction in productivity. A backhoe is less complex than a horizontal drill, and the drill is less versatile overall. However the drill can go under a structure without harming it which can be a big economic win. If you are just doing a shallow pipe through an open field they are fairly competitive in price though. The simple device has an economic advantage when the task is not repeated often enough to pay off the costs of the more complex machine (this includes maintenance costs which can be more than the initial investment)
- stcredzero 8y agoA backhoe is actually very complex But it's quite a bit less complex than a scaled up anatomic analogue human arm. It's just complex enough to be a general-purpose excavation and construction tool. My point is that the evolved complexity of a human hand is too complex for the general purpose manipulation task. Evolution isn't perfect. It just did a very good job given it had a bunch of fish bones to work with. Please note I said "simpler" device, not "simplest possible" device. US artillery in WWII had commensurate functionality to German artillery, but did it with nearly half of the number of moving parts. US tanks were individually less capable than their German counterparts, but were more efficient to manufacture and easier to repair. That is what is meant by the economic advantage of the "simpler." Not using a trebuchet instead of a cannon.