3 ms·
While full control is obviously better for some things, I wonder if overall this isn't better. It would reduce the training from having to adapt your brain to c
by icebraining 7y ago
While full control is obviously better for some things, I wonder if overall this isn't better. It would reduce the training from having to adapt your brain to control a foreign body, to just issuing simpler commands, and might be safer too. Imagine using Atlas[1] as the exoskeleton, you just think about going forward and it navigates the terrain for you.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LikxFZZO2sk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LikxFZZO2sk
- ufmace 7y agoIt seems like you'd lose a ton of utility like that. How cold you maneuver in tight spaces without the ability to move each leg/foot in a particular way and put the in a particular place? Much less run, jump, dance, play sports, etc.
- icebraining 7y agoDid you watch the video? Atlas can run and jump, even do backflips. Tight spaces shouldn't be much of a problem either, as long as the software knew the size of the exoskeleton + human. Yes, activities where the goal is the movement itself, rather than getting somewhere, would be hampered. My point is that getting that precise control may be much harder, both technologically and in terms of user training. Maybe a gradual approach could be implemented.