3 ms·

In my robotics experience I've come to the conclusion that some problems just need to get back to the physics, and trying to put labels on things like "grasp" i

In my robotics experience I've come to the conclusion that some problems just need to get back to the physics, and trying to put labels on things like "grasp" is fraught with problems that constrain things in unhelpful ways. It's more useful to think in terms of what forces are needed to be applied to the environment to accomplish a task. Then you can build a solver to develop innovative physics based solutions that are unconstrained by the semantics.

ericjang 6y ago
Often defining a function that classifies whether a task is accomplished or not requires a fair bit of semantic precision as well...
- bArray 6y ago
  ... And going further, what it even means for a task to be 'accomplished'.
gugagore 6y ago
Certainly you cannot ever truly abstract away the physics, but also certainly you do not follow instructions, communicate to others, or introspect about how to e.g. cook dinner on the level only of forces.
- pontifier 6y ago
  Many tasks such as "cook an egg" has a well defined physics meaning. If you're trying to: "Move egg insides into oiled pan on heated surface, move egg shell into trash" it can be purely physics based. You'll have to find the egg- it's inside the carton inside the fridge behind the milk. The fridge door, the milk, and the carton are all blocking the desired trajectory of shell and interior. From a physics perspective you can minimise the energy expenditure required to apply the forces and motions of all objects in the immediate environment to accomplish the objective. Such as: The door needs to rotate about the hinge, not be ripped out of the way. The milk could be pushed gently to the side rather than removed and set on the counter to expose the carton. We still haven't programmed proper gripping technique for an egg, but if the chef robot only has a single spatula for a manipulator, a physics based robot would just have to generate teppanyaki techniques and balance the egg on the spatula rather than fail.
  - ericjang 6y ago
    at what point would you consider an egg "cooked"? how would you define this as a measurable physical quantity?
    - pontifier 6y ago
      I would say that has a physics based answer as well that is made more precise by a non-semantic answer... sliders for amount of mixing and flipping, firmness, temperature of griddle, testing for color change, etc all tie directly into physics or sensors and trying to write a "Sunny Side Up" function first, then writing an "Over Easy" function, and then writing a "Scrambled" function become much easier and more robust when those names map to setting of the physics model.
      - ericjang 6y ago
        You've asserted the existence of a physics based answer, but you haven't answered what the "physics-based" criteria of an egg being "cooked" is. I assert that a straightforward short definition does not exist.

ericjang 6y ago

Often defining a function that classifies whether a task is accomplished or not requires a fair bit of semantic precision as well...

bArray 6y ago
... And going further, what it even means for a task to be 'accomplished'.

gugagore 6y ago

Certainly you cannot ever truly abstract away the physics, but also certainly you do not follow instructions, communicate to others, or introspect about how to e.g. cook dinner on the level only of forces.

pontifier 6y ago
Many tasks such as "cook an egg" has a well defined physics meaning. If you're trying to: "Move egg insides into oiled pan on heated surface, move egg shell into trash" it can be purely physics based. You'll have to find the egg- it's inside the carton inside the fridge behind the milk. The fridge door, the milk, and the carton are all blocking the desired trajectory of shell and interior. From a physics perspective you can minimise the energy expenditure required to apply the forces and motions of all objects in the immediate environment to accomplish the objective. Such as: The door needs to rotate about the hinge, not be ripped out of the way. The milk could be pushed gently to the side rather than removed and set on the counter to expose the carton. We still haven't programmed proper gripping technique for an egg, but if the chef robot only has a single spatula for a manipulator, a physics based robot would just have to generate teppanyaki techniques and balance the egg on the spatula rather than fail.
- ericjang 6y ago
  at what point would you consider an egg "cooked"? how would you define this as a measurable physical quantity?
  - pontifier 6y ago
    I would say that has a physics based answer as well that is made more precise by a non-semantic answer... sliders for amount of mixing and flipping, firmness, temperature of griddle, testing for color change, etc all tie directly into physics or sensors and trying to write a "Sunny Side Up" function first, then writing an "Over Easy" function, and then writing a "Scrambled" function become much easier and more robust when those names map to setting of the physics model.
    - ericjang 6y ago
      You've asserted the existence of a physics based answer, but you haven't answered what the "physics-based" criteria of an egg being "cooked" is. I assert that a straightforward short definition does not exist.