3 ms·

This? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6-heLIg85o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6-heLIg85o Can you explain more about how they "cheated"? it looks like they

• mitchdoogle 6y ago
  Maybe OP has an ideal these guys didn't live up to. They designed the robot according to the course - there's no sense in which that is cheating.
  • bmcahren 6y ago
    I think he's saying the spirit of the competition was failed because it took over 1 minute per step which if this was a consumer or commercial product...would have been a failure. 4 steps look like it took 5+ minutes. Hard to tell because they sped up the footage 20X to make it look reasonable.
  • villgax 6y ago
    The purpose was to have resilient robots for disaster operations, and to do away with slower robotic platforms.
• dylan604 6y ago
  Did that robot just jerk the plug from the wall by pulling the cord rather than the plug itself? That's such a no-no. Even though there's no actual plug, but what else was that supposed to simulate?
• 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  Presumably the test designers designed it in a way hoping that if something can pass test X, then it must also be able to do Y, making it a good test of Y abilities. Then someone comes along and figures out how to pass the test without being able to do Y. You see it all the time in ML stuff. "Only a true AI could X" (with an implicit "and that would imply Y") and then people figure out how to build a system that does X but doesn't imply Y. Turns out it's amazingly hard to build good standardize tests that don't fall into "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."