8 ms·

Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)

83 points by sysbot 5y ago

abetusk 5y ago
It looks like they use an Antigravity MN4004 KV300 - 2PCS/SET [0] as the main motor ($145/2pcs). [0] https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=438 https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=438
Isamu 5y ago
It’s okay to say quadruped, rather than Boston-Dynamics-like, because there are significant differences and this is interesting in its own right.
undoware 5y ago
Finally, as I get my proteins denatured by a quadruped-mounted face-finding energy weapon in Civil War II, I can go out singing Stallman's song. You will be free, hackers. You will be free
- JabavuAdams 5y ago
  Energy weapons are expensive to build. Chemical weapons are cheap. The War of the Machines is going to be all nerve gas, all the time. :(
  - undoware 5y ago
    There needs to be a '+1, Insight, but I don't like It' upvote feature here, dang
  - fvncc 5y ago
    Actually chemical weapons don’t do well on “cost effectiveness”, apparently: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
    - JabavuAdams 5y ago
      I've read that, but am not convinced. It's very dependent on the particulars of the situation, the goals, the acceptable losses, and the belligerent forces. A couple of situations: 1) Tyrannical government or Upstart AI wants to destroy dug in and dispersed local militias. Government will use existing military delivery technologies. AI will use non-human elements so blowback is not a concern. It seems here that gas is cheaper than bombs or bullets. 2) Upstart State or AI wants to do a surprise attack to depopulate or logisticall overwhelm a strategic city. Civilian casualties are desired. Again, gas seems like a clear win, here. The idea that militaries have NBC protection that will just negate chem/bio warfare is a bit of a dream. The operational friction from having to use all that protective gear and protocols would be huge. Even just little things like not being able to aim properly through a rifle scope depending on which gas mask you're wearing. Also don't underestimate the fear/terror/shock factor of being on the receiving end of this horrible stuff. The future isn't pretty, unless we can figure out a way to settle down and coexist.
    - JabavuAdams 5y ago
      There are also important questions about warning time and strategic responses. Let's say an upstart AI or group decide to wipe out humanity, or at least a country or continent. What is the time from initial detection to the realization that we as humans are at the end of the world? What do we do then? Do we nuke someone? Something? Everyone? Any upstart taking over the world strategy is going to have to grapple with this. Chemical weapons have immediate effects. Bio-weapons will take time to spread - time during which they could be detected and possibly mitigated. I'm sure a lot of actors have taken note of COVID-19's asymptomatic transmission. I'm sure people are thinking of bio binary weapons. Step 1) Silently infect the target population. Step 2) Flip the kill switch and they all die simultaneously.
  - jcims 5y ago
    Biological are even cheaper.
    - JabavuAdams 5y ago
      I dunno. Chemical plant seems relatively crude and cheap compared to the equipment needed to design and build a reliable, effective, and controllable bio-weapon. Two-photon microscopes and nanopore gene sequencing aren't cheap. If it doesn't have to be reliable or particularly effective, and especially not targeted, then maybe you're right. What am I missing?
      - undoware 5y ago
        Hey all, Quick/friendly reminder that this is a dangerous conversation to be having in public -- there is no telling what will happen to old comments in a few years (or decades,) when the disruption is further along. Quite serious. History tends to happen when you least expect it to. Personal web history, doubly so.
        undoware 5y ago
        This got downvoted, so it's anecdote time! A former employer once forwarded me a deep-dive article about a guy who was archiving old '90s usenet posts. He explained the process by reference to a sample post, chosen at random, from the whole of the Usenet, '91-'99. That guy's sample-post? A one-off I'd made, complaining bitterly about JDK licensure or something, from around 1998, when I was a loudmouth teenage Stallmanite. It now occasionally comes up for discussion during job interviews. It came up when I applied for a work visa to USA. Stay safe, and don't let your next job interview turn to the topic of [checks notes] resource-efficient weapons of mass destruction.
dzink 5y ago
Should weapons be open sourced?
- lanternfish 5y ago
  As a robotics platform, there's nothing inherently weaponizable about quadrupedal locomotion over, say, a quadcopter. Weaponizing this system would be almost as difficult as developing and then weaponizing the system.
  - dzink 5y ago
    State actors already have the weapons, so it is not complicated to attach those to a tool capable of ferrying them over rugged terrain, with long battery life, and into hiding places of human opponends. Just as they attached them to drones, cars, and other gear. What guarantees that the biggest use cases and the most motivated users of this technology are not deadly? Maybe license?
    - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
      I am skeptical that licensing could stop someone from using a project as the basis for a weapon - I doubt lawsuits would seem like much of a deterrent. That said, I am not sure that a quadruped robot is much better for delivering a bomb than an RC car, other than a slight edge on rough terrain. Both would have an advantage over flying, since weight is a problem for drones.
    - zaai 5y ago
      Yep, already happening. Boston Dynamics robot with gun: Quote: "At the Association of the US Army’s annual conference last week, Ghost Robotics unveiled its Vision 60 quadrupedal robot, which wielded a custom-made gun atop its already eerie figure." https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/328299-robot-dogs-now-fielding-robot-guns https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/328299-robot-dogs-now-fi...
    - jcims 5y ago
      State actors aren't the threat to worry about here. They have much more controlled and reliable ways of killing you and if they decide to weaponize a mobile platform like this they are likely to fund or steal much more purpose-built technology. If you're worried about weaponization of open source projects, your threat actors are just about any person with a computer, a couple thousand dollars and a grudge.
mech422 5y ago
How does this relate to MIT's mini-cheetah(1)? A quick search didn't turn up any plans/code for the cheetah except some simulator software(2). Is this an open source 'work-alike' ? 1) https://biomimetics.mit.edu/ https://biomimetics.mit.edu/ 2) https://github.com/mit-biomimetics/Cheetah-Software https://github.com/mit-biomimetics/Cheetah-Software edit: I don't think the cheetah plans are actually open source ?
- neotriple 5y ago
  The MIT cheetah plans (specifically, having access to things like their motors) are not open source.
  - mech422 5y ago
    Bummer. Thanks for clarifying that.
heavyset_go 5y ago
I have an tangential question about open source projects and names. "Boston Dynamics" is a trademark of Boston Dynamics Inc. Can using "Dynamic" like this project does cause legal problems, considering the name can be an allusion to the trademark?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- robotresearcher 5y ago
  I doubt it. Canadian chain restaurant 'Boston Pizza' can't prevent you using the word 'pizza', though it's directly concerned with their business. General Dynamics predates Boston Dynamics by decades. ('General Dynamics' is a wonderful company name. Imagine if you'd heard it for the first time today. Cool name.)
  - bigiain 5y ago
    And I have a set of Boston Acoustics speakers sitting on my desk here that are almost certainly older than the Boston Dynamics trademark. Hmmm, just looked it up: "Boston Dynamics is an American engineering and robotics design company founded in 1992" Boston Acoustics was founded in 1979. Th A40s on my desk came out in 1986, bu6t I'm not sure how old this specific pair are, I bought them 2nd hand. I have a pair of their bigger brothers, the A60s downstairs that I bought new in 1988...
  - Animats 5y ago
    It's very 1950s. * General Dynamics * General Atomic * General Houses (briefly, late 1940s) following, of course * General Motors * General Electric
    - HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
      I was about 25 when I tried to trademark General Magic and was pissed to find out I was not the first. General Products was also taken; guess there are a lot of Larry Niven fans out there.
Animats 5y ago
Very nice. What makes this work is the motors.[1] It's using 3-phase drone prop motors with no gear reduction. With direct drive, the mechanics of the joints are simple. Not too expensive, either. Each motor is about US$120. I used to work on legged running back in the 1990s. But there were no motors good enough to build a small machine like this back then. All we had were R/C servos, gearboxes, and screw drive actuators. So I was stuck in simulation. All the early legged robots were mechanical nightmares. Springs, cables, pulleys, worm gears, harmonic drives... Now, at last, enough torque in a small package. What you want in a leg muscle is well known - something that behaves like a spring/damper combo for which you can set the spring constant, the damping constant, and the spring's zero point. People have been trying to do that by mechanical means for decades. There were pneumatic systems, hydraulic systems, things with springs, pulleys, and wires, and a kludge called a "series elastic actuator", which is a stiff spring-damper combo in series with a screw drive actuator. They're all terrible. "You cannot strip the teeth of a magnetic field" - GE electric locomotive sales rep, early 20th century.[2] That's why they can drop this thing and have it spring back. Try that with any of the mechanical nightmares and the results will not be good. [1] https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=774 https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=774 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24288264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24288264
- bglazer 5y ago
  What do you think about these direct linear actuators [0]? They seem super simple, and like a closer match to the way biological muscles work. Is there some reason why rotary (?) actuators are the default choice for robotics? Edit, also what happened that made electric motors so much better since the 90’s? It’s not like we made groundbreaking discoveries about magnetism, right? [0] http://moticont.com/direct-drive-linear-motors.htm http://moticont.com/direct-drive-linear-motors.htm
  - kbob 5y ago
    Neodymium magnets and brushless DC motors. The brushes and commutator have been replaced by a micro controller and set of power MOSFETs.
  - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bullen 5y ago
The problem with robots and AI is energy, it's finite and we just peaked!
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Cute robot!
RealityVoid 5y ago
In the partners section there is a team called Gepetto Team that does anthropomorphic systems. That name is so fun. :)
jcun4128 5y ago
why do they build those symmetric leg designs as opposed to what say Boston has/normal dog?

83 points by sysbot 5y ago

It looks like they use an Antigravity MN4004 KV300 - 2PCS/SET [0] as the main motor ($145/2pcs). [0] https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=438 https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=438

Isamu 5y ago

It’s okay to say quadruped, rather than Boston-Dynamics-like, because there are significant differences and this is interesting in its own right.

undoware 5y ago

Finally, as I get my proteins denatured by a quadruped-mounted face-finding energy weapon in Civil War II, I can go out singing Stallman's song. You will be free, hackers. You will be free

JabavuAdams 5y ago
Energy weapons are expensive to build. Chemical weapons are cheap. The War of the Machines is going to be all nerve gas, all the time. :(
- undoware 5y ago
  There needs to be a '+1, Insight, but I don't like It' upvote feature here, dang
- fvncc 5y ago
  Actually chemical weapons don’t do well on “cost effectiveness”, apparently: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
  - JabavuAdams 5y ago
    I've read that, but am not convinced. It's very dependent on the particulars of the situation, the goals, the acceptable losses, and the belligerent forces. A couple of situations: 1) Tyrannical government or Upstart AI wants to destroy dug in and dispersed local militias. Government will use existing military delivery technologies. AI will use non-human elements so blowback is not a concern. It seems here that gas is cheaper than bombs or bullets. 2) Upstart State or AI wants to do a surprise attack to depopulate or logisticall overwhelm a strategic city. Civilian casualties are desired. Again, gas seems like a clear win, here. The idea that militaries have NBC protection that will just negate chem/bio warfare is a bit of a dream. The operational friction from having to use all that protective gear and protocols would be huge. Even just little things like not being able to aim properly through a rifle scope depending on which gas mask you're wearing. Also don't underestimate the fear/terror/shock factor of being on the receiving end of this horrible stuff. The future isn't pretty, unless we can figure out a way to settle down and coexist.
  - JabavuAdams 5y ago
    There are also important questions about warning time and strategic responses. Let's say an upstart AI or group decide to wipe out humanity, or at least a country or continent. What is the time from initial detection to the realization that we as humans are at the end of the world? What do we do then? Do we nuke someone? Something? Everyone? Any upstart taking over the world strategy is going to have to grapple with this. Chemical weapons have immediate effects. Bio-weapons will take time to spread - time during which they could be detected and possibly mitigated. I'm sure a lot of actors have taken note of COVID-19's asymptomatic transmission. I'm sure people are thinking of bio binary weapons. Step 1) Silently infect the target population. Step 2) Flip the kill switch and they all die simultaneously.
- jcims 5y ago
  Biological are even cheaper.
  - JabavuAdams 5y ago
    I dunno. Chemical plant seems relatively crude and cheap compared to the equipment needed to design and build a reliable, effective, and controllable bio-weapon. Two-photon microscopes and nanopore gene sequencing aren't cheap. If it doesn't have to be reliable or particularly effective, and especially not targeted, then maybe you're right. What am I missing?
    - undoware 5y ago
      Hey all, Quick/friendly reminder that this is a dangerous conversation to be having in public -- there is no telling what will happen to old comments in a few years (or decades,) when the disruption is further along. Quite serious. History tends to happen when you least expect it to. Personal web history, doubly so.
      - undoware 5y ago
        This got downvoted, so it's anecdote time! A former employer once forwarded me a deep-dive article about a guy who was archiving old '90s usenet posts. He explained the process by reference to a sample post, chosen at random, from the whole of the Usenet, '91-'99. That guy's sample-post? A one-off I'd made, complaining bitterly about JDK licensure or something, from around 1998, when I was a loudmouth teenage Stallmanite. It now occasionally comes up for discussion during job interviews. It came up when I applied for a work visa to USA. Stay safe, and don't let your next job interview turn to the topic of [checks notes] resource-efficient weapons of mass destruction.

dzink 5y ago

Should weapons be open sourced?

lanternfish 5y ago
As a robotics platform, there's nothing inherently weaponizable about quadrupedal locomotion over, say, a quadcopter. Weaponizing this system would be almost as difficult as developing and then weaponizing the system.
- dzink 5y ago
  State actors already have the weapons, so it is not complicated to attach those to a tool capable of ferrying them over rugged terrain, with long battery life, and into hiding places of human opponends. Just as they attached them to drones, cars, and other gear. What guarantees that the biggest use cases and the most motivated users of this technology are not deadly? Maybe license?
  - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
    I am skeptical that licensing could stop someone from using a project as the basis for a weapon - I doubt lawsuits would seem like much of a deterrent. That said, I am not sure that a quadruped robot is much better for delivering a bomb than an RC car, other than a slight edge on rough terrain. Both would have an advantage over flying, since weight is a problem for drones.
  - zaai 5y ago
    Yep, already happening. Boston Dynamics robot with gun: Quote: "At the Association of the US Army’s annual conference last week, Ghost Robotics unveiled its Vision 60 quadrupedal robot, which wielded a custom-made gun atop its already eerie figure." https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/328299-robot-dogs-now-fielding-robot-guns https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/328299-robot-dogs-now-fi...
  - jcims 5y ago
    State actors aren't the threat to worry about here. They have much more controlled and reliable ways of killing you and if they decide to weaponize a mobile platform like this they are likely to fund or steal much more purpose-built technology. If you're worried about weaponization of open source projects, your threat actors are just about any person with a computer, a couple thousand dollars and a grudge.

mech422 5y ago

How does this relate to MIT's mini-cheetah(1)? A quick search didn't turn up any plans/code for the cheetah except some simulator software(2). Is this an open source 'work-alike' ? 1) https://biomimetics.mit.edu/ https://biomimetics.mit.edu/ 2) https://github.com/mit-biomimetics/Cheetah-Software https://github.com/mit-biomimetics/Cheetah-Software edit: I don't think the cheetah plans are actually open source ?

neotriple 5y ago
The MIT cheetah plans (specifically, having access to things like their motors) are not open source.
- mech422 5y ago
  Bummer. Thanks for clarifying that.

heavyset_go 5y ago

I have an tangential question about open source projects and names. "Boston Dynamics" is a trademark of Boston Dynamics Inc. Can using "Dynamic" like this project does cause legal problems, considering the name can be an allusion to the trademark?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
robotresearcher 5y ago
I doubt it. Canadian chain restaurant 'Boston Pizza' can't prevent you using the word 'pizza', though it's directly concerned with their business. General Dynamics predates Boston Dynamics by decades. ('General Dynamics' is a wonderful company name. Imagine if you'd heard it for the first time today. Cool name.)
- bigiain 5y ago
  And I have a set of Boston Acoustics speakers sitting on my desk here that are almost certainly older than the Boston Dynamics trademark. Hmmm, just looked it up: "Boston Dynamics is an American engineering and robotics design company founded in 1992" Boston Acoustics was founded in 1979. Th A40s on my desk came out in 1986, bu6t I'm not sure how old this specific pair are, I bought them 2nd hand. I have a pair of their bigger brothers, the A60s downstairs that I bought new in 1988...
- Animats 5y ago
  It's very 1950s. * General Dynamics * General Atomic * General Houses (briefly, late 1940s) following, of course * General Motors * General Electric
  - HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
    I was about 25 when I tried to trademark General Magic and was pissed to find out I was not the first. General Products was also taken; guess there are a lot of Larry Niven fans out there.

Animats 5y ago

Very nice. What makes this work is the motors.[1] It's using 3-phase drone prop motors with no gear reduction. With direct drive, the mechanics of the joints are simple. Not too expensive, either. Each motor is about US$120. I used to work on legged running back in the 1990s. But there were no motors good enough to build a small machine like this back then. All we had were R/C servos, gearboxes, and screw drive actuators. So I was stuck in simulation. All the early legged robots were mechanical nightmares. Springs, cables, pulleys, worm gears, harmonic drives... Now, at last, enough torque in a small package. What you want in a leg muscle is well known - something that behaves like a spring/damper combo for which you can set the spring constant, the damping constant, and the spring's zero point. People have been trying to do that by mechanical means for decades. There were pneumatic systems, hydraulic systems, things with springs, pulleys, and wires, and a kludge called a "series elastic actuator", which is a stiff spring-damper combo in series with a screw drive actuator. They're all terrible. "You cannot strip the teeth of a magnetic field" - GE electric locomotive sales rep, early 20th century.[2] That's why they can drop this thing and have it spring back. Try that with any of the mechanical nightmares and the results will not be good. [1] https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=774 https://store.tmotor.com/goods.php?id=774 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24288264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24288264

bglazer 5y ago
What do you think about these direct linear actuators [0]? They seem super simple, and like a closer match to the way biological muscles work. Is there some reason why rotary (?) actuators are the default choice for robotics? Edit, also what happened that made electric motors so much better since the 90’s? It’s not like we made groundbreaking discoveries about magnetism, right? [0] http://moticont.com/direct-drive-linear-motors.htm http://moticont.com/direct-drive-linear-motors.htm
- kbob 5y ago
  Neodymium magnets and brushless DC motors. The brushes and commutator have been replaced by a micro controller and set of power MOSFETs.
- 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bullen 5y ago

The problem with robots and AI is energy, it's finite and we just peaked!

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

Cute robot!

RealityVoid 5y ago

In the partners section there is a team called Gepetto Team that does anthropomorphic systems. That name is so fun. :)

jcun4128 5y ago

why do they build those symmetric leg designs as opposed to what say Boston has/normal dog?