5 ms·
My experience has been that this architecture is really overrated. Sure, you can make an "instinctive" robot, but does it do anything useful, or just zoom aroun
by jpm_sd 4y ago
My experience has been that this architecture is really overrated. Sure, you can make an "instinctive" robot, but does it do anything useful, or just zoom around randomly like an insect? Robots are built to perform useful tasks that typically need to be precise and predictable. Two of the biggest categories of robot deployment are "lawnmower"-style operation (surveys, farming, etc.) and factory automation; what use is an unpredictable platform?
Roomba's gotten its ass kicked in the market by competing products that actually map and plan, instead of chaotically bouncing around and constantly missing spots on the rug. iRobot came around to doing (some) of the same thing, but it took them years to admit that it was the right approach.
- Rediscover 4y agoOverrated? I believe that is appropriate if using subsumption by-itself as a higher-reasoning task. I think it is more useful at foundation/primative-level controls with other architectures above it. Eg, I want the brakes in a vehicle orchestrated by some "world-overview"/3,000-meter view but the low-level stuff handled with direct-feedback of actuation and sensor pairings.