3 ms·
That surprises me. I thought motion planning and motor control would be harder - old memories of Asimo falling helplessly trying to climb stairs, the clunkiness
by sterlind 2y ago
That surprises me. I thought motion planning and motor control would be harder - old memories of Asimo falling helplessly trying to climb stairs, the clunkiness of a robot aligning itself perfectly with a drawer before executing a scripted-looking action to pull the handle, the obvious recorded sequence Atlas uses to get up from a fall. I know Boston Dynamics does impressive acrobatics, but it's all legs and no arms.
Are kinematics and planning solved now? I want to move into the field so I'm trying to learn.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago> Asimo falling helplessly trying to climb stairs IIRC, that wasn't a control problem but a mechanical failure of a gearmotor shaft.
- jvanderbot 2y agoHere's some closed-course manipulation with arms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuG-qNgLHws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuG-qNgLHws There are others. Controls is hard! You need investment and to solve difficult engineering problems. But we have a pretty good idea that those things are solveable and can demonstrate success b/c they are engineering challenges, not things we fundamentally don't have an approach for yet.
- jvanderbot 2y agoHow much of that is actually perception though? "Where can I put my feet safely?" "What is the orientation and 6 higher order velocities of my body?" etc. I've been told that a perfectly observable / estimable system is trivially controllable. It's one of the reasons I believe perception is upstream of everything - interaction dynamics alone are nearly impossible to just wave away with models. I don't even work in perception. But I know that everything is fine until you try to go online with perception in the loop. Then you are behind the perception team's debugging nearly all the time.