3 ms·

The problem with hardware is that it's always viable soon, but not quite yet. Hardware is multiple orders of magnitude more difficult than anticipated, the fact

by Etheryte 10mo ago

The problem with hardware is that it's always viable soon, but not quite yet. Hardware is multiple orders of magnitude more difficult than anticipated, the fact that the richest companies in the world can't quite make it work is a testament to that. In my mind, hardware moonshots are kind of like trying to embed Doom in a SharePoint Framework Extension while high on psilocybin — impressive if someone manages to pull it off, but not for the sane of mind.

mym1990 10mo ago
The big time suck I see with robotic anything is that simulation for training will only take it so far...eventually it needs to be in the real world, making mistakes, and this comes with far more red tape and much higher risk, slowing down the process. I don't see hardware as the bottleneck, its software and hardware working together in an environment where the stakes are much higher than just in the lab.
wolttam 10mo ago
I feel like this point is refuted by what we're seeing out of robotics in China? And to a pretty good extend the U.S. Of course there is a curve which plots dexterity (hardware) and resulting capability, but we don't need /that/ much dexterity for some jobs. We have tele-operated humanoids 'doing things' where it is self evident that the bottleneck is the ability of the robot to act autonomously, not its hardware.
- trhway 10mo ago
  >I feel like this point is refuted by what we're seeing out of robotics in China? Humanoid robot Olympic Games in China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y-tElcmJVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y-tElcmJVE Also, reminded - Russian "localization" (typical Russian hi-tech today, especially when on government investment, is simple rebadge of a Chinese tech) - even good Chinese robots starts to fall like drunk: https://youtu.be/WVKxw72vlmo?t=15 https://youtu.be/WVKxw72vlmo?t=15 and for the GGP comment: >self driving delivery vans with a humanoid delivery robot why humanoid? Glorified Roomba-like robots would do such job just fine. Every time seeing how the Amazon driver parks his van and runs around in our complex placing packages in front of the doors and making photos of the placed packages i'm wondering why Amazon wouldn't use 5-10 such Roombas per van instead. (and every time i think that i have to make such a startup myself, and after that i immediately think that Amazon would easily beat me by developing it 100x faster - in a week where i'd spend 2 years - and so i don't do it, and Amazon apparently doesn't do it too)
  - seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
    Many houses don't have flat approaches, our definitely doesn't. Whatever delivers a package to our town home at least needs to navigate paver stones. Dog bots could probably do it though.
  - maxwellsdeamons 10mo ago
    The simple reason why they don’t do it: It has to be 100% reliable. Robots get stuck, need charge, software has bugs, … So your fleet of robots would need supervision. Probably for years to come. And a human driver only costs like 70-80k a year.
    - ensocode 10mo ago
      A human supervisor monitoring 10 or more vehicles and unstuck them in case will also not cost more per year.
      - maxwellsdeamons 10mo ago
        Yeah, but this requires good teleoperator infrastructure. You can’t unstuck a robot that loses connection. There are just a lot of things that can go wrong. And an entire car being stuck and waiting for someone to come is also not cheap. I am pretty sure Amazon (one of the biggest robotics company on the planet btw) has done the math.
    - fennecbutt 10mo ago
      The point of machine learning based systems (imo) is that they aren't 100% reliable. Idk where people are getting the idea that systems designed to mimic biological brains will have machinelike precision whilst also being flexible to adapt to new situations.
  - mattlondon 10mo ago
    > why humanoid? Glorified Roomba-like robots would do such job just fine. Steps. Garden gates. Uneven surfaces. Communal entrances. The real world is messy and certainly not flat. Some sort of wheeled-legged-centaur type robot might work though.

mym1990 10mo ago

The big time suck I see with robotic anything is that simulation for training will only take it so far...eventually it needs to be in the real world, making mistakes, and this comes with far more red tape and much higher risk, slowing down the process. I don't see hardware as the bottleneck, its software and hardware working together in an environment where the stakes are much higher than just in the lab.

wolttam 10mo ago

I feel like this point is refuted by what we're seeing out of robotics in China? And to a pretty good extend the U.S. Of course there is a curve which plots dexterity (hardware) and resulting capability, but we don't need /that/ much dexterity for some jobs. We have tele-operated humanoids 'doing things' where it is self evident that the bottleneck is the ability of the robot to act autonomously, not its hardware.

trhway 10mo ago
>I feel like this point is refuted by what we're seeing out of robotics in China? Humanoid robot Olympic Games in China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y-tElcmJVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y-tElcmJVE Also, reminded - Russian "localization" (typical Russian hi-tech today, especially when on government investment, is simple rebadge of a Chinese tech) - even good Chinese robots starts to fall like drunk: https://youtu.be/WVKxw72vlmo?t=15 https://youtu.be/WVKxw72vlmo?t=15 and for the GGP comment: >self driving delivery vans with a humanoid delivery robot why humanoid? Glorified Roomba-like robots would do such job just fine. Every time seeing how the Amazon driver parks his van and runs around in our complex placing packages in front of the doors and making photos of the placed packages i'm wondering why Amazon wouldn't use 5-10 such Roombas per van instead. (and every time i think that i have to make such a startup myself, and after that i immediately think that Amazon would easily beat me by developing it 100x faster - in a week where i'd spend 2 years - and so i don't do it, and Amazon apparently doesn't do it too)
- seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
  Many houses don't have flat approaches, our definitely doesn't. Whatever delivers a package to our town home at least needs to navigate paver stones. Dog bots could probably do it though.
- maxwellsdeamons 10mo ago
  The simple reason why they don’t do it: It has to be 100% reliable. Robots get stuck, need charge, software has bugs, … So your fleet of robots would need supervision. Probably for years to come. And a human driver only costs like 70-80k a year.
  - ensocode 10mo ago
    A human supervisor monitoring 10 or more vehicles and unstuck them in case will also not cost more per year.
    - maxwellsdeamons 10mo ago
      Yeah, but this requires good teleoperator infrastructure. You can’t unstuck a robot that loses connection. There are just a lot of things that can go wrong. And an entire car being stuck and waiting for someone to come is also not cheap. I am pretty sure Amazon (one of the biggest robotics company on the planet btw) has done the math.
  - fennecbutt 10mo ago
    The point of machine learning based systems (imo) is that they aren't 100% reliable. Idk where people are getting the idea that systems designed to mimic biological brains will have machinelike precision whilst also being flexible to adapt to new situations.
- mattlondon 10mo ago
  > why humanoid? Glorified Roomba-like robots would do such job just fine. Steps. Garden gates. Uneven surfaces. Communal entrances. The real world is messy and certainly not flat. Some sort of wheeled-legged-centaur type robot might work though.