6 ms·

Cheap 3D renderings of hypothetical uses of not-so-technically-feasible dronish things. Nothing to see here.

by gokhan 14y ago

worldsayshi 14y ago
Some of these things doesn't seem to infeasible, although some of the suggestions to solving the technical problems may not be very accurate? The wings seem rather awkward. The capabilities of these quad copters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2la4pIyXOEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2la4pIyXOEQ) aren't so far off. Then you have to add person recognition and a bunch of other stuff. It's supposed to be "moderately visionary".
eplanit 14y ago
I'm wondering if you would have said the same thing about quadcopters 10 years ago.
- dimitar 14y ago
  Quadrocopters are still unfeasible today, because their flight time is very limited.
  - eplanit 14y ago
    Hmmm...I must disagree: http://robohub.org/video-throwing-and-catching-an-inverted-pendulum-with-quadrocopters/ http://robohub.org/video-throwing-and-catching-an-inverted-p... It's fine if you don't find this amazing. I do, and I think many others do too.
  - GiraffeNecktie 14y ago
    These guys are claiming 4 to 8 hours, 4,000 feet etc. http://www.uniteddrones.com/aether-aero/ http://www.uniteddrones.com/aether-aero/ Heck even 10 minutes flying and one day solar recharge would be awesome in an urban area for stealthy long term observation.
- geon 14y ago
  They were around 10 years ago... More importantly, there is nothing revolutionary about quadcopters compared to the RC helicopters they were developed from. Mostly, the mechanics are a bit simpler, and the multiple rotors+engines make them a bit more robust.
- mistercow 14y ago
  The "People were skeptical about X 10 years ago, and now we have X, so technological skepticism is wrong!" argument is profoundly spurious. The fact is that some of the technologies mentioned in this video are very probably impossible (e.g. harvesting enough energy from vibrating machinery for powered drone flight). And for each of those many ideas that are currently infeasible, there are probably other solutions that will turn out to be more practical. Technology doesn't progress by someone saying "Here's a way we can probably do this thing in the future, we just need to fill in the details." It works by fulfilling incremental goals toward improving existing technology. Any speculation about currently-impossible means to the end of overarching goals is just adding burdensome details. ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/jk/burdensome_details/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/jk/burdensome_details/ ) So if someone predicts that in the next few decades, we may have small drones that can handle gusts of wind, that's not a bad prediction. When they predict that wind gusts will be handled by a nature-inspired wing-flapping-with-feedback system the which does not remotely exist, you should stop listening. Those extra details sound like they give the hypothesis more credibility, but in fact they are constraining its predictions to a laughably tiny space.
  - eplanit 14y ago
    I am afraid you missed my point. I was responding to the statement "Cheap 3D renderings of hypothetical uses of not-so-technically-feasible dronish things. Nothing to see here.". That statement is so categorically dismissive that it prompted me to ask if he/she was equally dismissive of other (relatively recent) similar inventions. Nowhere did I suggest that "technological skepticism is wrong". To rephrase your comment more aligned with my point: "people were skeptical about X 10 years ago, and now we have X, therefore the skepticism about X (not everything under the sun) was wrong". Last year we witnessed an amazingly complex landing of the Mars rover. There were about a million things that could have gone wrong, and I would bet money that there were skeptics (probably even within the technical leadership). Were they wrong to be skeptical? Of course not -- they had sound reasons to be skeptical, and a strong chance of being right. However, the mission was a success, and those skeptics (smart as they were) were proved wrong. I'm surprised you pounced on my statement rather than the absurdly dismissive comment I was referring to. I'll write it off to caffeine :-) .

Cheap 3D renderings of hypothetical uses of not-so-technically-feasible dronish things. Nothing to see here.

by gokhan 14y ago

Cheap 3D renderings of hypothetical uses of not-so-technically-feasible dronish things. Nothing to see here.

Some of these things doesn't seem to infeasible, although some of the suggestions to solving the technical problems may not be very accurate? The wings seem rather awkward. The capabilities of these quad copters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2la4pIyXOEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2la4pIyXOEQ) aren't so far off. Then you have to add person recognition and a bunch of other stuff. It's supposed to be "moderately visionary".

eplanit 14y ago

I'm wondering if you would have said the same thing about quadcopters 10 years ago.

dimitar 14y ago
Quadrocopters are still unfeasible today, because their flight time is very limited.
- eplanit 14y ago
  Hmmm...I must disagree: http://robohub.org/video-throwing-and-catching-an-inverted-pendulum-with-quadrocopters/ http://robohub.org/video-throwing-and-catching-an-inverted-p... It's fine if you don't find this amazing. I do, and I think many others do too.
- GiraffeNecktie 14y ago
  These guys are claiming 4 to 8 hours, 4,000 feet etc. http://www.uniteddrones.com/aether-aero/ http://www.uniteddrones.com/aether-aero/ Heck even 10 minutes flying and one day solar recharge would be awesome in an urban area for stealthy long term observation.
geon 14y ago
They were around 10 years ago... More importantly, there is nothing revolutionary about quadcopters compared to the RC helicopters they were developed from. Mostly, the mechanics are a bit simpler, and the multiple rotors+engines make them a bit more robust.
mistercow 14y ago
The "People were skeptical about X 10 years ago, and now we have X, so technological skepticism is wrong!" argument is profoundly spurious. The fact is that some of the technologies mentioned in this video are very probably impossible (e.g. harvesting enough energy from vibrating machinery for powered drone flight). And for each of those many ideas that are currently infeasible, there are probably other solutions that will turn out to be more practical. Technology doesn't progress by someone saying "Here's a way we can probably do this thing in the future, we just need to fill in the details." It works by fulfilling incremental goals toward improving existing technology. Any speculation about currently-impossible means to the end of overarching goals is just adding burdensome details. ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/jk/burdensome_details/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/jk/burdensome_details/ ) So if someone predicts that in the next few decades, we may have small drones that can handle gusts of wind, that's not a bad prediction. When they predict that wind gusts will be handled by a nature-inspired wing-flapping-with-feedback system the which does not remotely exist, you should stop listening. Those extra details sound like they give the hypothesis more credibility, but in fact they are constraining its predictions to a laughably tiny space.
- eplanit 14y ago
  I am afraid you missed my point. I was responding to the statement "Cheap 3D renderings of hypothetical uses of not-so-technically-feasible dronish things. Nothing to see here.". That statement is so categorically dismissive that it prompted me to ask if he/she was equally dismissive of other (relatively recent) similar inventions. Nowhere did I suggest that "technological skepticism is wrong". To rephrase your comment more aligned with my point: "people were skeptical about X 10 years ago, and now we have X, therefore the skepticism about X (not everything under the sun) was wrong". Last year we witnessed an amazingly complex landing of the Mars rover. There were about a million things that could have gone wrong, and I would bet money that there were skeptics (probably even within the technical leadership). Were they wrong to be skeptical? Of course not -- they had sound reasons to be skeptical, and a strong chance of being right. However, the mission was a success, and those skeptics (smart as they were) were proved wrong. I'm surprised you pounced on my statement rather than the absurdly dismissive comment I was referring to. I'll write it off to caffeine :-) .