Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Headless, dog-sized robot to patrol Alaska airport to prevent bird strikes

news.sky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Headless, dog-sized robot to patrol Alaska airport to prevent bird strikes

#31

Post by jjtheblunt »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #16
jacurtis wrote: post #3

Seems like a pretty good use case for an automated robot like this. It's nice to see a practical use-case for these advanced autonomous robots that doesn't involve war. So as I see it, this is like a fancy all-terrain Roomba. They dress it up like a Fox or Coyote and it wanders around and patrols the airport grounds, scaring away birds and generally preventing them from nesting in the area. Birds aren't going to nest…

okay but why not, just, use dogs or coyotes not joking. Dogs can be trained. Coyotes… just set up some feeding pens full of carrion at either side of the airport, and set up some doors that open at intervals (there, scratched that robot itch).

I mean you can treat the coyotes like dogs on meth, considering they do exist as pets. That is, i thought just what you wrote but with no need to have extra carrion.

Re: Headless, dog-sized robot to patrol Alaska airport to prevent bird strikes

#32

Post by robocat »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #16
jacurtis wrote: post #3

Seems like a pretty good use case for an automated robot like this. It's nice to see a practical use-case for these advanced autonomous robots that doesn't involve war. So as I see it, this is like a fancy all-terrain Roomba. They dress it up like a Fox or Coyote and it wanders around and patrols the airport grounds, scaring away birds and generally preventing them from nesting in the area. Birds aren't going to nest…

okay but why not, just, use dogs or coyotes not joking. Dogs can be trained. Coyotes… just set up some feeding pens full of carrion at either side of the airport, and set up some doors that open at intervals (there, scratched that robot itch).

Perhaps because you don't want planes hitting coyotes on the runway.

You especially don't want to be the person responsible for a dog-strike. Don't mess with the FAA nor the SPCA nor the unions.

Re: Headless, dog-sized robot to patrol Alaska airport to prevent bird strikes

#33

Post by tamimio »

wyldfire wrote: post #15

The photo from the article shows a pilot with controls (or technician with a monitor?). How autonomous is the robot?

Because it is not autonomous, it’s RC controlled. As long as you don’t see special sensors like lidars or cams, assume it’s not, and glad the article showed the guy too for the transparency.

Re: Headless, dog-sized robot to patrol Alaska airport to prevent bird strikes

#35

Post by tamimio »

stephendause wrote: post #27
handsclean wrote: post #21

This seems far from the best way to accomplish the goal, and has been turned into a big photo op, which to me comes across as a probable discount for publicity trade, indicating Boston Dynamics being surprisingly desperate for real world use cases. For all the progress in autonomous robots, maybe they’re actually in a sort of uncanny valley of generalization: more general than previously possible, but not general eno…

What are more cost-effective ways of accomplishing the same goal?

Real dogs.

Re: Headless, dog-sized robot to patrol Alaska airport to prevent bird strikes

#36

Post by tamimio »

jacurtis wrote: post #3

Seems like a pretty good use case for an automated robot like this. It's nice to see a practical use-case for these advanced autonomous robots that doesn't involve war. So as I see it, this is like a fancy all-terrain Roomba. They dress it up like a Fox or Coyote and it wanders around and patrols the airport grounds, scaring away birds and generally preventing them from nesting in the area. Birds aren't going to nest…

It’s not autonomous and it is not smart, you are giving a lot of credit for an expensive toy.

Re: Headless, dog-sized robot to patrol Alaska airport to prevent bird strikes

#37

Post by aerostable_slug »

dumpsterlid wrote: post #7

You could definitely train a dog to do this and it would probably have a blast doing it all day. Not enough dog investors pushing dog-tech hype though. It is a shame though, have you ever read about what their noses can do??

There are few robot welfare advocates complaining about robots doing what dogs love to do, though. Nobody is going to say robo-fido is being exposed to carcinogens or loud noises while it (merrily?) chases off birds.

Re: Headless, dog-sized robot to patrol Alaska airport to prevent bird strikes

#39

Post by AnarchismIsCool »

zh3 wrote: post #29
mock-possum wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Betcha it won’t take long for the birds to realize the robot is no threat.

Depends on the bird. I once tried a remote doorbell on a bird table to scare off large birds (pigeons); by about the third press they learnt to ignore it. In this case could be geese, which seem more cautious (then again if it's corvids, they'll probably figure out how to reprogram the robot).

Depends on the season, if it's spring the geese will just kill the robot.

Re: Headless, dog-sized robot to patrol Alaska airport to prevent bird strikes

#40

Post by handsclean »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #26
handsclean wrote: post #21

This seems far from the best way to accomplish the goal, and has been turned into a big photo op, which to me comes across as a probable discount for publicity trade, indicating Boston Dynamics being surprisingly desperate for real world use cases. For all the progress in autonomous robots, maybe they’re actually in a sort of uncanny valley of generalization: more general than previously possible, but not general eno…

What is with these weirdly conspiratorial comments? A company sells their product for money to a government agency, and somehow this makes them "surprisingly desperate". Dude, they're not having the robot strip on the weekends as a side gig.

If you really think not taking product news at face value is conspiratorial, you’re far too trusting. The transactions I’m theorizing here are very common and not illegal.

“Surprisingly desperate” seems to not be coming across as I intended, I meant only that it’s surprising that a product that should sell itself is instead searching for use cases, as weakly evidenced by this article but more strongly evidenced by their many past pivots without significant adoption.

Post reply on HN