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

Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

startupfortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 431 posts

Re: Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

#81

Post by CSSer »

vlovich123 wrote: post #60
looperhacks wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if these tasks are too minor, too finicky, too open-ended or too reliant on manual dexterity for a purpose-built robot, how can a general purpose robot perform them better? If anything, they should be doing worse. The only thing I can think of are tasks that are so rarely done, it's not economical to build a robot for. But I then I also don't see how another robot solves this problem.

A) the idea is that these robots do have dexterity capabilities a lot closer to human hands B) there’s a long tail of individual tasks it’s uneconomical to build purpose-built robots for each individual task. But it’s economical to have 1 robot that can do all of them.

And C) they don't always have to be at parity with human hands to be good enough because humans are flat out expensive. Humans need health accommodations, have sick days, vacation, and make mistakes too. The bar is much lower and the incentives are much higher than many people probably think.

Re: Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

#82

Post by Dumblydorr »

Hugsbox wrote: post #31

I don't understand why they would implement humanoid robots instead of purpose-built robots. The human form is not the most optimal way to do most tasks, especially as it relates to manufacturing. Robots don't need to look like humans, they need to be useful . Seems like putting in an awful lot of extra unnecessary work to end up with a worse result.

You don’t understand because you’re not an expert? First off they have numerous non-humanoid robots if you follow them at all. Second, Clearly they’ve got strong reasoning, they’ve just been bought. Third, out of thousands of attempts at humanoids, their robots are seemingly the best we’ve yet seen in this class. They must be doing it right when so few others got any traction.

Re: Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

#83

Post by justsomehnguy »

Hugsbox wrote: post #31

I don't understand why they would implement humanoid robots instead of purpose-built robots. The human form is not the most optimal way to do most tasks, especially as it relates to manufacturing. Robots don't need to look like humans, they need to be useful . Seems like putting in an awful lot of extra unnecessary work to end up with a worse result.

> they need to be useful

They would be. When everything what could be done would be done by a robot. 24/7. Even without the lights on the floor.

Re: Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

#84

Post by smikhanov »

Gud wrote: post #77
vlovich123 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) the idea is that these robots do have dexterity capabilities a lot closer to human hands B) there’s a long tail of individual tasks it’s uneconomical to build purpose-built robots for each individual task. But it’s economical to have 1 robot that can do all of them.

These industrial robots have much better dexterity than any human alive. The point is, human shape plus general purpose intelligence is an amazing combination to resolve the “long tail”. Without the intelligence part, the body is useless. Perhaps Boston Dynamics has that part resolved now too.

Intelligence is absolutely a valuable addition to dexterity, but no, current industrial robots have nowhere near the dexterity of a human hand.

Re: Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

#85

Post by linksnapzz »

ranger_danger wrote: post #69
linksnapzz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who told you that? Unless you buy your Hyundai new, or CPO from a dealership, the powertrain warranty is 5/50.

Only if you happen to be the second owner. Third owners get nothing.

Of the important life-lessons to have before one turns 18; "don't ever be the third or fourth owner of a Hyundai" is right up there with not eating the yellow snow.

There's no shame in being broke, of course-it is merely a catastrophe. The fourth owner of a '11 Sonata is gonna have a different outlook than the fourth owner of a '73 Mercedes 600 Pullman.

Re: Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

#86

Post by ramses0 »

Hugsbox wrote: post #31

I don't understand why they would implement humanoid robots instead of purpose-built robots. The human form is not the most optimal way to do most tasks, especially as it relates to manufacturing. Robots don't need to look like humans, they need to be useful . Seems like putting in an awful lot of extra unnecessary work to end up with a worse result.

I'm looking for a better video of it (from one of the engineers), but look at the NASA robot hand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfDXzkFHnz0

https://www.google.com/search?q=nasa+robonaut+video+hand+why...

The gist of it is that all tools on the spacecraft (eg: space-drill, space-coffee-maker, space-airlock) are all designed to fit a gloved human astronaut hand. Waaaaay more complicated to make a robo-hand than a robo-suction cup or robo-claw, but then you are matching the environment, and guarantee tool compatibility against all extant tasks!

We already have specialized robots on earth... paper slicer, lawn mower, bazooka, whatever. They're all machines that are specialized for the task at hand, we're not making a humanoid robot that gets down on all fours and individually plucks blades of glass.

The car factories already have specialized robots... they're not mimicking a human hand holding a can of spray paint, shaking it up, and painting the car that way... it's a 6-axis arm, or a whole "grab the car and flip it while spraying paint" system.

It's not about inventing purpose-specific robots, it's about handling that long-tail of "stuff with tools that a human is designed to be able to use." Go over there, push that button. Go move that box from table1 to table2. Etc.

For well defined tasks in the factory domain, make a "real robot". For ad-hoc tasks in the interim... strap an LLM to a camera, battery, robo-legs and arms, cross your fingers, and hope for the best?

Re: Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

#87

Post by s1artibartfast »

babypuncher wrote: post #11
bayindirh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generating an image from an already open tab is faster than making a search engine query and selecting a good, high resolution image. Who cares about quality. Speed is the new black.

and tech companies wonder why consumers hate AI

What seems to be the problem here? Why is it offensive that someone didnt spend more time hand selecting a picture for the article?

Re: Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

#88

Post by itsamario »

Hugsbox wrote: post #31

I don't understand why they would implement humanoid robots instead of purpose-built robots. The human form is not the most optimal way to do most tasks, especially as it relates to manufacturing. Robots don't need to look like humans, they need to be useful . Seems like putting in an awful lot of extra unnecessary work to end up with a worse result.

Patient complex moves first.

Re: Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

#89

Post by bombcar »

Hugsbox wrote: post #31

I don't understand why they would implement humanoid robots instead of purpose-built robots. The human form is not the most optimal way to do most tasks, especially as it relates to manufacturing. Robots don't need to look like humans, they need to be useful . Seems like putting in an awful lot of extra unnecessary work to end up with a worse result.

The first somewhat general purpose humanoid robot will sell like gangbusters to the rich, even just as a parlor toy/trick.

Re: Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

#90

Post by cpgxiii »

ACCount37 wrote: post #37
Hugsbox wrote: post #31

I don't understand why they would implement humanoid robots instead of purpose-built robots. The human form is not the most optimal way to do most tasks, especially as it relates to manufacturing. Robots don't need to look like humans, they need to be useful . Seems like putting in an awful lot of extra unnecessary work to end up with a worse result.

I'm not sure how many times this has to be restated. It's car manufacturing. Everything that could be done by a purpose specific robot arm bolted down to the factory floor is already done by a purpose specific robot arm bolted down to the factory floor. What remains unautomated, then? The long tail of tasks that are too minor, too finicky, too open-ended or too reliant on manual dexterity to be offloaded onto traditi…

> Everything that could be done by a purpose specific robot arm bolted down to the factory floor is already done by a purpose specific robot arm bolted down to the factory floor.

Hah! Hardly. I say this as someone whose first "real job" was in applying robotics research to automotive assembly - there are still a ton of assembly tasks that could be performed by a fixed-base robot arm, or a robot arm on a linear rail/fixed gantry. Wheeled mobile manipulators are only needed in a few cases, and humanoid form-factor is only "necessary" in very few cases (and I don't think the current crop of humanoids is particularly suited to these tasks).

In my opinion/experience, the impediments are that (1) the system integrators that are usually responsible for assembly-line robotics are too stupid to figure out how to apply robots to the problem, (2) the automakers themselves are often too short-sighted/stupid/unwilling to invest in increased automation (and particularly in building the in-house competency that they really need), (3) the hostile/exploitative relationship between (most) automakers and their main suppliers means that low-hanging improvements to parts/assemblies are a non-starter, and (4) the automaker C-suite (and investors) are too drawn to silver-bullet solutions (e.g. humanoids) than practical automation improvements.

Post reply on HN