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

Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android

#71

Post by will_work4tears »

Qworg wrote: post #67
will_work4tears wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only three reported deaths last time I checked. One in 1979, one in 1984 and another in 2009. Pretty sure more deaths occur from other equipment than that, every year even.

This is untrue, but it is hard to get international numbers. In the US alone, it is about one death a year, purely by OSHA standards. This doesn't include things like "struck by robot, died three days later due to brain haemorrhage". OSHA: https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/AccidentSearch.search?acc_keyw... Economist: 77 accidents with industrial robots in 2005 alone - http://www.economist.com/node/7001829 Research paper:…

Interesting, thanks. I went back and found the article I had read about this awhile back and I guess it was specific data about robot arms and probably wasn't entirely comprehensive:

http://hcri.brown.edu/2013/08/29/could-your-robot-hurt-you-p...

Edit: one of those are a stretch calling it a "robot" A conveyor belt is a robot? Also, 33 results for robot, but 108 for Forklift and 11 for microwave, is it really all the much more dangerous than any other equipment? Should we ban microwaves (deliberate hyperbole, I realize those weren't deaths)?

Re: Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android

#72

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

waps wrote: post #25
sown wrote: post #11

I feel like I'm greatly missing out on new stuff like this. I'm trying to get a turtle bot together and build a sort of lab component of Prof Thrun's robot car class. But I wonder what else I could be doing. Anyone have pointers?

Some suggestions. To learn: 1) http://societyofrobots.com/ especially the forum 2) https://www.coursera.org/course/conrob 3) download the old coursera course on computer vision from some torrent site 4) anything and everything on 3d mathematics you can find. Get a job making robots. Oh and the interview question is "how do you find a path for a non-point robot with non-line obstacles". The answer is to add the point-…

You forgot inverse kinematics. If you want the robot to do something useful like pick up an object from somewhere and put it down somewhere else, forward kinematics alone won't help you.

Re: Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android

#73

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

sharemywin wrote: post #48
shdon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll grant you that, but why would such a robot need to actually look human? Legs can be useful in a few corner cases, but 3 or 4 of them would be more stable, or maybe just a compact set of wheels. Why does a robot need a face, or an area that looks like one? To do human work better than a human being (disregarding the never tired/complaining issue), a robot would need to be physically superior too. Strength can be…

espcially if your talking about moving things around a factory or store. I'm suprised forklifts aren't autmated already. they don't move fast I wouldn't think next gen kinect would be sufficent to detect obsticals find pallets. if you need something to go upstairs hand it off to something with flippers or legs. Also, I could see something like the assitant in Ironman with one arm and mobile being useful. Maybe some w…

I'm suprised forklifts aren't autmated already

They have been for a while.

http://www.egemin-automation.com/en/automation/material-hand...

Re: Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android

#74

Post by taway2012 »

fidotron wrote: post #57
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #37

For me this article tells me I am growing up. Previously I would have thought "gosh Google is getting into robots, well that sews up the market everyone will buy from them." today I think - "Wow, Google is path blazing, there is going to be so many opportunities - let's dig out ROS and find a local company with a needs"

And you'll know you're grown up when you can spot a reactionary PR fluff piece instead of anything with actual content in it! The Amazon announcement had a concrete end goal and time commitments, and was met with cynicism, whereas this fuzzy approach allowing people to project what they want into what they're reading creates a sort of delusional optimism among many.

Hmm, you think noisy drones flying around delivering packages within 30 minutes of ordering is a more concrete vision than a robot walking up to your door from a self-driving car? (last 30 ft problem).

I can easily imagine myself solving this problem in about 2 years if given access to Google street view data. Remember, Google probably has detailed (centimeter resolution) 3D maps of from their street view cars (they use LIDAR, afaik).

The Google plan is much more realistic than Amazon's announcement. IMHO. YMMV. I am not a robotics person etc.

Re: Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android

#75

Post by saraid216 »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #69
fidotron wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you'll know you're grown up when you can spot a reactionary PR fluff piece instead of anything with actual content in it! The Amazon announcement had a concrete end goal and time commitments, and was met with cynicism, whereas this fuzzy approach allowing people to project what they want into what they're reading creates a sort of delusional optimism among many.

I used to (and still do) run the opposite direction that the crowd is going. Its just that I am choosing my tribe - and my tribe is full of people who also run the opposite direction from the crowd. So I have to be careful to spot both the larger crowd, the crowd that is now my tribe and when people are dropping FUD scent markers over their desired territory. In short - robots still look like a hobby that will pay of…

> In short - robots still look like a hobby that will pay off the same way writing games for the ZX 80 or Atari will pay off.

You realize that that "pay off" is entirely social, right? For people who made careers out of game development, it wasn't because they made an early investment on the Atari. It was because they developed a passion.

If robots take off the way computer games did (and they probably will), the fact that you tinkered on them twenty years ago is not going to be good for anything other than stories over a beer, the same way my dad likes to talk about programming with punch cards. (Spoiler: tmk, my dad hasn't programmed anything in maybe 30 years. Kept up he has not.)

Re: Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android

#76

Post by munificent »

In case the automated cars weren't enough of a wake up call, this is a pretty clear indication that the millions (billions?) of people we currently employ to do low-skill manual labor will be out of a job before too long. If we don't come up with useful for things for them to fill their time with, it's going to be a hugely destabilizing force in society.

Re: Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android

#77

Post by chmike »

leokun wrote: post #50
chmike wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the cogs of the brain are well known and documented since years and their interoperation as well. But we still don't know how it all work together and what function is implemented by it.(I mean publicly. Some people may already know and keep it secret) This is like DNA. All the puzzle pieces (molecules) were known but what was missing is how these pieces fit together. It was a aha moment that made the difference…

> All the cogs of the brain are well known and documented since years and their interoperation as well. But we still don't know how it all work together and what function is implemented by it.(I mean publicly. Some people may already know and keep it secret) I don't think there's a single correct thing about anything in this sentence, it's also a little bit conspiracy crazed.

What a troll! Anything more concrete to justify what you "think" or should I say believe ?

I don't see what could be "conspiracy crazed" in my comment. It looks like you believe that if someone knew how it worked, the whole world would immediatly know it as well. This might be a shock for you but this world is not sesame street.

Re: Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android

#78

Post by dekhn »

Qworg wrote: post #67
will_work4tears wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only three reported deaths last time I checked. One in 1979, one in 1984 and another in 2009. Pretty sure more deaths occur from other equipment than that, every year even.

This is untrue, but it is hard to get international numbers. In the US alone, it is about one death a year, purely by OSHA standards. This doesn't include things like "struck by robot, died three days later due to brain haemorrhage". OSHA: https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/AccidentSearch.search?acc_keyw... Economist: 77 accidents with industrial robots in 2005 alone - http://www.economist.com/node/7001829 Research paper:…

I can't read the economist article "reached your reading limit" :(

77 accidents- I assume that's injuries, not deaths, right?

I would consider the OSHA count as incomplete for the reason you say- but I doubt there is more accurate data.

Right now I'd say the numbers look reasonable to not justify preventing the entertainment industry from using robot automation in movie making alongside actors (I think that's what was being suggested?).

Re: Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android

#79

Post by TeMPOraL »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #63
TeMPOraL wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People need to learn to stop generalizing from fictional evidence, especially wrt. to sci-fi tech. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...

Actually, when it comes to autonomous robots, I would generally say, "Holy shit we're all going to die unless these are very thoroughly regulated and controlled" is a pretty good heuristic. A delivery drone that crashes into your car due to a software bug wasn't turning sapient and trying to kill you. You just ran off a bridge and died anyway.

> A delivery drone that crashes into your car due to a software bug wasn't turning sapient and trying to kill you. You just ran off a bridge and died anyway.

People crash into each other on the road all the time. I'd trust a machine much more than a human any day.

Re: Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android

#80

Post by eli_gottlieb »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #79
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, when it comes to autonomous robots, I would generally say, "Holy shit we're all going to die unless these are very thoroughly regulated and controlled" is a pretty good heuristic. A delivery drone that crashes into your car due to a software bug wasn't turning sapient and trying to kill you. You just ran off a bridge and died anyway.

> A delivery drone that crashes into your car due to a software bug wasn't turning sapient and trying to kill you. You just ran off a bridge and died anyway. People crash into each other on the road all the time. I'd trust a machine much more than a human any day.

A thoroughly-tested autonomous driving program with all kinds of safety measures built in to handle things like firmware errors? Sure!

Some project that a three-man company hacked together in five months and are now selling without requisite safety measures and testing? Yikes!

Post reply on HN