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

MIT cheetah robot lands the running jump [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 212 posts

Re: MIT cheetah robot lands the running jump [video]

#201

Post by deepnet »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #145
deepnet wrote: post #88

Stuart Russel of AI a Modern Approach fame ( with Norvig ) asks us to consider the ethics of AI research - killer robotics, & hunter drones. http://www.nature.com/news/robotics-ethics-of-artificial-int... He calls for a moritorium until we can get a neural net to learn Asimov's 1st Law. Should the self driving car swerve into you to avoid greater moral hazard ? Humour aside as researchers and robotocists do we have a…

I, Robot was an expose on why Asimov's Laws of Robotics don't work .

If that is the case then why did the evil Robots have no Asimov Laws ?

The good butler robots had the 3 Laws.

The dreamer hero robot had no laws but had imagination and developed its own morality.

Re: MIT cheetah robot lands the running jump [video]

#202

Post by grkvlt »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #170
deepnet wrote: post #88

Stuart Russel of AI a Modern Approach fame ( with Norvig ) asks us to consider the ethics of AI research - killer robotics, & hunter drones. http://www.nature.com/news/robotics-ethics-of-artificial-int... He calls for a moritorium until we can get a neural net to learn Asimov's 1st Law. Should the self driving car swerve into you to avoid greater moral hazard ? Humour aside as researchers and robotocists do we have a…

Its locking the barn door after the cow is gone. 100,000,000 killer robots are already deployed, killing an average of 4000 innocents each year. Land mines, which kill indiscriminately. We've made negligible progress controlling their deployment.

Those are actually pretty good statistics. Only 0.005% of these 'indiscriminate killers' manage to kill innocent civilians. I suspect that's better than actual soldiers...

Re: MIT cheetah robot lands the running jump [video]

#203

Post by JoeAltmaier »

grkvlt wrote: post #202
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its locking the barn door after the cow is gone. 100,000,000 killer robots are already deployed, killing an average of 4000 innocents each year. Land mines, which kill indiscriminately. We've made negligible progress controlling their deployment.

Those are actually pretty good statistics. Only 0.005% of these 'indiscriminate killers' manage to kill innocent civilians. I suspect that's better than actual soldiers...

That's because they're rooted to one spot. They kill anybody that gets near them. The point is, of course, that nobody cares about killer robots. Especially if they're not killing anyone you know. Its just a political football for now.

Re: MIT cheetah robot lands the running jump [video]

#204

Post by grkvlt »

bladecatcher wrote: post #173
anthony_d wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person and a driver I'm willing to say the car should drive off the cliff. As a developer I wouldn't buy a car that would drive off the cliff. It's a tough problem. Personally I would make a quickly/poorly thought out analysis of how to do the least damage. Being human I'd probably get it wrong.

>> As a developer I wouldn't buy a car that would drive off the cliff. What does being a developer have anything to do with it?

A developer knows, through hard-won experience, that the algorithm to decide whether driving over a cliff is better for everyone is bound to have bugs, and will therefore gladly throw you off a cliff when it is the wrong thing to do ;(

Non-developers would assume the computer to be (somewhat) infallible.

Re: MIT cheetah robot lands the running jump [video]

#205

Post by rtkwe »

vlasev wrote: post #147
bliti wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1.The goal is not to build a cheetah, buy to learn from them. One thing to consider is that this team is constrained by materials. What works for an animal will likel not transfer directly due to the difference in materials. Harmonics are well absorbed by tissue but the robot may have issues with them. 2. How did you come to this conclusion? Have you built a robot that mimics an animal? If so, may you provide some in…

To your first point, wouldn't a robot like that benefit from staggering the action of the legs? Instead of X impact at one point in time, have X/2 impact at two points in time? Would that create too much strain? For my conclusion in point two, my insight comes from experience of copying animal movement. When I trained parkour my friends and I would copy animal movement from across the whole animal kingdom[1]. Here's…

Having the back and front legs work as a pair makes the side to side balancing easier. I having them hit separately would require more control and degrees of freedom in the leg to keep the robot from oscillating side to side while running.

Re: MIT cheetah robot lands the running jump [video]

#206

Post by qbrass »

deepnet wrote: post #201
x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, Robot was an expose on why Asimov's Laws of Robotics don't work .

If that is the case then why did the evil Robots have no Asimov Laws ? The good butler robots had the 3 Laws. The dreamer hero robot had no laws but had imagination and developed its own morality.

The new robots were 3 laws compliant, but VIKI (also 3 laws compliant) invented law 0 (protect humanity) and imposed it upon the newer robots remotely. They were able to ignore law 1-3 if doing so conflicted with the current plan to save humanity.

It was demonstrated (via flashback) that the older robots were capable of allowing a human to die, while ignoring a direct order from a human, and might have been able to rationalize law 0. They weren't remotely linked to VIKI, making them harder to coordinate, so it was easier to remove them from the equation so they didn't get in the way.

Re: MIT cheetah robot lands the running jump [video]

#207

Post by resonation »

bcook wrote: post #198
resonation wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I see a wasp or a bee or a hornet, I present it with my arm and pray that it will grace me with it's sting, and summon its siblings to join in. What a privilege it is to be subjugated by nature's sentient, motile organisms! My only regret is that these magnificant creatures don't sting me more often, but alas, it is the right of any autonomous insect to do whatever it wishes with it's sting, and who am I, bu…

If you prefer pain and inaction... Honestly, I do not understand what your point is. Could you explain? (With less attitude?)

Waiting for artificial intelligence to surpass humanity, particularly as if it were a desirable inevitability, and then letting it happen sounds precisely like pain and inaction to me.

Re: MIT cheetah robot lands the running jump [video]

#208

Post by chinpokomon »

IgorPartola wrote: post #168
malkia wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most-obvious, but a self-driving would be riding "alone" for long periods of time. For example "sending" car from one member of the family to another (or one client to another for use), or maybe delivering items from the store directly into a box. So in this case, the car should have the other mode, which is not safe for the car, but from whatever is outside, but now that I've typed it, even that I don't know the det…

Ooh, I really like this idea. Instead of me finding parking at the airport, I send my car to park in my own driveway, then have it pick me up a few days later. That's brilliant. I haven't even thought of the possibility of having the car drive empty.

This has been discussed as the first step for wide acceptance of driverless cars. As a personal valet at a mall for instance, large public lots could be prepared in a way that makes navigation for driverless cars easier. There could be a driverless car parking lot away from main entrances, and therefore leave most parking open for regular drivers. I believe it was Mercedes that had an interesting demo a year or two ago in Las Vegas that demonstrated this sort of idea.

Re: MIT cheetah robot lands the running jump [video]

#209

Post by chinpokomon »

IgorPartola wrote: post #120
deepnet wrote: post #88

Stuart Russel of AI a Modern Approach fame ( with Norvig ) asks us to consider the ethics of AI research - killer robotics, & hunter drones. http://www.nature.com/news/robotics-ethics-of-artificial-int... He calls for a moritorium until we can get a neural net to learn Asimov's 1st Law. Should the self driving car swerve into you to avoid greater moral hazard ? Humour aside as researchers and robotocists do we have a…

> Should the self driving car swerve into you to avoid greater moral hazard? The self-driving car's first priority should be to protect those inside it. Anything else is more complicated. I read an article a little while ago about this topic and it posed a question along the lines of "should a self-driving car do the thing that'll kill its own passengers, yet save a larger number of others around it?" Think about how…

What is the ethical answer for a human in the same situation?

Re: MIT cheetah robot lands the running jump [video]

#210

Post by lsaferite »

jolt wrote: post #172
lsaferite wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, all the sensory overload you experienced as a novice driver has become background noise that is handled subconsciously now. That lets you focus on more strategic planning of your driving. That's one reason I like countries that mandate a learner sign in cars for new drivers. It lets others around them understand that they are still getting to grips with that sensory overload and allows them to act accordingly.

I see, is there an equivalent for robots? Like putting part of the algorithm in to hardware or something? Or is my "algorithm" still "there", I'm just not as aware that I'm following it?

I'd say it's still there, it's just running on a background thread. :)
Post reply on HN