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

Open Problems in Robotics

scottlocklin.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 232 posts

Re: Open Problems in Robotics

#131

Post by sudosysgen »

Well, at least two of these problems have been solved already and just need to be implemented.

For example, my cheap mirrorless cameras solves two of the problems on the list. It's phase detection sensors can both do depth estimation and position estimation quite rapidly in order to make the tracking autofocus systems work (autofocusing is really calculating the distance between object and lens).

You would really just have to do a bit of integration, it's really a solved problem already.

Re: Open Problems in Robotics

#132

Post by mihaaly »

marcosdumay wrote: post #125
mihaaly wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99.99% is pretty fine from the engineering point of view. The buildings and other constructions surrounds us have about the same theoretical reliability considering all the uncertainties involved like weather, load and impacts, long term characteristics, material and manufacturing uncertainties. Of course this centuries long trial and error supported pretty simple science of construction engineering needs to be suppo…

> The buildings and other constructions surrounds us have about the same theoretical reliability You are off by a few nines. Transportation machines are expected to have 5 or 6 of them. And those are the most dangerous kind we keep around. Everything else is more reliable.

No, I, am, not. It is about 99.998% Please do not cite numbers from different fields.

Re: Open Problems in Robotics

#133

Post by rocketflumes »

MereInterest wrote: post #130
mchusma wrote: post #126

I work in robotics. The problem for pretty much everything is one of scale and commercialization. Every one of these issues has been addressed, but almost none have a good and bundled solution. It feels like computers in the 70s. All the pieces are there but there aren't mass produced PCs yet somewhat because there aren't the suppliers to make things easier. This is changing fast. For example, SLAM has many things th…

> Teleportation was "possible but hard", but Freedom Robotics has a good solution now that mostly "just works" For somebody not in robotics, what does "teleportation" mean in this context. I assume that it doesn't mean the Star Trek style beaming that comes up from a Google search.

I think OP meant "teleoperation" - controlling a robot from afar

Re: Open Problems in Robotics

#134

Post by arpa »

etrautmann wrote: post #113
treeman79 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lost binocular vision for a number of years back. You get around just fine without it. Got it back after some speciality glasses (PRISM). Was a complete shock see depth again. Didn’t seem to help anything getting it back. Mostly just trippy. Chairs were amazing to stare at.

I’m curious to hear more. What caused you to lose and then regain depth perception? Were you able to see with both eyes or did you lose vision in one eye temporarily?

If prism glasses helped regain depth perception, then probably something went wrong with eye motor function, causing diplopia (double image due to misalignment of eye). Could be trauma to the eye socket? Vision loss in one eye i think can be ruled out.

Re: Open Problems in Robotics

#135

Post by cptnapalm »

treeman79 wrote: post #105
Mvandenbergh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parallax methods are widely used, I think it's how Tesla's driving assist features work. The problem with it is that humans don't just use binocular vision - we have a whole model of the world. So for instance, if I see an object, I usually know roughly how big it is supposed to be because I have a conception of "object". I also know that the straight line on both sides of an object is a wall, and that the wall conti…

Lost binocular vision for a number of years back. You get around just fine without it. Got it back after some speciality glasses (PRISM). Was a complete shock see depth again. Didn’t seem to help anything getting it back. Mostly just trippy. Chairs were amazing to stare at.

From a much shorter and very different route, once after an 18 hour straight Quake marathon, I looked around the my room and was startled at how everything looked. I was highly impressed by the graphics and depth perception.

Re: Open Problems in Robotics

#136

Post by thrwyoilarticle »

supportlocal4h wrote: post #129
contingencies wrote: post #52

Robotics founder here. Popular conceptions of "robots" are unrealistically general. In industry, we do not build robots, we build automation systems. Given the choice, would you prefer an automation system with some environmental assumptions, high speed and perfect repeatability (ie. entire industrial automation world), or no environmental assumptions, crushingly high cost, slow speed and poor reliability (eg. walkin…

It intrigues me that most people do not consider a refrigerator to be a robot. Same for a backhoe or a blender. The distinction between "machine" and "robot" is interesting. A traditional tractor is not a robot, but a driverless tractor is?

Maybe related to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

Re: Open Problems in Robotics

#137

Post by R0b0t1 »

deepGem wrote: post #77
Animats wrote: post #66

- Motion planning: already discussed. - Multiaxis singularities: much less of a problem than it used to be. We don't need closed-form solutions any more; we have enough CPU power at the robot to deal with this. You need some additional constraint, like "minimize jerk" when you have too many degrees of freedom. - Simultaneous Location and Mapping. SLAM for short: Getting much better. Things which explore and return a…

"The real problem: solve any of these problems, make very little money" - Just curious why have you come to this conclusion ? Object manipulation has potential products in dishwashing and vegetable chopping - sufficiently large markets, potential billion $ outcomes for a startup which takes the early mover lead. Two robotic hands that can work in co-ordination just as human hands do. Extremely difficult to solve, but…

Robotics and embedded just doesn't make that much money. I had to turn down a job offer due to the seriously low counteroffer I was given. Or rather, I was given no counteroffer, just told to pound sand after the market rate I gave apparently insulted them.

Re: Open Problems in Robotics

#138

Post by HALtheWise »

sudosysgen wrote: post #131

Well, at least two of these problems have been solved already and just need to be implemented. For example, my cheap mirrorless cameras solves two of the problems on the list. It's phase detection sensors can both do depth estimation and position estimation quite rapidly in order to make the tracking autofocus systems work (autofocusing is really calculating the distance between object and lens). You would really jus…

The parent comment was clearly written by someone with no experience in robotics. In fact, every single problem on this list is "solved" in the sense that there are examples of systems that perform it in some limited context. Generalizing those subsystems to handle the difficult edge cases and integrating those subsystems together is 99% of what makes robotics as a whole difficult, and it would be similarly deceptive to say that AI is "solved" because Microsoft Clippy exists.

Re: Open Problems in Robotics

#139

Post by thrwyoilarticle »

burntoutfire wrote: post #12
fluffy87 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the scariest part of using machine learning as an engineer on any practical application as well. Without an error bound, ML can’t be in charge of anything that could put human lives at risk. This is also why I don’t understand all the hype about FSD / L5 autonomous driving. We don’t even know yet if such error bounds even exist, so we don’t even know if machine learning is even the right tool for FSD yet. All…

What about "practical error bounds", i.e. testing the system through millions/billions of miles driven?

This is how some hardware is already certified for use in safety critical systems. ISO 26262 calls it 'proven in use'.

Re: Open Problems in Robotics

#140

Post by marcosdumay »

mihaaly wrote: post #132
marcosdumay wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The buildings and other constructions surrounds us have about the same theoretical reliability You are off by a few nines. Transportation machines are expected to have 5 or 6 of them. And those are the most dangerous kind we keep around. Everything else is more reliable.

No, I, am, not. It is about 99.998% Please do not cite numbers from different fields.

By that number you mean that 2 in 10000 buildings fail at some point due to some design issue? Because building reliability is a very hard concept to define, even more in the context of machine reliability (we are discussing robots here).

Anyway, machine reliability is calculated over usage, not lifetime. It gets much larger numbers.

Post reply on HN