Looking forward to their next video being recorded on a smartphone by a robot.
Do You Love Me? [video]
131–140 of 478 posts
Re: Do You Love Me? [video]
#132If I didn't know who Boston Dynamics was, I would have said that this is just CGI. The animations look so fake. I think the issue is that they're aggressively smoothing the motion since mechanical systems don't have the ability to accelerate & jerk as fast as biological systems. Cheap mocap animation has the same problem because the frame rate of the capture system is too low. They interpolate between captured keyfra…
Mandatory XKCD reference: https://xkcd.com/331/
Re: Do You Love Me? [video]
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me it looks like claymation. But of course I can't really explain what it means for something to "look like claymation" to me. Is it that the movement is too isolated? Not isolated enough? Both of those things at the same time in different ways?
Subliminally jerky - you can’t directly perceive it but you are aware of it.
"Subliminally jerky" - When you're certain it's dehydrated meat, but you don't know why.
Re: Do You Love Me? [video]
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't need to have full AI to have "death bots".
Do you have a source for that? I’m genuinely interested what kind of AI can act 100% autonomously on the battlefield.
> Do you have a source for that? I’m genuinely interested what kind of AI can act 100% autonomously on the battlefield.
The various military groups around the world have been using semi-autonomy in warfare for decades; you don't need 100% generalizable autonomy.
Plenty of missiles in the past worked just fine with little more than silhouette matching and 1 bit cameras.
Re: Do You Love Me? [video]
#135This is the future they foretold.
Re: Do You Love Me? [video]
#136I wonder if the guys behind the previous "Bosstown Dynamics" videos will spoof this as they did with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKjCWfuvYxQ
Re: Do You Love Me? [video]
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a source for that? I’m genuinely interested what kind of AI can act 100% autonomously on the battlefield.
Why would these things need to be fully autonomous to be scary? The fact that there might be a human operator in the loop would be cold comfort with one of these things hauling ass towards me...
That makes no sense. I would be more worried about it failing like a self driving car would. A malfunctioning robot could set your house on fire through an electrical short even if it is 100% trustworthy and harmless to humans.
Once I am scared of humans wanting to kill me why would I care if a robot with human like intelligence wants to kill me? It's the same thing at that point.
Re: Do You Love Me? [video]
#138It's hard to believe that they were acquired for 'only' 1.1B, given the valuations we have seen of many other companies recently.
Re: Do You Love Me? [video]
#139I am a huge fan of spartan-like no-bullshit brutalist approach towards their marketing/PR: - No studio setup, just their lab - No artificial lighting - No fucks given about hiding the mess - Robots going through surgery in the background - Song is classy af IMO - Can see the camera man - Can see the engineers/employees - Framing/cinematography isn't as polished (this is a feature, not a bug) - Chipped paint, beaten u…
They had pretty heavy studio lighting in this: https://youtu.be/wlkCQXHEgjA
Heavy study lighting? That's very clearly CGI.
I bet you believe all the vehicles racing around in automobile TV ads are real too.
Re: Do You Love Me? [video]
#140It’s hard to shake of the feeling that those aren’t rendered. However, it’s also kind of sad that this amazing technology goes from one owner to another without a clear push into the real world.
Oof. I don’t know how sad it is. Slap some guns on them and they’ll start selling. I kind of hope they stick to dancing and novelty tricks.
Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Humans have guns too and they are far faster and better marksmen than a bipedal robot.