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

Do You Love Me? [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 478 posts

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#331

Post by Ajedi32 »

mabbo wrote: post #307
brushfoot wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only real purpose I can see for these things is being able to travel quickly in rough terrain This reminds me of the (alleged) Tom Watson quote: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." These robots will be everywhere in twenty years. The cost and the software aren't there yet, but it's only a matter of time. Flexibility and time to market will beat purpose-built robots in many cases once the…

> These robots will be everywhere in twenty years. Doing what? What can a generalist robot do that a task specific robot can't do better, faster, and cheaper? I'll be happy to be wrong- they're really neat- but I spent 7 years in the Operations tech division at Amazon, working in warehouses especially, and I don't see any need for these robots vs alternative options.

> What can a generalist robot do that a task specific robot can't do better, faster, and cheaper?

Nothing. And everything.

Nothing, because no matter what task the generalist robot is assigned to, it'll always be theoretically possible to design a custom-built specialist robot that's better at that one task.

Everything, because no matter how much better your sock-drawer-organizing robot is at organizing socks, it'll never be able fold my clothes or make my bed or clean my windows like the generalist robot can. I'm not going to purchase thousands of different robots for thousands of different tasks when I can just buy one that will do all of them.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#332

Post by blhack »

andrewem wrote: post #324
ryandrake wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the hallmark of this pandemic was people’s (and Americans’ in particular) unwillingness to act collectively and cooperatively for everyone’s benefit. It was a gigantic game of Prisoners Dilemma, where we could have won with everyone cooperating (masks and staying at home) but people instead chose to defect and go out protesting, refusing the masks, and buying khakis. Here we are a year later , hoping the vacci…

I mostly agree with you. On the topic specifically of whether protests over the summer were a significant factor in spreading the virus, I haven’t seen evidence that’s true. This article is from August so practically ancient history now, but it describes an analysis concluding the protests weren’t a major factor. If there is evidence to the contrary I would love to see it. https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/08/11/rac…

If that's true, then why don't we start outdoor music festivals back up?

A good portion of my friends all lost their jobs because they work in event production. If that data is true, then they should go back to work tomorrow.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#333

Post by djohnston »

petters wrote: post #201
renewiltord wrote: post #194

So what's the deal with these guys? Obviously their tech is pretty cool since I remember the control and feedback problem for bipedal bots being described as really hard when I was growing up. Obviously their consumer marketing is great since everyone looks at these things and loves them. But they don't have a product. What's the problem? My guesses: * No one really needs this shit * They have a control/feedback prob…

They do have a product you can buy — Spot (the dog).

Currently a smooth 75,000. Alas I am left dreaming of my robo dog companion :(

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#334

Post by belval »

imtringued wrote: post #152
belval wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bipedal robots aren't a great match for battlefield situations because they lack the ability to do proper decision making and are very expensive. The dogs might be more usable, but even then modern conflicts are not really based on ground war. I don't think those have any significant value over a an actual drone. Now a fleet of tiny quad-motor drones with a few bullets? That could work in high-density urban environme…

It would be far more effective to just add machine guns to UAVs like they do on the Apache [0]. It's simple, proven and effective. There is absolutely zero need for the bullets to be delivered by a crappy quadrocopter. You can send out quadrocopters for face detection and then just shoot people with the machine gun. This reminds me of that stupid missile that shoots blades. It's completely over engineered. [0] https:…

While I don't disagree with you, there is a very real need to avoid collateral damage in 2020. You cannot expect support at home if your drones are murdering a bunch of kids for each "bad guy" that they eliminate.

You want to be able to kill any leader anywhere and let the organization collapse due to internal power struggles. It's more fashionable.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#336

Post by pygy_ »

gamegoblin wrote: post #12
CommieBobDole wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further than that and say that it's obviously CGI, though I don't know if that actually means it is CGI - it could be, as you mentioned, some sort of post-processing. Or maybe it's greenscreened and composited together? More than the smoothness, there just seems to be something off about the weight and momentum that you tend to see in high-end, big-budget-movie CGI, but it's hard to put a definite finger o…

There's a similar effect in old movies when a super-strong character picks up a massive boulder that is actually made of styrofoam or something. You can tell that the mass is wrong based on the way it moves. I think this is a similar effect but in reverse -- we know the limbs are heavy and aren't made of styrofoam, so the fact that they are moving like they are is uncanny. Our brains aren't used to motorized and hydr…

Or even in modern movies with CGI-enhanced characters.

Gollum moves as if his enormous head was empty, because the actor doing the motion capture didn't wear a heavy helmet.

In "Rust and Bones", Marion Cotillard plays a character that loses her legs after an accident, and she has her legs removed by CGI, but there are scenes where she's carried by Matthias Schoenaerts that look unnatural, out of balance.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#337

Post by bariswheel »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #65

So what's the main barrier to using these industrially? Is it reliability? Did this video a zillion takes? Is it manufacturing? Maybe it's hard to scale them up? Is it battery life? Maybe it can power itself for just a few minutes? Is it object manipulation or sensing/world understanding? Maybe it can't apply the right forces to a soft thing or a flexible thing or know what it can step on vs over or what will move or…

Much harder to make the machine that makes the machine. Mass manufacturing these robots is probably unlikely at this time.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#338

Post by hliyan »

wbobeirne wrote: post #25
CommieBobDole wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further than that and say that it's obviously CGI, though I don't know if that actually means it is CGI - it could be, as you mentioned, some sort of post-processing. Or maybe it's greenscreened and composited together? More than the smoothness, there just seems to be something off about the weight and momentum that you tend to see in high-end, big-budget-movie CGI, but it's hard to put a definite finger o…

I'm inclined to agree with this after bumping the video up to max quality. I do believe that this is real, and you can see from 0:51-1:05 that there's some reflections going on that would be a lot trickier to fake. But this footage has a similar quality to what I see in a lot of heavily processed drone footage, where it just doesn't look like the same way I see the world.

If you look carefully, you can also see reflections on the robot's visors.

Re: Do You Love Me? [video]

#340

Post by atulatul »

bozzcl wrote: post #87

I love how there were people in the upper floor just walking by without even looking. "Oh, the robots are dancing again." In between the advances in "holographic" displays (not quite as sci-fi as we would want, but they are progressing), commercial space flight, cybernetic prosthetics, CRISPR and this... we are living in the future. It's amazing. It makes me a little sad more people are not aware of the ridiculously…

>me a little sad more people are not aware of the ridiculously cool technical advancements going on lately

"The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed."

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/01/24/future-has-arrived/

Post reply on HN