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

41–50 of 83 posts

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

#41

Post by fharper1961 »

shdon wrote: post #32

I wonder how long it will be before the sex industry catches on. Surely realistic and anatomically correct androids are preferable to blow-up dolls are what have you... even Star Trek mentioned the issue. It might seem flippant, but I genuinely think that is a potentially huge market (though probably not Google's cup of tea). After all, why create a robot that is shaped like a human? The human form is remarkably vers…

The Swedish series Real Humans explored this and many other related themes in great detail. I highly recommend it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2180271/

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

#42

Post by jessaustin »

wpietri wrote: post #20
wpietri wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just guessing, but for me it's about the audience. Software in the 70s and 80s was very nerdy. With the rise of the web, it got less so, driven by the need to reach consumers and the influence of print design. In the last decade, a lot of tech is downright chic, and succeeds because of that. Look at the iPod and the iPhone, for example. I think robotics is coming up on a similar transition. For years it was 99% resea…

Whoa. It's worth checking out their video "Box": http://www.botndolly.com/box Gorgeous.

We can see the two robots manipulating the rectangular screens, and infer one positioning the camera. What I'm trying to figure out, is if there are at least two additional robots positioning the projectors that light the screens, or if they just transformed the animation and the projectors are kept in basically the same place as the camera.

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

#43

Post by jdorw »

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-…

I've been a robotics hobbyist for a few years and still can't answer any of those questions. I can get my turtlebot to follow me around and chase the cat though. Is there a practical programming robotics book/course out there? I've taken tons of math, controls, read robotics books, but still can't program anything harder than a PID or Kalman filter. I think part of that is me relying on ROS libraries too much.

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

#44

Post by ENGNR »

shdon wrote: post #32

I wonder how long it will be before the sex industry catches on. Surely realistic and anatomically correct androids are preferable to blow-up dolls are what have you... even Star Trek mentioned the issue. It might seem flippant, but I genuinely think that is a potentially huge market (though probably not Google's cup of tea). After all, why create a robot that is shaped like a human? The human form is remarkably vers…

Highly specialised robots might be more efficient overall, but you lose the agility of being able to quickly give them tasks and repurpose them.

A lot of smaller businesses would take a general human shaped robot that they could visually and verbally give simple commands to (move all these boxes from here to over there, intuit that the stack needs to be stable), over some giant arm that they need to program/can't go outside/etc, even if it is more efficient at some specific set of tasks.

There's a reason Amazon are still using actual humans and barely organised heaps of unrelated products in a giant warehouse for a lot of their dispatch centres.

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

#45

Post by chmike »

icebraining wrote: post #33
chmike wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the down vote ? This is a pertinent question. It's a problem we will face soon or later. Internet has also it's problem. The ostrich attitude or obscurantism about them is plain stupid. My answer to this question is that dynamite and machine have good use and bad use. There were also good reason to fear the bad use of them. But mankind manage to keep the balance largely in favor of the good use. I'll not prone ob…

I beleive that artificial intelligence reproducing the brain capabilities is just behind the corner. Why?

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 between before and after.

For the explanation on how the cortical neural network works the aha moment is the only missing step. All the puzzle pieces are known (of coures in the hypothesis that only bioelectrical mechanisms are in play).

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

#46

Post by TeMPOraL »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #35
yRetsyM wrote: post #4

Is it too early to reference Skynet and Terminator?

No. It is exactly the right time. People really need to stop trying to bring scifi to life without considering that most of those scifi books/movies resulted in the extinction of mankind , or something near that.

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...

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

#47

Post by shdon »

ENGNR wrote: post #44
shdon wrote: post #32

I wonder how long it will be before the sex industry catches on. Surely realistic and anatomically correct androids are preferable to blow-up dolls are what have you... even Star Trek mentioned the issue. It might seem flippant, but I genuinely think that is a potentially huge market (though probably not Google's cup of tea). After all, why create a robot that is shaped like a human? The human form is remarkably vers…

Highly specialised robots might be more efficient overall, but you lose the agility of being able to quickly give them tasks and repurpose them. A lot of smaller businesses would take a general human shaped robot that they could visually and verbally give simple commands to (move all these boxes from here to over there, intuit that the stack needs to be stable), over some giant arm that they need to program/can't go…

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 such an advantage, but why stop there? Even as a human, I've wished that I had more than 2 hands, eyes in the back of my head, or simply a much greater range of motion in the ability to turn my waist and neck and other joints.

Seems to me that making robots look human is purely cosmetic and emotional, but limiting in functionality unless their function is to interact with humans.

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

#48

Post by sharemywin »

shdon wrote: post #47
ENGNR wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly specialised robots might be more efficient overall, but you lose the agility of being able to quickly give them tasks and repurpose them. A lot of smaller businesses would take a general human shaped robot that they could visually and verbally give simple commands to (move all these boxes from here to over there, intuit that the stack needs to be stable), over some giant arm that they need to program/can't go…

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 with suction cups as end.

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

#50

Post by leokun »

chmike wrote: post #45
icebraining wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I beleive that artificial intelligence reproducing the brain capabilities is just behind the corner. Why?

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.

Post reply on HN