DARPA's Humanoid Robot Challenge.

[RGClark]

As a follow up to the autonomous vehicles thread here's an interesting article on DARPA sponsored research on producing robots able to perform emergency and rescue tasks:

Start Your Mad Science: DARPA's Humanoid Robot Challenge.

The Pentagon research arm wants you to build a robot that can drive a car, use hand tools, open doors, and perform other functions formerly reserved for us puny humans.

By Michael Belfiore
October 25, 2012 4:00 PM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...ence-darpas-humanoid-robot-challenge-14095951


Bob Clark

 

[jedidia]

I just don't get the fixation with the humanoid part. There's no conceivable purpose a humanoid robot could do better than a "robot" specifically built for a single purpose, and we've had enough of bad expieriences with just software projects that had a too wide application scope, even without the hardware part.

 

[RGClark]

I just don't get the fixation with the humanoid part. There's no conceivable purpose a humanoid robot could do better than a "robot" specifically built for a single purpose, and we've had enough of bad expieriences with just software projects that had a too wide application scope, even without the hardware part.

From reading the article there is some justification for the robot having a humanoid shape. For one thing it would need to ride in vehicles and enter and exit the vehicles autonomously. Apparently it is desired to even drive the vehicles autonomously when the vehicles are not specifically designed to be autonomously operated.


Bob Clark

 

[Fisherman]

And the image speaks. Here we go.

 

[Artlav]

A dedicated system with a great sensor rig can't drive a car reliably yet, and they expect a "robot" to do it, with only a pair of eyes on a rotating platform...

Show - it was for show, it is for show, it would be for show.
At least for some while, anyway.

 

[T.Neo]

Things like this and Robonaut are human-shaped because they're designed to use human tools and (in this case) human vehicles. It should be quite easy for a non-humanoid robot to say, open a door, but when designing something that needs to say, use human tools or drive a car, the rationale is that it's easier to build the robot around the existing hardware than build all-new hardware around a robot.

That's still quite a specific set of uses, nevertheless we still get nonsense like suggestions of sending Robonauts to the Moon (which would be useless). A generalised robot or at least a generalisable robot isn't necessarily a bad idea though, but it does not need to be humanoid.

Of course, systems are custom-designed for factory applications because it's far easier to simply to automate the machinery than to have a bunch of robot helpers operating it.

Software able to interpret and execute commands such as 'walk over there' or 'get into that car and drive to X' would be pretty awesome and one would think, be quite revolutionary.

 

[RGClark]

A dedicated system with a great sensor rig can't drive a car reliably yet, and they expect a "robot" to do it, with only a pair of eyes on a rotating platform...
Show - it was for show, it is for show, it would be for show.
At least for some while, anyway.

It's not likely it would have to be for long distances. And in any case that autonomous vehicles have been OK'd in some states suggest there has been a great deal of progress in this area.
One possible use is suggested by the experience in the Fukushima nuclear accident. The Japanese fireman had to get rather close to the nuclear plant, exposing themselves to high radiation. A humanoid robot could drive the firetrucks as well as operate them.


Bob Clark

 

[jedidia]

And the image speaks. Here we go.

Hey, it's humanoid, not Beastoid...

 

[T.Neo]

A humanoid robot could drive the firetrucks as well as operate them.

And now you get to the part where the annoying person in the audience asks: "why not build a robotic firetruck". The issue is, is it more efficient to employ humanoid robots to operate your usual machinery, or develop dedicated robotic machinery in this case?

 

[Izack]

And now you get to the part where the annoying person in the audience asks: "why not build a robotic firetruck". The issue is, is it more efficient to employ humanoid robots to operate your usual machinery, or develop dedicated robotic machinery in this case?

If they must bundle all the intelligence into one of two drones (vehicle and driver) then why on Earth would it have to be humanoid? Humans have enough problems already compensating for the inherent difficulty of driving a vehicle from a position of limited visibility and awareness. The first hardware requirement for a DriveMyCar app for a robot should be the ability to interface directly with the vehicle control software, voiding the need for mechanical appendages to grip the wheel with. It's absurd to go through the incredibly complex development process just to make a showy workaround to a very very basic aspect of machine-operation: electronic communication. :rant:

 

[T.Neo]

That is assuming that the vehicle is able to electronically interface with a robot and its software is able to interpret and accept its commands. I'm no automotive expert, but I would bet that the grand majority of existing vehicles cannot do that.

Granted if you would be going to the effort to make a humanoid robot that can drive a fire-engine you might as well make the effort to make a self-driving fire-engine.

 

[Melvin]

Our vision, hearing and general mobility sucks compared to other members of the animal kingdom. Were it not for our (relatively) higher intelligence and opposable thumbs we would be mere snack sticks to the other predators.

When they start asking people to build Felinid robots with opposable thumbs, it's time to start worrying.

I had to put that in because it made me laugh.

 

[T.Neo]

If you wanted to kill people most efficiently, you'd just build an ICBM and top it off with a nuclear-armed reentry vehicle. Fast, cheap, and three-laws defiant. The perfect robot for executing mass murder.

Even the Cylons used them. And I mean, come on. Cylons are awesome.

 

[Melvin]

If you wanted to kill people most efficiently, you'd just build an ICBM and top it off with a nuclear-armed reentry vehicle. Fast, cheap, and three-laws defiant. The perfect robot for executing mass murder.

Nukes are soooo 1980's.

 

[statickid]

hahah that robot was doing push-ups. now that's funny! I feel that unless they make it REALLY SOON, the machinery will tend towards self automation with a manual mode for when it gets driven by a human. The humanoid robots will be cool toys.

---------- Post added at 01:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------

whenever the roboticists kick their robots to show how well they stay balanced i always wonder how many times they kicked it before during development and it just fell over.

 

[Quick_Nick]

Robots are at least better than me at..everything:

 

[RGClark]

By the article it doesn't have to be humanoid. For instance the Big Dog robot with four legs might be more stable going over rough terrain or rubble. More than four legs might be even more stable and flexible. You could then give it hands or even tentacles to drive vehicles.
There is also a psychological factor in regards to interacting with humans. Would we like multi-legged, tentacled creatures walking among us?

Bob Clark

 

[statickid]

well i can't speak for everyone, but i personally think humanoid robots are creepier...to answer the question, multi-legged tentacled robots would be awesome!!!! humanoid robots would be cool too.

However, to elaborate on my comment, I think that the sci-fi universe cultivates a fear of robots being so human as to be indistinguishable, which really terrifies the luddites.

---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

:lol: sounds like "hungry eyes" at the end of the video

 

[Andy44]

However, to elaborate on my comment, I think that the sci-fi universe cultivates a fear of robots being so human as to be indistinguishable, which really terrifies the luddites.

No, it's the

 

[RGClark]

Just saw this:

Video: Navy’s Humanoid Robot Dances Gangnam Style.
BY SPENCER ACKERMAN 10.19.12 6:19 PM
"Meet CHARLI-2, Virginia Tech’s skinny, five-foot tall humanoid robot. His balance is enviable: Jostle him, and he’ll right himself — which is one of the reasons the Navy is using him for research on its firefighting robot of the future. Oh, and as the video above shows, he also dances Gangnam Style."
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/navy-robot-gangnam-style/


Bob Clark