Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by gallerdude | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

gallerdude

Imagine how revolutionary a robot would be that could simply walk around, pick things up, and set things down.

"Herbert: grab my car keys." "Herbert: set the dinner table." "Herbert: put the mail in the mailbox."

Obviously, cost will be a big deal, but I think we'll get there.

View on HN

This is actually getting there, at a competition called RoboCup@Home [0]

Some videos from that competition: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jmsFmXzyzk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csd9USPxpDs

[0] https://github.com/RoboCupAtHome/RuleBook

Once we reach that point, the robot will be running on a far more advanced algorithm, closer to the one you're using.

Consequences will likely be as profound and unpredictable as the internet turned out to be.

If the internet is any guide, such a robot would find itself being used mostly for petting, feeding, and playing with cats.

I think you're forgetting something...

Herbert: oh, touch me there <3

subset of petting

what happens when the bot gets tired of being your slave?

Probably best not to code that in.

It's a general artificial intelligence. You don't need to code it to do anything! It will learn to conquer puny humans all on it's own.

"Tired" is a human feeling. A robot would never be tired of doing anything.

ok, what happens when the bot decides it isn't in its best interest to continue to be your slave?

> Once we reach that point, the robot will be running on a far more advanced algorithm, closer to the one you're using.

I'm using one algorithm? That's a rather controversial claim. And it's advanced? How so?

Is it a particularly controversial claim?

You can describe any collection of algorithms as a single, more complicated, one. And it seems reasonable to say that humans are quite advanced given we can't yet replicate some of their reasoning capabilities.

Yes but to get to that point, Herbert needs to know the physics of the world, cause the mail may be under the kid's football which would drop on the floor of the mail is pulled and bounce around and break some things. And the robots also needs to know about making the right decision: is it better to let the ball break the China vase than making a move that would hit the dog in the face even not very hard?

In order to get there, you need a robot that knows a lot of stuff.

I think for the example with the China you would just have it do it's best to avoid things and if it breaks stuff then it breaks stuff. Unless you're robot breaks a ton of stuff in normal operation I don't see how being unable to choose between different things to break being a large issue

Having to anticipate how the robot will screw up and reorganize your life based around that is a big issue. It's a big enough reason for people to decide they need to give up a dog they love, and people love dogs a lot more than they love robots.

But benefits of having dogs are mostly psychological and so dog owners are a minority. Since robots will have economical benefits people will use them even if it will make their lives worse.

This is placing a much higher standard on robots than humans are held to: to demonstrate that robots have to make hard decisions you presented a scenario where a human making either decision would have socially acceptable justifications available. But that just may be the key: maybe robots don't have to have superhuman decision making as long as they can produce humanly acceptable justifications for their decisions. That might still be hard, but at least you don't have to do that in a split second.

The central problem with this idea is noise and creepiness. Nobody wants a noisy robot, and roboticists tend to produce creepy ones. Both problems might be solvable, but I think robotics tends to focus on the technical problems at the exclusion of the aesthetics. It's definitely a startup idea.

Do you mean acoustic noise? Both noise and aesthetics are far simpler problems to solve than autonomous learning. I don't think there's much of a market for realistic, quiet robots until the central problem has been solved.

What you're describing are separate concerns that I'm sure will be addressed before they're brought to market. Currently they're focussed on getting the robot to be able to learn from example. Spending a lot of time on aesthetics at the expense of getting the learning to work doesn't make sense at this point. You're exactly right that they're focussing on the technical problems: that's what needs to be solved. Once it works as expected, then they can focus on improving the aesthetics. A startup that focussed on making robots that look good but aren't effective at accomplishing tasks would likely have a very limited market.

Yeah, fair enough. I was thinking that BigDog was an example of this that works today, but the military passed on it because it was too noisy. But it didn't really do anything but move around.

That's because the aesthetics are relatively easy to improve once the difficult technical problems are solved.

We're still in the research phase, so polish isn't important (unless perhaps if giving a demo to an outside investor who isn't tech-savvy).

I wouldn't mind a creepy, noisy robot if it did the chores for me while I was at work and away from the house. I would be more concerned about safety with small children. Mine often find unpredictable ways to injure themselves with inert small objects, so I would imagine the possibilities with a larger, moving machine would be larger.

I wouldn't consider this creepy.

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/XV2kBAa21cI8yKgmfm90EwYalA0...

Nor these:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/2b/87/e5/2b87e5634...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2e/a5/fc/2ea5...

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hire...

https://cdn.thisiswhyimbroke.com/images/kuri-home-robot1.jpg

Have you saw them working in real life? Can't say about others but the first one is, maybe not creepy, rather looks like fake and cheap. Usually standing in one place, stuttering movement, etc. I don't want to say it is worthless. You have to start somewhere. But we are far away from the smooth and immediate reactions.

Has anyone asked WHY robots NEED to have humanoid bodies?

I can see the case for familiarity, especially for robotic pets and attendants for children, but the human body and its limbs are the result of millions of years of evolution, in conditions that don't exist or apply anymore.

It had to adapt to being born naked and having to grow up, possibly on its own, and feeding itself and fending for itself...

I mean, consider wheels vs. legs. You don't see the former anywhere in nature, but it's the most efficient mode of locomotion in human society.

Why aren't we exploring more efficient robotic bodies that would also be easier to program?

Say, a rotating trunk-like body with multiple octopus-like tentacles with suckers instead of fingers. Just an idea. Or a robot that is actually a swarm of ant-like machines.

There will be useful cases for robots of all body types. BUT we humans have created a humanoid world where the human form makes sense. As such we'll need robots that mimic that for certain functions.

For example wheels, they're easier to do that legs (by far) but gets stuck on cables, carpets and stairs.

People with central air handlers find the creaking and snapping of radiator heating very creepy, whereas radiator people find the whoooooosh of air handlers creepy. Kitchen appliances randomly and insistently beeping would likely have totally freaked out an ancestor just 200 years ago. The idea of voices and pictures of humans coming out of boxes was initially kinda disturbing. To say nothing of the sound of car vs horse.

Several of the robots around my home (dishwasher, washing machine, etc.) make noise, and I already accept them. If another robot adds value, even with noise or creepiness, I cannot imagine rejecting it over those concerns.

> "Herbert: grab my car keys." "Herbert: set the dinner table." "Herbert: put the mail in the mailbox."

Doing that requires far more than simply being able to pick things up and put things down and walk around. To do that requires nearly human level AI that can "understand".

Not really. You just need some basic natural language processing to recognize what task needs to be done. There's some stuff like this already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54HpAmzaIbs

No, really. Natural language processing isn't going to allow it to see and recognize the thing, nor navigate to the thing; it'll take vastly more complication than the OP implied to do something as simple as pick up something when instructed.

"Grab my son from his play room."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com