[HN Gopher] The killer product of robotics could be a low-cost c...
___________________________________________________________________
The killer product of robotics could be a low-cost collaborative
manipulator
Author : lorepieri
Score : 72 points
Date : 2021-09-28 18:43 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lorenzopieri.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (lorenzopieri.com)
| fsflover wrote:
| The article suggests that the successful business model of such
| robot would be to provide hardware and open it to third-party
| apps. This is exactly what Pine64 is doing with their laptops,
| smartphones and other devices, and it seems to work fine. No
| software is required at all, everything is done by volunteers
| with FLOSS!
| bmicraft wrote:
| It seems to kinda work for them, but none of their products is
| the next iPhone for a reason: Nobody can massively profit from
| them in ways that would allow for make much larger investments
| fsflover wrote:
| AFAIK there are quite a few for-profit software on Linux (the
| OS they are targeting).
| runako wrote:
| I honestly think there's a lot more runway for single-purpose
| "smarter" appliances than general-purpose robots.
|
| The "iPhone of Robotics" probably looks more like personal
| ownership of several robots: Roomba, iLaundry, iFoodPrep,
| iPutAwayGroceries, iPutAwayDishes, etc. iRobot has built a solid
| business reasonably automating a single household chore. I would
| bet an all-in-one laundry machine or bathroom cleaning robot
| could also do compelling sales.
|
| At a minimum, it seems very ambitious to try to attempt to solve
| via robotics problems that are not well-solved using single-
| purpose machines.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Absolutely. Our conception of robot is fixated stupidly on
| things with arms and eyes.
|
| The toaster is a perfect robot. I mean perfect. A more modern
| example is my smart pressure cooker that does just about
| everything in closed-loop control. It's fantastic.
|
| Automation is not only a very old practice, it's actually
| stagnating relative to the amount of magic miracle appliances
| that appeared in the first half of the 1900s.
| WaltGisnep wrote:
| My toaster cooks the bottom part of the toast way faster than
| the top part so I have to flip it partway through to get it
| even. Also it accumulates a ton of crumbs which I can never
| quite clean out, and sometimes some crumbs will get onto the
| heating element and the kitchen will smell like burning. Plus
| it's just not at all consistent even though it seems
| impossible for there to be so much variance with the same
| machine cooking the same bread on the same time setting.
| packet_nerd wrote:
| I want an appliance that combines the functions of refrigerator,
| pantry, stove, oven, dishwasher, and that has manipulators inside
| capable of picking the ingredients, cleaning, peeling, chopping,
| and otherwise preparing them, cooking the entire meal, cleaning
| up, and spiting out the meal on serving dishes. :-)
|
| It should be able to cook good tasting homemade meals from real
| ingredients (even fresh from the garden if you have a garden),
| not just plastic wrapped junk food. You load food items through
| hopper or door in one side, then a manipulator arm picks them up,
| reads or otherwise identifies what they are, and stores them in
| the inbuilt pantry or refrigerator.
|
| It should keep an inventory of the refrigerator and panty and be
| able to suggest recipes that use what you have on hand while
| optimizing for cost, nutrition, and minimizing wasted food from
| spoilage. It should be able to produce shopping lists for you
| based on foods you use frequently or recipes you want to cook in
| the future. (It could even auto order foods and have them
| delivered, although I like the idea of just getting a shopping
| list and buying it myself better.)
|
| It should be able to help you avoid wasting leftover foods by
| reaccepting leftovers, storing them, displaying the leftovers as
| a suggestion for the next meals so you don't forget, and know the
| optimal way to reheat or re-prepare them.
|
| It should be controlled through an app on your phone, over the
| local network, and definitely not dependent on some cloud
| service. You should be able to still get a nice hot supper if the
| Internet goes down.
|
| The app should show you a list of recipes that can be made with
| the ingredients on hand, you pick one or a couple, it tells you
| how long it's going to take to prepare. You tap go, and 45min
| later you have a perfect homecooked supper!
| WaltGisnep wrote:
| that's pretty fantastical
| packet_nerd wrote:
| Maybe so.. but technology wise I don't think there's anything
| here that doesn't exist yet or that is even exceptionally
| advanced. It's just a matter of putting it all together and
| writing the code.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| to me the killer robot is either the dishwasher or the washing
| machine.
|
| however thats not very forward looking of me.
|
| We don't really need SCADA manipulators for clothes folding, we
| need a machine that we can just dump our washing in. Inside they
| might have a 6 axis arm, but I doubt it. There are machines that
| kinda do that for industrial linen companies. However they are
| huge and expensive, and you still need to feed in the clothes one
| by one.
|
| Now what a decent robot arm could be used for is augmenting VR.
| Being able to tug, push, block and parry a person who's playing a
| sword game would be brilliant fun. Not without safety headaches,
| but fun.
|
| I do agree that a decent arm thats cheap and powerful would
| unlock innovation. But they sorta do exist now. However we really
| need a usable IK library that doesn't require a maths degree to
| setup. We also need a library that would allow easy planning of
| moves as well. Its possible today, but hard.
|
| Think trying to fetch and parse a JSON file over HTTP on a first
| generation arduino. Thats where we are with the libraries to make
| Robot arms usable.
| pama wrote:
| We already have accepted robotic vacuum cleaners. Why not simply
| expand on that idea with adding simple manipulators on top of
| them: put away the shoes, pick up socks, empty the pet litter,
| ...
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| If there were robots capable of reliably doing that you'd see
| them on the market already. Picking things up, identifying them
| and applying the right force and such isn't an easy problem.
|
| By the way there are already self cleaning cat litter trays and
| they're absolutely awful and prone to poop-related bugs. I'm
| not sure any robot could reliably react to the developing
| situation of having a wet turd on the litter scooper.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| But you could replace the cat with a robotic one, that would
| produce poop pellets of standard size and consistency.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| This was essentially Willow Garage's pitch with the PR2, like a
| decade ago. Obviously they were several orders of magnitude off
| on the price point, but that was the idea-- an "appable robot"
| with standard hardware that everyone would rush to write new
| capabilities for.
|
| The home is always going to be a nightmare environment for this
| kind of thing, though-- even without the mundane issues of
| stairs, doorknobs, appliances with varying interfaces, and
| hazards like pets and clutter, there's just far too much breadth
| of potential tasks to want it to do.
|
| Later companies understood that zeroing in on a few tasks to do
| well and repeatedly (delivery, laundry, floor-cleaning, etc), in
| ADA-compliant environments (hotels, hospitals, airports), was a
| much less scary place to start.
| hugs wrote:
| "home is always going to be a nightmare environment for this
| kind of thing"
|
| We have two choices: 1) Design robots for places optimized for
| humans, or 2) Design places optimized for robots -- a future
| where the living space (and all the machines and other things
| in them) are redesigned from scratch for the robot that will
| cook, clean, and move around there. Then a second priority is
| making it comfortable enough for the humans to also live there,
| too.
|
| I suspect it's easier to adapt a human to an environment
| optimized for robots than it is to adapt a robot to an
| environment optimized for humans.
| bserge wrote:
| Why not both? Design smart houses with special rooms for the
| robots.
|
| Automated kitchen - place a bunch of ingredients regularly or
| right before ordering a meal, pick up freshly made food of
| your choice (or what's possible).
|
| Automated laundry - dump dirty clothes, pick them up washed,
| dried and ironed (probably the hardest part heh).
|
| Automated garage with charging/fill up, maintenance checks,
| washing?
|
| Will need a lot more space, so it would be only for the rich,
| at least at first. A common automated kitchen for an
| apartment complex might be possible.
|
| And better make them very reliable or maintenance can be a
| nightmare.
| camtarn wrote:
| Hmm, the automated garage is actually a damn good idea.
| Shouldn't be too hard to program a robot to remove valve
| caps and top up tires, check tread depth, wipe bugs off the
| windshield and bird droppings off the paintwork. Maybe even
| pop the hood and check/replenish fluids.
| bserge wrote:
| The car's computer/sensors could share all the relevant
| data, too.
| hugs wrote:
| It could totally be both. Boston Dynamics' Spot is already
| doing a good job navigating a human's world, but I also
| could see home goods manufacturers making new versions of
| their products "Spot-optimized".
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| No. We're building houses for humans. We're not building a
| robot retirement home. Design it for humans first, or you're
| going to wind up with a really crummy place for humans to
| live.
| 6510 wrote:
| Thats it! Calculator heaven! Put the humans on wall-e style
| seats on conveyor belts and circulate them though the
| laundry station, restaurant, bath house etc, then
| periodically detour them though more exotic shops and
| museums to eventually drop them off at their cubical or bed
| room.
| runako wrote:
| > I suspect it's easier to adapt a human to an environment
| optimized for robots than it is to adapt a robot to an
| environment optimized for humans.
|
| Replacing existing human spaces with robot-optimized spaces
| would make robots significantly more expensive than basically
| any other approach.
| ademup wrote:
| We replaced a $15 land line with a $1,100 iphone and got
| multitudinous other benefits. Replacing human centric
| habitation space with human+robot centric spaces seems like
| it would have similar outsized benefits. For example, maybe
| dishes never need to be cleaned by water if you have a
| robot willing to manually scrub them for 8 hours. Indeed,
| maybe your robo chef can also sterilize the "counter" so
| you just eat right off of it.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| At that point, why even bother with all the interface
| hassles of having it work with a mobile manipulator? If
| you're already getting semi-custom equipment all over the
| place and designating robot exclusion zones within your
| house, then you probably have the cash and floorspace to go
| all in on special-purpose labour saving devices like a
| washer/dryer combo that loads directly from the chute and
| can run itself.
|
| But once you begin describing that, it's clear how absurd
| it would be to install it all for use a few times a week.
|
| Home mobile manipulation will never be a thing until it can
| use the existing HMIs.
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _Replacing existing human spaces with robot-optimized
| spaces would make robots significantly more expensive than
| basically any other approach._
|
| Houses built over the past 50 or so years are designed to
| disintegrate over 50 or so years and be rebuilt anyway.
| Although demand for new construction is reduced by the way
| that neighborhoods tend to go from high income to low
| income as the buildings physically disintegrate, there is a
| lower limit somewhere, and redevelopment will happen
| everywhere eventually.
| runako wrote:
| > Houses built over the past 50 or so years are designed
| to disintegrate over 50 or so years and be rebuilt
| anyway.
|
| This may happen in places, but in any case building
| larger (to accommodate robots) spaces is not a way to
| make the robots more cost-effective or drive adoption.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Locomotion on flat floors covered in furniture is one
| problem out of many, and if redesigning all the other
| parts of the human environment solved all the other
| problems, researchers would only have one problem left.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| If we're talking about massive retrofits or greenfield
| projects, then that's sounding even more like it's a fit more
| for hotels and stuff than some kind of Henry Ford "one in
| every driveway" model.
| rsync wrote:
| I don't think this is the killer app for robotics.
|
| I think the killer app - and something I would pay for
| immediately - is a moveable platform programmed to travel between
| waypoints.
|
| So, a platform that stays level regardless of terrain and you put
| stuff on it and tell it to go to the (living room, backyard,
| carport, barn, whatever).
|
| I arrive home with a load of groceries and I put four bags on
| this platform and press the "kitchen" button.
|
| That's it. Just a magic box that transports (slowly) things to
| places around your yard/property/warehouse.
| singularity2001 wrote:
| and if it's well behaved it can even navigate to your neighbor
| (slowly)
| [deleted]
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I agree, but it'd have to be fast (as fast as walking probably)
| and float to not kill my pets or children. That's tough.
| misterbwong wrote:
| I share your sentiments. A simple (hah!) robot that can carry
| ~20-50lb loads while traversing suburban/urban terrains and
| navigate stairs between two pre-set points. Would make a huge
| difference for those that are elderly and/or have some limited
| mobility. Hell, I would buy it just to have one less thing to
| worry about when I'm with the kids.
| genericone wrote:
| Work with boston dynamics to make the Spot robot arm into a
| self-leveling gimbal table, and let the robot run around your
| house, and I think you're golden. Make it respond to voice
| commands, and you'll be even shinier.
| fsckboy wrote:
| put a robot arm on your robot table, along with an avocado,
| onions, cilantro, salt and pepper, (edit: lime!) and have it
| make guac on the way to my table!
|
| it can clean the plates on its way back
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I think people vastly underestimate the amount of fetching
| and cleaning that goes into cooking. If you can load all that
| onto a table, a knife + arms are doing the easy part.
| aazaa wrote:
| > Low cost: Less than 1000 USD for the robot hardware.
|
| I'm not sure where this figure comes from. In inflation-adjusted
| dollars, the Apple ][ cost ~ $6,000.
|
| > Previously shown off to a few thousand rabid fans at the West
| Coast Computer Faire, the Apple II's arrival means the masses can
| finally get their hands on the breakthrough machine. A base unit
| costs $1,298 -- the equivalent of $5,810 in 2021 money.
|
| https://www.cultofmac.com/484382/tiah-apple-ii-goes-on-sale/
|
| Maybe all it takes is a good, but overpriced robot selling for
| around $6,000. The high cost of Apple's first computers was a
| major driver for a work-alike computer market that included
| Atari, Commodore, TI, Coleco, and Tandy.
|
| If the Marketplace Disruption view of PC history is any guide, I
| suspect the first wildly successful robotic product will cause
| professionals to turn up their noses in disgust at the triviality
| of it all. They'll bemoan the lack of practical applications.
| They'll cluck at all of the things it can't do. Meanwhile, a
| small group of buyers will find the toy-like things irresistible.
| This product might have already been introduced.
|
| Also, it's instructive to consider all of the things that were
| predicted for home computers vs. how things ended up turning out.
| Many of the concepts were sound (games, recipes), but few thought
| of the role a ubiquitous, worldwide, fast network infrastructure
| would play in creating entirely new classes of uses for small
| computers. And almost nobody predicted the astonishing rate of
| miniaturization/performance increases that would occur and which
| continues to this day.
| tpmx wrote:
| The Apple I was about half that price, at $666.66.
| lykahb wrote:
| > New revenue streams: app-store fees, data-mining, new
| advertisement channels.
|
| Please no! Granting corporations control over your home physical
| environment is a dystopian scenario. Home hardware should be
| simple and reliable. The market has killed Juicero, and I hope
| that any company, that tries to pull this off, follows their way.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| If you narrowly define robots as arms, wheels, or floating eyes,
| then yeah, you're going to have a tough time.
|
| My kitchen is full of cheap, perfect robots. A microwave with
| cook sensor, a fridge that makes ice, a coffee pot with timer and
| brew settings, a pressure cooker that somehow cooks everything
| perfectly all the time.
|
| In my garage I have a door opener, a clothes washer, a clothes
| dryer, some motion sensing lights.
|
| In my backyard I have a sprinkler set that waters the lawn.
|
| On and on ...
|
| Those are the killer robotic apps, and we've been refining them
| for 100 years. When I teach classes, I honestly get a laugh when
| I say that the toaster is the most perfect robotic design of all
| time from a customer service perspective.
| ip26 wrote:
| In that case, what is the difference between machine and robot?
| The word loses its meaning.
|
| Most of those execute a fixed program with no feedback. The
| hallmark of robotics, as I understand it, is complex feedback
| mechanisms. Robotics classes at my school were 80% control
| theory.
| rlayton2 wrote:
| Perhaps a toaster is a machine because it toasts for 2
| minutes (or whatever it is present to) while a robotic
| toaster takes the bread and toasts it until it's done?
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I think it's a difference of degree, not kind. And, as you
| suggest, the degree of onboard control / adaptivity is
| probably a good spectrum.
|
| As things become more simple and robust, I would argue the
| degree of adaptivity will necessarily decrease, because
| adaptivity is required to handle situations off nominal, and
| those can and should be designed around.
| whatshisface wrote:
| That's not a broad definition of robotics, that's a
| redefinition of robotics as a synonym of mechanics.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I agree. And posit the other direction: Robotics has over-
| hyped and over-focused the field of mechanics on "Things with
| mobility and too much software" much to its determent.
|
| Simplicity (at least simplicity of functionality and
| presentation) is best if you want ubiquitious markets, I
| think.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Those appliances are perhaps robots in the broad sense
| sometimes used in the field of robots, with a definition
| something like "any machine which can replace or assist any
| physical task ordinarily done by humans." But most of them are
| not robots in the sense generally used by laypeople, which is a
| definition more like "a machine which can accomplish some
| general class of physical tasks normally done my humans by
| moving around in and manipulating objects in an environment
| which has not been heavily modified for the robot."
| DonHopkins wrote:
| That's certainly a frightening headline: invisible killer robots
| lurking around every corner.
|
| Maybe the killer app is selling "Robot Insurance" to people who
| are terrified by headlines like that.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Gh_IcK8UM
| fsloth wrote:
| Well, "lurking killer robots" is already the daily experience
| if you live in a conflict area where drone strikes are
| implemented.
| contingencies wrote:
| Recently, globally, there have been a staggering number of
| generally half-baked ROS-driven startups attempt to sell
| investors on the future of industrial robot arms making food. A
| closely allied, next-wave group are those selling commercial
| kitchens on the future of industrial conveyor belts preparing
| pizzas.
| arduinomancer wrote:
| I feel like an iPhone of robotics is pretty irrelevant at the
| moment.
|
| We can't even build a single-chore robot at the moment that
| replaces a human.
|
| The software side of "chore-robots" is totally beyond anything
| that currently exists.
|
| Think about the basic task of washing/folding/putting away
| clothes.
|
| The AI would need
|
| * Full 3D spatial navigation
|
| * Be able to identify what is clothing
|
| * Be able to reliably pick up clothing
|
| * Be able to open doors to get around the house
|
| * Somehow know how to operate every model of washer/dryer,
| including different possible placements of the machines
|
| * Somehow know how to fold any clothing item
|
| * Somehow know where to put the folded clothes (be able to open
| any kind of dresser?)
|
| If you wanted to solve this you'd probably start with things like
| "well maybe there's a designated clothes bin that comes with the
| product that the robot understands" or "well maybe we make the
| user mark out exactly the space where they want the clothes
| placed"
|
| But then you're leaving general AI territory at that point and
| heading back in regular robotics territory where the solution is
| to put the problem "on rails" as much as possible.
| 01100011 wrote:
| Yeah but could you sell a solution which requires a special
| washer, dryer, and clothes storage system? It's still not an
| easy problem, but you can try to reduce the complexity.
| PerkinWarwick wrote:
| Huh.
|
| I always assumed it was going to be teledildonics.
|
| ..damn, a downvote. I mean, who can be against teledildonics?
| That'll be the main thrust of technology when our robot lords and
| masters take charge.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| The two are not mutually incompatible. There could be an app
| for that.
| PerkinWarwick wrote:
| It'll be developed at Facebook. Every 'like' is Alive With
| Pleasure (h/t to Newport cigarettes).
| fsloth wrote:
| Now I have an image of Gyro Gearloose's little helper as a
| robotic dildo with tiny arms and legs. I presume this will be a
| thing someone implements... eventually.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| My utterly uninformed views:
|
| The "markets" where robotics _could_ have orders of magnitude
| effects are what I call field to factory. The most obvious item
| is construction. A pre-fabricated house is cheaper and waaaay
| faster to build because the factory has robots and assembly lines
| etc to help. But even on-site construction can be assisted - that
| is turning the field into a temporary factory.
|
| My sneaking suspicion is that just as we call any AI that works
| ML because while it does a specific job, we expect it to _think_
| like us instead of bringing what it is.
|
| And for robotics we will have many amazing advances and social
| changes, but we will expect it to _move_ like us so won 't call
| it robotics.
|
| This also leads to a second problem I think adoption will hit -
| robots will find an uncanny valley and it is easier and simpler
| to just build something that is in no way organic-like just to
| avoid human "yuck" factor. I can imagine some giant spider like
| contraption that washes up really well, and simply never selling
| because it looks like a giant freaking spider.
| daenz wrote:
| I want someone to build a collection of small IoT robots that can
| be customized to perform very small specific actions. The purpose
| of these robots would be to bridge the gap between analog human
| actions and the digital world, without requiring that everyone
| get a "smart toaster/oven/lightswitch/etc".
|
| For example, you might have a little robot that can have an
| attached rotary gripper, for ensuring that the stove top is off.
| It sits on the stove knob and can turn it based on some input. Or
| one that can open a deadbolt from the inside. Or one that can
| brace against a door frame and turn a door handle. You could even
| include a tiny, low resolution camera that can snapshot the
| current state of the thing that the robot is controlling.
|
| Having these devices be adaptable, with different attachments,
| would be important to making sure they work in the most
| situations. Whatever attachments you put on, and how you position
| them, are unique to whatever analog device you are interested in
| controlling. Some could brace themselves against the
| surroundings, some could be screwed into a wall. The key is
| options.
| dougmwne wrote:
| Why bother programming these arms with near miraculous AI for
| household use when you could have pilots a world away clean your
| kitchen?
| sharemywin wrote:
| I could see a hybrid where the AI learns as the operator only
| takes over for tasks the robot can't handle.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| This kind of completely horrifies me, but it's also not the
| worst idea I've ever heard.
|
| I was more convinced by the author's pitch than I thought I'd
| be, but the problem I see is that the technology just isn't
| quite there yet. Thus it'll probably come out to be more like
| the early PDA's than the iphone.
|
| Still, the general direction could have more promise than my
| first judgement of it based on the title.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Better operating telerobotics from India (well, Mexico where
| latency is lower) than being in a phone bank.
| dougmwne wrote:
| Gets around immigration rules too.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| There is a fascinating, low-budget (almost ruined by its
| abysmal CG) movie from the 2000s called _Sleep Dealer_ that
| deals with exactly this. I remember thinking it was
| unrealistic at the time, but given my presently much
| greater appreciation for the difficulty of robotics AI, it
| now seems prescient.
| krasin wrote:
| Sleep Dealer is available on YouTube. The trailer is free
| and gives quite a picture:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqySQuS1BRQ
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Well mainly because telerobotics still sucks. This is a hard
| problem. We haven't devoted enough effort to solve it on a
| practical level beyond tech demos in academia.
| dougmwne wrote:
| It's probably necessary to some degree just like Waymo has
| operators who can login when the vehicle reports a problem.
| tialaramex wrote:
| The operators deliberately cannot, as we had to keep
| explaining when this came up on HN previously, drive
| Waymo's cars remotely.
|
| They can reach into the car's model of the world to help it
| understand e.g. this thing that you decided is an ambulance
| is actually not an ambulance, so you don't need to treat it
| like one. Or, very simply, that road is shut, don't try to
| use it.
| dougmwne wrote:
| That seems like less of a distinction than you make it
| out to be. For regular people, the difference between
| driving and conducting is slight. For engineers and the
| implementation details it's a huge deal of course and
| makes a massive safety difference.
| criddell wrote:
| Lack of trust and integrity in most tech companies. I don't
| want my laundry folding robot to require access to the
| internet.
| whatshisface wrote:
| If that's the only reason then everyone with one of those
| smart speakers will buy one (smart speaker? haha, why not
| smart microphone?). However it does seem like there will be a
| lot of objections to having a person looking through a camera
| among a certain demographic who seem to put more faith in
| giant companies that employ people who they feel are people
| like them than they do in people who they do not feel are
| people like them. Let me try to phrase this more clearly. To
| someone who imagines Google as several thousand of
| themselves, having a Google microphone in their houses feels
| like having themselves in their house. To someone who
| imagines an Indian operator as very much not themselves, it
| would feel differently.
| criddell wrote:
| I have curtains and blinds on my windows because I don't
| want strangers (of any nationality) looking in.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Do you have a smart speaker? If not then you're not in
| the category of people who have a smart speaker but would
| not have a teleoperated maid robot.
| criddell wrote:
| > Do you have a smart speaker?
|
| Even worse, I have a smartphone which can do everything a
| smart speaker does and more.
| lorepieri wrote:
| I believe teleoperation will have a huge role indeed. It will
| be there in any case for remote support, but for startups it
| may make sense to start fully teleop until they nail autonomy.
| mediaman wrote:
| The author is primarily focused on the cost of hardware, while
| ignoring most of the challenges of software (folding clothes, the
| dishwasher, whatever) by saying software companies will figure it
| out with AI.
|
| A low speed, low accuracy robot was tried with Rethink Robotics,
| founded by the Roomba guy (Rodney Brooks), who tried to compete
| with Universal Robots and got their clock cleaned. Nobody in
| industry wanted a slow, inaccurate robot, even at a good price.
|
| What's holding us back in robotics is not the cost of hardware.
| There are plenty of use cases of $40k robots that are still not
| pursued because engineering special end effectors and integration
| is too difficult, not because of the cost of the robot. Reducing
| the cost of the robot to $10k makes no difference in those
| applications because it's not the gating factor.
|
| The idea that companies will just figure out folding clothes and
| other complicated tasks because the cost of hardware falls is, I
| believe, fanciful, but I hope I'm wrong. Maybe "AI" will _hand-
| wave_ solve it.
| [deleted]
| skosch wrote:
| I instinctively want to agree with you, but isn't it possible
| that throwing orders-of-magnitude more engineers at these kinds
| of problems will eventually get them solved, but right now
| nobody is doing that because the hardware is too expensive (and
| the market thus perceived to be too small)?
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| I think robotics is a field where there are magnitudes of
| more engineers than required. Look at the college enrolment
| in robotics vs the actual jobs that are there in market. I
| would say less than 10-20%(just anecdotal data, correct me if
| wrong) of the students who study robotics work in proper
| robotics jobs.
| boatzart wrote:
| The history of robotics is littered with the corpses of
| companies whose plan was to waive their hands until an app
| ecosystem appeared.
| motoboi wrote:
| It seems robotics suffer from the same problem as AI: every-time
| it advances and come into contact with the public, it becomes
| something else.
|
| I explain: we already have an incredible successful robot. It's
| the roomba (and it's imitators). It's a robot, but suddenly it's
| not the robot we've all been waiting for.
|
| Just as Siri and Alexa and Google Assistant suddenly are not
| widely seen as AI because, even when they can talk, recognize
| your speak, search for content and do some tasks, they are not
| the artificial intelligence we have been waiting for.
|
| It seems we'll always raise the bar, no matter what.
|
| 200 years from now, taking, walking, autonomous smiling android:
| not a robot.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Except the voice recognition part, Siri and Alexa never seemed
| AI to me. And I would say google search is AI even 20 years
| after launch.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| The problem with the author's vision is that geared brushless
| servo actuators like the Gyems they used, all generally similar
| to the original MIT Cheetah actuators (or steppers, another
| popular motor) require precision low-backlash gearboxes with
| large bearings and servos with high-speed control electronics.
| They also need high-resolution force/torque sensors to be
| collaborative capable, and if you require it to not fall down
| when E-stopped, you need brakes. All of that has become
| impressively cheap for what it is, but scale and progress can
| only do so much - that hardware will always be expensive.
|
| The problem is they're starting this effort from the basic joint
| being an electric motor. When you start there, this all follows
| as what you have to do to build a robot, you're forced into a
| corner in your design. Instead, it's far better to have the
| safety and operation come inherently from the way the product is
| designed.
|
| I saw an impressive demo at an automation conference about a
| decade ago, it was a cobot where the motion was based on
| inflation of pneumatic bladders. It functioned similar to the way
| biological muscles work. It did not need gear reduction, or force
| sensors, or brakes, or high-speed amplifiers. If it ran into
| something (or something ran into it), it didn't strip gearboxes,
| the bladder just complied.
|
| I think that will be the 'killer cobot' someday, but it's going
| to be hard to impossible to launch into the industrial space.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-28 23:01 UTC)