Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Technology

LivingCreatures- The Beginning Of 'I, Robot?' 248

Posted by timothy from the little-freaky-there-now dept.
An Anonymous Reader writes "LivingCreatures.com has released several new photos of the humanoid robot platform that it developed for the USC Interaction Lab. The yet to be named robot is about the same size as an 18-month-old child and will serve as a human-robot interaction (HRI) testbed for studies involving imitation, learning, and the effects that interaction with humanoid robots has on children."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LivingCreatures- The Beginning Of 'I, Robot?' More

LivingCreatures- The Beginning Of 'I, Robot?'

Comments Filter:

  • one question about functionality (Score:5, Funny)

    by peculiarmethod ( 301094 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @04:51PM (#9733106) Journal
    .. umm, do they come with a routine to retrieve beer from the fridge?

    God, i hope so.

  • Housemaid Robots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @04:51PM (#9733107)
    If they can figure out how to build an affordable robot that's smart enough and capable of cleaning any house effectively, it'll send the robotics industry to new heights. Until then, all these research are a sleeper.

    • Re:Housemaid Robots (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lispy ( 136512 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @04:57PM (#9733142) Homepage
      This might sound harsh but a human maid would be so much cheaper that I could employ him/her for many years while giving him/her work.

      • Re:Housemaid Robots (Score:2, Insightful)

        by pyce ( 798025 )
        Nonsense! If the robot can perform the task more efficiently then it will eventually become cheaper. That's basic economics.

        "I could employ him/her for many years while giving him/her work."

        This is the same as saying that open source kills jobs.
      • One human maid might be cheaper how about the 4 needed for 24/7 staffing without ovetime? What if the robot could do other things like say drive your car? Perform maitnence around the house? What happens when there are hacks for the robot so it gets new abilities added free? What happens when the robots become 1/10 as expensive does your math still work out? Humans cost more and more to employ technology becomes cheaper and cheaper. Granted there might be usefull sociatal things that employing a human

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Exactly. Moore's law predicts that electronics get cheaper and cheaper. Human labor, on the other hand, has tended to become more and more expensive.
      • Yes, but one would assume a Housemaid Robot would be able to do more than a maid who cleans once or twice a week...

      • Re:Housemaid Robots (Score:5, Funny)

        by 3vi1 ( 544505 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @09:45PM (#9734668) Homepage Journal
        But what's your average geek going to choose?

        1) Interact with another human being.

        or

        2) A robot maid that doesn't go through his porn.

    • I don't know.

      I used to have the neighbors named the Jetsons, and they had a robot maid. Not only did it look like it was designed in the 60s or 70s, but it made all sorts of "beep" and "boop" noises. The thing just wasn't very quite.

      Not only that, I seem to remember that it would make wise-cracks at its owners from time to time.

      I think I'll wait on the robot maid. Maybe a new roomba to hold me over.

    • Until then, all these research are a sleeper.

      A robot that cleans and [tinyurl.com] you can sleep with it? Goodbye left hand!

      • I'd rather have the human chick in Cherry 2000 [amazon.com]. I'd let her take me to the nuclear wastelands anytime.
      • Maybe this shows how sick I am, but I've been giving some thought to those. Not into buying one, but rather, how you'd go about improving one.

        The site says something about heating them in hot water, and that they'd retain that heat for awhile. But what about giving it a pulse *and* body heat at the same time? A small water pump, putting heated liquid, thermostat controlled, throughout the thing? Just wondering how you'd get even a rudimentary circulation system in it.

        Also wondering if you could make it b
      • A robot that cleans and you can sleep with it? Goodbye left hand!

        Be careful [slashdot.org] what you [hollywoodreporter.com] wish for [imdb.com].

    • make sure they wear short skirts, and when the wife's away get all kink... err... be more agressive in doing the chores... riiihihiiiight!

  • Humanoid Robots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The_Mystic_For_Real ( 766020 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @04:53PM (#9733117)
    I'm not convinced of the usefulness of humanoid robots, except for providing disabled humans with prothetic limbs and maybe organs eventually.

    It would seem more useful to build robots that are designed with the task they must perform in mind. Therefore, they could perform it far better than any human.

    • Re:Humanoid Robots (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @04:56PM (#9733141) Journal
      It would seem more useful to build robots that are designed with the task they must perform in mind. Therefore, they could perform it far better than any human.

      What if their task is human relations? Granted the AI to support such a task is a long way off, but the humanoid form would surely fit the function there.

      • Re:Humanoid Robots (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 18, 2004 @04:59PM (#9733167)
        Hence C3PO's form: he was a diplomatic translator droid. R2D2 was, in contrast, designed to fix spaceships designed to be fixed by R2 units...

        The later star wars sucked, but that was one of the really insightful things in the first movies.
        • I was thinking the line "I am C3PO, human-cyborg relations..." But I didn't want to be cliche and use a Star Wars quote as my main support. OTOH, it does fit the point well.

    • Re:Humanoid Robots (Score:2, Insightful)

      by toetagger1 ( 795806 )
      Ah, that's why they are humaniod! In today's world, everything we design, we design for humans. Doorhandls, Cars, Switches, Dishwashers, Phones, Pens, Steps, Ladders, ... all designed for humans. If you want ONE robot to use all the things that allready exist, then that robot will look very similar to us.

    • Re:Humanoid Robots (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @04:59PM (#9733165) Journal

      However, if you model a robot after an average human, you can easily give away boring human tasks. Even public ones. For example, you could design a special excavator robot, a special pipeline construction robot, etc. However, you can also make 5 standard humanoid robots and put one in a normal excavtor, have one fit the piping, etc. Remember that everything so far has been designed for human use.

      Also, I think it would be easier to deal with humanoid robots in public space then lumbering machines.

      • Re:Humanoid Robots (Score:4, Funny)

        by StateOfTheUnion ( 762194 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @05:56PM (#9733507) Homepage
        Also, I think it would be easier to deal with humanoid robots in public space then lumbering machines.

        That sounds naive . . . instead of "cow tipping", teenagers would go "robot tipping" . . . knocking over poor defenseless janitorial custodial and landscaping robots with extreme prejudice.

        Lumbering machines are meant to withstand abuse from vandals and pranksters . . .

      • YES (Score:2)

        by wobblie ( 191824 )
        screw a house cleaning robot; I want a robot version of THIS [r00tserverz.net]

      • Re:Humanoid Robots (Score:3, Informative)

        by mikael ( 484 )
        We already have oil-rig drilling pipeline construction robots. After the Piper Alpha disaster, the oil companies looked at ways of reducing their insurance costs. One way was to automate the construction of drilling pipes. Instead of having entire crews of men handling drill pipes on a platform 100 miles off the coast, they funded research into using machines. Essentially, they got the process down to a single guy operating a crane to pick up and move drilling pipes and a control system to accurately place

    • Re:Humanoid Robots (Score:5, Insightful)

      by QuantumFTL ( 197300 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @05:12PM (#9733225)
      I'm not convinced of the usefulness of humanoid robots, except for providing disabled humans with prothetic limbs and maybe organs eventually.It would seem more useful to build robots that are designed with the task they must perform in mind. Therefore, they could perform it far better than any human.

      There are in fact *many* advantages to humanoid style robots. Thusly enumerated, they are:

      • Our world and its technologies are currently optimized for human usage. Doors, sidewalks, cars, sinks, tools, etc are all designed specifically to be used by a humanoid. That's not to say that we cannot design new things for use by robots, however it may simply be easier to get robots to adapt to our world rather than vice versa.
      • Most people do not like interacting with machines. Human interaction is what we have evolved to be optimized for. Our brain has special structures for face tracking/recognition that are far faster than similar generalized systems in the brain. Many people are uncomfortable with and intimidated by high technology, but would not be with friendly, humanlike robots.
      • Many people are lonely. For the same reason that these people keep pets, having a humanoid robot would provide companionship. This is a bit dangerous however for elderly without relatives, or someone who's constantly travelling, this isn't such a bad idea.
      • Humanoid robots, given enough intelligence and physical strength, could stand in for humans for a variety of activities, as needed. For instance, a restaurant low on staff may off robotic waiting at a reduced price (plus no need to tip!) during busy times for those who don't mind it. Also, through telepresence, you could use a humanoid robot as an "avatar" representing you physically rather than virtually at a remote location. It may even have your face, or one somewhat similar that mimics your expressions in real time. A bit scary, but so was television when it came out (you can *SEE* people in other cities, in your own living room!)
      • Last but not least, there is the coolness factor. I think many people would find a humanoid robot to be much cooler than, say, a platform with some arms.


      Yes, for industrial purposes, there's good reason to optimize the shape and form of a robot for specific tasks, however nature has provided us with an extremely adaptable physique, and we have so many reasons to emulate it.

      Cheers,
      Justin

      Here at a JPL, a group that shares our workspace recently got AIBOs, and I was shocked to find myself treating it just like a real dog, and enjoying petting it. It's.... just a machine, I know, but it acts a lot like a dog.
      • "Many people are lonely. For the same reason that these people keep pets, having a humanoid robot would provide companionship. This is a bit dangerous however for elderly without relatives"

        Not so. They'll just need Old Glory Robot Insurance [robotcombat.com]!!!

      • Re:Humanoid Robots (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @06:20PM (#9733667) Journal
        > Most people do not like interacting with machines. Human interaction is what we have evolved to be optimized for. Our brain has special structures for face tracking/recognition that are far faster than similar generalized systems in the brain. Many people are uncomfortable with and intimidated by high technology, but would not be with friendly, humanlike robots.

        You have to be careful about the Uncanny Valley [wikipedia.org], though, at least according to a particular Japanese roboticist. Apparently once you get within a certain closeness of anthropomorphism, small things which aren't "quite right" can really freak people out.
        • I'm glad your link emphasizes that there is basically no evidence for such a theory. It doesn't sound very plausible to me. You could make a similar argument for ugly, handicapped, or deformed human beings. Obviously we all prefer to interect with creatures that represent some kind of particular ideal often physically represented by models. Why this should have any particular relevance to robotics is beyond me.

          I think it's just an excuse for certain researchers to not even bother trying to achieve the diff

          • Uncanny Valley (Score:2, Insightful)

            by jnicholson ( 733344 )
            The theory has some resonance for me. I'm remembering my reaction to the Final Fantasy movie vs my reaction to something like Toy Story or Shrek, or something that isn't animated.

            Final Fantasy was closer to realistic animation than Shrek was, but I was more comfortable watching Shrek. Every so often, the Final Fantasy animation would slap me around the face with something that jarred, whereas I had dropped that kind of expectation while watching Shrek.

            Animation isn't the same as a realistic robot, but

          • get a robot to look atonishingly human, but noooooot quite, and it'll wind up looking like a fresh corpse; very human, but not lifelike. that's not exactly comforting.

            approximating would be fine by me, though. I think I'd actually prefer one with chromed metal, anyways.

    • Absolutely . . . . I can't imagine industry paying a premium for a robot that looks cool and is less productive than the robot that may not look humanoid but is more ideally suited for its task.

      Also, I don't think that the cost of ownerhip of humanoid robots has been considered. I would guess that specialized stepper motors, servos, or whatever drive systems that are being used in humanoid robots require more maintenance than traditional specialized robots. This would be because traditional robots do not

  • Bow Down! (Score:5, Funny)

    by edrams ( 778721 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @04:55PM (#9733127)
    I, for one, welcome our new 18-month-old child-sized robot overlords.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @04:55PM (#9733129)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Codependant people (Score:5, Funny)

    by MisanthropicProgram ( 763655 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @04:56PM (#9733140)
    ...the robot appears to be displaying quite different emotions.

    I can just see it now, "It looks angry. Oh no! I wonder what I did to make it mad?"
    Robot changes positions. "It's happy! Now if I can only keep it happy."
    "Oh oh, it's looking mad again."

    Ok, it's been a slow day.

  • Not named? Hardly. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tony ( 765 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @04:58PM (#9733160) Journal
    The yet to be named robot is about the same size as an 18-month-old child . . .

    It *does* have a name:Twikki.

    Duh.
    • But is the voice Mel Blanc's?
    • Beady beady beady.

  • Doing Right Things and Doing Things Right (Score:5, Interesting)

    by powerpuffgirls ( 758362 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @05:00PM (#9733171)
    Why are we trying to create robots that are smart, interactive and intellingent like human? We can't even create a human the way we wanted it, why do we think we can on a machine?

    Shouldn't we concentrate on making robots doing the things right, i.e. doing the assigned tasks right, instead of trying to design robots that can decide what are the right things to do.
    • The immediate use of these "primitive" humanoid robots is probably going to be limited to entertainment and novelty, but you touch on a point that is at the very heart of why we attempt to create humanoid robots: We want artificial "friends" to do what we can't persuade actual humans to do for us.

      Essentially, it's giving people the ability to say, "Hey, you won't scratch my back? Fine. I'll just go out and buy a robot, and then I won't need you at all!"

      It's the social equivalent to masterbation, and yet

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Imagine a.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cr0y ( 670718 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @05:03PM (#9733189) Homepage
    Talking armadillo...

    What did you think I was gonna say?

  • Antimatter thoughts (Score:5, Funny)

    by Decaff ( 42676 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @05:03PM (#9733190)
    Well, I hope it's not getting us closer to 'I, Robot'. Remember, the Azimov robots used positronic brains. Even a simple headache could result in the destruction of a city block.

    • Re:Antimatter thoughts (Score:3, Informative)

      by delibes ( 303485 )
      Anyone got any suggestions how a positronic brain works exactly? The Star Trek TNG writers gave Data one too, probably as a nod to Asimov (spelled with an 's' BTW). I've never seen even a vague excuse for a description of how one works. However we can do some maths to try and see how much energy is involved.

      A single positron/electron has a rest mass of about 0.511 MeV (million electron volts). A proton is in the region of 938 MeV. Converting electon volts to Joules (with Google) tells me "one electron volt

      • Asimov was always light on explainations of the science behind his fiction. That being said, the positronic brain was just a plot device. It was made of layers of platinum and irridium and was the part of a robot that gave it the spark of life.

        Asimov started writing his robot stories sohrtly after positrons were discovered, and the best I can speculate is that he choose "positronic brain" to make it sound neat. People that kept up with modern science were in on the joke and casual sci-fi readers had a c
      • Assuming the positronic brain has a few billion of these,

        Surely its likely to be a lot more. I mean, our brains have at least 100 billion cells, each of which can have 10,000 synapses. If positrons take the place of electrons, you may have 10s of them for each synapse (at least!).

        So, its 100 x 10,000 x 10 = 10 million times worse than you calculate....

      • Anyone got any suggestions how a positronic brain works exactly? The Star Trek TNG writers gave Data one too,

        The Star Trek writers would probably give the same response as when they were asked how the Heisenberg Compensators (used to prevent quantum effects distrupting transportation) worked:

        'Very well thank you!'

    • Re:Antimatter thoughts (Score:3, Informative)

      by linzeal ( 197905 )
      For a brief synopsis of the positronic meme, see here [asimovonline.com].

  • face only a mother could love (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pilferer ( 311795 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @05:11PM (#9733218)
    Jesus Christ that's creepy!

    A good read for anyone making "robots" : the uncanny valley [arclight.net]

    This is just a little TOO "deformed child" for my taste.
  • Unless it has been loaded with the ability to be humiliated and bullied it's not much of a kid humanoid.

  • Eh. (Score:5, Funny)

    by sockonafish ( 228678 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @05:35PM (#9733367)
    I'm not buying a robot until they produce one that runs on beer, insults my friends, and steals from people.

  • um .... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jdkane ( 588293 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @05:39PM (#9733394)
    effects that interaction with humanoid robots has on children

    I saw the pictures ... it looks like a "Chucky" [imdb.com] robot for kids. I don't know what effect it will have on kids, but I know the thing scares me shitless.

    Ya, way to go USC ... Great interface! Keep 'em coming.

    • I mean, just replace that ping-pong paddle with a knife. I already know I'm not going to sleep tonight. Damn you Slashdot.

      (Sorry, this is my last post on this subject ... I just seem to have a weird fixation with that thing). It's already starting isn't it? ..... Arrrggghhhhhhhhhhh

  • The economic effects of humanoid Robots. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Moderation abuser ( 184013 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @05:40PM (#9733402)
    Truly economy shaking. AI will have to advance significantly in order to handle our environment, I can't think of a reason it couldn't advance to the point where it can outperform most humans. This means that 90%, 95% unemployment (euphemistically called leisure time) will be the order of the day. The world economy will have to change.

    • However, if it was to work out right, everything would become almost free because you don't need to pay robots to work. This would only happen once the robots can run their own businesses though. Before that happens people will still own the robots and just take their robots pay. But just think of it, one day almost everything could be nearly free.
      • It would probably be pretty hard to get the robot owners to give up control of the robots. It seems that there's always people who want more power than others and control of the working robots would be the source of that power. If someone came to take them away, they'd be able to unleash their horde of robot housekeepers turned warriors upon the rest of civilization. (see Mom's Robots on Futurama).
        • At some point the robots will have to be given their rights. At this point people won't control them anymore. This will take a long time but with advanced enough robots it would be a serious "robot rights" abuse. Its not like there is any real difference between an extremly complex robot brain and a human one.
    • Its depatable if AI outperforms us in very limited domains which are tailor made for heavy computations (chess AIs can compete against strong human opposition but in go AIs can barely beat amateurs)

      I think its a somewhat naive view that AI will ever develop to the point that it outperforms humans at arbitrary and varied tasks.
    • There isn't enough metal on planet earth to support a robot driven economy. It's actually a much more immediate problem than robot induced unemployment. China and India are busy industrializing, but pretty soon enough of both nations will want to industrialize that it'll put a strain on the supply of metal. Baring intersteller mining, we're heading for a _really_ nasty war that'll last until enough people die for the leftovers to industrialize (i.e. WWIII).

  • Robotic capability is accelerating (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@nosPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday July 18, 2004 @05:45PM (#9733441) Homepage
    There's a crossover point for each kind of job where robotic labor outperforms human labor in terms of efficiency and cost. Soon to be out of the job are millions of burger flippers, truckers, pilots, and others, who suddenly find themselves technologically unemployed (and waiting for the economy to suddenly 'create' millions of new jobs that can be better filled by humans - yeah right).

    This automation trend will continue to accelerate, but what *could* be a paradise is increasingly looking like a corporate dystopia because the productivity gains, even today, are being hoarded by the wealthy few at the highest rate in history. [blogspot.com]

    When welfare/livingwage is still a dirty word, stuff like this isn't funny: "Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script."

    --

    • Define in as exact a figure as you can what a living wage is, please.
    • If it gets really bad there will simply be revolution. As AI and robotics make larger proportions of the population economically redundant there will be increased ghettoisatisation, civil disturbance, possibly even revolution. I don't believe that capitalism will survive truely artificially intelligent humanoid robots.

    • If you read the book "Fast Food Nation" [amazon.com] you'll find that robotic burger flippers and robotic softdrink dispensers have been tried since the 60's all with dismal success . . . designing even a burger flipping robot that can cook a burger sufficiently without over/undercooking it is not a trivial task.

      I suppose that such robots could be designed now, but more important to the industry is the upfront cost and longterm ownership cost of such a robot (as well as the speed and accuracy of the robot's performan

      • This is why the key is the humanoid shape and artificial intelligence. They can then simply take over from people without having to spend time designing something specific like a burger flipping robot.

        They'll start out as spectacularly expensive, military hardware and there won't be any laws preventing them from killing people. Then as the costs come down they'll end up in other hazardous situations and gradually as manufacturing capacity increases, costs will fall to the point that like the automobile/TV/
        • But my point was that even the robots made especially to do this kind of activity couldn't get it right . . . plug in the syrups and the carbonated water . . . load the cups and plug in water for the ice maker, and you still don't get a successful affordable drink dispensing robot for the fast food industry . . . Now you want to add the complexity of stereoscopic vision, bipedal walking across a potentially wet and slippery floor and avoiding dynamic obstacles (other employees) . . . not to mention the adde
          • I had some friends in college that developed such a machine in college, the problem for their product in the fast food industry is that it's even cheaper to put the pop machine on the other side of the counter and let the customer fill it for free. That said the movie was interesting and good, although I never read the books.
      • In 2001, I was working in Chicago. Many of the McDonalds there were using a robot drink dispenser. As soon as an order was keyed in, a rotating platform would have a cup dropped onto it, where the thing would rotate the cup underneath the correct fountain and dispense the drink, to be rotated again for a lid to be popped onto it. Was interesting how it would react to multiple drinks when they weren't all the same flavor. It would put all 4 cups down, then rotate back and forth so that the flavors were in the order keyed in, presumably so that stupid wageslaves wouldn't get them mixed up when handing to customers. Seemed like it would be rather reliable to me.

        And practically all of the stores I've been to have the french fry basket dispensers. Seems a small step to have the thing drop the baskets into the fryers.

        I do agree about the burgers, which seem more difficult, but what about the rest of a fast food joint? Many of the tasks, including "building" the sandwiches seem easily within the realm of automation.

  • Everyone can relax.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @06:09PM (#9733591)
    ...I RTFA'ed (yes, I'm odd that way), and the thing has no red LEDs what-so-ever. Since red LED's are required to set the evil bit in humanoid robots, we are all safe.

  • Robot? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TechniMyoko ( 670009 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @06:15PM (#9733625) Homepage
    Robots are single function machines like the ones ford uses. The multipurpous ones shaped like a humanoid are called androids

    • Re:Robot? (Score:5, Informative)

      by freshmkr ( 132808 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @11:53PM (#9735301) Homepage
      Robots are single function machines like the ones ford uses. The multipurpous ones shaped like a humanoid are called androids

      I disagree.

      I'm getting a graduate degree in robotics. My school has a few humanoids. We call them robots. We've got arms. We call those robots too. Same with the trashcan-shaped research robots, the Segway-platform robots, the AIBOs, the helicopters, the farm equipment, the cars, the blimp, and so on. All robots. Nobody here thinks the term "robot" refers to "single function machines", huge arms, industrial robots, or anything you find in an ordinary automated factory. It's a much more general category.

      "Androids" are, I guess, a subset of "robots", but nobody here uses that term very much. I suspect it won't be very popular until we have robots that are more like Data.

      Until then,
      --Tom
  • Will someone please photoshop this robot with Will Smith?!

  • Remember Ananova? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @06:56PM (#9733876) Homepage
    This business of "faking emotions" is what robotics people do after they've failed to deal with the physical world. It gets great press, but doesn't do much. Cog at MIT is the most noteable example.

    If you want to see fake talking heads, try Ananova video reports. [ananova.com]

    The Honda walking robot, though, is for real. They have a clue.

  • That thing isn't going in MY home! (Score:4, Funny)

    by cfuse ( 657523 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @07:08PM (#9733942)

    That's got to be one of the most wimpy robots ever. Why can't I get the T-800 from Terminator? I would happily have either the fleshed up Austrian look or the skinless metal skeleton with the glowing red eyes. Why do these robot researchers think that I want the pansy-bot?

  • From these photos, I'd say it'd give them nightmares!
    We start to dream around 18 months old (apparently ... I've no idea how anybody can claim to know this, but that's another story!)

    FWIW, my 23-month old daughter would destroy it - she's already worked out how to crash a Linux laptop whilst it's running a screensaver - if I could replicate it, I'd open a bug report!

  • gee, anthropomorphize much? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jd142 ( 129673 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @07:32PM (#9734085) Homepage
    It is interesting to note that the facial expressions are not changed from picture to picture, but the robot appears to be displaying quite different emotions.

    Um, no. I didn't see any difference in the face at all in the pictures. The only slight difference I noticed was in the last one where the lighting was better and I could see the full eyes. I hope the science that comes out of this is objective and useful.
  • here:

    http://www2.nict.go.jp/jt/a134/xkozima/research/ in dex.html

    I would argue that the Infanoid is cuter :)

  • WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by glwtta ( 532858 ) on Sunday July 18, 2004 @08:37PM (#9734392) Homepage
    Ok, that is going to rize up against us and establish and new perfect society of our mechanical superiors? I don't think so. It's one of the creepiest things I've ever seen, I'll grant you that, but if they want to fulfill that multitude of hysterical science fiction prediction they are going to have to try a little harder.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close