One Giant Step for Humanoids 223
An anonymous reader writes "There are a few robots that do amazing things. Honda's Asimo can walk backward and climb stairs. Sega's idog can dance to music. A tougher nut to crack has been making robots walk like humans. Today, scientists introduce three humanoid striders at the annual AAAS meeting. Unlike other robots that have to power every move, these three save energy by letting gravity do a lot of the work. Like humans, they pick up their feet and just let 'em drop. Engineers say they'll inform the next generations of humanoids and also improve design of robotic prostheses for people. And hey, why not send them to Mars to look for those microbes?"
Re:Prosthetics (Score:3, Insightful)
Muscles, perhaps? (Score:5, Insightful)
That makes sense, but humans don't really just let their feet "drop." Our steps are actually quite controlled...if we just let gravity pull them down, we'd have pretty heavy footfalls, not to mention an awful lot of shuffling...
Re:Walk like a human? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mars is gonna be tough (Score:2, Insightful)
It still takes a long way to have those robots learn running, crawling, dodging, rolling like Indiana Jones (or Lora Croft, if you prefer your robots feminine). Until then, I won't recommend them for a mission on another planet.
Seriously, insectoid robots are obviously much more suitable for terrain expedition.
Great minds elsewhere (Score:2, Insightful)
How much money is spent every year on perfume? how many great mechanical engineers are working for sea-doo?
I mean, we could have so much more! Not just in robotics but chemisty, physics, space exploration...
But, alas, I know that all work and no play makes humans a dull animal and that that perfume makes ladies smell very nice. Nevertheless, I cannot help this tinge of disapointment which inevitably follows my rush of happiness.
Re:But why.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If we want our robots to live in a human world in our homes and cities they more or less need to fit our form factor. Additionally, if you want the robots to take over jobs like construction then, at first, they will need to be able to drive the decades old machinery - back-hoes, delivery trucks...you get the picture.
Going past that stage there is also the psycological consideration: a robot with whom you can shake hands is going to garner more emotional investment from us then the tank treaded claw-mobile.
when robots become the new automobile we WILL see them in much more "functional" forms: more machine like and specialized. but there will always be a place for the humanoid robot in our homes.
Re:get on with it already (Score:5, Insightful)
Rest assured there are entire industries who make specialized robotics for the likes of the fast food industry, etc. What we need is more research into general robotic functions, such as walking, recognition, etc.
bah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prosthetics (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately that's why terrorists will have to bring their half of the war into our cities and neighborhoods. As soon as they're unable to spill the blood of their attackers, antagonists, liberators or whatever, they'll start coming after mom and pop on their way to Walmart, Anytown, USA to get even.
If we start getting too remote control on their asses the safest place to be in the USA will be on a military base!
Re:But why.... (Score:1, Insightful)
My biomechanics advisor used to say "animals would have evolved wheels if wheeled locomotion were advantageous." You see, something like 80-90% of the earth's land surface is inaccessible to wheeled vehicles (from what I recall, this figure came from research sponsored by the Navy, but I forget the exact source). So why would a biology evolve wheels? Simply put, it wouldn't. Biology has found fins, legs, arms, tails, tentacles, segmented bodies, and even pressure-sensitive goo (snails use this) to be much more adaptable and energy-efficient for locomotion.
Re:Prosthetics (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, a leader (lets call him bush for the duration of this example), has to be careful when waging war otherwise he will piss off his country thus ruining his and his parties reelection prospects. With the right application of patriotism a leader can get away with waging war, but its still by no means easy to keep up support when parents children are being killed on a distant battle field.
If the army became completely remote then this political backlash would be greatly reduced since the only loss for that country would be machinery and money.
War could increasingly become the first option rather than the last as the costs become more and more tolerable. This would result in a unbalancing of power that the world has never seen before. With one or two countries completely unafraid to send in the army while most of the smaller countries face a prospect of having to support huge human armies to counter the possibility of hi tech invasions.
Drawbacks would be...
* High civilian/armed forces casualties in lesser countries.
* Even more terroism as all smaller countries realise their armies can no longer protect them.
* The rapid destruction of many economies as countries try to keep up.
As harsh as it may sound, it is good that todays superpowers still have people in their armies. The deaths of those people are what keep politicians in check. Without those deaths, without the political drawbacks they bring, future goverments may make our current goverments of the world look like nobel peace prize winners.