Real-Time Control of a Humanoid Robot 36
An anonymous reader writes: A new project at MIT aims to put humans in real-time control of a humanoid robot. Operators strap into a vest that contains control circuitry and a pair of arm-like joysticks. As the operator grasps the ends and moves his arms, the robot mimics his arm movements in real time. A demonstration shows the robot crushing cans and punching through drywall. The operator is also given a pair of goggles that shows what the robot is currently "seeing," and the vest provides haptic feedback about what the robot is "feeling." According to a video MIT posted, the goal is to give robots human reflexes for tasks like keeping balance and basic maneuvering. The need for such technology was evident earlier this summer at the DARPA Robotics Challenge, where robots tasked with inspection and repair duties couldn't help but fall down as they moved throughout the testing grounds.
Muppets (Score:3)
Operators strap into a vest that contains control circuitry and a pair of arm-like joysticks. As the operator grasps the ends and moves his arms, the robot mimics his arm movements in real time.
Um, didn't the Jim Henson Company develop that technology 40-some-odd years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, didn't the Jim Henson Company develop that technology 40-some-odd years ago?
Pretty sure all the muppets were just linkages, right? Maybe a small handful used servo controls for some things, but IIRC they actually used OTS R/C gear and those controls were actually wireless. None of them are robots. They don't make decisions. Would be happy to be wrong, and read all about it.
Re: (Score:2)
None of them are robots. They don't make decisions.
This, in fact, would be my criteria for "robot".
Almost everything we call "robot" today is actually a waldo (like the "robot" in this article), or it's something that exhibits pre-programmed non-adaptive behaviour (like industrial robots; but I give them some leeway for fuzzy control systems for proximity, pick-and-place, orientation recognition, etc.).
I also don't think a toy helicopter magically becomes a "drone" because you put a camera on it, and the FAA rules on "civilian drones" these days actually do
Re: (Score:2)
None of them are robots. They don't make decisions.
This, in fact, would be my criteria for "robot".
Well, it's the most important criteria, in the oldest definitions; robots have to make some decisions themselves, or they aren't robots. But there is a blurry area; what about a waldo that limits clamping force? What about how your car consults a map as to what you should do when you push the pedal, then builds a new map itself based on sensor observations and trial and error, and then consults that map? You ask it to do one thing, it does whatever it wants. Is that not robotic? A useful circuit has to sens
Re: (Score:1)
The Encyclopedia Galactica defines a "robot" as a mechanical apparatus designed to do the work of a man.
The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun to Be With."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually a waldo is what this is. I suggest you look the word up again.
So... I said it was a waldo, and then you "corrected me" by telling me it was a waldo, and now you want me to look up the word waldo?
???
Re: (Score:2)
> They sure as heck are *not* drones, if there's a human piloting them.
Yes, they are.
A "drone" is any unmanned aircraft, whether it's autonomous or remotely piloted.
In fact, the existence of the phrase "autonomous drone" should tell you that it's possible to have non-autonomous drones.
There is a huge difference between remote control of all flight surfaces vs. setting goals and letting on-board computation decide the best way to achieve those goals.
A Tomahawk Cruise Missile is a drone: you give it a goal, but it's not the job of the pilot to handle the TFR, reaction to unexpected atmospheric conditions, or other flight aspects which can be adequately handled by the on-board avionics. There is a degree of autonomy.
It's convenient for regulatory agencies to blur the distinction between wh
Now if they can... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Remotely operated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After all, if the thing can't drive on good terrain, what hopes does it have for forests, and hill/mountain/cliffs?
What if it moved like this? [youtube.com]
At this stage of development (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or when humans are too slow. For combat situations, being straddled to human speed reactions is definitely a disadvantage. Aimbots exist for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Relevant science fiction (Score:2)
I am reminded of Joe Haldeman's Forever Peace, exploring the direct military implementation of a more sophisticated form of the same technology. Violently, as Joe Haldeman always does.
Food for thought.
So when will... (Score:2)
Huh (Score:1)
Train your replacement...
Clearly Canadian... (Score:2)
Deeper dive... (Score:2)