Boston Dynamics' Atlas Robot Executes Autonomous Automotive Parts Picking (techcrunch.com) 30
In a new video published today, Boston Dynamics' humanoid robot Atlas is shown moving engine parts between bins without any human assistance. TechCrunch reports: Boston Dynamics is quick to note that the actions are being performed autonomously, without "prescribed or teleoperated movements." [...] Boston Dynamics notes, "The robot is able to detect and react to changes in the environment (e.g., moving fixtures) and action failures (e.g., failure to insert the cover, tripping, environment collision) using a combination of vision, force, and proprioceptive sensors."
In addition to the autonomously executed tasks, the video showcases impressive adaptive -- and strong -- actuators, as the robot pivots at its waist. The action minimizes movements, saving precious seconds in the process.
In addition to the autonomously executed tasks, the video showcases impressive adaptive -- and strong -- actuators, as the robot pivots at its waist. The action minimizes movements, saving precious seconds in the process.
This isn't a bad thing... (Score:2)
At the minimum, this might reduce RSI/carpal tunnel issues with people. Having a robot handle the monotony of handling a box of parts and be able to do something with them is a good thing. The video included is good, but not too far off from what a tape robot already does in a tape autochanger... grip the tape, move it from one slot to another, although moving stuff and turning it 90 degrees 100% optically is a definite advance.
I'm all for parts picking robots. The less stuff that tears peoples' muscles
Robot Lego Grand Challenge (TM) (Score:2)
Hereby find the Robot Lego Grand Challenge (TM)
Stipulations:
1) Robot has to be autonomous and not remote controlled
2) Robot has to build a Lego Death Start model from a 4 foot x 4 foot box of individual Lego pieces
3) Lego pieces are not sorted, pre-built and are in a random pile in the box
4) Robot can be given a list of parts, and an order to build them, and the location where each part goes
5) Entire process must be filmed from multiple angles
Win condition: A fully built Lego Death Star
LEGO was years ahead of its time (Score:3)
I mean, already focusing on building a death star?
Reality Sets In. (Score:2)
This less stuff that tears peoples' muscles and tendons apart with repeated actions that are not requiring any real skill, the better.
There is a portion of the population that requires employment to survive and ultimately retire. Today that would be basically all of us who were not lucky enough to be born into immense wealth. If you wish to start permanently removing human jobs that don’t require any “real skill”, then you had better be ready to start paying real taxes to support the unemployable masses.
Are you? Are you ready to start paying? Because as much as some may hate doing jobs like that, starving to death is
Re: (Score:2)
There is a portion of the population that requires employment to survive
The modern concept of mass wage-based employment has been around for less than two centuries. There's no reason to believe it's the only way God intended us to live.
We've been automating labor for three centuries. Since then, living standards have soared twentyfold, and unemployment is near a record low. This is more of the same, with more goods produced with less labor, meaning rising per capita wealth.
Hopefully it is fenced off (Score:3)
Regular robots have killed people semi regularly for many years in industrial environments. The last thing anyone needs it is getting confused and going outside its workspace to smash, tear apart or roll over someone walking by.
Re: (Score:2)
Many items can be deadly including cement mixers, wood chippers, vending machines, etc. In fact, there are on average 70-95 deaths each year from lawn mowers. https://www.newsweek.com/lawnm... [newsweek.com]
As for industrial robots, the latest study I found was from 1992-2017. During those 25 years, 41 deaths were caused by robots - less than two per year.
https://www.safetyandhealthmag... [safetyandh...gazine.com]
As a side note, the first study found almost 200 deaths per year are attributed to deer. Over four times as many as are killed by li
Re: (Score:2)
Please put a fence around the deer, thanks.
Re: Hopefully it is fenced off (Score:3)
Anyone whoâ(TM)s dealt with deer in real life knows you can build a fence as high as you like, and the deer will find a way over, through or around it.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh that is basically impossible. It has to have multiple misrecognitions in a specific sequence for that to happen. I would have to think it's within its workspace, it will have to constantly recognize a human as a target workpiece. I don't see that happening easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Regular robots have killed people semi regularly for many years in industrial environments. The last thing anyone needs it is getting confused and going outside its workspace to smash, tear apart or roll over someone walking by.
(Engineer) ”Hell no. I ain’t gonna tell him the damn thing is IoT enabled by default.”
Re: (Score:2)
A simple solution would be to keep the power lead nice and short.
If it must have a battery then a separate, fail safe system that cuts power when it leaves the range of a low power radio transmitter would work.
AI (Score:2)
As great as Boston Dynamics has been, most of their algorithms seem to have been developed using traditional control system theory.
I wonder now that AI models can pre train themselves in their own physics world, whether some upstart will eat Boston Dynamics lunch with a robor based on neural net reinforcement training models?
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder now that AI models can pre train themselves in their own physics world, whether some upstart will eat Boston Dynamics lunch with a robor based on neural net reinforcement training models?
(Boston Dynamics, most likely) ”Hey, are we supposed to be talking about our advanced military development here?”
Re: (Score:2)
Over the years Boston Dynamics has been known to show off seemingly advanced capabilities which in reality were remote controlled.
Seems to be a pattern for a lot of high tech companies in the last decade: claim magical autonomous ML/AI capabilities but hire secret Indian remote operators to make it actually work, more often than not.
See also: autonomous cars, supermarkets without checkouts, chain
Not On The Front Lines (Score:2)
Boston Dynamics keeps talking about not putting weapons in these things hands and setting them loose on the battlefield.
Nothing says they can't and won't be building missiles, or parts enough so two guys can screw them together in 10 minutes.
--
In this bright future you can't forget your past. - Bob Marley
Re: (Score:2)
Boston Dynamics robodogs have already been used on small scale by Ukrainian Army as front line reconnaissance units.
Considering how Ukrainians basically invented modern FPVs, I would expect that if they are cheap enough, we'll soon see these weaponized.
Over or under powered? (Score:3)
Pretty amazing, but feels like it is underpowered but not enough CPU or sensors? It is jerky, when it makes a mistake it is something like jamming a part full speed at the wrong angle. Yes it helps that it can pivot its waist (though the way its head can turn around like an owl or possessed person is pretty disconcerting), but it also takes a long time halted, seemingly to confirm that nothing is slipping or happening from an unprecedented direction (maybe it saw someone outside the camera's field of view). If you saw a person carry around a big metal plate cocked back behind their body as if ready to stab it forward, as opposed to holding it down by their hip and possibly swinging like a pendulum, you would be concerned they both don't know how to move economically and also are ready to clobber someone. Would it be smoother and less mistakes if it moved more slowly?
I think this is the Atlas robot that was so amazing doing gymnastics and running on inclined surfaces so this impression is very unexpected, it's acting more like a jerky parts picker (but way slower than actual specialized robotic parts pickers).
I am guessing this could put Amazon warehouse workers out of a job if they were cheaper than 3 shifts of workers, though specialized picking robots that stick to warehouse shelves might be faster for the picking part. Also the robot was not actually selecting parts and bins. Impressive though, seems to be able to pass a minimum warehouse work test for one test case anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely, because this hasn't demonstrated to have bypassed the problem that halted Amazon's autopicker project. Grip strength modulation. In amazon's case, they couldn't figure out how to get picker to modulate grip strength for changing types of objects that need to be picked in a typical amazon warehouse so it doesn't crush some of them and doesn't drop some of them at utterly unacceptable rates.
In this demo, this problem is sidestepped entirely by using only flat plastic panels as objects being picked.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect they will rapidly improve it, like they did with mobility.
Elon Musk is probably pissing blood right now.
Read Between The Lines (Score:3)
Everybody is picking at whether it's a good parts picker. A dedicated dumb robot is better for many tasks than Atlas. We already know that.
That's not the real application they expect.
This is a "see, if it can do THIS, it can also do THAT".
What do you imagine THAT is?
Looks like same problem as amazon (Score:2)
They fail to demonstrate here that they have bypassed the problem that Amazon ran into a few years ago. Grip strength modulation.
Essentially what amazon discovered with its massive multi-billion automated picker project is that when you have to pick normal things that are being shipped, modulating grip strength not to crush significant percentage of objects and not to drop significant percentage of objects to be a borderline impossible task. Sensors and calibration needed and the speed at which this calibra
Fired. (Score:2)
If a human moved so slowly they'd be fired on the spot. The only reason Atlas isn't getting fired is people saw the Terminator movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point, but that capital expenditure matters. They'll need to cost $50K each or less, including the initial programming cost.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll need to cost $50K each or less, including the initial programming cost.
The programming is an NRE sunk cost. It is irrelevant when calculating cost-effectiveness.
Executes? (Score:2)
While execute is a perfectly cromulent use of the word in this situation, perhaps 'performs' might have been a better choice. After all, using the words 'execute' and 'robot' in the same sentence is sure to rile up a certain segment of the population.
"Ya see there! Them thar robots be executing! Mabel, git yer gun. It's startin'."