HN

Comments (43)

• Menu

  alex-moon
  This is an excellent write-up and has successfully changed my opinion on something I think will prove critical in the near future: I always laughed at humanoid robots, assuming they were being built for "comfort" reasons. I now realise this is almost certainly the most reliable way to solve the general robot problem - not just for the reasons the OP lays out, but because the whole world is already built for human-shaped agents anyway.
• alexpotato
  Sebastian Thrun's talk at Google about winning the DARPA Grand Challenge [0] has a great discussion of training "robots".Summary:- the LIDAR had error rates that were not published- hitting potholes could cause the INS in the car to get confused- they weren't sure how to fix the errors from the combination of the above- they ended up just driving the car to generate training dataIt worked out well because the computer was predicting if there was an obstacle or not and a split second later the driver of the car would either drive around the real obstacle or the computer would realize that there was no obstacle.If you've never seen the talk, highly recommend as Thrun is very funny and it's also a time capsule back to when self driving was still a brand new concept.0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8zj5lBpFTY
• Menu

  pakl
  LLMs have shown a way to absorb large amounts of textual training data and be useful. For sensory processing you need a different architecture to absorb spatio-temporal streams. Bolting vision onto language models is stretching the tech a bit too thin.The good news is the data is plentiful — it is all around (the robot). The real world — the robot’s umwelt sensed through its sensors and acted on by its actuators — will provide heaps of data.Interestingly my colleagues propose that embodied learning will lead to grounding, alignment, and AI safety.(Worked for 4 years at a robotics + machine learning startup, Director of R&D.)
• Menu

  numpad0
  IMO current robots must be still fundamentally flawed in the architecture somewhere. We humans seem to operate on commanded force, but robots primarily work on commanded joint angles and speeds.I realized this when I woke up in a odd posture and one of my arms was completely numb. I could still "throw" the arm like a lasso with squeezable fingers at the end and use visual feedback to achieve my goals, with only tiny amounts of actuator feedback or control. A robot working on joint angles won't be able to do that; therefore IMO the force angles should be more often looked into.Another pet peeve of mine about robots is that extremely few robots even attempt to have an anatomically correct upper torso and especially shoulders! The upper torso do have limited snake-like mobilities, and the shoulder complex(as doctors call it) is an amazing thing and not just a ball joint or orthogonal 2-axis rotary joints.
• Menu

  ilikerashers
  Is the issue also a lack of available sensor data?Our own nerves produce a huge amount of data. Our eyes and balance also contribute to a very rich picture to enable movement and kinematics. This is all fused into usable feedback.Arms on fixed axis with disconnected vision feel like we are still very far away from true robot training.
• Menu

  serpicourge
  Here is a good video on the subject by nvidia, very fun prez:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y8aq_ofEVs&pp=ygUKbnZpZGlhI...PS: It's sad that robotic does not seems to get a lot of traction on HN :(
• neronuser
  It's a really good article, thanks!