The Robots are Coming!

[buynholdisdead]

@syke6

Here’s an idea: Wheels or tracks are faster and more stable than legs. You don’t need a head for anything, so why include it?

Can wheels or tracks climb a ladder? What if the head is on a swivel where it can look around 360 degrees without moving the body.

Andy

[JimA759s]

@buynholdisdead

What is the reason for not building robots with legs?

Just to join in on the ‘assholery of the internet’ - you keep asking the wrong questions! You need to explain the rational for ‘legs’ or ‘heads’; the default should be a ‘crab’ form!

Why Do Things Keep Evolving Into Crabs?

Carcinisation

JimA

[buynholdisdead]

@albaby1

In the absence of some reason to build robots with legs instead of stationary or with wheels, you would implement the design that is easier to implement.

You twisted my words again. I said there was not one link NOT to build robots with legs and asked you to provide a link to prove your point.

Andy

[buynholdisdead]

@JimA759s

Just to join in on the ‘assholery of the internet’ - you keep asking the wrong questions! You need to explain the rational for ‘legs’ or ‘heads’; the default should be a ‘crab’ form!

Nice Jim, something I expected from Goofy because he has a limited vocabulary but not something I thought you would indulge in. But I am glad you outed yourself.

Andy

[JimA759s]

@buynholdisdead

But I am glad you outed yourself.

As long as you smiled!

JimA

[buynholdisdead]

@JimA759s

As long as you smiled!

I always smile.

Andy

[albaby1]

@buynholdisdead

You twisted my words again. I said there was not one link NOT to build robots with legs and asked you to provide a link to prove your point.

I’m not twisting your words. It’s difficult and complex to build a robot that can move around on legs, and (as you point out) there are links to that effect. So given that we know that it is not as difficult or complex to build robots that can either be stationary or get around on wheels or tracks, and have thousands of thousands of examples of both, a link that shows that it is difficult and complex to build robots that can move around on legs is a reason not to do that.

Unless - again - there’s a legitimate reason for robots to have legs in order to serve their purpose. You noted upthread that one reason you might prefer legs to wheels is that you can’t climb a ladder with wheels. Which is absolutely true - but it’s only relevant to robot design if your robot is going to need to climb a ladder. And would a robot ever need to do that? Not a factory or warehouse robot - after all, factories and warehouses are designed specifically not to have workers scuttling up and down ladders. And while there are jobs where climbing a ladder is an essential function (like firefighters, stereotypically), that only becomes relevant to robot design if we think that we can put a robot in that job, rather than in a factory or a warehouse.

That’s why some of us have been asking about the reasons for having a humanoid form - why these companies are putting in the engineering and effort to design things that are more difficult and complex, in order to give them capabilities that don’t seem to be necessary for anything other than getting investors or lenders excited about giving them money.

[GDavenport]

Ladder car folding portable trolley 6 crystal wheel light aluminum alloy with climbing rope (youtube.com)

Trolley wheels to climb stairs or other uneven surfaces.

[syke6]

@buynholdisdead

Can wheels or tracks climb a ladder? What if the head is on a swivel where it can look around 360 degrees without moving the body.

Is ladder climbing an important enough function you need a purpose built device? For example, I’m been in a number of Amazon warehouses and have never seen a ladder. For purposes of this discussion, I’m assuming robots would first be used for common tasks, like working in an FC as opposed to HVAC technician.

Instead of sensors mounted on something that swivels, it would be easier and better to mount sensors such that the robot has 360 degree perception at all times.

[buynholdisdead]

@albaby1

Unless - again - there’s a legitimate reason for robots to have legs in order to serve their purpose.

I am just waiting on one link or white paper that proves your point. Otherwise it is all conjecture with no substance.

Andy

[albaby1]

@buynholdisdead

I am just waiting on one link or white paper that proves your point. Otherwise it is all conjecture with no substance.

Why? People can present legitimate arguments that are arguments without being linked. As you’ve pointed out, it’s difficult and complex to build robots with legs. So it’s a rational argument to point out that unless the legs are actually necessary for something the robot is going to do, there’s no reason to do that instead of less difficult and less complex option.

I’m not asking you for a link because links are necessary for arguments to be right. I’m asking you for the link because you indicated that Musk had actually put forth the argument for why a robot needs to have a human form in order to work in a human space like a factory. I was just asking you to provide it so that I could read his argument. I genuinely don’t understand why people think the humanoid form is at all useful, given what the brains are capable of - and so if there’s actually an explanation of it, I’d like to read it. And I get the feeling that you wouldn’t care to outline it, so I was hoping you’d just let me know where I can find Musk (or someone else) laying it out.

It’s very similar to the many blockchain discussions I’ve had (mostly on old fool). People would rave about how important and transformative blockchain was…but when pressed to identify what it was useful for, it was hard to get a concrete explanation (outside of the few obvious but very limited use cases). I genuinely haven’t seen an explanation for why it’s so beneficial for a robot to have a human form (like legs), especially for robots that are going to be working in an environment (like a warehouse) where that form doesn’t provide any advantages.

[buynholdisdead]

@albaby1

Why? People can present legitimate arguments that are arguments without being linked. As you’ve pointed out, it’s difficult and complex to build robots with legs. So it’s a rational argument to point out that unless the legs are actually necessary for something the robot is going to do, there’s no reason to do that instead of less difficult and less complex option.

That isn’t a valid reason not to have legs. If doing difficult things was a reason not to do something we would be still living in caves.

The reason I am asking for a link is because if all we have is conjecture we could go on and on like this forever. One person providing links and the other never giving any information but their own opinion.

Andy

[albaby1]

@buynholdisdead

That isn’t a valid reason not to have legs. If doing difficult things was a reason not to do something we would be still living in caves.

No one’s saying that doing difficult things is a reason not to do something. I’m saying that doing difficult things for no purpose or benefit or utility is a reason not to do them. Yes, do difficult things - so we don’t still live in caves - but don’t do the difficult thing if there’s a better way to do it.

Plenty of people put a lot of time and effort into complicated and difficult things that end up not being very useful. The Segway is perhaps the ur-example. Designing and manufacturing the Segway was very difficult, but the Segway itself wasn’t really useful for very much.

[eldemonio]

@buynholdisdead

That would be easy to fix by making the robots fluorescent orange or some other distinguishing color.

It’s not that easy. Most safety standards for workplaces incorporating robotics rely on keeping human workers away from the robots. With collaborative (mobile) robots being introduced, there are significantly more hazards that aren’t fully understood.

Robots in the workplace

Working at their normal pace, OSHA won’t develop safety standards specific to occupational hazards around robotics for another 50 years.

[rainphakir]

@albaby1

@rainphakir

sooo… what form factor should a lifeguard robot have?

I can’t imagine what it would be. We’re a very, very long way towards have the type of AI we could trust with being a lifeguard.

Does it have to be PERFECT in order to be ‘good enough’. Are human lifeguards ‘perfect’?

How about a ‘jetski’ form factor for Beach situations?

How Ukrainian drones powered by jet skis sunk Russian warship | CNN

Reportedly, since the US wont send enough bona fide war weapons to Ukraine, other countries are sending JET SKI’s… which the innovative, out-side-the-box-thinking Ukrainians are modifying into drones, fitting them with various ‘equipment’ and a couple kilos of explosives. And sinkng warships.

Surely jet skis could be modified into some sort of autonomous water Lifeguard for use along beaches?
Maybe those outside-the-box-thinking Ukrainians would spare some of their innovative thinking?

Do the ‘first’ autonomous lifeguard jetski robots HAVE to be completely ‘autonomous’? Or, could we have some ‘HumInt’ in the Lifeguard hut providing Human oversight - like the Cruise autonomous EVs supposedly had/have ‘humans’ at Cruise HQ monitoring and ‘interceding’?
And, later… when FSD is mature enough, Tesla can provide advanced robolifeguards?
Cybertrucks are reportedly waterproof for ‘water /boat-like use’ … for a couple hundred meters.
I would like to be rescued by a Cybertruck!
I’m LIKING where this conversation is going!

hmm… the POOLside issue. Different situation requires different form factor?
‘Public pools’ are now mandated to have a ‘crane-like’ thing to lower ‘mobility impaired’ folks into the water? Perhaps something like a ‘robo-crane’ could be used to ‘pluck’ swimming-impaired folks from the water?

ralph must not have anything to do today?

The Ukrainians have, for a year or more, already famously modified ‘toy’ flying drones to annihilate ground troops and their equipment.
Now, after the concept has been proven, Ukraine is using drones specifically designed and built for different tasks in their war efforts.
Russia and Iran have reportedly ‘copycatted’ the Ukrainians.

[buynholdisdead]

@albaby1

No one’s saying that doing difficult things is a reason not to do something. I’m saying that doing difficult things for no purpose or benefit or utility is a reason not to do them. Yes, do difficult things - so we don’t still live in caves - but don’t do the difficult thing if there’s a better way to do it.

So who decides whether doing something difficult is worth doing? Is it the person doing it or someone else without any ability or knowledge. The true arbiter is the person buying the product.

@albaby1

Plenty of people put a lot of time and effort into complicated and difficult things that end up not being very useful.

Plenty of people put a lot of time and effort into complicated and difficult things that end up being widely useful. Like the Steam and Ice engines.

Andy

[albaby1]

@rainphakir

Does it have to be PERFECT in order to be ‘good enough’. Are human lifeguards ‘perfect’?

You know, I was about to write, “no, of course not, they just have to be better than humans.” But then I tried to see how good humans are at being lifeguards. And it turns out, they’re really really good. Drowning deaths at lifeguarded beaches are incredibly rare. Studies are spotty, but per the biggest case study in this report:

Despite an average estimated annual attendance of 15 million people and over
7,000 rescues at the major lifeguarded beaches, the average number of drownings in areas under lifeguard protection is between zero and one annually.

cdc_11284_DS1.pdf

Normally, we just want our robot replacements to be better than the humans, which usually doesn’t mean they have to be perfect. In this instance, though…maybe it does?

[albaby1]

@buynholdisdead

So who decides whether doing something difficult is worth doing? Is it the person doing it or someone else without any ability or knowledge. The true arbiter is the person buying the product.

Sure. But if you’re trying to assess in advance whether people buying the product will find it useful (or whether they’ll buy it at all), it should be possible to offer a reasonable explanation of why the product (or in this case, the product’s feature) is useful. To use a ridiculous example, if we proposed that every humanoid robot would have a one-carat diamond embedded in its forehead, we would certainly be open to criticism that this was a useless and unnecessary design element. Throwing up our hands and saying “who’s to say what a purchaser will find this worth doing?” doesn’t answer that criticism.

So if having legs is difficult and complicated compared to wheels, it should be possible to explain why a person buying that robot would be find having legs instead of wheels useful. If we think the robot’s going to be used as a firefighter, then that would certainly be self-evident; but if the robot’s going to be used in a factory or warehouse, where stairs and ladders are rare to nonexistent, it’s not quite as obvious. So if a designer is saying that the robot should have legs even though its difficult because the purchaser will find that worthwhile, there should be an explanation of how that feature will be worthwhile to the purchaser.

[buynholdisdead]

@albaby1

So if having legs is difficult and complicated compared to wheels

Wheels are difficult also. We have had legs longer than wheels.

@albaby1

So if having legs is difficult and complicated compared to wheels, it should be possible to explain why a person buying that robot would be find having legs instead of wheels useful.

That has already been pointed out to you many times and you just gloss over it. I have personally given you links and video’s on it. So the only way we can see who is right is when they are implemented. I like Syke’s definition and will be looking for that.

@syke6

The word “implementing” implies there is a plan in process of being completed. If Amazon intends to roll out humanoid robots in their FCs I’d agree that is implementing. If they testing a few dozen that doesn’t sound like rolling out robots in the FCs.

Andy

[albaby1]

@buynholdisdead

That has already been pointed out to you many times and you just gloss over it. I have personally given you links and video’s on it.

Have you? I don’t recall you ever providing a link or a video that would explain why it would be useful for a robot to have legs instead of wheels in the contexts that humanoid robots would be working in. Would you mind reposting a few? Or just pointing me to where you posted them?