Tai Chi Robots

dknight writes "It seems that Chinese scientists are currently developing a robot which is capable of doing tai chi. The robot is being developed by the Beijing University of Science and Engineering, and is touted to be a great breakthrough in worker safety, as these robots could be used to perform dangerous work. They are supposedly able to sense changes in the slope of the earth around them (hills, etc.) and balance themselves out."

Comments

Uh..

[pilot1]

whats the point of a robot that does martial arts? I doubt one would ever be able to defeat anyone, since the robots can't "think".

Re:Uh..

[Stillman]

Balance. Coordination. Grace.
Things that are pretty damn impressive for a robot.

Tai Chi Balance?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point?

A walking robot that can perform VERY complex motion sequences, balance itself, and respond in real-time to dangerous situations. These robots (or a later generation) could be used to perform rescue tasks in damaged buildings after an earthquake, when the danger of aftershock is still very high-so if the building did collapse, a robot would die, not an extra human being.

With 2 billion ppl...

[SunPin]

They couild take over the world without robots.

next breakthrough: buddhism

[axxackall]

Balanced robots? Too mechanical, nothing unusual. I expect a better breakthrough in this area: computer OS studiing (zen?) buddhism.

Seriously. People without buddism kill other people or other living beings or bring other forms of suffering to other people or to other living beings. Such people live their lives without high-order goals (what's the goal to get many money if you loose them after your death). Even most of religious people (especially ones of religions based on dogmatic principals) are not usually tolerant to people of other reliogion confessions.

But once computers becomes actors in our eco-systems (computers now can decide on our behalf) then I would prefer to see such actors being peacuful, tolerant, non-violent, living their "lives" for good, loving and respecting other living beings.

We don't want to have computers with "ego" - living their "lives" for themselves (and killing us as their competitors or using us as slaves). But also, we don't want computers as stupid slaves, living their lives for "ego" of particular group of people (they would become solders-killers).

Of course, forcing computers to study buddhism should not free us (people) from the same job. We also must be peaceful, tolerant, respectful, loving and non-violent. Unfortunately many of us are not. And that't the real problem.

Re:next breakthrough: buddhism

[A coward on a mouse]

You're comparing the Buddhist ideal to the realities of other religions. *Professing* Buddhism doesn't preclude making war on others any more than *professing* any other religion does. There are pacifists within all or nearly all religious groups, and typically those pacifists claim that they are following the true teachings of that religion.

*Maybe* the pacifist element of Buddhism is currently more influential than the pacifist elements of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Even so, Buddhist countries have made war on each other and others at many times in history, for example the two wars fought between Siam and Burma in the late 16th century.

I can't see how Jesus', Rabbi Akiba's, or Ibn Hallaj's (any pacifist Hindus out there pitch in) teachings are any less anti-war than the Buddha's. Frankly, you have already taken the first few steps onto the slippery slope by implying that Buddhism is the only way to peace. It's only a few short steps from there to the statement that all non-Buddhists should be destroyed as threats to peace.

In short, the virtuous in each religious group have more in common with each other than the wicked within each group have in common the virtuous. None of the world's major religions is inherently more or less virtuous than another and they have all been used as excuses for atrocities.

Re:I'd only point out that. . .

[Hiro Antagonist]

Having seen something similar in action, I'd bet on the exalted Grandmaster. Katas are practiced in slow motion to build technique and strength. Yes, strength. Try doing a head-high front kick at 1/20 the speed and see if you can keep your leg extended at head-height for more than a fraction of a second.

And if you believe that technique is unimportant compared to strength, might I invite you to visit the Skip Barber racing school and take the Econoline Van tour, where the instructor races one of the beginner students. The instructor gets an Econoline van, and the student is in a Corvette. I'll give you three guesses as to who wins, and the first two don't count.

It's the same thing in combat. Proper technique and speed will slaughter brute force any day of the week.

Re:I'd only point out that. . .

[BluedemonX]

I'm neither. But I've seen a lot of beatings go down, and I've personally thrown a couple of TKD guys on their backs in my time.

Anyone who thinks their flying pyjama dance lesson will help them against someone larger and scarier is living in a fantasy world. EVERY pugilistic event has weight classes. Wonder why? Wouldn't the bantamweight with superior technique outclass the 300lb behemoth? No, the behemoth would pound the bantamweight into a red smear.

Re:I'd only point out that. . .

[iabervon]

Have you even seen a two-legged robot try to move? All the ones I've seen have fallen, and they can't get up. Makes sense to teach them something old people do to improve their balance...