Slashdot Mirror


Robodex 2003 Shows Robots Ready for Work & Play

Roland Piquepaille writes "Robodex 2003 was held last week in Yokohama, Japan. At this show 38 companies, colleges and other organizations introduced more than 90 different types of robot. Many were designed to handle tasks too dangerous for humans and assist people in their daily lives. In this column, you'll find a selection of articles and short quotes about this trade show which attracted about 70,000 visitors. I also built my own Robodex 2003 Fashion Show (the whole page weighs 172KB). You'll find there pictures of many new robots, including Banryu, developed by Tmsuk, Inc., which will control your home while you're away, Doki, the world's first gender-aware robot, built by Intelligent Earth, from Scotland, or the Comet III, a one ton mine-clearance robot from Chiba University. There are also pictures of new machines from Sony, Mitsubishi or Fujitsu among others."

22 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. *yawn* by revmoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Many were designed to handle tasks too dangerous for humans and assist people in their daily lives.

    Call me when they make one that will fetch my beer

    --
    I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
    1. Re:*yawn* by revmoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      And just how is that not dangerous? :-p

      You make a good point, and that is why the robot would need advanced non-shaking algorithyms, in order to prevent the beer from being shook up whilst in transit from fridge to hand.

      --
      I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
  2. "Gender Aware" by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just keep thinking of the robot pulling a 'crocodile dundee': walking up to someone and grabing their crotch to determine their gender.

    --
    I do security
    1. Re:"Gender Aware" by bumby · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh my... It will buffer overflow if it meets me ;)

      --
      Hey! That's my sig you're smoking there!
  3. Robots and your home by st0rmcold · · Score: 3, Interesting


    New generation hackers, break into the robot while someone is away and have him unlock all the doors and the safes in the house :P

    Call me a skeptic, but I don't like robots doing too many tasks, let's not forget human's make robots, and some humans are crooked, so who knows when you will end up with an influence robot?

    --
    Posting useless rant since 2003.
  4. Runtimes/power sources? by Hayzeus · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'd be interested in the power sources being used for some of these humanoid robots, as well as the actual run times.

    Some of these guys are tethered, but for those that aren't I'd really love to know what they're using for power, and how long these robots can continue to run. I can't seem to find much (except for Asimo, which uses NiMh batts). Anybody else find some more solid specs?

    1. Re:Runtimes/power sources? by mrtroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have no idea why your post got trolled.

      I seriously would like to see the power sources being used as well, it provides an interesting perspective of robots...

      What would be ideal is have two sets of removeable batteries for the robot, as well as one smaller battery which always remains in the robot. Then, when the robot senses its power is getting low, it goes to the battery charger and switches batteries, while using auxilary power during the time when he does not have either battery in him.

      Similarly, another option could be a "sleep" mode where when the robot senses his batteries are going low he goes and sits in a charger until he is replenished.

      This is a very important part about robotics, because if I buy a robot to clean my floor and fetch me my beers, I sure as hell do not want to carry the 500 pound hunk of metal to his charger when he runs out of juice!

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    2. Re:Runtimes/power sources? by Hayzeus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's OK. The occasional 12-year old moderator is just par for the course -- I have karma to burn anyway.

      Given the current state of power storage technology, the best approach is probably trips to a power-charging station during quiet times (as you mentioned). I'm working on a reliable method of doing this with my web-cam bots, which would allow longer run times with smaller bots, since they need not be so large to accomodate big batteries. Smaller = cheaper, so...

      I'm still wondering if any of the humanoid bots can do this in typical unconstrained indoor environments. Not only does the base station need to be found reliably, which requires decent localization capabilities, but the robot needs good obstacle detectionn. I've always figured this would be pretty hard to do an a largish, actively balanced humanoid robot because of sensor coverage issues.

  5. Why humanoid? by rf0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How important is it for robots that are around the house to look human. I mena I can understand that people will most likely be more accpeting of them but are they the best design for whatever job they are doing? Or are they really just showing what we can?

    I know that walking is a huge problem for robots especially going up and down stairs

    Rus

    1. Re:Why humanoid? by Keighvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only part of it is acceptance, the other issue is that the robot is operating in an environment designed for certain dimensional criteria. Homes are made for people, and though many of the individual tasks within a home can be better performed by specialised adaptations, for the most part the more adaptable a robot and in this case more capable of mimicking human behaviour the more efficiently it will be able to get about and accomplish its duties.

      --
      Any spoon would be too big.
    2. Re:Why humanoid? by mshiltonj · · Score: 2, Informative

      Asimov postulated that robots would be humanoid because they would be relatively expensive, and would end up doing a lot of work humans would otherwise do. A small number of humanoid robots could operate the entire existing 'infrastructure' of existing dumb machines without retooling.

      So instead of having a vacuum-bot and a dish-bot and clothes-bot and bathroom-bot, households would only need to have and maintain one expensive intelligent robot that would operate all the 'dumb' machines that we already have in the house.

      Dumb machines would be plentiful, stupid, cheap, easy to maintain and/or disposable, and dedicated to specific purposes. These are the one's we already use. Smart machines -- robots -- would be relatively scarce, and more difficult amd expensive to maintain. Having them be "general purpose" where they could be used in various non-specialized areas will extend thier utility.

      Additionally, if the humanoid robot ever broke, then a human could step into its place and scrub the toilet or wash the dishes with existing tools.

      Read all of the Asimov robot books. They are incredible.

  6. MS-Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    MS-Robot EULA

    *The robot is not your property. MS owns and controls it except where you are given permission by MS to control it. Controlling it except as permitted by MS is illegal under the DMCA. Everything the robot does is your responsibility, no matter if you controlled it or if MS did. You are criminally responsible for anything your robot does. You will not sue MS or defame MS in any way. You will acknoledge that you solely controlled the robot to do everything it does, even though you didn't. The robot's parts are warrented for 30 days. We cannot be responsible for damage related to operation of the robot, however. The function of the robot is not warrented in any way. You may not replace any major parts of the robot without buying another license. If a major part is replaced, it will be considered, at MS's sole determination, a new robot. If MS considers it a new robot, you agree to pay $500 to continue using it. Making your robot interact with other robots requires RALs. (robot access licenses) Allowing robots to interact in any way without the proper number of RALs is illegal, and you will be prosecuted.

  7. Laws of robotics by Tomato3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure most of you herehave heard of Asimov's three laws of robotics.

    The Three Laws of Robotics are:

    1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    My question is: when do robots become capable enough that we start worrying about them having ethics programmed into them? We already have robots that can walk around and watch the house. When do we start to worry that they're dangerous? Do we wait until they've hurt someone?

    --
    Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Commissioner Lal
    1. Re:Laws of robotics by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well, my guess is that we should be worrying about these things when (and if) we produce a sentient robot. Only then will "ethics" have any meaning. Otherwise, it is just wishful thinking, much like to creating a law for Internet Explorer to prohibit it from bringing your whole system down... "A browser may not crash an OS or, through bad programming, allow the OS to come to harm".

      I dare you to program this, sir!

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    2. Re:Laws of robotics by Azureflare · · Score: 2, Insightful
      OK. Number 1 reason I would see where we worry about the danger of robots is explicitly when they are operating in civilian environments. If a robot is walking around in a mall for example. Imagine (just imagine) of the possibility (however remote) of a baby crawling around the floor. OK it would never happen probably, but then there's that .00001% chance....

      Anyway, that robot should instantly cease all current functions and initiate functions to disengage (or whatever Isamovian situation you can imagine), if it senses that it poses danger to a human. Not only that, but there should be an "arbiter" if you will, an embedded AI system independant of the actual robot, that will act as a failsafe system. There could probably be other failsafe designs, but that's for the dev teams to think up. If robots are to be accepted among us, they have to pose 0% danger. Not 0.001% danger.

      Besides the civilian areas, I see it as an issue with military robots, since I see this as the biggest application of robotic technology. This is also one of the most complex, indeed, probably technically impossible. It is very difficult for even humans to discern if people are friend or foe. (take the friendly fire incidents in Iraq for example, and Vietnam for the classic one). It will be a while before robots will be usable on the ground, but once they are...It will be of enormous benefit to the country who has 'em. Of course, this could create a nation like those droids in star wars I. It's incredibly unlikely, but hey, there might be a government power hungry enough to want it...

      I think the most immediate use of robots will be for reconaissance, and information gathering (i.e. spying). This would give them a limited ability to inflict damage (besides actually running into things). The degree of sophistication in programming will be incredible, but hey, that's our job isn't it ;)

  8. here i am... by greenalbatros · · Score: 5, Funny

    here i am. brain the size of a planet and they ask me to go and fetch their beer. i wont enjoy it you know. oh im so depressed...

    --
    this sig steers like a cow. and i can prove it
  9. Re:Robots for Work AND PLAY? by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How much of a step is it to go from playing games on your computer or Playstation 2 to playing with a robot. Sure, there's a technological step but the basic premise remains the same - you're gaining enjoyment from an object meant to simulate some level of human experience through transistors and electricity.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  10. Usefull at all? by aberant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe my perspective is slanted on this issue because i don't bring in six figures, but most of these robots seem completely useless. I mean $16k for a robot that guards your house? You can get a mean dog for much cheeper and he will do a better job. A gender aware Bot? Man i would hate to think how much that would cost when i could go down the block and pick up a girl that was a professional at "being gender" aware for much cheeper. Don't think i am some anti technology idiot, but it just seems we got that human thing down pretty good and pretty cheep, so maybe we should have robots that act like something unique or fill a valid market. And secondly, how do you think these robots will feel when you realize they are useless and toss them away. Then there might be a market for robot psychologists. Maybe that was their plan all along!

  11. Re:My biggest concern is for the Three Laws by Thag · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Asimov's laws are based on an anthropomorphic view of artificial intelligence. They assume that robots will "think" in such a way that they can follow instructions provided in the form of "ethical principles."

    It turns out that cost-effective robots are cost-effective because they've been reduced to the minimum amount of motions, brains, etc. to do a specialized task. And no robots think in a way that would make Asimov's Laws (or Tesuka's Laws) particularly relevant.

    In reality, it's a lot simpler and safer to run the robot inside a safety cage that keeps people from wandering into it.

    Jon Acheson

    --
    All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
  12. The real question by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where are the BuffyBots?

    I'd settle for a Cherry 2000, but that model is outdated already.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  13. Happy Birthday, Astroboy!!! by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "guest of honor" at Robodex 2003 was Astroboy, 1960s Japanese anime icon, who according to the storyline was "born" TODAY on April 7, 2003. Check out lots of fun links on this sidebar story here.

  14. Still the same old problem by The+Kryptonian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In case anybody noticed, almost none of these robots have HANDS. The only ones that do are Asimo and HOAP, as far as I can see, and they're not yet in the price range where actual people can afford to buy one.
    The 'bots in the more rational price ranges have what, little rubber thingies that look vaguely like hands but have no moving parts? What's up with that? Why bother with arms if the hands on the ends of the arms DON'T DO ANYTHING?
    Until these bots have at very least opposable thumbs as a rule, they're more toys than useful tools. And I say this as a man who desperately wants a household robot that can actually do something. Get me a 'bot that costs less than half what my car costs that can actually do something useful, like fold laundry and put it away, and I'll be an early adopter.