Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Robot Contest Update
rbrandis writes "DARPA has selected a wide variety of teams, after a series of last minute rule changes and a solid outpouring of anger, the final list of competitors for DARPA's Grand Challenge robot race has been set with 25 teams preparing to try and win a $1 million prize." The anger is exemplified by submissions like this one: Totally_Lost writes "Last spring we flocked to DARPA's Grand Challenge media event in Los Angeles to be told that they wanted everyone's participation in their Robot race this March. They told us that the race would be open to Mom and Pop garage sized participants - and Lied. This fall, nearly 100 teams completed technical paper submissions, with about half to be eliminated from the $1M prize race because they were too small to be 'real' competitors. Well, the rejected robot racing teams got together in Las Vegas last month, and formed the International Robot Racing Federation. This month IRRF is announcing its first competition with $1M in prizes pledged by sponsors, and lesser prizes too, to be offered in a REAL OPEN Challenge next September (providing the race that DARPA failed to deliver)."
...beyond their wildest dreams. Not only do they get to have their own competition, which may produce some interesting results, but in addition they get to see another competition that they don't have to pay for, and if anything cool comes of it they can always step in and make an offer on the technology. Plus, a new hobby is born. Sounds like everybody wins here.
The some people don't have a clue as to the effects and circumstances of this. The purpose is not Autonomous Kill Vehicles though it might occur. Cruise Missiles etc already do this as does the Predator to one degree or another. The purpose here is to reduce the overhead cost on the army dramatically in hauling supplies etc over long distances with or without roads. To do this you need vehicles than can bypass disabled vehicles and overcome obstacles. They need to be free of drivers who get tired and eat up supplies.
The real effect here will be civilian. The project which like it or not will happen regardless of DARPA someday soon, is going to very nearly completely alter how we live.
To illustrate: suppose you are old blind and unable to drive. (It happens to the best of us) Now you will be able to go where you want without somebody driving you. Suppose you want to go to work but don't want to own a car? Mass Transit? No! you just get on your cell phone and call for a car. It arrives shortly and takes you where you want to go and without a driver. Freight? No more Truck Drivers and the wreaks from them being too tired. No more Taxi Drivers. Close most of the Hospitals because wreaks are not filling them up. Kids will not need parents to drive them somewhere.
There is very nearly nothing more profound than this race! It will reorganize our world. The issue here is how will we adapt. This isn't an esoteric question. We had better face it now.
For the Luddites amung us, give it up. Stopping DARPA will only give the technological edge to China. They will do the work. This is a very high amplification Technology. It Amplifies People a LOT. The issue as always will be the morals of those being Amplified, and will we allow this to cause others to be lost in the "noise."
Please explain how the number of people working on a project makes it more or less advanced. Please detail how a small group of people without corporate funding can't make an advanced robot. By your logic no one should use Linux because its not "advanced".
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
You do know mankind has good devices in civilian hands based on research done by military funding, right? The world isn't out to get you. Go back to using the cell phone (thanks to NASA space research) and your GPS (thanks to military research). Next time you fly you can thank military research on jet engines too. The examples here are endless. A more on-topic example would be the robotic arms used in surgery.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
Well, primarily I would say because the rules were changed after entries were accepted and private individuals suffered financial loss from those changes.
They didn't get "drubbed." They never even got the chance to get drubbed under the assumed parameters of the competition.
Had DARPA said something along the lines of "Ya'll are welcome to give it a go, but we have to warn you that entries are strictly limited and we reserve the right to make the decision of who gets to play and who doesn't on an arbritrary basis if we so choose," well, than the whole thing would be a complete nonissue.
People played by the rules. DARPA didn't. That tends to rile folk.
KFG
A simple, and typical DARPA formula:
1. Announce a nice, big, open competition for ideas, welcome everyone.
2. Get everyone's papers and technical submissions for free.
3. Suddenly, cut the field to 25 well-qualified, well-financed groups. Forget you welcomed everyone.
4. Change the specifications to include some of the more innovative ideas you got, for free, from the small groups you exclude.
5. Run your "competition" touting how fair it is.
6. In the end, award the contract to Raytheon, Boeing, Lockeed. Pay them three times what the small contractor would have charged.
7. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The reason we don't innovate anymore in this country is because true innovation comes from free-thinkers. Darpa and the DOD don't get that anymore, and rely on the same old staid companies to do everything. They'll get a RC vehicle with half the capabilities they originally hoped for at three times the price. Who needs innovation? Just keep feeding the defense-contract monster.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
I am a member of a robotics team. We are building a sub-AI mobile robot very similar to the ones involved in the DARPA Challenge. In fact, we had illusions at some point of competing in a future challenge iff the challenge was not won this year.
We compete in a similar, less-publicized contest. We have three members on our team and had a starting budget of $300. We had our PC104 board and $200 diff. GPS donated, and all of the coding has thus far been done by the three of us. We didn't have any money, and thus we selected an embedded Linux system, which introduced all of us to the world of Linux for the very first time. We work in the lab at all hours of the night, with no help, and no budget. The teams we compete against have corporate backing, 30+ members, and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our robot looks very rough and overly simple compared to their corporate-sponsored monsters. Yet, we continually *stomp* them in competition. If that contest were administered like the DARPA one, we would not even be allowed to compete, yet we do compete and win.
Part of this is because our simple solution is: INNOVATION.
Throwing money and lots of members at something does not make it innovative. Advanced Technology doesn't mean that the robot is any good. We compete against a military academy and their robot, despite its "advanced" bells and whistles, does not hold a candle to ours. Heck, we have duct tape holding things onto our bot and it looks pathetic beside the smooth-formed frames of the other robots. But we win because our lack of support and budget forced us to be creative.
And wasn't innovation supposed to be the purpose of this competition?
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."