Robot Swarm Shifts Heavy Objects

holy_calamity writes "A swarm of robots has been demonstrated that can get together to transport an object too heavy for a single bot. Each robot is loaded with the same simple set of behaviors but more complex intelligence emerges from a group interacting. Two videos show the robots in action, and using a more complex behavior necessary when they're set to short sighted mode and can't see the target location from the starting point."

Comments

hmmmmm might need modification

[LiquidCoooled]

The robots can adjust their caterpillar tracks, to ensure they are all pulling in the right direction. "Each robot has a traction sensor inside that detects all the external forces on it," explains Dorigo. A robot uses its sensor to identify any conflicting forces, and then changes direction accordingly.

So, once its carrying your cargo along the path and begins to slide down a slope all the tracks will turn in unison to help carry it down the hill to its doom. They won't think anything is wrong because everyone will be pulling in the same direction.

Apart from this minor detail i think w00t!

Re:hmmmmm might need modification

[SigILL]

So, once its carrying your cargo along the path and begins to slide down a slope all the tracks will turn in unison to help carry it down the hill to its doom. They won't think anything is wrong because everyone will be pulling in the same direction.

Yeah, totally unlike humans!

Er, wait...

It's a simple question of weight rations.

[Anonymous Coward]

A 5 oz bird cannot carry a 1 lb cocoanut.

Re:It's a simple question of weight rations.

[ack154]

To keep this a bit on topic...

"Wait a minute! Supposing two swallows carried it together?"

Re:It's a simple question of weight rations.

[CodeViolator]

What? Held under the dorsal guiding feathers?

But can they....

[krell]

But can they impersonate a T-Rex and mystify John Locke?

Why wasn't this a simulation?

[dpbsmith]

The object was apparently to demonstrate something or other regarding cooperation strategies between robots with limited communication abilities and limited knowledge of the surroundings.

What, precisely, was gained by doing this with actual physical robots, rather than a computer simulation?

Re:Why wasn't this a simulation?

[Vellmont]

What, precisely, was gained by doing this with actual physical robots, rather than a computer simulation?

Gee, maybe things like accounting for things you never thought or had the ability to simulate? What makes you think that a computer can model every single thing (frictional forces, heat and stress on motors, etc) as well as actual reality?

Re:Why wasn't this a simulation?

[dpbsmith]

No, but surely it can model the _cooperative_ aspects.

I wouldn't trust a computer to predict whether a robot hand is capable of cracking an egg and peeling off the shell without damaging the membrane underneath.

But I would trust a computer to model the effect of having robot A shine a blue light, robot B shine a red light, have robot A programmed to move toward a red light at 1 mph, and have robot B programmed to move away from a blue light at 2 mph. And I would trust it to model the effect of a twenty such robots.

Re:Why wasn't this a simulation?

[jotok]

Interaction effects result in "emergent" behavior because it's not readily apparent from the behavior of individuals. That is to say, sense-and-respond cycles are not easy to model unless you start out with a lot of data. A good example is ants--single ants wandering around demonstrate chaotic behavior in time and in space, whereas large numbers of ants demonstrate very ordered behavior (purposeful movement, all taking rests at the same time, etc.). We can model this because we've seen it, but before we ever saw it, it would probably have been outside of our abilities to predict that it would happen.

In terms of complexity hierarchy, it doesn't make sense to make a model that is just an aggregation of different objects. You don't talk about the group behavior entirely in terms of the objects making up the group, because the objects don't demonstrate group behavior--the group does--so in some sense "half a herd of robots" doesn't make any sense. From the perspective from which the group behavior is evident, the group is a unitary individual.

Clear as mud?

Wasting time w/Humanoids?

[TheMadTech]

All these Japanese companies are dead set on the whole humanoid robot concept. While the AI systems are clearly a joke, why focus so much energy on bipedal movement? It is clearly not the easiest mode of transportation. Human walking is essentially controlled falling. Oh great a bunch of things that kind of resemble humans can lift something heavy all together. Why not just build a smart forklift to do the same job autonomously. It just doesn't make any sense.

Re:Wasting time w/Humanoids?

[Atmchicago]

A few misconceptions to clear up:

1. The robots are not bipedal
2. The scientists are from Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland

Re:Hah.

[gEvil (beta)]

I can get the second video, but not the one of them "in action."

Well, your office is clearly blocking material that's NSFW.

Re:Peep hole

[Eideewt]

The camera man had to hide in there to avoid spooking the robots.

slashdotted

[gerbouille]

Watch the power of thousands of /.ers! Individually, they can't crash a web server, but together - with limited communication and intelligence - they can...

Management

[955301]

Looking at the video, try to spot the project management behavior that shows up towards the end once four of the bots figure out how to drag the object over. One of them just stops doing anything and stands out away from the group as if trying to think of ways to empower the resources to realize their action items.

It is this bot that must be destroyed before the future of robotics is harmed.