Slashdot Mirror


Denver Couple Unveils Homemade Service Robot

An anonymous reader writes "Jim & Louise Gunderson, owners of a Denver-based computer software tool development company, have finally unveiled their autonomous robot, Basil. Basil is completely home built, runs Linux with some instructions in Java, uses a sonar-based 'reification' logic system, and can go get you a beer or a pot of tea. Quoting: 'The plan is this: The Gundersons will ask Basil to go to the bar, request a couple of stouts from the bartender, and then, once they're placed on the titanium tray perched on his head, bring them back to his creators. They haven't told him how to do this — there's no set script in his processors that tells him to roll a certain distance southwest, speak a certain command, then come back. He'll have to figure it all out on his own, using a basic knowledge of bars and beers and so on, reasoning skills and an ability to understand certain parts of the world. When his sonars capture the image of a person, for example, he knows it's a person, not just a nameless object to be avoided. And he knows that, in this case, that person wants a beer.'"

28 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. FAAAAAKKKEE by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I recognize a person 69cm away"
    "I recognize a wooden chair"

    Right. Using sonar, the robot is able to determine the composition of the chair.

    Given that the robot's speech patterns are not broken at all, and that it speaks in complete sentences, it seems more likely that this is a blinkenlites contraption with a very human person controlling it the whole time.

    1. Re:FAAAAAKKKEE by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I won't disagree that it's fake, but I expect the sonar return is qualitatively affected by the type of surface it hits.

      Even my human ears can tell the difference between some types of wall coverings based on ambient sound reflections.

      In short, I'd want an expert in sonar to call bullshit on this one before I definitively choose sides.

    2. Re:FAAAAAKKKEE by Zironic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From reading the article it seems to think every object with 4 feet and a straight back is a wooden chair and all the voices are probably prerecorded. It's not like it can invent new abstract objects on it's own.

    3. Re:FAAAAAKKKEE by juiceboxfan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. Using sonar, the robot is able to determine the composition of the chair.

      That's a bit cynical. While it's unlikely this thing is as autonomous as they would like us to believe there may be an explanation for the "detailed" description of the objects. Perhaps it was taught that an object of that height/width is a "wooden chair". And, much as a young child will run around and point at any small animal and say "doggy!" no matter what type of animal it is, anything about that size and shape is recognized as a "wooden chair".

      Without more information it's hard to say for sure.

    4. Re:FAAAAAKKKEE by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know the people involved. They're not fraudsters.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:FAAAAAKKKEE by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even my human ears can tell the difference between some types of wall coverings based on ambient sound reflections.

      Oh, there's a lot more potential for you than that. Humans actually be trained in echolocation. Blind people even pick it up, thinking they're using their face for it, and so it's been called "facial vision".

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    6. Re:FAAAAAKKKEE by tachyonflow · · Score: 3, Informative

      I saw a demonstration of Basil earlier this month at the event mentioned in the article, and the Gundersons explained some of the technology and what they are trying to accomplish.

      There is nothing special about the sonar -- it's just a simple low-bitrate input scheme. The Gundersons are focusing on solving the problems of environment perception by focusing on a cognitive model instead of throwing horsepower at interpreting the input in fine detail, as computer vision or perhaps some sort of advanced sonar would. The robot manages an internal model of its environment, and compares the input to its expectations instead of continually trying to reconstruct a scene. Perhaps it distinguishes a chair from a person with clues (a chair doesn't move on its own, for instance).

    7. Re:FAAAAAKKKEE by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It seems to me that you have missed (what I believe is) the point. The robot has an initial, object-based, dimensionally-limited/understood model of its environment. If somebody 'moves a chair' when not in the sensory view of the robot, the robot isn't going to get confused, it's just going to process the basics of the space (such as the walls not moving) see that a previous element in that space is now not there, delete that object from its model, add the same object back in its new location. A robot doesn't care about 'continuity' like a human being does unless you program it to care. If the robot just needs a working model to move through a space, all it cares about is where things are now in relation to a larger, dimensional baseline for the model. If anything, the most confusing thing for something like this would likely be a door, worse a really big door like a garage door, that would alter the space the robot perceives.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    8. Re:FAAAAAKKKEE by Greyhart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As one of the Friends of Basil (The people helping to build him) I can assure you that it is not fake. Yes, Basil was taught that a certain sonar return equals a wooden chair, and another sonar return equals a person. Remember, he has 12 sonars to work with. If he gets the return from those 12 sonars for the wooden chair, he calls it such. If he gets a return that is similar, he will say that it could be a wooden chair, or it could be something else. If he's not sure, he would have to orbit the unknown object taking sonar readings, and comparing them to what he already knows about. If all the readings seem to indicate a wooden chair, that's what he calls it. If not, he logs the object until someone tells him what it is. Technically, it doesn't matter what he decides to call it as long as he can distinguish it from any other object. The only reason to tell him what the new object is, would be to facilitate communication. After all, I have no idea what he means when he talks about object 362, but if I tell him that object 362 is a refrigerator, I can now tell him to get me a beer from the refrigerator, and he'll know what to do.

  2. Bowtie? Nice try. by cliffiecee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't let that bowtie fool you. I know a Dalek when I see one.

  3. But, I'm a Frank Zappa fan... by Ronald+Dumsfeld · · Score: 5, Funny

    Beer? Great! But what is beer without titties?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwb1s1DYnDU

    --
    Where's the Kaboom?
    There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
  4. EE 83 Ball Model by germansausage · · Score: 5, Funny

    Any UBC EEs from 83/84 will remember our robot, also called Basil, because it was somewhat faulty (Fawlty).

  5. Uh-oh by sfjoe · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...runs Linux with some instructions in Java..."

    Uh-oh, they used the J-word. Wait until the Slashdot Religious Order gets their hands on them.

    --
    It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
  6. I, for one, by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

    welcome my beer. Thanks, robot underling.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  7. Sounds exaggerated by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It looks like the sensors are dumb ranging sonars at four heights. Those are very crude sensors; all you get is the range of the nearest solid object in a 30 degree cone. You could probably separate walls, tables, chairs, and humans with that, at least some of the time. It won't ever work very well. People have been fooling with those things since the 1980s. (The usual sonar sensors are left over from Polaroid auto-focus cameras. Very few robotics people have tried to do serious sonar processing, like submarines or bats.) You're just too information-starved. Vision, though...

    There's been much more progress in the last five years than most people realize, though. SLAM works now. Vision algorithms actually work. Low-cost inertial devices work. We're starting to see the payoff from the DARPA Grand Challenge, which gave robotics a serious and needed butt-kick.

    1. Re:Sounds exaggerated by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's been much more progress in the last five years than most people realize, though. SLAM works now. Vision algorithms actually work. Low-cost inertial devices work. We're starting to see the payoff from the DARPA Grand Challenge, which gave robotics a serious and needed butt-kick.

      In my humble opinion, the Darpa Grand Challenge, by offering a market to LIDAR makers, made vision-based SLAM a thing of the past and the under-budgeted : This beast has 64 laser telemeters on a rotating head. It gives a 100 000 3D points cloud of the environment 10 times per second. A working video slam seems to pale in comparison...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:Sounds exaggerated by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

      In my humble opinion, the Darpa Grand Challenge, by offering a market to LIDAR makers, made vision-based SLAM a thing of the past and the under-budgeted.

      That's what many of us with Grand Challenge entries once thought. Even Sebastian Thrun once thought that. But, in fact, the winning 2005 Stanford "Stanley" vehicle was running mostly on vision. Above 25MPH it was out-driving its LIDAR range. The vision system wasn't doing SLAM, though. It was comparing the road further ahead with the near road. If they "looked the same" (the machine learning system for making that judgment was the breakthrough) and the LIDARs profiled the near road as flat, then the vehicle could drive faster than it could stop within the LIDAR range.

      For the Urban Challenge, LIDAR units were more useful, because the speeds were slower and the environment more cluttered. But see the current issue of IEEE Trans. on Robotics, the special issue on SLAM, to see how much progress has been made. It's useful to use a camera and a limited LIDAR together with a SLAM algorithm; the vision system brings in more data and the LIDAR has less ambiguity.

      The Velodyne thing (which is a better-built version of the Team Dad spinning LIDARs of 2005) is a good device, but too big, too expensive, and has too much rotating machinery for a production product. I've met its designers and seen the thing. The next step will probably involve either flash LIDAR or MEMS mirrors. Eye-safe flash LIDAR is a reality, and if produced in volume, it wouldn't be that expensive. It's expensive now only because it needs custom ICs.

      An affordable little non-scanning 3D LIDAR for indoor use would be useful. There's the Swiss Ranger, the first device that qualifies. This is a true 3D time of flight sensor with no moving parts and 176x144 pixels. It's been around for about five years as a custom research item, but it's now being sold as a product by Acroname for $7500. The price needs to drop by an order of magnitude or two, which is quite possible.

  8. Ah, Foreign Policy! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

    He'll have to figure it all out on his own, using a basic knowledge of bars and beers and so on, reasoning skills and an ability to understand certain parts of the world.

    This strategy seemed to work very well for George W. Bush.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  9. Beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unless it can swim to Europe Hows it going to obey a command to fetch a REAL beer?

  10. Denning Mobile Robotics in the '80s by mlwmohawk · · Score: 3, Informative

    At Denning we had a mobile robot security guard. It could roam a factory or warehouse looking for intruders. it had sonar, radar, and other things.

    Notifying people of appointments, delivering small objects, and serving drinks is not only possible, it is probably the easiest set of tasks that you can do.

    I have a project on-line that allows you to build a basic robot for $500. It has PWM motor control and basic tips on building the base. It uses a PS/2 mouse to do wheel encoders. (cheap) and using a USB A-D/D-A board to control stuff. (I won't give the URL for fear of slashdotting my server.)

    So, my two points: 1) It is possible they are doing what they say they can do. 2) Its fairly trivial if you have the time to waste.

    1. Re:Denning Mobile Robotics in the '80s by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have a project on-line that allows you to build a basic robot for $500. It has PWM motor control and basic tips on building the base. It uses a PS/2 mouse to do wheel encoders. (cheap) and using a USB A-D/D-A board to control stuff.

      I am a current user of your software, I found your site when looking for a way to implement wheel encoders for my robot. It has been extremely useful to me.

      For the I/O hardware on my robot, I have implemented drivers for both a Pontech SV203 and Arduino Diecimila board. I also wrote an encoder driver to use the Linux event interface rather than the ps2 interface so I could use a USB mouse encoder. On top of your software I have written a Player driver to allow me to use the robot within their framework, opening up a massive amount of new high-level functions for the robot.

      I just wanted to thank you for making your software freely available, it has helped me transform my robot from nothing to something that can localize, navigate and avoid obstacles. It has done real work sanding my deck and vacuuming my floor, now if I can only get a snowblower attachment going I will be set.

      --

      Enigma

  11. Interesting by Yogiz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I for one, really like the way they decided to proceed when making this robot. It works by a healthy mix of abstracting and trial and error.

    Let's take the wooden chair, that is used as an example in TFA. As far as I understand it, learning about it and using this information for the robot goes like this.

    They put the robot in front of the chair and let it use it's sonars on it from different angles and distances. I imagine that in the case of a typical wooden chair with a back it sees four points for the legs and a line for the back. At least I believe that it abstracts it as such. For the first time it will be input to it that the thing it sees is a wooden chair and it knows that all things that have four points about so far from each other in a squared manner and have a line above two of the side points can be regarded as a wooden chair. If it sees another chair made of metal without the back for example, it might consider that to be a wooden chair as well because it's similar enough and in that case the makers correct it's assumption and say it's a metal chair. Sure, it will start to think that all the chairs without the back are metal chairs, but if that's the case in their home, so what, it's right. If it understands anything wrong enough that it fails at its task it can always be corrected and its knowledge about the world as it sees it will increase. Now when performing tasks it can treat the chair as an abstract object, now that it can recognize it. It can memorize where it stands, it can learn to avoid it or push it or whatever, as long as humans correct its assumptions and choices. Now these abstractions could be abstracted even further. The idea is to let it do very simple things and then combine them into larger tasks, much like programmers think about and solve programming problems: If you want to solve a large problem and you don't know how to, you break it into smaller pieces until you get a piece, that is simple enough to be solved. You solve it and see the next piece. Then you combine the solutions to a solution to the bigger problem and you finally end up with the first and biggest problem getting solved. This robot 'learns' the exact opposite way.

    It seems to me that the biggest concern in this case is abstracting the objects it 'sees' into such a form, that they take minimal memory but can still be used in the recognition process.

    That came out as ranting. I have no knowledge in the subject and have no idea what I'm talking about but that should make this a good enough Slashdot comment.

  12. Basil?! by whopub · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope it isn't fawlty...

  13. I can see it now... by Chemisor · · Score: 2, Funny

    Go east, to a place called Klamath. K-l-a-m-a-t-h. Find Vic. V-i-c. Ask for beer. B-e-e-r. *sigh* You are the chosen one. Find the beer. Be our salvation.

  14. wants_beer = 1 by jamesh · · Score: 2, Funny

    And he knows that, in this case, that person wants a beer.

    That's a simple algorithm:

    if (object == person)
        wants_beer = 1;

    Sure there is going to be some margin of error in that algorithm, but it's going to be right most of the time.

  15. NOOOOT FAAAAAKE! by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think there's anyway to distinguish what sort've material an object is made of with just sound.

    Modern military-grade sonar can EASILY tell materials just by the sound quality bounceback. So can whales, dolphins, bats and pretty much any creature with ears, including humans.

    Try this: Walk into an empty room with sheetrock walls and a wood floor and clap your hands. Now do it in a similar room with a tile floor and wood paneling on the walls. Now an all-concrete cinderblock room. You will notice that, even though the source sound is the same (your hands clapping) the return sound has a different quality in each room. However, the sound quality in a single room will always be the same, regardless of the number of claps you make.

    Now try it blindfolded, and see if you can differentiate the rooms. You will be able to, unless you are hearing-impaired in some manner.

    It's the same principle with the robot. Once taught about an item, it can continue to identify the item even though it can't "see" it.

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  16. Wouldn't it be more like... by dlaudel · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wouldn't it be more like "sudo get me a beer"?

  17. Semantic Tags by jgunders · · Score: 2, Informative
    Yes, 'wooden-chair' is a label. When the robot is mapping from the sensor domain to the semantic the result of the recognition is the label. So any label would do. Once the semantic tag is selected, along with the position and pose of the object, it is added to the 'mental model'; the robot keeps track of the things that it has identified, and where they are. If Basil stopped here, as you said, any label would do.

    However, when the robot is given a goal ("deliver tea to the conference-table-area") the mental model is used to generate a symbolic representation of the world-as-it-is, along with the representation of the world-as-it-is-desired. At this point, the tag "wooden-chair" is used to extract information from the semantic memory (an ontology of facts and behaviors) and the linkages in the ontology allow Basil to reason about chairs with respect to the current goal. So he knows that chairs are generally stationary - they stay put, as opposed to people who move on their own; he knows that wheeled-chairs can be pushed out of the way, but the wooden-chairs can't, and that people can be asked to move, but chairs can't.

    So at this point the label begins to be less arbitrary since it is now embedded in a complex knowledge structure. If we gave the chair the label 'battleship' (and if we had information about battleships in the ontology), Basil would generate different behaviors with respect to the object.

    The classification scheme is fairly simple - primarily because his sensor modalities are thin. He builds a set of representations (classic pattern based templates) and uses these for both recognition and preafference (projecting what the world should look like).

    When he is learning a new object, he checks to see if the patterns are mutually exclusive or if two or more objects can be classified from the same sensor data. If there is no way to distinguish between two classes, he reports both as possibles. These get loaded into the mental model and as he gets more views of the object the winnows down the possibilities.

    So he is using multiple time and space separated views and 'thing constancy' as a principle to help him classify. There is a whole lot more detail in our book.

    Basil is designed to learn from his experiences. He maintains a complete episodic memory at present. The task for the next year is to enable him to analyze these memories and generate new sensor representations, to subdivide existing representations, and to add new facts to his semantic memory. The tools that we will use will be a mix of standard machine learning techniques along with a technique that Louise developed for environments where not all features are salient to the classification.

    Jim Jim