Slashdot Mirror
Boston Dynamics Wildcat Can Gallop — No Strings Attached
Boston Dynamics has been making eye-catching (and sort of creepy) military-oriented robots for several years, and we've noted several times the Big Dog utility robot. The newest creation is the untethered, gas-powered Wildcat; this is definitely not something I want chasing after me. (Not as fast as the previous, tethered version — yet.)
Kinda reminds me of my ex, actually. Fast, noisy, high maintenance.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
We already have things that do this very well, that are faster, much more intelligent, quieter, less clumsy on their feet, and require far less energy to run for much longer periods of time - horses.
Now, don't get me wrong, I understand the whole "this is cool" aspect. But the only conceivable use for this project is as a drone weapons platform, presumably becoming autonomous as technology advances.
So whenever I read about things like this, my initial reaction is "what are they thinking?" followed by abject disgust for anyone involved in the project.
Why not just use a horse? Costs less, more reliable, powered by renewable resources ... the horse.
In that it is very loud.
I know that it is for in use in a battlefield or emergency situation, but still.
Ah, the day when battery tech catches up to things like oils, and even surpasses it. It will be glorious indeed.
All these things always remind me of Metal Gear Solid.
How long before those massive bipedal robots?
There is already this one on the other side of that research, DARPA made this wonderful thing the other year.
great to recreate a horse ... but engineering is NOT bound by natural selection ... why not innovate? perhaps it's a fundamental issue with how engineers think?
...really smart people creating things - "war machines" to be blunt - that will wind up killing someone on some battlefield somewhere (probably the Middle East and North Africa). If BD were creating robotic devices for peaceful purposes - a "dog" for the blind, a robot that can do some old lady's shopping for her - then I would be applauding the effort/brilliance on display here. But building clever war machines? Sorry, but this isn't something intelligent, conscientious people would even dream of working on. So its "boo combat robots" for Boston Dynamics from me, rather than "yay cool robots"... My 2 Cents. Feel free to disagree...
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Looks scary -- but at least you'd hear it coming.
Obey the government or they'll set one of these on you.
I wouldn't want it chasing after me either - I would probably die from laughter.
Signature intentionally left blank.
Call me when it's powered by unobtainium and shoots lasers from its eyes and energy bolts from its tail.
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
this is definitely not something I want chasing after me.
Don't worry - once it's out to get you, they'll strap an automatic rifle onto it's back, so you have time to run (much). Those robots must be expensive, they can't afford to risk breaking them in a collision with their target.
Every time I look at their devices it strikes me that they are getting closer to looking like a real animal, but aren't there yet.
Also, why do the knees face the same direction unlike every other quadruped (horse) for example?
Horses were better than early cars. So they shouldn't have developed cars?
I could see advanced legged robots being useful in search & rescue in rough terrain, unexploded ordinance disposal (think IEDs), and several other applications. I'd like to take some of this company's robots and engineers out to our training area, Disaster City.
I for one welcome our military petrol-powered gigantic robot flea overlords.
A latent existence
...in a creepy sort of way.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I would argue that developing forms of robotics for the battlefield (autonomous or not) has a huge potential to reduce hostility. Decision making on the battlefield in person has to take into consideration enemies, civilians and friendlies, and a naturally increased hostility is present due to the personal risk involved. With robots you can forget about the personal risk forget about friendlies and concentrate on separating civilians from hostiles, it makes combat one dimension simpler.
Also robots can be sent into situations that would be suicidal, plain immoral, or not physically possible for human soldiers... go down this street with enemies hiding amongst civilians and don't shoot until you get really close because your more likely to kill a civilian, that's not really a situation you can send a human into successfully without ether huge risk to civilians or a huge risk to friendlies.
It's a sharp tool that can be used far more accurately than a blunt one such as a bomb. Something that is likely to stop stupid military decisions like preemptive strikes with massive civilian casualties, because there is another option.
I'm not saying i trust the hands of whoever these tools end up in, but the potential for good is as great as the potential for bad as with most technology.
Can we please try to make the content behind the links more transparent in the future? I'd like to know which one is the new story without having to scan through them all.
Is that where Slashdot gets all it's 'news' from?
I'm surprised by people who see this and immediately think terminators and war machines. Why is it that when I saw this I thought "land transport". I imagine one of those things carrying me from home to work every day, assuming I'm sitting in an actuated capsule that compensates for the galloping. Until some issues are figured out, electric cars and high-speed rail will do the trick, but I think this is the future for land transport. Unlike electric cars these babies can JUMP at crossings thus eliminating the need to slow down or stop.
It is designed closer to a Sheep and even runs like sheep do. I really would like to see them make one like a cat that can run, crouch and leap like a cat can. then we will have something that is fearsome.
Imagine that thing leaping a 60 foot ditch at you.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
People are scared of this mechanical attempt at an animal?
Why, it's easily defeated if it were to become an operational weapons system.
Let me count the ways:
Pit trap
Noose/snare trap
Dead fall trap
Net trap
Poles run between the "legs"
Easy, because it has limited mobility in most directions except forward and backward.
Nothing to fear here, move along to the next false fear.
Maybe true for one, but not for a family.
Oops, forgot this was Slashdot. Few families here.
Does running the dryer once a day keep you warm in that basement?
I really would like to see them make one like a cat that can run, crouch and leap like a cat can. then we will have something that is fearsome.
That requires a different approach to control than the one they're using. All the Boston Dynamics quadruped robots start up by trotting in place, then extending the stride.
"Because the robot is loyal to whomever sets it up, one rogue billionaire can buy up a robot army and conquer his choice of any number of banana republics that he wants. ... So a single man to conquer a nation wouldn't be unheard of. In fact no one might even know who is the man who conquered their country."
Good points in theory Something related I created:
"The richest man in the world: A parable about robotics, abundance, technological change, unemployment, happiness, and a basic income.":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p14bAe6AzhA
I met Mark Raibert in the mid-1980s while hanging out at CMU when he was just getting going with robots that hopped on one leg. He's come along way the past quarter century. Much of the robotics work at CMU then (as probably now) was funded by the military. I've been thinking about these sorts of social and economic aspects of robotics ever since. See my website for more related ideas.
BTW, in practice, as was noted by someone else in a comment to another story a week or so ago, it is far easier to design robots that kill all humans (like based on heat signature and shape) than to design robots that distinguish some humans from others.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"I'd like to take some of this company's robots and engineers out to our training area, Disaster City."
Which Disaster City? There's quite a few just in the USA alone.
1 high speed collision with the F350 = robot scrap.
Game over.
Huh...
They invented the rat thing.
Though admittedly a huge, noisy, much slower and significantly less radioactive rat thing.
Still though...
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
TEEX, Texas Engineering Extension Service.
When you tug on its winky...(Oooooh that's dirty!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjjuc5v5RoQ
Please realize that in the real world there are real people who really want to kill you. If they could, they would roll right into America, claim all its land and natural resources as their own, and kill anyone and everyone who inconveniences them.
If this were not the case, things would be different. But this is the case. There are real threats in the world, and they require real defenses. In order for the defenses to be effective, they must be able to efficiently utilize lethal force.
If you disagree with that, on any grounds, then you are simply daft.
If you don't have a problem with human military force, then I will ask you, what is your problem with maximizing the safety of our own soldiers? It is noble of them to put their lives on the line to protect ours.....but if we can build machines which they can operate from a safe distance away, don't we owe it to them to do this? What sense does it make for us to demand that our family members march right into an active battle when they could send a remote-controlled force instead? If you think there is some moral obligation to put ourselves at greater risk than necessary, you are insane.
I will concede that killer robots represent a technology that could be abused. *EVERY* technology can be abused. Potential abuse is not in-and-of-itself an argument for squelching it. Potential abuse (of any technology, including living, breathing, obedient soldiers), is an argument for transparency and accountability. And, a very strong one at that. But it is NOT an argument for the rejection of otherwise useful and effective technologies.
Lastly, if your country doesn't develop these things, eventually someone else will. Are you sure you want to be at a disadvantage like that?
Seriously. Get real.
Sheesh, that is a project I could recreate in a couple weeks. There is nothing special about it other than the fact that they actually implemented it (other engineers are too stupid I guess).
It's not even that great, it's "engineer" quality software running on that thing.
I really need to start my own robotics company.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=fahrenheit+451+hound
It's the onboard shield generators!
This clip totally needs the Six Million Dollar Men theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chPanW0QWhA#t=52
The scene where the thing gets up, reminds me of "We'll build our own tripods. Ours will have four legs".
They will have to work on the sound, though.
Their big problem is the energy source. Internal combustion engines are just so 20th century.
Actually, they would have a big problem -- namely, abysmal energy density -- if they switched from internal combustion to batteries. The technology that best meets the mission requirements is the technology that should be used. Let's not have prejudices against the best-performing technology, simply because it also performed well in the 20th century.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.