Slashdot Mirror
The Changing Face of Robotics
An anonymous reader writes "Using sensors to interface socially, the next generation of robots may not fit the classic idea of what a robot should be. Glen Martin writes: 'Equipped with two articulated arms, it can perform a multitude of tasks. It requires no application code to start up, and no expensive software to function. No specialists are required to program it; workers with minimal technical background can "teach" the robot right on the production line through a graphical user interface and arm manipulation.'"
Cool. I love the idea of virtually zero employment thanks to ubiquitous robots.
Wonder how that's going to work out...no workers means no one collects a paycheck. Only a few people will own all the resources. So what...the government gives the people a stipend? And we spend it on whatever the robots make? Or do we just cut out the middle man, hand the robots over to the people through government proxies, and make whatever we want?
Man, I would say in the long run, capitalism doesn't have much of a future.
It's a shit summary of a shit story which is old news to start with. Basically they're just saying that they will deliver you a "generic" robot which has no specifically pre-programmed tasks. Instead of paying someone to write a custom program to (for example) weld a joint, the worker uses a GUI and manual manipulation of the actuators to "teach" the software the task you want it to perform.
This idiot also makes a bunch of really off-base assumptions about what a robot is "supposed to be", and ignores most of the bulk of science fiction in order to come up with the claim that this is somehow "unusual".
FTA: It turns out it would've been real handy to have some trained in emergency procedures at the Fukushima Plant.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The 2012 interview was more informative:
" Indeed. We don't mean "common sense" from a Marvin Minsky-like strong AI perspective. Baxter's "execution" application consists of a series of behavior-based systems. During "training," the robot detects task-relevant features and uses it to build up the behavior based system.
For example, let's say a user is training the robot for a pick and place task. During the "pick" phase, a user places the gripper above an object and closes the gripper. The force on the gripper is detected by the robot. Our "training" application detects this sequence as "the robot is grasping an object"... so during "execution", Baxter won't proceed unless it actually detects an object in the robots gripper. Thus, if the object fell out, it would stop (or do something else). This is different from how existing industrial robots work -- they'd just merrily continue the pick-and-place without the object.
Collectively, these "behavior primitives" are assigned and composed, ie. "learned", during "training" by having non-technical users directly manipulate the robot rather than programming it (which is also possible for those inclined). This gives the robot an air of common sense."
This is useful, but not that intelligent. Take a look at these PR videos to see what it can do. Basically, it can pack and unpack things, and move them from one place to another. It's not good enough to assemble much of anything. Plugging in connectors to assemble a phone? Not with this machine and software.