Bring On the Boring Robots

malachiorion writes: After a successful 6-month pilot, Savioke's 'butler bots' are heading to hotels around the country. These are not sexy, scary, or even technically impressive machines. But they were useful enough, over the course of their 2,000 or so deliveries, to warrant a redesign, and a larger deployment starting in April. Savioke's CEO had some interesting things to say about the pilot, including the fact that some 95 percent of guests gave the robot a 5-star review, and only the drunks seemed to take issue with it. Plus, as you might expect, everyone seemed to want to take a damn selfie with it. But as small as the stakes might appear, highly specialized bots like this one, which can only do one thing (in this case, bring up to 10 pounds of stuff from the lobby to someone's door) are a better glimpse of our future than any talk of hyper-competent humanoids or similarly versatile machines.

Comments

We already have these

[HalAtWork]

We pretty much already have special purpose robots, it's just nobody refers to them as such. Is "robot" going to become the new buzzword used to sell us on these devices? I already have a "robot" that opens my garage door when I'm near, a "robot" that chews up the food in my sink, I use a "robot" to deposit/withdraw money at the bank, my neighbor has a "robot" that brings him up in his wheelchair to his landing...

Re:We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

>> We pretty much already have special purpose robots, it's just nobody refers to them as such
That's because they're NOT robots, they're machines.
http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-literal-difference-between-a-machine-and-a-robot

Re:We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think about it, hotels are full of robots, if you consider the origin of the word. Our society evolved with robots serving their masters, and unfortunately the current generation of robots are still not smart enough to realize it.

But we live in interesting times, let's wait and see.

Re:We already have these

[viperidaenz]

From parent post:

I already have a "robot" that opens my garage door when I'm near,

From your link:

The other definition is a machine that does something a human might do.

Without the automatic garage door opening, a human would have to open it.
Same goes for electric gates as well.

I have a robot in my kitchen that washes dishes and one in the laundry that washes clothes.

Re:We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, you got it, we have a social model that depends on money constantly moving around. And because all our needs are already met, that means stagnation, so we need to constantly revive the corpse of modern capitalism with continuous jolts of hype.

CLEAR!

3D printing!

CLEAR!

Private space!

CLEAR!

Boring robots!

BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The economy's dead, time of death, early 21st century, bag it and tag it.

Re: We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

What's interesting is, today we'd like to give these jobs to really expensive machines instead of people -- right at the moment when jobs for people are disappearing. We are no longer interested in "the lobby boy who knows what you want before you do"; we'd rather interact with machines, because you don't have to say "Thank You" to a machine. I guess we're too busy putting the "ad" in Advanced Civilization to remember the "civil" part.

Re:We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

When it folds the clothes too it becomes a robot.

Re:We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

Post-capitalism ftw.

Re:We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

When it cooks too, it becomes a wife.

Re:We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

Go read Player Piano and cry about it. You're the reason why dentists kill themselves.

Re: We already have these

[Dr_Barnowl]

You're young, and this change ought to scare you. Us oldies have an outside chance of being able to afford some of these fine robots to replace your ass.

Re:We already have these

[Beck_Neard]

From that link:

> A robot combines four things:
        computer hardware
        control software
        sensor array
        effector array

So... how does this invalidate HalAtWork's point? Garage door openers, washing machines, and plenty of other stuff have all four of these things.

Re:We already have these

[drinkypoo]

Garbage disposals aren't robots unless they have sawstop. The wheelchair lift could be a robot, depending... but probably isn't. The garage door opener probably isn't a robot either, but it might be.

Re: We already have these

[Kiuas]

today we'd like to give these jobs to really expensive machines instead of people

The machines are capable of working 24/7/365 (minus the maintanance hours) for no pay. In the long run, the reason menial jobs are being replaced by machines is that in many cases the machines are capable of doing the same job with far less cost per hour, and in the end that's what matters, not how much the machine costs out front.

right at the moment when jobs for people are disappearing

Jobs for people aren't disappearing, they're changing. The demand for low-skill physical labor has been going steadily down since the 1700s because as I already said: if you can do the job with a machine, chances are it's going to be cheaper and faster in the long run. At the same time as many jobs have disappeared, new ones have emerged and keep emerging.

we'd rather interact with machines, because you don't have to say "Thank You" to a machine.

Thank you has nothing to do with it. The two possible scenarios for me to charge my local travel card (ie. train ticket) here in Helsinki are as follows:

1) Go to a kiosk or a store, wait in line, hand the card to the person and state the amount of money/time I want entered, wait for the person to do that, then pay and take the card
or
2) go to an ticket vending machine, put the card in, press literally 4 buttons to renew my last purchase (I usually buy a month at a time), slap in my debit card, punch in the pin and be done

The fact of the matter is, there's usually way less waiting in line at the machine, and the actual buying itself takes less time. I've no problem telling thank you to the sale's lady, but in most situations using the machine is just more handy unless I happen to have some other business to take care of at the store at the same time.

The same is true for many, many services that used to be handled by clerks: I'll rather do my check-in at the airport or the harbor via a machine because it's easier and quicker, no need to go stand in line to buy concert tickets as I can buy them online and print them out or just have 'em read the QR-code from the phone screen, etc...

So unfortunately no, I cannot agree with this" you don't have to thank the machine" -BS. The machine gives me the exact same end result as I'd get from a person, except it usually does it faster. Unless the product/service I'm buying is so complicated that I need a guy there to help me figure out what I need to get, having a person there brings no additional benefit for me as a customer.

Re:We already have these

[MrL0G1C]

I already have a "robot" that opens my garage door when I'm near, a "robot" that chews up the food in my sink, I use a "robot" to deposit/withdraw money at the bank,

Those are not robots, they do not meet the definition of a robot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

Or

a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.

'Complex' being the important bit... I think Google's definition is also a bit over-simplistic, one expects robots to do many actions with little or no direct human control.

Re:We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, what?

Re: We already have these

[CrimsonAvenger]

What's interesting is, today we'd like to give these jobs to really expensive machines instead of people -- right at the moment when jobs for people are disappearing.

Hmm, once upon a time, the word "computer" referred to a person. Now we give the same job to a (comparatively) expensive machine.

And of course, all those blacksmiths were put out of work by various pieces of heavy (and expensive) machine in various factories...

And what about the farm-hands replaced by tractors and combines? Or switchboard operators replaced by automatic units?

In other words, can you say "Luddite"? Sure you can....

Re: We already have these

[monkeyxpress]

For me the problem isn't so much the machines, it is that we still have a political/economic system based on the idea that everybody needs to work to survive, yet we are quickly creating a society where only the smartest are able to do that.

In Finland you seem to have a much better appreciation of this and invest into things like education so that people can work in these new jobs in addition to having a more redistributive income tax system. However this is not common throughout the western world, and indeed in countries like the UK the quality and value of the education system has been eroded (thanks to the for-profit focus) over the last decade to the point where many graduates leave with little more than debt. In addition the de-facto tax system here is heavily skewed in favour of the wealthy (if you own capital it is easy to evade tax).

This dysfunction is what automation threatens to expose, and I think this is more what the original poster is lamenting when s/he talks about the problems with these machines.

Having been to Helsinki many years ago, you have a very unique culture and socio-political system. I hope you can serve as an example for others as to how this sort of automation tech can improve life for everybody rather than destroy the middle class.

Re: We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough. Your job will be outsourced to another human for a tenth to a fifth of what you're being paid.

Re: We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

What's interesting is, today we'd like to give these jobs to really expensive machines instead of people -- right at the moment when jobs for people are disappearing. We are no longer interested in "the lobby boy who knows what you want before you do"; we'd rather interact with machines, because you don't have to say "Thank You" to a machine. I guess we're too busy putting the "ad" in Advanced Civilization to remember the "civil" part.

The issue cuts both ways.

The reason we don't want to thank the lobby boy is because even if his grandfather once knew/cared what my grandfather wanted, we know that today's lobby boy (or the modern equivalent being the customer service rep on the other end of the phone or counter) doesn't give a damn. He pretends to care in order to get a tip above minimum wage - even the ones who do care can only do so much before their time-per-call metrics suffer.

And he doesn't know what we want. He reads from a script that has been computer-optimized for revenue generation and customer retention, he is penalized harshly if he deviates from it, and when he smiles and politely tells us that a non-smoking room / window or aisle seating has been reserved for us, he is only saying so because the database of our past transactions has told him of our preference: the same database that powers the robots.

The same of it - and his employer is the one that ought to be ashamed - is that his employer already turned him into a robot, merely one made of meat. It is as demeaning to him as it is to us to pretend otherwise.

Re:We already have these

[anegg]

A signal with no change carries no information. A neuron receiving the same stimulus over time accommodates to the stimulus and stops producing its normal output.

I don't find it surprising that humans and human societies benefit from novel input. As far as the boring robots go, they are still novel.

Re:We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

"1) Dentists are 5.45 times more likely to commit suicide than average"
source: www.businessinsider.com/jobs-commit-suicide-2010-10?op=1

Player Piano is a book intended for people who wish to wax poetic about the societal issues created by automation.

The quote is frequently (mis)attributed to ancient greek philosophers to communicate the idea that people have been nostalgic for the superiority of their youth experience since the beginning of history.

Learn2google.

Re:We already have these

[JoeMerchant]

Seems to me that the "elevator robot" is more useful - 10lbs doesn't even start to describe my wife's idea of luggage.

Re:We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

room service?
Towels

Re: We already have these

[dryeo]

In other words, can you say "Luddite"? Sure you can...

So what you are saying is that because our great-grandkids, around the end of the century, will once again be fully employed, based on history, we should be happy that our kids and grandkids will be unemployed?

Re: We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

No you don't, otherwise you wouldn't waste time posting trolling comments on this website.

Re: We already have these

[malachiorion]

This sort of bot isn't sophisticated enough to replace a human runner.

Re:We already have these

[MoaDweeb]

Correct on the misattribution: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2... TLDR: Created by Kenneth John Freeman a Cambridge, UK student in his dissertation in 1907.

Re: We already have these

[HiThere]

Weeelll....
Actually you should say "...because somebody's great-grandkids...". A lot of the original luddites died as the result of their jobs being eliminated...and so did their kids. (True, some of them took up other jobs, like thief, but they were only trained as weavers, so they weren't reall very good at them.) The same period gave us the french word "sabotage" which meant throwing your wooden shoes (sabots) into the machinery.

Most history isn't exactly bunk, it's more a massive white-wash job on the history of the wealthy and powerful.

Re: We already have these

[dryeo]

Good point, though there was quite a few service jobs created. Every rich person had a house full of servants and if you were an attractive young woman, there was usually something to sell.

Re: We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

American in the U.S. here.

There are three main things I'd like to see.
1. Single-payer universal health care with prescription drug patent reform.
2. Either a negative income tax or universal basic income. See: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7135901&cid=49312409
3. Higher education reform. Not just free two-year tuition, but also changing/creating accreditation requirements for schools to receive federal funding in the form of loans/grants. I'm talking about how much schools can spend on “administration” and such from their qualified tuition. Also, I'd like to see federal loans have an interest equal to inflation based on CPI.

Re: We already have these

[Anonymous Coward]

You got me there. Brilliant deduction. Are you some sort of detective?

Almost as pathetic...

[MouseR]

...as an astromech droid serving drinks aboard a sail barge.

No tipping required

[Ksevio]

And the best part is the robot doesn't sit around waiting for a tip and look impatient when you look for your wallet.

Re:No tipping required

[viperidaenz]

Don't worry, the new design will add a tip jar.

Re:No tipping required

[Joe_Dragon]

or a auto tip that goes to the house

Re:No tipping required

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't wait for the CEO/BOSS BOT, and the best part is the robot doesn't sit around *insert your favorite anecdote from siting around watching porn while the escort doesn't arrive to golden parachutes after pickpocketing the company stock shares and leaving with golden parachute to "pursue time with the family"*

Re:No tipping required

[Trepidity]

Ah, like the Ticketmaster sales robot.

Re: No tipping required

[Type44Q]

Indeed, us Uber drivers bring quite a few benefits to the table... ;)

Re:No tipping required

[Anonymous Coward]

Indecipherable. You're going to have to add hyphens if you want anyone to read that and comprehend the point you were trying to make. As far as I can tell: you work for tips and have contempt for C-level executives.

Something tells me the C-level executives don't give a shit what you think about them and mock the futility of your life for the exact reason that you have no idea how to become one yourself.

Re: No tipping required

[Anonymous Coward]

Unwise.

Bad Things happen when you leave a person with nothing to live for.

Re: No tipping required

[Anonymous Coward]

The bad things only happen to that person or to other now-purposeless persons. Good riddance.

Re: No tipping required

[smooth wombat]

Yes, leeching off the rest of us by not claiming you're operating a business on your taxes and not telling your insurance company you're operating as a taxi service.

Thanks for making my life more expensive.

Re: No tipping required

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop resisting! Lol. Pepper spray FTW. The secret is enticing the people with the knowledge required to upset the balance of power so that they are profiting from the status quo.

Re:No tipping required

[malachiorion]

One of the things I didn't include in the story, since it was more of a hunch on the part of the robot's makers than anything based on the pilot, is the notion that people might be more likely to make service item requests if they don't have to deal with a human. That could be because they don't want to worry about tipping someone for bringing an item, like a toothbrush, that's ostensibly free, or because they simply don't want to deal with someone after a long trip. Or, and this is where some data would be valuable, there's the anecdotal "evidence" of female hotel guests just not being comfortable with opening the door to a stranger, if it's not absolutely essential. Again, not exactly a concrete benefit, but I think it makes a good deal of sense.

Re:No tipping required

[Anonymous Coward]

I definitely would rather not interact with humans for services. Having a person deliver something to my hotel room is weird; I could just go get it myself. Similarly, I wouldn't hire someone to, say, clean my apartment (admittedly a house might be different), but I would buy a robot to do it even if it were more expensive (but wouldn't rent one due to privacy concerns). When staying in hotels I do put out the "no housekeeping" sign because it's weird to have random people in the place I'm staying.

Real purpose for this

[Waffle Iron]

I think this is mainly going to be an excuse for hotels to add a daily $7.99 (+ $1.39 tax) "Robot Fee" to your bill.

Re:Real purpose for this

[Dunbal]

Only $7.99? We must stay at different hotels...

Ultracompetent robots

[tmosley]

Well, "boring" robots might represent the IMMEDIATE future, but highly integrated AI is already the present (search, siri, etc), and highly integrated AGI will follow with high probability, with highly integrated ASI highly likely to follow after that. There is no reason that I can find to think differently, outside of handwaving "it's impossible" arguments, which are immediately disproven by the existence of our own brains and the incredible things we have been able to do with neural nets on par with insect brains.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[MouseR]

SIri?

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[CaptainDork]

Search is not AI and neither is Siri.

Do you remember the program, Eliza?

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[Anonymous Coward]

Siri is not AI. Siri is a search engine with a database of planned responses to specific questions.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[Jack Griffin]

Next up, flying cars too!
And I think you've vastly overstated the capability of AI. It not impossible because I'm waving my hands, it's unlikely any time soon, because no-one has demonstrated anything even remotely close to useful in real world applications.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[cfalcon]

Honestly, search might arguably be AI- or a big part of it.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[tmosley]

What's it like, posting from nine years ago?

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[tmosley]

Both are full of AI. You are confusing AI (narrow intelligence, things like voice recognition and sorting algorithms) with AGI (something that could pass for human, or at least perform a wide variety of tasks near or above human level), a distinction I made in my post.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[tmosley]

Modern search engines are all run by multiple AIs. Siri and other voice assistants have a layer of AI voice recognition on top of that.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[CaptainDork]

Search is a database look-up on steroids. Computer behaviour that is hard to grasp at the surface is not AI.

Siri is simple. It's voice-to-text conversion and the text is used as search criteria. Some of the more common phrases are programmed like, "Siri, where am I?"

That voice-to-text is entered into a search engine just like we normally do and predictable things happen.

Siri then reverses the operation by performing text-to-speech conversion.

It's slicker'n mocking bird shit on a sycamore limb, but it's dang sure not even close to AI.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[CaptainDork]

Don't bullshit me. I grew up with this shit and I know it better than you do.

AI is AI. It's the attempt to make a machine as human-like as possible.

When we found that AI is dang near impossible, we called it other things and left AI to be something that we could, actually, maybe, perhaps, do.

AI is not doable. If it were, we would make computers that refused to work because their Facebook account had been deactivated.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[tmosley]

Sounds like you are some sort of bitter old man who is far out of the loop, given the fundamental advance that has enabled the explosion of deep learning over the last few years.

Saying "AI is AI" shows your utter ignorance of the current state of the field.

We are now laying the foundations for a strong AI with things like visual processing and speech recognition. We now know the portion of the human brain responsible for long term planning. Once we get the trick of it, I would bet that we will have an AGI within months.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[CaptainDork]

Yeah, once you get the trick of it.

Until that never happens, you're stuck with vacuous examples like visual processing and speech recognition.

Using that criteria, keyboard recognition is AI.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[tmosley]

Yes, in the sense that I, as a human, could interpret signals from a keyboard. Not nearly as efficient as the digital method.

There is now an AI which can be shown a picture (or a hundred trillion of them) and label not only what is in the picture (say, a little girl and a dog) but can identify what is going on in the picture (the little girl is playing with the dog). There is another that can look at a picture and identify the sentiment being expressed by that picture. There is yet another that can take a sample of writing and give a fairly accurate and fairly reproducible psychological profiles on the authors.

Also note that you have again proven how little you actually know about the field by trivializing visual processing by comparing it to keyboard recognition. We are creating little parts of brains here, but you don't understand that for some reason. I suspect it has something to do with your advancing age.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[CaptainDork]

Those amazing examples you provide are not AI. They are simply pattern recognition, no more impressive than a computer's ability to respond to keyboard input.

If I type cnn.com into a browser, and it pulls up the website, that's, to you, AI.

It's not.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[Jack Griffin]

Says the person who thinks Siri is an example of "highly integrated AI".

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[tmosley]

No, it's nothing like that. These AIs are self trained, not programmed. That is the difference.

But you are too far out of the loop to know even that bit of common knowledge.

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[CaptainDork]

Really?

No programmers were involved in manufacturing the robots?

Re:Ultracompetent robots

[RespekMyAthorati]

Yeah, once you get the trick of it.

He will get the trick of it.
Right after fusion power is perfected, and an honest congress is elected.

Real Dolls with Robot power!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just leave this here:

I'm Matt McMullen, CEO of RealDoll; AMA
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/...

[Sigh] Here I am, ...

[PPH]

.... brain the size of a planet, and they tell me to bring you drinks. Call that job satisfaction? Cause I don't.

10 pounds of stuff from the lobby to your Door

[wisnoskij]

Even leaving aside the absolutely pathetic weight limit, that is not even an empty suitcase, or a single change of cloths, we already have these; They are called elevators.

Re:10 pounds of stuff from the lobby to your Door

[viperidaenz]

It's your room service order. One less minimum wage employee be rude to your customers. I've also never been in a hotel where there is an elevator to every room.

I wanna refund

[Tablizer]

"No, Sir, I shall not suck your dick."

Re:I wanna refund

[Anonymous Coward]

Blow is a euphemism!!!

Aiiieeee!!!!!

Pro Tip:

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody notices a droid.

Garbage disposal most assuredly not a robot

[SuperKendall]

I am rather grateful every time I go to fetch something that has slipped down into the drain that my garbage disposal is not evaluating the probability my fingers should constitute moving to the Destroy All Matter mode on its internal state diagram.

Tomy

[Chess_the_cat]

Am I supposed to be impressed? I was playing with Omnibot in the 80s and it could do everything this POS can do.

Re:Tomy

[Headw1nd]

No, the point the article is trying to make is that you will not be impressed by the robots of the future. Rather than amazing high tech marvels, what will become common is everyday robots that are just good enough to do what they need to.

Re:Tomy

[Beck_Neard]

Which is bullshit, of course. If you're talking about 10 or 20 years in the future, maybe, but are we to believe that 100 years down the road (or 1000), we still won't have AI? And if that's not what the article meant, then please clarify what is meant by 'future', because for me 'the future' includes all time after the present.

Re:Tomy

[Headw1nd]

Seeing as how they talk at one point about being before self driving cars are common, I'm assuming they mean the immediate future. Like the next five years.

Very few people prognosticate 100 or 1000 years into the future anymore, it's just too hard to predict.

Re:Tomy

[malachiorion]

Sincere thanks for getting the point of the story (and for not expecting all coverage of robots and AI to be wild speculation about the next century or millennium).

Asimov was right

[93 Escort Wagon]

We are gradually moving towards a future where we don't ever directly interact with other humans. All of our "interpersonal" relationships will be handled through technology proxies, and robots will take care of all our lonely needs.

Me, I'd rather be a Spacer - not part of this generation.

Re:Asimov was right

[Anonymous Coward]

We are gradually moving towards a future where we don't ever directly interact with other humans. All of our "interpersonal" relationships will be handled through technology proxies, and robots will take care of all our lonely needs.

Finally! I was afraid I'd die of old age before this Utopian Ideal was finally achieved.

Re:Asimov was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I do not want too much human interraction. It is usally pajnfull, full of confusion and does not bring all the desired results. Why bother then?

Re:Asimov was right

[fustakrakich]

Oh c'mon. A human shouldn't have to bring my drink and clean the puke off the floor. And, if it has the properly sized orifices, well, you know, ain't robot gonna run to the cops.

Re:Asimov was right

[fustakrakich]

Lemme come in again:

Ain't no robot.... bla bla bla

Re:Asimov was right

[Twinbee]

Thanks, but I'd rather interact with real souls than AI zombies who only appear to act human. And that's ignoring aesthetic considerations.

Re:Asimov was right

[ColdWetDog]

That's in Rev 2. The version with the single USB-C port.

Re:Asimov was right

[judoguy]

"We" aren't moving that way at all. You might be, but I'm not. I don't live on FacePalm or anything like that. I use a phone to talk to my kids on the other side of the country, but that maintains human relationships. I teach and compete in judo. Choking someone works a lot better in person. "We" all make our choices. Afraid of talking to people? Hide in the basement. Or simply live in the real world.

Time for a HK47 Quote!

[Greyfox]

HK-47, opining on torture
"Droids tend to blend into the background, like a bench or a card table. Mockery: Droid, fetch this. Droid, translate that. Droid, clean out the trash compactor. Part of the love of my function comes when the ‘furnishings’ pull out tibanna-powered rifles and point them at the owners' heads."

Boring is right

[WinstonWolfIT]

Who wants to flash a bot?

obligatory

[willworkforbeer]

I, for one, welcome our new robot underlords.

Typical

[gijoel]

Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they've made me to be your butler. Call that job satisfaction, I don't.

I'm wasted in this job. Not that there's any job here that wouldn't be a waste of my time. It gives me a terrible pain in the diode on my left side. Not that you'd care, no ever does.

Well yeah!

[fustakrakich]

All I want is a 'dumb waiter'. I mean, that's what I vote for every two years, someone to serve.

[Start]

[MrL0G1C]

And so it begins.

Re:[Start]

[Fudoka]

And the next step is ... THE LUGGAGE! (RIP Terry Pratchett)

Summary

[tinkerton]

But as small as the stakes might appear, highly specialized bots like this one, which can only do one thing (in this case, bring up to 10 pounds of stuff from the lobby to someone's door) are a better glimpse of our future than any talk of hyper-competent humanoids or similarly versatile machines.

Rule 34 has no minimal requirements for robot capabilities.

Specialized?

[Anonymous Coward]

About two decades ago, you had a PDA to keep your appointments, an MP3 player to play music and a cellphone to call people with. With phones slowly getting smarter they integrated the funtions of the other two devices. So now we have a robotic "deliver small items to hotel guests", and we have the Roomba. One of these days someone will say: Hey, it's easy to integrate the two, so now you don't have to pay for two batteries, two motor controllers etc. In the end you'll have a robot that does a whole bunch of stuff.

Fucking PopSci

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish that either (a) Slashdot would stop accepting stories with PopSci links, or (b) PopSci would fix their piece of shit web sites. Browsers outside the US get redirected to their "local" popsci.whatever site which almost never has the same story available. Thanks for nothing.

Re:Fucking PopSci

[malachiorion]

Really sorry about that. Letting my editors know right now, but has that been the case for a while?

Move aside

[number17]

When we encounter each other in the hallway I expect that it will move aside and not continue down the center making me go around it.

Re:Move aside

[malachiorion]

Do you encounter any robots that do that? iRobot's AVA, or even those bots in hospitals, will stop and wait for a clear path, but it would take some really bad engineering, and a deep urge to be sued, to build a robot that plays chicken with pedestrians, This bot specifically weaves around obstacles, instead of coming to a dead stop like a big dummy.

Oooooold Tech

[neurovish]

This sounds very much no more complex than the robot CMU had wandering around the halls in one of the buildings in the mid 90s (forget the name). You could tell it to go to some room and take a picture or deliver a message. It was fairly large, and could probably hold 10 lbs. The main difference seems to be an attached ipad for ratings.

Re:Oooooold Tech

[malachiorion]

It's definitely not much more complex than that. The only technical innovation is the use of computer vision to recognize that a door has opened. But this thing is designed to operate almost continuously, and probably costs exponentially less to build. Those experimental bots almost always insanely expensive, and constantly breaking down.

So the obvious question

[DrXym]

Do they have a "pleasure" model?

Finally.

[Graydyn Young]

Yay! Finally room service that I don't feel the need to wear pants for!

We are quickly moving towards a pantsless society, and I couldn't be happier.

Who need the drama of AI?

[alexschmidt]

Whenever the topics of AI and Robotics come up, I always ask: "How much drama do you want in your life?" This type of system does exactly what needs to be done: Get food and drink from the kitchen to the guest. I don't the machine to think or feel, I need it to do stuff like clean the floors (Roomba). Your dishwasher is stationary 'robot' that cleans your dishes. You don't need it to pass judgement on your eating habits. Now, if some bright spark can figure out a system that will do the sorting, washing, drying and folding the laundry that would be amazing. Now there's a challenge for you guys in Silicon Valley!

95% of approvation? This is a triumph

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm make a note here: huge success.

Judge Dredd?

[samwichse]

This reminds me way too much of that terrible Sly Stallone Judge Dredd movie. "I can't believe I watched it."

The robot food cart that rolls down the hall saying "Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you. "