Slashdot Mirror


The DARPA Robotics Challenge Was a Bust; Let's Try Again

malachiorion writes: The DARPA Robotics Challenge, the biggest and most well-funded international robotics competition in years, was a failure. After years of grueling work on the part of brilliant roboticists around the world, and millions in funding from the Pentagon, the finals came and went with little to no coverage from the mainstream media. The only takeaway, for those who aren't extremely dialed into robotics, is that a ton of robots fell down in funny ways. There were winners, but considering how downgraded the tasks were, compared to the ones initially announced in 2012, it was closer to the first DARPA Grand Challenge, where none of the robot cars finished, than the Urban Challenge, which kicked off the race to build deployable driverless cars. So just as DARPA regrouped after that first fizzle of a race, here's my argument for Popular Science: It's time to do it again, and make falling, and getting up, mandatory.

35 comments

  1. get the visa granting organized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A whole team was not able to attend because they couldn't get their visa in time. Seriously do not understand how bad that looks on the US government, to be the one holding the event and the one preventing a competitor from attending?

    1. Re:get the visa granting organized by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      >> whole team was not able to attend because they couldn't get their visa in time

      Next time, just fly into Tamaulipas and hop on a northbound fruit truck. Visa shmisa.

    2. Re:get the visa granting organized by MobSwatter · · Score: 0

      That would also carry the assumption that expecting smart things out of a people they intentionally made stupid over generations could plausibly work. There is no ethical application of mind control, results and subsequent ramifications are in and it is what it is.

    3. Re:get the visa granting organized by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> ...expecting smart things out of a people they intentionally made stupid over generations...application of mind control...

      Huh? The team that couldn't get in was the Chinese (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33045713), and likely as not there was some kind of Chinese/US diplomatic pissing contest going on behind the scenes that WAS on everyone's minds.

      While we're at it, notice that my link is from the BBC - if that's not mainstream enough for the OP, I don't know what is.

    4. Re:get the visa granting organized by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Asians are pulling out of US economy, or rather no longer want to purchase US debt, kind of a heated situation. There is a multitude of reasons behind this. Referencing stupid is for 3 years we couldn't get a robot to remain standing even under downgraded tasks. Perhaps they are being 'punished' because they weren't being 'good consumers'? Doubt it. This is a ruling class management malfunction that put the US where it is today as a whole, and don't look now but the 1%er's are deserting the ship while their corrupted and patsy politicians have international arrest warrants being issued. It is what it is.

    5. Re: get the visa granting organized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American taxpayer, I would rather DARPA didn't fund or support foreign interests without a significant return on investment.

      What I _would_ like to see is a return to high risk engineering backed by the U.S. government. Private industry does succeed, but every moon shot, both figuratively and literally, has been backed by a government willing to bear the risk.

  2. Not a failure by rathinam · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is too harsh to call it a failure. After watching many hours of video footage, I would judge it most certainly NOT a failure, but a good first step. Yes, many robots fell down. Yes, it would be nice to make a requirement for them to get up -- and at least one did in the *competition*, if i recall correctly. The tiny robot an Asian student was *demonstrating* (he didn't speak much English) got up amazingly fast since he designed it in.

    It is understandable that DARPA reduced the difficulty in this first baby step of the competition. What would you rather have, (a) very difficult tasks so that no team can complete all tasks, or (b) difficult enough so not *all* teams can complete all tasks, but some can? I'd choose (b) every time, since it results in encouragement to take the next step in the development. There are many other benefits if you think about it for a minute or two.

    1. Re:Not a failure by JediJorgie · · Score: 2

      I have to agree. The goal was to encourage development. The program was a complete success. It does not matter if anyone succeeded at all the tasks.

    2. Re:Not a failure by funwithBSD · · Score: 3, Informative

      As I tell my 12 year old son:

      You don't learn anything when you win the game of chess, you learn something when you lose.

      A bit oversimplified, but the point is that you learn by rising to the challenge, not just by your success.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Not a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the challenge is pointless.

      Robotics development doesn't need "encouragement". It needs MONEY. You get MONEY either through government funding or investment funding.

      The former is insignificant: $2 million for first place? Thats nice... For 6 months worth of work.

      The latter isn't being attracted: Wheres the publicity? Why isn't Google snatching up these teams? Where's GE? Toyota?

    4. Re:Not a failure by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The goal was to complete the challenge. They ALL failed. It was a failure, this isn't debatable.

      That doesn't mean nothing was gained, many things were learned certainly, but it was still a failure of its goal.

      In my opinion it was a massive failure because pretty much none of those robots could adapt to an unexpected task (getting up) at all, and it's pretty much impossible that no one knew their bot would fall down.

      Every contestant was pitifully unprepared, so EPIC FAIL if you ask me.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:Not a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess; You never saw the first DARPA challenge with self driving cars. The top competitor made it 7.32 out of the 150 miles. It took a few more years of competition and a lot of unsuccessful runs until some of the competitors could finish the course.Now we have self driving cars on the street. The goal was to see how far they could get and come back next time with a better try. It was not a fail in any way, just the normal course of learning and a blast to watch.

    6. Re:Not a failure by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      Weren't the robots constrained to something like 100w of computing power? IMO (and this is kinda my field also) there should be more human interaction and doing the things that humans do, and can do, best and let the robot concentrate on the more tractable yet still unsolved portions of the problem.

      Eg, instead of having the robot climb over obstacles and navigate a maze, have a human operator chart the best way through the maze over the least dangerous debris. The robot still has to determine how to move itself over rocks, pipes etc which is a very good task at this stage. And let it have all the cpu cycles it wants. Have an operator click on part of a video image and let the machine move over autonomously and pick it up, don't try to make the robot try to pick out the object, save that for a following year competition when they are good enough solving the 'how' problem. I think they threw in too much at once, but maybe they knew this and wanted to see what ideas were out there.

    7. Re:Not a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why isn't Google snatching up these teams?

      They did, last year. They bought the leading team from last year's preliminary competition, SCHAFT. They also bought Boston Dynamics, which supplied the ATLAS robots that most of the teams used.

    8. Re:Not a failure by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You don't learn anything when you win the game of chess

      As any chess pro will tell you, post game analysis often reveals things not noticed during the game. You look at the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, replaying some or all of the game and discussing it with the opponent. One of the most difficult things for humans to do is to learn from other peoples mistakes, often having to repeat them for themselves.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  3. This is shortsighted by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

    Walking is not one of the necessary things for robots to do.

    Crawling more than suffices. In fact, having wheels is a feature, not a bug.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:This is shortsighted by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      There were robots in the competition that did just that.
      Walking wasn't a requirement.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:This is shortsighted by rwa2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... and plenty of the crawling robots also ended up falling over.

      But why no love for the videos of robots failing and falling? There are plenty of videos of legged robots not falling, and they are positively terrifying for the humans vs. robots crowd:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    3. Re:This is shortsighted by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Walking is not one of the necessary things for robots to do.

      Crawling more than suffices. In fact, having wheels is a feature, not a bug.

      I would go one step further and at this point split the competition into two parts. Step 1 should be to have a remote controlled robot that can complete a series of complex tasks. At this point why should a robot have to be autonomous and work with degraded communication? The goal is to go into places like a nuclear meltdown where a human can't go. I see no reason why it can't be controlled remotely by a competent human. Get the platform down, get it working great, get it rock solid, then add the AI to a platform that already works great with a human controller. I see no reason to try to solve 2 separate complex problems at once. Just solving the first problem would benefit everyone greatly and make the 2nd problem much easier not to mention that mechanical engineering and AI programming are different domains with different experts and you could let the different experts work on what they are good at.

    4. Re:This is shortsighted by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Exactly! That is how you go about solving engineering problems. Get the fundamentals working well first. It's like trying trigonometry while struggling with arithmetic. Yes, you can do it, but it's limiting with fragile results.

    5. Re:This is shortsighted by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      In fact, having wheels is a feature, not a bug.

      Until you encounter a steep set of stairs, then simple wheels might not be sufficient. You'll either have to develop special wheels or tracks - which might not be that great at other non-stair-like terrain - or try a more universal mode of locomotion.

      Ever see those photos of mountain goats climbing the nearly sheer face of a dam? I'd love to see a wheeled robot do that without grappling lines!
      =Smidge=

  4. Re:DARPA is for cows. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Moo?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. Robots will never get up from falling over... by UberVegeta · · Score: 1

    ... until at least sometime after the Year 3000. We already have the video evidence that robots of the future struggle to get up when placed on their backs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sNMHdaJx5c&feature=youtu.be&t=5m17s).

    --
    I knew I needed to stop reading Slashdot and finish my PhD when I started to miss articles by Bennett Haselton.
  6. OK, but it was pretty boring IRL... by bodog · · Score: 2

    I went for one morning of the competition, and there was a LOT of standing around and waiting time. Even when the robots were in action, they would take very long pauses in the midst of the narrowly defined activity they were performing.(and yes, sometimes simply falling over during the pauses). It would have been hard to pick more than a few seconds of footage that would have made it into the news.(mostly the falling over clips)

  7. Evolve, it's the only solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hit thumb with hammer. Ow. Hurt bad. Throw hammer away? Hell no, replace thumb with cyborg thumb stronger than hammer! Learn and try again.

  8. Why the disconnect between learning and failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show me someone who is always right or never fails and I will show you someone who has ceased to learn anything new !

    If you are going to extend your reach you are going to fail from time to time.

  9. Coren22: Questions 4u... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject, "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory usage vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it or as well + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity + slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

    1. Re:Coren22: Questions 4u... apk by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Moo!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  10. Tell us about "AlmostAllAdsBlocked+" Coren22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!

    AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!

    AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!

    AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!

    AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)

    AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!

    AB+ is also detectable by clarityray (via native browser methods) nullifying it (not hosts).

    ---

    I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)?

    Ab+ NO LONGER DOES!

    * AFTER ALL THAT?

    AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!

    If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me!

    APK

    P.S.=> Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?

    (You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See above - it's fact & truth via reputable sources)... apk

  11. they are snatching up the teams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard that Apple hired away a bunch of the Robosimian folks from JPL a couple months ago.

  12. they've already done the "good comms" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are a whole lot of reports on robot use in disasters (google Robin Murphy, she runs a team that evaluates this). The single biggest problem is getting robotics folks to get away from the "real time joystick" scheme. Whether it's because a cable snags, or simply because you need to burn a person full time to drive the robot, there has to be something that forces the autonomy. In the DRC, it was "you only get network for a random 1 second out of 30", which isn't a bad model for wireless comms in a rubble/disaster situation. It also forces you to a level of autonomy where your robot can run forward for at least a minute or so without needing "help and advice".

    The academic teams, also, are focused on "what will make my dissertation work", and 2 legged locomotion is a hot area for dissertations. It's clearly NOT the best for these sorts of situations, but you don't get to write cool papers and get hired by whoever if you do cookbook 4 or 6 legged walking/rolling: that's a solved problem 20 years ago.

    1. Re:they've already done the "good comms" by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      It's not a solved problem or they wouldn't be having all the robots fall down. And if it IS a solved problem then give every team a good robot to program (or a robot simulator if the physical robot is too expensive). The point is to solve one problem at a time. We know how to make cars, bulldozers, etc... Make the autonomous robot control one of those, don't try to add intelligence to untested and unreliable hardware, get the hardware working right first. If a human can't do that task via wire then you're asking a robot to basically be more intelligence than a person. I would say the same of most other AI projects that I see. If a human can't manually control the robot to fold towels in near real time then why should we expect an AI to be able to do it?

  13. Ohhh... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    ...let's not and say we did.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  14. Parallels with dementia? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

    Watching the "compilation of robots falling down" video was quite uncomfortable, because many of them reminded me of my father, who has Parkinson's Disease. I wonder if there is anything to be learned from the similarity. Probably not.