Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Real-Time Control of a Humanoid Robot

Posted by Soulskill on from the if-it-can-bunny-hop-we're-in-business dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A new project at MIT aims to put humans in real-time control of a humanoid robot. Operators strap into a vest that contains control circuitry and a pair of arm-like joysticks. As the operator grasps the ends and moves his arms, the robot mimics his arm movements in real time. A demonstration shows the robot crushing cans and punching through drywall. The operator is also given a pair of goggles that shows what the robot is currently "seeing," and the vest provides haptic feedback about what the robot is "feeling." According to a video MIT posted, the goal is to give robots human reflexes for tasks like keeping balance and basic maneuvering. The need for such technology was evident earlier this summer at the DARPA Robotics Challenge, where robots tasked with inspection and repair duties couldn't help but fall down as they moved throughout the testing grounds.

36 comments

  1. Muppets by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    Operators strap into a vest that contains control circuitry and a pair of arm-like joysticks. As the operator grasps the ends and moves his arms, the robot mimics his arm movements in real time.

    Um, didn't the Jim Henson Company develop that technology 40-some-odd years ago?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Muppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but, y'see, these hipster MIT kids are obviously the best & the brightest of our fair nation. It was this or go work for Google doing ad-targeting!

    2. Re:Muppets by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Um, didn't the Jim Henson Company develop that technology 40-some-odd years ago?

      Pretty sure all the muppets were just linkages, right? Maybe a small handful used servo controls for some things, but IIRC they actually used OTS R/C gear and those controls were actually wireless. None of them are robots. They don't make decisions. Would be happy to be wrong, and read all about it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Muppets by tlambert · · Score: 1

      None of them are robots. They don't make decisions.

      This, in fact, would be my criteria for "robot".

      Almost everything we call "robot" today is actually a waldo (like the "robot" in this article), or it's something that exhibits pre-programmed non-adaptive behaviour (like industrial robots; but I give them some leeway for fuzzy control systems for proximity, pick-and-place, orientation recognition, etc.).

      I also don't think a toy helicopter magically becomes a "drone" because you put a camera on it, and the FAA rules on "civilian drones" these days actually down-regulate them to only allowing RPVs, and then only in sight of the operator. They sure as heck are *not* drones, if there's a human piloting them.

    4. Re:Muppets by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      None of them are robots. They don't make decisions.

      This, in fact, would be my criteria for "robot".

      Well, it's the most important criteria, in the oldest definitions; robots have to make some decisions themselves, or they aren't robots. But there is a blurry area; what about a waldo that limits clamping force? What about how your car consults a map as to what you should do when you push the pedal, then builds a new map itself based on sensor observations and trial and error, and then consults that map? You ask it to do one thing, it does whatever it wants. Is that not robotic? A useful circuit has to sense-decide-act, a robot also has to make decisions. But where is the defining line between those two concepts?

      I also don't think a toy helicopter magically becomes a "drone" because you put a camera on it

      I agree, but I do think it non-magically becomes a drone when you add in an autopilot which decides how to carry out your orders. A V2 couldn't change its programming in mid-air, so clearly it was just a useful device and not a robot. What about a Tomahawk? Definitely robotic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Muppets by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Actually a waldo is what this is. I suggest you look the word up again.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    6. Re:Muppets by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Actually a waldo is what this is. I suggest you look the word up again.

      So... I said it was a waldo, and then you "corrected me" by telling me it was a waldo, and now you want me to look up the word waldo?

      ???

    7. Re:Muppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They sure as heck are *not* drones, if there's a human piloting them.

      Yes, they are.

      A "drone" is any unmanned aircraft, whether it's autonomous or remotely piloted.

      In fact, the existence of the phrase "autonomous drone" should tell you that it's possible to have non-autonomous drones.

      These small UAVs do the same kind of things as larger ones. It's the same technology on a smaller scale. If you want to get nitpicky about it, call them "microdrones."

    8. Re:Muppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, it's the most important criteria, in the oldest definitions; robots have to make some decisions themselves, or they aren't robots.

      The Encyclopedia Galactica defines a "robot" as a mechanical apparatus designed to do the work of a man.

      The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun to Be With."

    9. Re:Muppets by tlambert · · Score: 1

      > They sure as heck are *not* drones, if there's a human piloting them.

      Yes, they are.

      A "drone" is any unmanned aircraft, whether it's autonomous or remotely piloted.

      In fact, the existence of the phrase "autonomous drone" should tell you that it's possible to have non-autonomous drones.

      There is a huge difference between remote control of all flight surfaces vs. setting goals and letting on-board computation decide the best way to achieve those goals.

      A Tomahawk Cruise Missile is a drone: you give it a goal, but it's not the job of the pilot to handle the TFR, reaction to unexpected atmospheric conditions, or other flight aspects which can be adequately handled by the on-board avionics. There is a degree of autonomy.

      It's convenient for regulatory agencies to blur the distinction between what are essentially the same toys that we've had since the first article on RC modeling came out in Radio Electronics magazine, well before the term "drone" was coined. That fails to make the case for the device being a drone because we've suddenly invented a new word for the thing, or achieved a small enough camera size that these toys are capable of carrying them successfully. Social consequences do not a drone make.

    10. Re:Muppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a huge difference between remote control of all flight surfaces vs. setting goals and letting on-board computation decide the best way to achieve those goals.

      Yes, it's called fly-by-wire and it's useful on manned aircraft as well as drones.

    11. Re:Muppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a good overview over at Popular Science (heh.. no such thing, man... more like "Nerdular Nerdence!")

      The definition of "drone" has varied over the years, and between military and civilian usage, but AFAIK nobody has authority to make an "official" definition. The term goes back at least to the 1920s when it pretty much meant "unmanned autopiloted aircraft." Well before R/C model planes were common.

      For me, it's a drone if it's unmanned + has telepresence piloting, that is, a camera gives the remote pilot a POV from the aircraft. Just watching and controlling it from the ground isn't enough.

  2. Now if they can... by SailorSpork · · Score: 1

    ...just make it 50x bigger, we can have our very own Gundam!

    1. Re:Now if they can... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Not with the kind of lag seen in those videos. They'd fall down at the first step. We'll have to reach the Robot Jox stage and then the Pacific Rim stage before we can even begin to think of something as agile as a Gundam.

  3. Remotely operated by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    Land based drones . superb concept. I hope the operator has 270 degrees "peripheral vision" of the combat .

    1. Re:Remotely operated by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

      ATV robots were some of the first attempts at robotic killers the military did. I was at Westinghouse for technology talks for highschool kids in like 93 or 94. Turns out that air based robots are easier to navigate because they don't have to go through a myriad of terrains. I think someday they'll make ground based guys, but I think before that happens, we'll have a self driving car. After all, if the thing can't drive on good terrain, what hopes does it have for forests, and hill/mountain/cliffs? So maybe 25-50 years from now unless AI gets incubated.

      --
      God spoke to me
    2. Re:Remotely operated by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      Let me revise that, if you have a waldo robot, and a remote operator, we could probably do that today or soonish.

      --
      God spoke to me
    3. Re:Remotely operated by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      After all, if the thing can't drive on good terrain, what hopes does it have for forests, and hill/mountain/cliffs?

      What if it moved like this?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  4. They'll need two people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at least according to Pacific Rim...

    1. Re:They'll need two people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pacific rim is a pile of horse shit

  5. At this stage of development by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    this is a more practical way to proceed. Autonomy is only necessary where communication is unreliable, degraded or not possible, a subset of useful applications

    1. Re:At this stage of development by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Or when humans are too slow. For combat situations, being straddled to human speed reactions is definitely a disadvantage. Aimbots exist for a reason.

  6. "job creators" beat you to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're called "employees".

    1. Re:"job creators" beat you to it by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      In that case my circuits have gone bad beyond repair

  7. There is hope for us yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the robot overlords take over, they can use our inner ears and part of the brain stem as biological PID loops.

  8. Relevant science fiction by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    I am reminded of Joe Haldeman's Forever Peace, exploring the direct military implementation of a more sophisticated form of the same technology. Violently, as Joe Haldeman always does.

    Food for thought.

  9. So when will... by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

    ...my surrogate be ready?

  10. Huh by koan · · Score: 1

    Train your replacement...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  11. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When one hears those claims about the all but impending development of human-level intelligence (the Singularity is supposed to be but 15 years away, right?) one has to remember that the AI community has yet to be able to develop an autonomous humanoid robot that won't collapse every few steps.

  12. Clearly Canadian... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    no, not the rebooted beverage, but from the demo it is irrefutable that they are targeting the drywall of 'Murica in order to create a market for legendary French Canadian sheetrockers. They did such a good job the first time, now this is their only way to sustain their business. Disappointing, but what can you do...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  13. Deeper dive... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    The visuals are cool, yes, but the love the quick mention / shot that this rig can be used to learn more details about how humans balance while upright. The interplay of tetanus, balance and deliberate motion are important here. Groucho - I mean Asimo - may benefit.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  14. Bryan Brown had this on FX2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To Clown Around With

  15. Hazardous duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This looks like it could be a boon for maintenance/clean up robots for hazardous environments like Fukushima.