I, Robot , I Soldier.

[TeeDee]

Pretty impressive really - I do like that they have such confidence there are crash barriers around it though

Ok , You do a cartwheel and we shall see how well you pull it off

Broch scores :- zeh-ro pwah!!

 

[TeeDee]

Pretty impressive really - I do like that they have such confidence there are crash barriers around it though

Jokes aside - it IS impressive - I remember watching some early Darpa units and it was a million miles away from where this is.
I appreciate this are carefully programmed set movements but with how quickly AI is moving I'm sure these units will become highly used in certain fields.

 

[Broch]

Agreed; this is performance we could only dream about at my time. It's an exciting level of development from my point of view though I appreciate not everyone is as enthusiastic I'm curious about the power source and duration, but battery technology is becoming much more dense.

 

[Paul_B]

Why do we want to create humanoid robots? On a purely effectiveness POV is a humanoid fighting robot a good design? I would have thought the processing power to handle balance and motion would be high and that takes away from it being used on other systems that more efficiently influences success on a battlefield like say threat assessment.

It just seems to me to be human centric to make robots to simulate human motion when it really isn't the best form to use. We cannot run fast, we cannot climb well and I bet our form does so much other things worse than other forms. I think that is the deep flaw in some sci fi films.

 

[Broch]

Why do we want to create humanoid robots? On a purely effectiveness POV is a humanoid fighting robot a good design? I would have thought the processing power to handle balance and motion would be high and that takes away from it being used on other systems that more efficiently influences success on a battlefield like say threat assessment.

It just seems to me to be human centric to make robots to simulate human motion when it really isn't the best form to use. We cannot run fast, we cannot climb well and I bet our form does so much other things worse than other forms. I think that is the deep flaw in some sci fi films.

Evolution has resulted in a bi-ped with good field of view (i.e. head high), two long legs to cross obstacles, and two arms to carry out tasks held above the floor, being the dominant species. It makes good sense to follow evolution

Processing power for balance is minimal (gyros) and motion is trivial compared to reasoning and situation assessment.

If you had more legs you complicate the whole locomotion thing, if you're closer to the ground you can't see well. Arms act to help climb, which we do well compared to many animals, we run quite fast compared to many animals. The human form has some compromises but makes up for it in versatility. Wheels are useless in many situations, tracks are slow.

 

[Tengu]

We arent good at stuff.

But we can do many different things.

We can run a mile, with swimmable rivers on it, and climb a ladder.

Then we can hammer on slates or take down a big signboard.

What other animal can do that?

 

[Ozmundo]

A humanoid build may not be the best chassis for many tasks.

But it can interact with infrastructure designed around people.
There is also the psychological aspect that might be useful in some areas.

When they add heels, lipstick and an earring you need to run!

 

[TeeDee]

A humanoid build may not be the best chassis for many tasks.

But it can interact with infrastructure designed around people.
There is also the psychological aspect that might be useful in some areas.

When they add heels, lipstick and an earring you need to run!

View attachment 94176

This
Correctly scaled for what is present.

Bit off tangent - but a good example - i always thought it was strange that the US went with super wide wheeled Hummers whilst most tracks & roads in countries they would actually find themselves in are based upon narrow horse and cart type mountain tracks.

 

[Falstaff]

I believe it is as it reduces the number of possible casualties that can occur in war and it can also reduce the human error factor of mistakes made in war.

It is actually the reverse of that, it increases hugely the number of civilian casualties, with reduced risks to your own troops. Automated drones, airborne weaponry etc can now reach a long way into territories and inflict harm on the resident population.
They do this as part of an intentional well-known and practised war methodology, most recently demonstrated by Russia but others do it aswell - e.g. the US using Predators etc. as referenced by Tee Dee. Automated remote death from afar will not be pleasant for those on the receiving end with no way of fighting back.

 

[TeeDee]

On the more positive upside - think of how useful these type of human scaled machines would be in terms of rescue or intervention where humans can't or maybe shouldn't go. The teams of men and women that helped ( and risked much if not all... ) in helping with the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown.

But equally - experience tends to show if we stick a weapon on something mobile ( sorry Dolphins.. ) we will.

 

[Tengu]

I dont think the US are going to need much weaponry when they invade Greenland.

Anyhow...isnt this all playing into anti robot propaganda? The robot (a slave) will come and take your job?

And the AI, having sample the media will know;

a) The Small Folk are the Good Guys...you should be fighting on their side.

b) The Robots are not your friend.

c) Robots dont get paid.

 

[Paul_B]

I think you are lacking a bit of creativity. The form does not have to be humanoid to do the things a human does. There are animals that can run for longer and faster than humans. There are animals that can run on all fours and climb better than any humans (IIRC there are baboons in the Ethiopian high lands that climb, run and can use tools).

The lack of creativity is that you can have a robot take the form best for the action. A humanoid that becomes a four legged runner or a four armed climber. Moving over obstacles a human free runner will use hands/arms as well as legs to vault the obstacles.

What we always have is a pure humanoid. They are not bound by evolution in the traditional sense but by the best design that can be achieved. Imagine an ape like robot form for climbing up a cliff. Then a wolf like shape to run for a long time to reach the target miles away. Or a cheetah with the flexible spine to run quickly to cover the ground from the top of the cliff to the target. Then a humanoid to enter the facility. All in one flexible design. This might not be achievable right now but that is not to say the future could go that way.

 

[TeeDee]

I think you are lacking a bit of creativity. The form does not have to be humanoid to do the things a human does. There are animals that can run for longer and faster than humans. There are animals that can run on all fours and climb better than any humans (IIRC there are baboons in the Ethiopian high lands that climb, run and can use tools).

The lack of creativity is that you can have a robot take the form best for the action. A humanoid that becomes a four legged runner or a four armed climber. Moving over obstacles a human free runner will use hands/arms as well as legs to vault the obstacles.

What we always have is a pure humanoid. They are not bound by evolution in the traditional sense but by the best design that can be achieved. Imagine an ape like robot form for climbing up a cliff. Then a wolf like shape to run for a long time to reach the target miles away. Or a cheetah with the flexible spine to run quickly to cover the ground from the top of the cliff to the target. Then a humanoid to enter the facility. All in one flexible design. This might not be achievable right now but that is not to say the future could go that way.

And yet DARPA , the leading think tank with their pick of the brightest and best well funded software and hardware engineers are pursuing a Bipedal model ( Among others. )


I wonder what we may draw from that if we had a reflective thought on the matter?

 

[Broch]

I think you are lacking a bit of creativity. The form does not have to be humanoid to do the things a human does. There are animals that can run for longer and faster than humans. There are animals that can run on all fours and climb better than any humans (IIRC there are baboons in the Ethiopian high lands that climb, run and can use tools).

The lack of creativity is that you can have a robot take the form best for the action. A humanoid that becomes a four legged runner or a four armed climber. Moving over obstacles a human free runner will use hands/arms as well as legs to vault the obstacles.

What we always have is a pure humanoid. They are not bound by evolution in the traditional sense but by the best design that can be achieved. Imagine an ape like robot form for climbing up a cliff. Then a wolf like shape to run for a long time to reach the target miles away. Or a cheetah with the flexible spine to run quickly to cover the ground from the top of the cliff to the target. Then a humanoid to enter the facility. All in one flexible design. This might not be achievable right now but that is not to say the future could go that way.

With respect, there are plenty of other robots - four-legged; snake-like; autonomous drones; autonomous marine vessels; autonomous vehicles... No-one is lacking imagination I can assure you, it's just the humanoid is a complex problem and invokes imagination.

Anyway, I would suggest, a baboon, a chimpanzee, even a marmoset, are all humanoid.

 

[TeeDee]