/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10064505
replace human beings with a race of robots.

>>10064505
why don't you read their website and find out?

>>10064505
Robot helpers, fully flexible androids, robot bodies we can inhabit for dangerous missions- Etc- Etc...

There are many endgames to this. I will sort them out in the traditional Dungeons and Dragons Alignment Chart for you.

-------------------------------
Chaotic Evil: "BAHAHAHAHAH FUCK YOU! ROBOT ARMY! ATTACK! KILL! DESTROY!"

Lawful Evil: "Quite simply tools to better run my empire and subjugate people..."

Neutral Evil: "I want to make it think so I can hurt its feelings." (Likely abuses it.)

Chaotic Good: "I am gonna use this to make my life and others easier!"

Lawful Good: "This is a tool to make my life and others better."

Neutral Good: "This "tool" can help out people I care about. I love robots too." (probably programmed it with free will.)

Chaotic Neutral: "MACHINES!"

Lawful Neutral: "These are machines."

True Neutral: *silence* (probably built them)
-------------------------------

>>10064505
Probably spelling a bunch of them to people who want to use them for stuff

give me an orgasm

>>10064505
Fully autonomous parkour as good as humans. Doing highly dynamic maneuvers, maneuvers that require more than two 'feet', and maneuvers that require hands will be hard. Just getting hands that can take the abuse is a pretty hard problem. Autonomy so these things can parkour autonomously from point a to b in the real world, incredibly difficult. Why? Because it's cool and advances robotics. I mean you could probably use a parkour bot for a swat team robot, but human swat teams don't parkour, so it's probably impractical.

>>10064560
Parkour is efficient and safe movements for the human body. Those robots are not copies of the human body, therefore copying parkour won't work.

>>10064505
Pathfinding through a 3D environment in real time is pretty tricky.

>>10064599
Videogames do it all the time.

>>10064590
>Those robots are not copies of the human body

They sure look like it

>>10064600
Pathfinding in video games is vastly easier than pathfinding in novel environments

>>10064505
>DAT 3 STEP-JUMPS

We are done for.

>>10064601
Vaguely in form, not in mechanics.

>>10064621
That thing is 125 kilograms, dancing in the air and can literally see 360 degree environments. If anything it is an improvement.

*squats in perfect form*
*picks up object*

>>10064590
>>efficient and safe
Is it really? I haven't seen anything on the cost of transport of parkour.
>>not copies
Of course you can't copy human limb motions exactly, but many of the same things humans do also apply to robots with vastly different shapes than human. Creating forces using multiple limbs like pulling forces, moving limbs and parts of the body to clear an obstacle, and throwing your weight at something so you can create a reaction against it still work regardless of the shape. Even when we have more limbs than a human. These still apply even if we have a ball of tentacles. And in fact there might be good reasons for non-human forms:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U3JhwjNfx_g
Also see the Cassie robot for a great example of what abandoning the requirement for a human form for locomotion efficiency looks like. Some people say Cassie looks like a bird, in fact this is only superficially the case. Birds don't use rotary motors.
>>10064600
Video games fucking cheat. They have full world model available at all times. Oh and most video games don't take into account dynamics in their planning like this robot does
>>10064634
Anon, if you only knew how bad things really are. People can still do the same thing better, faster, and longer.
>>see
For some definition of see

>>10064712
>People can see 360 degrees around themselves at all times.
>People can work for days on end without sleep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7vwvliiDIk

No.

>>10064505
You may not like it, but this is Raibert's endgame right here. That's right a goat. Every single time Raibert talks in public he always brings up goats. Always. It makes sense too, an autonomous goat would be able to access a wide variety of terrains while carrying a decent payload. It'd be basically unstoppable.

>>10064749
My god...
This has made me a true nihilist. There is no way a goat should be this over powered...

Goodbye cruel world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM5b21duGYw

>>10064726
>>see
People can actually 'see' though. A human can recognize that there is stuff on the ground that can trip them and that deep vegetation can in fact be walked through.
People can work for hours without refueling. The new Atlas has a battery life of 30 minutes, quite possibly less doing these maneuvers.
>>disney shit
You are easily impressed. Oh wow, a robot that operates for less than 10 seconds, bears little to no loads, doesn't have to deal with any external contacts, and can run an almost completely precalculated trajectory. Leg lab did basically the same shirt in 1994.
www.ai.mit.edu/projects/leglab/robots/doll/doll.html

>>10064782
It is slung at a net too so the part the human couldn't do, the landing, it isn't even doing.

Is the bot actually able to do that on its on or is it remote controlled? Goddamn bot ai is progressing pretty well if the former

>>10064810
>>remote controlled
No, the truth is much worse. From the description: "atlas uses computer vision to locate itself with respect to visible markers on the approach to hit the terrain accurately." What's this mean? It means at the very least they had to put in a 3d model of the environment that the robot figures out where it is in. The robot can only work in the environment with markers and nowhere else. They may have preplanned much of the trajectory too. In other words, they can't even remote control the robot to do this. Also note the scuff marks on the blocks, looks like they may have had some fun bloopers tuning things.

>>10064552
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMM0lRfX6YI

>>10064844
I am thinking they are developing this in stages that is why they are choosing markers instead of acceleration data. From a development perspective, it seems that if it can control its trajectory relative to some point, then they can feed it :simple: commands, position (x,y,z,t), and it can figure out the rest on its own. There is definitely more going on to this than what they are showing. I am betting it can swing itself up to some velocity.

>>10064865
of course, but if they are doing a preplanned maneuvers then they can't just have it go to a set of commanded points. If you don't have a 3d model of the environment or parameters like damping and friction of your environment are unknown this approach falls apart.

>>10064505
to fucking terminate us what else do you think?

infantry drones

>>10064505
https://youtu.be/KcJs4qJPQ_M?t=80

The real endgame is this

https://youtu.be/wND9goxDVrY

Mostly because it's an actual product with (sort of) practical use implications.

It's also cute.

I don't understand the autism around it having 3d data fed in. It's designed to push the boundaries of what is possible with bipedal movements, not to navigate. At least not yet.

The spot mini can navigate itself now though. So it seems the navigation is the easier part compared to the movement.

Military obviously.

>>10065748
The military has already concluded that they're useless.

>>10064505
Nothing, their robots can only do closely pre-programmed tracks and completely fail whenever they do something that was not heavily prepared. If you want to see real autonomous robots look at what the Japs are doing.

>>10065753
Good.

>>10065761
do you have any examples - videos or something? I tend to find the examples of japanese robotics research that i've seen (as collated for example by ieee spectrum) to be very unlike what I think of as serious robotics. There is a totally different motivation in japan which is not the West's kind of practical ambition but more for the old animism- making a friend, a companion or basically something that pleases child's mind like a big useless walker thing. I'm ready to hear evidence against this but i really think high level autonomy is one of the last things on a japanese roboticists's mind behind "realistic boob" and a milion toy/novelty concepts that are variations on that.

>>10065781
Eh dude, you think a walker like that is useless? I can't come up with at least 5 uses right from the hip.

>>10065753
>useless
I read somewhere they were still thinking of using a four-legged design as a sort of pack-muie for rough terrain. But that's not badly needed, and the tech apparently isn't there yet anyway.

>>10065781
Asimo can also jog on pre-programmed tracks and can do a lot more, too. However, the future of robotics is not humanoide robots. You would want a robot to do things that humans can't do. So while humanoid robots look cool, they aren't exactly useful. They are a pure testing and developing bed.

>>10065798
fucking shut up, you don't know what you're even talking about. Go and look up their "walkers" and see if you can envision one of those pieces of shit doing one of your 5 things (unless those include "amuse kids and retards"). Before you come back to me with "oh these will be improved upon" no, get it through your head. These were only meant to be props for some guys mental movie, this state is the goal. There's no engineering coming for these that's going to make them work practically. these are backyard vanities and nothing more

>>10065802
I don't know why you replied to me with that, I'm looking for evidence for the claim
>If you want to see real autonomous robots look at what the Japs are doing.

>>10064749
What the FUCK is wrong with goats man? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG9TMn1FJzc

>>10065815
Because 1. Asimo is the best humanoide robot and 2. Japs also have the best non-humanoide robots.

>>10065842
>autonomous
learn English for fuck's sake. I swear to god, if you are the anon who said "autonomous" in the first place and you were thinking of fucking ASIMO, you need to kill yourself right now

>>10065802
>Asimo can also jog on pre-programmed tracks

You're a fucking idiot if you think the two things are comparable.

>>10065848
But anon... that's the correct way to spell it.

>>10065866
very funny

>>10065860
Asimo was able to do one-leg hops 15 years ago. Teaching it parcours like that is just a matter of programming. You crackers really need to catch up.

>>10065872
Asimo had feet the like dinner trays, it didn't rely on balancing because every step it took made the feet be over the centre of gravity. Compare that to atlas which walks by balancing like a human on human sized feet.

Atlas can balance when people try to push it over. Asimo does nothing other than fall on its useless japanese ass.

>>10065872
Listen, some moron said
>If you want to see real autonomous robots look at what the Japs are doing.
If any cunt doesn't understand what constitutes autonomy in a robot, don't fucking comment

>>10065881
Asimo has excellent push recovery, can also withstand much harder pushes due to lower centre of mass. Learn how to robot brainlet.

>>10065885
A car can withstand much harder pushes too, and has a low centre of mass. That doesn't make it capable of balancing.

A human has a high centre of mass, but can balance and adapt to movement. Its the human inferior because it can't withstand being pushed as well as a car?

>>10065893
It is, which is why human robots/androids are pretty retarded. The only advantage of walking upright was freeing two "legs" to evolve into hands, which can perform fine tasks much better than feet. You can though simply build a robot that has 4 legs and/or wheels and two hands additionally. Human robots are just cool to look at, but that's it.

>>10065893
ESC which is actually primitive in vehicles. In planes it is plain phenomenal. Pilot didn't even know he had no wing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M359poNjvVA

>>10065905
That'll be why humans are able to get to places no vehicles can, right? Enjoy taking a wheeled vehicle into the jungle.

>>10064634
>>*squats in perfect form*
/fit/ on suicide watch!

>>10064973
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wND9goxDVrY
field test.

>>10064505
skynet

>>10065753
Yeah they throw sweet DARPA cash at useless things. Sure would be useless to strap a machine gun on that thing's back. I can't even think of a use for something like that. Nope, not this American.

>>10065913
There is no reason whatsoever to not build a robot that can switch inbetween.

By the way I hope you all noticed captcha is having us identify stairs and chimneys now - ingresses to buildings.
We're training an AI to see stairs.
We're building robots that climb stairs.
You might need to think about that for a minute.

Now think about the pasta that quite accurately said an f35 can't stand on every street corner and enforce no-assembly edicts. How an Abrams tank or whatever can't kick your door down and look through your belongings for contraband.

That is going to change soon. Anyone with any foresight should equip themselves to take these things out. Your families' lives might depend on it.

pit traps would work
ar15? probably not
ar10? maybe with the right ammo
gonna have to go vietnam on these fucking shits

>>10065986
>>10065995
Are we getting invaded by paranoid schizos from /k/?

EMP will be all but useless, it's easy to shield against. So big magnets to hold it in place will work until they make them out of something non-magnetic. You can run over it with a truck. Do they self-destruct when immobilized?

Splash paint on cameras/sensors, probably won't work against every type of sensor. What about those little back-up alarm doodlies on new cars' bumpers? If you painted that would it still work?

Fortunately humans are pretty good at fucking things up. We have a knack for breaking things in new and interesting ways.

>>10066002
You can bury your head in the sand if you want. It's your family that will suffer from your unpreparedness.

They'll be waterproof, so battery acid in a super soaker is out. Possibly a combination of shrapnel/flechette rounds to damage soft seals and flexible wire insulation and the like, followed by an acid spray. That will take time to work, so this course of action is better applied as sabotage while they're in storage.

>>10066010
Not really though. In being a prepper you're automatically a target.

Explosively formed penetrators would work but they're tougher to make, immobile and require precisely timed triggering. I like the shrapnel idea, you could make claymore-style bombs with hardened screws and nails. That would fuck a robot up.

>>10066040
You sound like you're from a family of sheep or other herdable farm critters. Does your fence make you feel safe?

>>10064505
No more prole

weak points: sensors, power source, environmental hazards (pits/precarious rubble piles)

strong points: immune to handguns and shotguns, no conscience or emotions

I suppose there's always hackers. I hope that 400 lb guy is still around in 20 years to help us.

>>10066049
Do you think having an ar15 and a while lot of canned beans will make a difference if the government wants to get rid of you (for unspecified reasons)?

Edgy /k/fags are baffling to me.

>>10065811
Nice argument guy, just slapping a camera on it would be enough. Just make fucking little walker and you've got a decent drone. Put a turret on top and you've got a hunter killer.

>>10066053
They are mostly made of plastic, aluminum, and silicon; they have to be made light in order to give them a long run time; they probably all use Lithium-Ion batteries which tend to explode when punctured.

They are not immune to fast moving projectiles by any stretch of the imagination.

>>10064634
>squats in perfect form
DEEPER FAGGOT

>>10064505
Still waiting for it to do a flip :(

>>10064782
Because once AI's complete it can't be implanted into gasoline robot with generator for sure.

>>10066010
Brainlet. You are in the home of the builders of said machines.

We spent years understanding scientific principles to construct these things.

Why protect our families ourselves when these things can do it for us, while at the same time keeping us in optimal fighting/thinking condition automatically?!

There is literally no advantage of a machine body over an organic one in terms of military capability.
Less dexterous regardless of level AI, requires more energy to move, still gets blown the fuck out when shot.
Biological carbon-based bodies are objectively superior and no amount of tech or intelligence increase will change this. The difference is material, right down to the atoms. There is no emulations possible.

>>10066366
Advantage: Safety to operator.

No overheating with heavy armor.

Resistance to cold.

My favourite: Resistant to radiation.

>>10066392
Radiation kills robutts too

>>10066366
The advantage is no human soldier has to die you fucking brainlet.

>>10066486
But a multi-million dollar robot is destroyed.

>>10066463
Resistant does not mean impervious.

>>10064505
Enslavement of the human species by the 13 technocrats that control the robot armies

>>10066066
Not him, but yeah, being armed does make a difference. The possibility of killing the people who are coming to kill you will always make the people who are prepared to do the killing think twice.

Not everyone has a conscience. Almost everyone has a sense of self-preservation.

>>10064505
Pure R&D at this point, applications are a ways out.

>>10066268

>>10064540
techblogy trends toward lawful evil, but i would say this is a natural unavoidable phenomena, due to differences in competence/ambition.

>>10064505
looks like bad cgi

I'm going to build a robot to come to your house and punch you in the balls.

>>10065842
Are you HIGH? Show me one video of an Asimo doing BD level movement.

As cool as this is the company has a very hard time selling these robots, there really is not a commercial use for them yet. they look good in these limited demos but they aren't good enough to replace humans in anything

>>10067047
They're probably going to be using them a lot for entertainment purposes for the next few years-imagine a superbowl half-time show with 50 of these things dancing in synchronization.

>>10067047
Of course it is. Why would you build a robot with only 2 legs? There is a reason why almost all animals have at least 4. The only reason we humans don't is because mammals only have 4 limbs, and we needed to turn 2 of them into hands. Two legs is a giant disadvantage, which is why would lose almost any fight against any animal. It is easy to throw us to the ground and from that moment, you're dead.

Any engineering or roboticist fags know when the average upper middle class person can get a robobutler or when these kinds of robots will start to impact daily life? It’s getting tiring seeing all these overly rehearsed tech demo and not knowing when we are truly in the robot age.

>>10066313
They tried that. It didn't work out. Too loud, gas consumption was still crazy
>>10067089
>>2 legs
So you don't have to carry the extra weight for two extra limbs. Bipedalism is more efficient. Well BD'S robots aren't, but it can be

>>10067110
Roboticist here
>>impact daily life
Probably not anytime soon. We'll be lucky if we get autonomous cars to work within 10 years. I mean at least open I showed that more computing power let's us train robots to do stuff in simulation and that the learned policy works in the real world.

>>10067089
>Two legs is a giant disadvantage, which is why would lose almost any fight against any anima
brainlet
hands beat legs every time

>>10064505
War bots
dangerous exploration bots

>>10066392
no training time
less supplies needed
24/7 access, no need for sleep
instant diagnostics, instant surveillance, no biased reports
no desertion, unable to be interrogated
exact kill counts, MIA, much easier to reinforce
bullet correction, much better aim
no, or very few, human casualties or unintended civilian kills

>>10066937
yeah cause that really worked in the various instances where the government wanted to put an end to a group of armed people.

>>10064511
Replace the working class with robots.

>>10065986
Preppers will be quicker to shoot at machines than their local pd.

>>10068179
I am laughing inside, because you fools made yourselves so open. All it takes is to weaken your bodies with radiation, which the robots can wade through, then end the city/town in a slow march.

>>10064505
>What is their endgame with this?
don't go bankrupt
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/google-sells-boston-dynamics-to-softbank.html

I don't see how this is a development from the one in the video a year ago.

>>10068195
I will wrap my body with tinfoil especially around the genitals and be laughing outside while you are laughing inside.

>>10064505
>What is their endgame with this?

to destroy consumption led growth.

>>10068580
Oh yeah, because in times of overpopulation, what we need are artificial humans.

>>10066008
IR leds scattered around the environment might overload visual sensors

>>10068625
Also everything is susceptible to fire. Douse the bot in acetone to fuck up rubber seals and light it up

>>10066366
except it takes a lifetime to train a solider and produce.

robot build in hours teach in seconds

>>10066366
Somebody who can't move at 60mphs trought forrest does have to sleep, get exhausted etc is talking ... Sounds reasonable.

>>10068677
Human body can regenerate. Robot body can't. Robot needs to be repaired and partially rebuild many times. Human just needs food and water.