time and time again, over engineering leads to costly end products which are “ok” and “safe” for the most part – but are usually not universally applicable because of high cost. if we extend the cost metaphor to nature we can easily see an over designed biological entity taxing on its surrounding ecological system.

time and time again, cost reduction is absorbed into better software or, more specifically, software that can learn and adapt. what is seen as tremors in ECCE’s movements reminds me so much of a baby trying to walk – it’s obvious the next step is not to over engineer the motors – but to “learn” how to drive the motors you have.

I learned this lesson early in my design career: if you list safety as a feature in a design it instantly calls you out as having nothing else to say. Unless your design was specifically for children or something else where safety is a major concern the fact that you can make something work without maiming people is taken for granted.

Biomimetic structures in robotics are pretty damn cool. It was pretty awesome to see the strands of cable slipping in and out of the creature’s solar plexus. I’m just wondering why you’d go so far as to build a complete torso demonstrating this technique.

I think the argument for robots that may be inefficient but look and operate more like human anatomy is for our acceptance of them among us.

If we’re making robots to drive cars for deliveries, or to build cars in factories, then we probably don’t care much about what they look like. But if a robot is to be stationed in our homes and cook for us, clean for us, possibly babysit for us, (or of course the sex/companion robot), then making that robot be as close to a perfect copy of a human as possible may be a required prerequisite for full acceptance.

On the other hand, one might also say that mimicking a human exactly adds a bit of creepiness too though.

what ever happened to pnumatic air muscles?

@8-[

I think the creepiness factor depends on the use though. If I were to consider a robot caretaker either for the elderly or children (which I must say is a big IF). I would want THAT robot to be more human looking… and something like a DATA-like capability. The robots from I, Robot for example would not be good enough for me for caregiving. Nor would I want there to be any wireless connectivity. *smile*

The I, Robot level of human like appearance would be good enough for me for service workers and possibly hot dog cart type vending. But it’s just too cold of a style for human connection.

Just like with pets given to the elderly, there are a lot of plastic ones that don’t work well, but the fur covered ones to. The tactile feel of something ‘real’ goes a long way for human connections.

@therian
Yes, we’re not at sex toys yet, but that’s what I was saying about the purpose of the robot. Right now it seems that a lot of robot projects are really a shotgun approach. Meaning that they don’t really have a refined purpose in mind, they are just proof of concepts. Which is great I think, to further the thought process and experiment with different ideas.

When one makes a robot with a specified purpose though, I would agree that nothing matters except efficiency and other technical factors for service robots (i.e. robotic welders in a factory). But if the purpose is human contact in a care giving role or something similar, then I think acceptance of the robot is more important than certain function and design issues.

For human contact, it won’t matter how perfect the robot functions if nobody ‘likes’ to hang out with it.

@8-[
I can see your point there. Seeing a robot act strange can be taken in stride while seeing a human act strange is just… strange.

I agree that a ‘real’ DATA isn’t reality, probably in anyone’s lifetime. And even if it was, by the time THAT tech comes around I think it would negate the NEED for such a thing as a life-like robot. If we had that massive computing power and that kind of tech, we’d certainly have replicators and the like so service personnel would probably be un-needed.

We’re probably looking for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist though. I mean, I don’t think the majority of the world would accept a robot taking care of children (although maybe we’d be ok with them taking care of the elderly). If we did get to that point though, I think it would take several generations to come to pass. It wouldn’t be as fast as my kids accepting it and so it’s OK from then on. And because the hurdle for acceptance of the idea of robots being trusted to be caregivers is so high, it probably doesn’t matter what they look like. The perfect example may come out, but we’d still be scared of it for quite a while. As we should be in my opinion.

I’m completely on board with robotic vendors, maids, truck drivers, etc… robotic driving built into cars on the highway (not cities) too.

The only concern with all that robotic replacement is job loss, but I have to think that we could manage that because those robots will need maintanence, oversight, and construction. So even though those jobs could be lost, new jobs would be created. Probably not an equal number, but I believe that any such conversion from man-power to robot-power can be done well if it’s handled correctly.

Can we as a people be trusted to do it well? that’s a debate that isn’t worth having because history teaches us that we should not be trusted with such a thing. But we should be able to do it. *sigh*

In any case, I can’t see us really having to figure all this out for at least a couple more generations. They already had ‘working’ robot truck drivers and that went away for a number of reasons un-related to the tech working or not. I just don’t see us as a society being ready for robots to move out of the lab any time soon. Which is a shame on some levels… and maybe a good thing on others…

@8-[
agreed. although I would bet that accepting robots among us *could* happen faster just because we aren’t starting out with a large bias. Once they’re accepted though, to go from servents to ‘free’ beings and be treated as such… we’d be on the same song, second verse.

I really don’t think we’ll have to cross that bridge though.

I think an honest most likely path for us at least in the next 2-5 generations would be for us to be able to produce a vendor role robot and have it in service possibly at places like toll booths or other remote type outposts as well as vendors of food and goods like airport shops/news stands and the like. I don’t see robots replacing anyone we might have a conversation with now, but those people behind counters that we ignore for the most part, those roles are prime robot fodder.

And I wouldn’t really feel that bad either, because those people don’t want to be there either.

I would hope that we are able to add robots in some roles without destroying our employment rates though.

I can see it now though. Right now where you have a company with 10 people on staff and feel shorthanded, I could see the ‘media’ blaming robots for the ‘loss’ of 5 jobs if that same company added 5 robots where they would not have added 5 humans due to overhead costs like medical insurance and taxes.

Similar to how RIAA counts a lack of growth as a ‘loss’. “we were supposed to increase our profit by 200% this year, but we only increased by 100%. Therefore piracy has stolen 100% from us!”

I’m sure the politics of robot workers would get in the way of intelligent integration regardless of how much logical sense it might make.

One, potentially practical, reason to consider building a humanoid robot (besides the previously mentioned sex toy) is that we, as a society, have spent a lot of time modifying out surroundings and designing our technology to match the human form. A humanoid robot would, ideally, be capable of going everywhere and doing anything a normal human can do without special accommodations like those we have to make for modern robots or people in wheel chairs.

@colecoman1982

Very good point. Although I think in almost all cases of ‘integrated’ robots people are trying to make bi-pedal robots with two arms that would work in a human world. Rescue and war robots as the exceptions of course made specifically to go where humans *can’t* or *shouldn’t* go.

but one can make a humanoid robot that is not a biological analog with all the same control structures. we can make a robot with two legs and two arms but no elbows for example, or 4 elbows. The thought process here is whether to mimick a human’s layout *exactly* for the purpose of us accepting it more (or some other purpose?). Would that even be needed? Or is the best aproach to go with whatever design is more technically efficient? In my opinion, I think the role of that particular robot determines the answer to that question.

Another angle… does it make sense to impose our limits on a robot simply for the purpose of mimicking our layout? Ever tried to scratch the middle of your back? Possible but annoying. I don’t think it makes sense to make a robot that has that same limitation. there’s no reason to impose that limit on them when we have the choice to make sure it can reach and work on every part of itself if needed. (we’d certainly want a soldier robot to be able to remove a sticky grenade from it’s back if the case arose, right?)

There are a lot of fine points to this discussion, which is what makes it so facinating, and I’m sure people all over the world in robotic labs are talking about these same things. I’d love to spend a day listening to their discussions.

hmm.. id much rather the first and original aproach made by w01f ,
“”I am impressed. My first thought was “holy crap, that could lead to better hybrid types of prosthetics””

i think we shuld spend more timeon improving HUMANS then ROBOTS….

after all the best way to do anything is to do it yourself?….

also the price of such tec would be high unless you can easly mass produce these robots… for a nation at war with streached butgets the high end fight units might be too costly…

your thoughts?

hahaha 1:12 it can also light and smoke a bong just like a real human

The more I look at this the more I love the construction method. It looks like they might be shapelock plastic. I can’t say how many times I’ve spent more time machining brackets for motors and linkages again and again as a design takes shape and develops. This seems like a fantastic way of prototyping.

Really great site that you have built good info thanks.