Tag Archives: questions

#437872 AlphaFold Proves That AI Can Crack ...

Posted on December 7, 2020 by Android

Any successful implementation of artificial intelligence hinges on asking the right questions in the right way. That’s what the British AI company DeepMind (a subsidiary of Alphabet) accomplished when it used its neural network to tackle one of biology’s grand challenges, the protein-folding problem. Its neural net, known as AlphaFold, was able to predict the 3D structures of proteins based on their amino acid sequences with unprecedented accuracy.

AlphaFold’s predictions at the 14th Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP14) were accurate to within an atom’s width for most of the proteins. The competition consisted of blindly predicting the structure of proteins that have only recently been experimentally determined—with some still awaiting determination.

Called the building blocks of life, proteins consist of 20 different amino acids in various combinations and sequences. A protein's biological function is tied to its 3D structure. Therefore, knowledge of the final folded shape is essential to understanding how a specific protein works—such as how they interact with other biomolecules, how they may be controlled or modified, and so on. “Being able to predict structure from sequence is the first real step towards protein design,” says Janet M. Thornton, director emeritus of the European Bioinformatics Institute. It also has enormous benefits in understanding disease-causing pathogens. For instance, at the moment only about 18 of the 26 proteins in the SARS-CoV-2 virus are known.

Predicting a protein’s 3D structure is a computational nightmare. In 1969 Cyrus Levinthal estimated that there are 10300 possible conformational combinations for a single protein, which would take longer than the age of the known universe to evaluate by brute force calculation. AlphaFold can do it in a few days.

As scientific breakthroughs go, AlphaFold’s discovery is right up there with the likes of James Watson and Francis Crick’s DNA double-helix model, or, more recently, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier’s CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technique.

How did a team that just a few years ago was teaching an AI to master a 3,000-year-old game end up training one to answer a question plaguing biologists for five decades? That, says Briana Brownell, data scientist and founder of the AI company PureStrategy, is the beauty of artificial intelligence: The same kind of algorithm can be used for very different things.

“Whenever you have a problem that you want to solve with AI,” she says, “you need to figure out how to get the right data into the model—and then the right sort of output that you can translate back into the real world.”

DeepMind’s success, she says, wasn’t so much a function of picking the right neural nets but rather “how they set up the problem in a sophisticated enough way that the neural network-based modeling [could] actually answer the question.”

AlphaFold showed promise in 2018, when DeepMind introduced a previous iteration of their AI at CASP13, achieving the highest accuracy among all participants. The team had trained its to model target shapes from scratch, without using previously solved proteins as templates.

For 2020 they deployed new deep learning architectures into the AI, using an attention-based model that was trained end-to-end. Attention in a deep learning network refers to a component that manages and quantifies the interdependence between the input and output elements, as well as between the input elements themselves.

The system was trained on public datasets of the approximately 170,000 known experimental protein structures in addition to databases with protein sequences of unknown structures.

“If you look at the difference between their entry two years ago and this one, the structure of the AI system was different,” says Brownell. “This time, they’ve figured out how to translate the real world into data … [and] created an output that could be translated back into the real world.”

Like any AI system, AlphaFold may need to contend with biases in the training data. For instance, Brownell says, AlphaFold is using available information about protein structure that has been measured in other ways. However, there are also many proteins with as yet unknown 3D structures. Therefore, she says, a bias could conceivably creep in toward those kinds of proteins that we have more structural data for.

Thornton says it’s difficult to predict how long it will take for AlphaFold’s breakthrough to translate into real-world applications.

“We only have experimental structures for about 10 per cent of the 20,000 proteins [in] the human body,” she says. “A powerful AI model could unveil the structures of the other 90 per cent.”

Apart from increasing our understanding of human biology and health, she adds, “it is the first real step toward… building proteins that fulfill a specific function. From protein therapeutics to biofuels or enzymes that eat plastic, the possibilities are endless.” Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#437859 We Can Do Better Than Human-Like Hands ...

Posted on December 2, 2020 by Android

One strategy for designing robots that are capable in anthropomorphic environments is to make the robots themselves as anthropomorphic as possible. It makes sense—for example, there are stairs all over the place because humans have legs, and legs are good at stairs, so if we give robots legs like humans, they’ll be good at stairs too, right? We also see this tendency when it comes to robotic grippers, because robots need to grip things that have been optimized for human hands.

Despite some amazing robotic hands inspired by the biology of our own human hands, there are also opportunities for creativity in gripper designs that do things human hands are not physically capable of. At ICRA 2020, researchers from Stanford University presented a paper on the design of a robotic hand that has fingers made of actuated rollers, allowing it to manipulate objects in ways that would tie your fingers into knots.

While it’s got a couple fingers, this prototype “roller grasper” hand tosses anthropomorphic design out the window in favor of unique methods of in-hand manipulation. The roller grasper does share some features with other grippers designed for in-hand manipulation using active surfaces (like conveyor belts embedded in fingers), but what’s new and exciting here is that those articulated active roller fingertips (or whatever non-anthropomorphic name you want to give them) provide active surfaces that are steerable. This means that the hand can grasp objects and rotate them without having to resort to complex sequences of finger repositioning, which is how humans do it.

Photo: Stanford University

Things like picking something flat off of a table, always tricky for robotic hands (and sometimes for human hands as well), is a breeze thanks to the fingertip rollers.

Each of the hand’s fingers has three actuated degrees of freedom, which result in several different ways in which objects can be grasped and manipulated. Things like picking something flat off of a table, always tricky for robotic hands (and sometimes for human hands as well), is a breeze thanks to the fingertip rollers. The motion of an object in this gripper isn’t quite holonomic, meaning that it can’t arbitrarily reorient things without sometimes going through other intermediate steps. And it’s also not compliant in the way that many other grippers are, limiting some types of grasps. This particular design probably won’t replace every gripper out there, but it’s particularly skilled at some specific kinds of manipulations in a way that makes it unique.

We should be clear that it’s not the intent of this paper (or of this article!) to belittle five-fingered robotic hands—the point is that there are lots of things that you can do with totally different hand designs, and just because humans use one kind of hand doesn’t mean that robots need to do the same if they want to match (or exceed) some specific human capabilities. If we could make robotic hands with five fingers that had all of the actuation and sensing and control that our own hands do, that would be amazing, but it’s probably decades away. In the meantime, there are plenty of different designs to explore.

And speaking of exploring different designs, these same folks are already at work on version two of their hand, which replaces the fingertip rollers with fingertip balls:

For more on this new version of the hand (among other things), we spoke with lead author Shenli Yuan via email. And the ICRA page is here if you have questions of your own.

IEEE Spectrum: Human hands are often seen as the standard for manipulation. When adding degrees of freedom that human hands don’t have (as in your work) can make robotic hands more capable than ours in many ways, do you think we should still think of human hands as something to try and emulate?

Shenli Yuan: Yes, definitely. Not only because human hands have great manipulation capability, but because we’re constantly surrounded by objects that were designed and built specifically to be manipulated by the human hand. Anthropomorphic robot hands are still worth investigating, and still have a long way to go before they truly match the dexterity of a human hand. The design we came up with is an exploration of what unique capabilities may be achieved if we are not bound by the constraints of anthropomorphism, and what a biologically impossible mechanism may achieve in robotic manipulation. In addition, for lots of tasks, it isn’t necessarily optimal to try and emulate the human hand. Perhaps in 20 to 50 years when robot manipulators are much better, they won’t look like the human hand that much. The design constraints for robotics and biology have points in common (like mechanical wear, finite tendons stiffness) but also major differences (like continuous rotation for robots and less heat dissipation problems for humans).

“For lots of tasks, it isn’t necessarily optimal to try and emulate the human hand. Perhaps in 20 to 50 years when robot manipulators are much better, they won’t look like the human hand that much.”
—Shenli Yuan, Stanford University

What are some manipulation capabilities of human hands that are the most difficult to replicate with your system?

There are a few things that come to mind. It cannot perform a power grasp (using the whole hand for grasping as opposed to pinch grasp that uses only fingertips), which is something that can be easily done by human hands. It cannot move or rotate objects instantaneously in arbitrary directions or about arbitrary axes, though the human hand is somewhat limited in this respect as well. It also cannot perform gaiting. That being said, these limitations exist largely because this grasper only has 9 degrees of freedom, as opposed to the human hand which has more than 20. We don’t think of this grasper as a replacement for anthropomorphic hands, but rather as a way to provide unique capabilities without all of the complexity associated with a highly actuated, humanlike hand.

What’s the most surprising or impressive thing that your hand is able to do?

The most impressive feature is that it can rotate objects continuously, which is typically difficult or inefficient for humanlike robot hands. Something really surprising was that we put most of our energy into the design and analysis of the grasper, and the control strategy we implemented for demonstrations is very simple. This simple control strategy works surprisingly well with very little tuning or trial-and-error.

With this many degrees of freedom, how complicated is it to get the hand to do what you want it to do?

The number of degrees of freedom is actually not what makes controlling it difficult. Most of the difficulties we encountered were actually due to the rolling contact between the rollers and the object during manipulation. The rolling behavior can be viewed as constantly breaking and re-establishing contacts between the rollers and objects, this very dynamic behavior introduces uncertainties in controlling our grasper. Specifically, it was difficult estimating the velocity of each contact point with the object, which changes based on object and finger position, object shape (especially curvature), and slip/no slip.

What more can you tell us about Roller Grasper V2?

Roller Grasper V2 has spherical rollers, while the V1 has cylindrical rollers. We realized that cylindrical rollers are very good at manipulating objects when the rollers and the object form line contacts, but it can be unstable when the grasp geometry doesn’t allow for a line contact between each roller and the grasped object. Spherical rollers solve that problem by allowing predictable points of contact regardless of how a surface is oriented.

The parallelogram mechanism of Roller Grasper V1 makes the pivot axis offset a bit from the center of the roller, which made our control and analysis more challenging. The kinematics of the Roller Grasper V2 is simpler. The base joint intersects with the finger, which intersects with the pivot joint, and the pivot joint intersects with the roller joint. It’s symmetrical design and simpler kinematics make our control and analysis a lot more straightforward. Roller Grasper V2 also has a larger pivot range of 180 degrees, while V1 is limited to 90 degrees.

In terms of control, we implemented more sophisticated control strategies (including a hand-crafted control strategy and an imitation learning based strategy) for the grasper to perform autonomous in-hand manipulation.

“Design of a Roller-Based Dexterous Hand for Object Grasping and Within-Hand Manipulation,” by Shenli Yuan, Austin D. Epps, Jerome B. Nowak, and J. Kenneth Salisbury from Stanford University is being presented at ICRA 2020.

< Back to IEEE Journal Watch Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#437857 Video Friday: Robotic Third Hand Helps ...

Posted on December 2, 2020 by Android

Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your Automaton bloggers. We’ll also be posting a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months; here’s what we have so far (send us your events!):

ICRA 2020 – June 1-15, 2020 – [Virtual Conference]
RSS 2020 – July 12-16, 2020 – [Virtual Conference]
CLAWAR 2020 – August 24-26, 2020 – [Virtual Conference]
ICUAS 2020 – September 1-4, 2020 – Athens, Greece
ICRES 2020 – September 28-29, 2020 – Taipei, Taiwan
ICSR 2020 – November 14-16, 2020 – Golden, Colorado
Let us know if you have suggestions for next week, and enjoy today’s videos.

We are seeing some exciting advances in the development of supernumerary robotic limbs. But one thing about this technology remains a major challenge: How do you control the extra limb if your own hands are busy—say, if you’re carrying a package? MIT researchers at Professor Harry Asada’s lab have an idea. They are using subtle finger movements in sensorized gloves to control the supernumerary limb. The results are promising, and they’ve demonstrated a waist-mounted arm with a qb SoftHand that can help you with doors, elevators, and even handshakes.

[ Paper ]

ROBOPANDA

Fluid actuated soft robots, or fluidic elastomer actuators, have shown great potential in robotic applications where large compliance and safe interaction are dominant concerns. They have been widely studied in wearable robotics, prosthetics, and rehabilitations in recent years. However, such soft robots and actuators are tethered to a bulky pump and controlled by various valves, limiting their applications to a small confined space. In this study, we report a new and effective approach to fluidic power actuation that is untethered, easy to design, fabricate, control, and allows various modes of actuation. In the proposed approach, a sealed elastic tube filled with fluid (gas or liquid) is segmented by adaptors. When twisting a segment, two major effects could be observed: (1) the twisted segment exhibits a contraction force and (2) other segments inflate or deform according to their constraint patterns.

[ Paper ]

And now: “Magnetic cilia carpets.”

[ ETH Zurich ]

To adhere to government recommendations while maintaining requirements for social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, Yaskawa Motoman is now utilizing an HC10DT collaborative robot to take individual employee temperatures. Named “Covie”, the design and fabrication of the robotic solution and its software was a combined effort by Yaskawa Motoman’s Technology Advancement Team (TAT) and Product Solutions Group (PSG), as well as a group of robotics students from the University of Dayton.

They should have programmed it to nod if your temperature was normal, and smacked you upside the head while yelling “GO HOME” if it wasn’t.

[ Yaskawa ]

Driving slowly on pre-defined routes, ZMP’s RakuRo autonomous vehicle helps people with mobility challenges enjoy cherry blossoms in Japan.

RakuRo costs about US $1,000 per month to rent, but ZMP suggests that facilities or groups of ~10 people could get together and share one, which makes the cost much more reasonable.

[ ZMP ]

Jessy Grizzle from the Dynamic Legged Locomotion Lab at the University of Michigan writes:

Our lab closed on March 20, 2020 under the State of Michigan’s “Stay Home, Stay Safe” order. For a 24-hour period, it seemed that our labs would be “sanitized” during our absence. Since we had no idea what that meant, we decided that Cassie Blue needed to “Stay Home, Stay Safe” as well. We loaded up a very expensive robot and took her off campus. On May 26, we were allowed to re-open our laboratory. After thoroughly cleaning the lab, disinfecting tools and surfaces, developing and getting approval for new safe operation procedures, we then re-organized our work areas to respect social distancing requirements and brought Cassie back to the laboratory.

During the roughly two months we were working remotely, the lab’s members got a lot done. Papers were written, dissertation proposals were composed, and plans for a new course, ROB 101, Computational Linear Algebra, were developed with colleagues. In addition, one of us (Yukai Gong) found the lockdown to his liking! He needed the long period of quiet to work through some new ideas for how to control 3D bipedal robots.

[ Michigan Robotics ]

Thanks Jesse and Bruce!

You can tell that this video of how Pepper has been useful during COVID-19 is not focused on the United States, since it refers to the pandemic in past tense.

[ Softbank Robotics ]

NASA’s water-seeking robotic Moon rover just booked a ride to the Moon’s South Pole. Astrobotic of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has been selected to deliver the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover, or VIPER, to the Moon in 2023.

[ NASA ]

This could be the most impressive robotic gripper demo I have ever seen.

[ Soft Robotics ]

Whiz, an autonomous vacuum sweeper, innovates the cleaning industry by automating tedious tasks for your team. Easy to train, easy to use, Whiz works with your staff to deliver a high-quality clean while increasing efficiency and productivity.

[ Softbank Robotics ]

About 40 seconds into this video, a robot briefly chases a goose.

[ Ghost Robotics ]

SwarmRail is a new concept for rail-guided omnidirectional mobile robot systems. It aims for a highly flexible production process in the factory of the future by opening up the available work space from above. This means that transport and manipulation tasks can be carried out by floor- and ceiling-bound robot systems. The special feature of the system is the combination of omnidirectionally mobile units with a grid-shaped rail network, which is characterized by passive crossings and a continuous gap between the running surfaces of the rails. Through this gap, a manipulator operating below the rail can be connected to a mobile unit traveling on the rail.

[ DLRRMC ]

RightHand Robotics (RHR), a leader in providing robotic piece-picking solutions, is partnered with PALTAC Corporation, Japan’s largest wholesaler of consumer packaged goods. The collaboration introduces RightHand’s newest piece-picking solution to the Japanese market, with multiple workstations installed in PALTAC’s newest facility, RDC Saitama, which opened in 2019 in Sugito, Saitama Prefecture, Japan.

[ RightHand Robotics ]

From the ICRA 2020, a debate on the “Future of Robotics Research,” addressing such issues as “robotics research is over-reliant on benchmark datasets and simulation” and “robots designed for personal or household use have failed because of fundamental misunderstandings of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).”

[ Robotics Debates ]

MassRobotics has a series of interviews where robotics celebrities are interviewed by high school students.The students are perhaps a little awkward (remember being in high school?), but it’s honest and the questions are interesting. The first two interviews are with Laurie Leshin, who worked on space robots at NASA and is now President of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and Colin Angle, founder and CEO of iRobot.

[ MassRobotics ]

Thanks Andrew!

In this episode of the Voices from DARPA podcast, Dr. Timothy Chung, a program manager since 2016 in the agency’s Tactical Technology Office, delves into his robotics and autonomous technology programs – the Subterranean (SubT) Challenge and OFFensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET). From robot soccer to live-fly experimentation programs involving dozens of unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), he explains how he aims to assist humans heading into unknown environments via advances in collaborative autonomy and robotics.

[ DARPA ] Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#437851 Boston Dynamics’ Spot Robot Dog ...

Posted on December 2, 2020 by Android

Boston Dynamics has been fielding questions about when its robots are going to go on sale and how much they’ll cost for at least a dozen years now. I can say this with confidence, because that’s how long I’ve been a robotics journalist, and I’ve been pestering them about it the entire time. But it’s only relatively recently that the company started to make a concerted push away from developing robots exclusively for the likes of DARPA into platforms with more commercial potential, starting with a compact legged robot called Spot, first introduced in 2016.

Since then, we’ve been following closely as Spot has gone from a research platform to a product, and today, Boston Dynamics is announcing the final step in that process: commercial availability. You can now order a Spot Explorer Kit from the Boston Dynamics online store for US $74,500 (plus tax), shipping included, with delivery in 6 to 8 weeks. FINALLY!

Over the past 10 months or so, Boston Dynamics has leased Spot robots to carefully selected companies, research groups, and even a few individuals as part of their early adopter program—that’s where all of the clips in the video below came from. While there are over 100 Spots out in the world right now, getting one of them has required convincing Boston Dynamics up front that you knew more or less exactly what you wanted to do and how you wanted to do it. If you’re a big construction company or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory or Adam Savage, that’s all well and good, but for other folks who think that a Spot could be useful for them somehow and want to give it a shot, this new availability provides a fewer-strings attached opportunity to do some experimentation with the robot.

There’s a lot of cool stuff going on in that video, but we were told that the one thing that really stood out to the folks at Boston Dynamics was a 2-second clip that you can see on the left-hand side of the screen from 0:19 to 0:21. In it, Spot is somehow managing to walk across a spider web of rebar without getting tripped up, at faster than human speed. This isn’t something that Spot was specifically programmed to do, and in fact the Spot User Guide specifically identifies “rebar mesh” as an unsafe operating environment. But the robot just handles it, and that’s a big part of what makes Spot so useful—its ability to deal with (almost) whatever you can throw at it.

Before you get too excited, Boston Dynamics is fairly explicit that the current license for the robot is intended for commercial use, and the company specifically doesn’t want people to be just using it at home for fun. We know this because we asked (of course we asked), and they told us “we specifically don’t want people to just be using it at home for fun.” Drat. You can still buy one as an individual, but you have to promise that you’ll follow the terms of use and user guidelines, and it sounds like using a robot in your house might be the second-fastest way to invalidate your warranty:

SPOT IS AN AMAZING ROBOT, BUT IS NOT CERTIFIED SAFE FOR IN-HOME USE OR INTENDED FOR USE NEAR CHILDREN OR OTHERS WHO MAY NOT APPRECIATE THE HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH ITS OPERATION.

Not being able to get Spot to play with your kids may be disappointing, but for those of you with the sort of kids who are also students, the good news is that Boston Dynamics has carved out a niche for academic institutions, which can buy Spot at a discounted price. And if you want to buy a whole pack of Spots, there’s a bulk discount for Enterprise users as well.

What do you get for $74,500? All this!

Spot robot
Spot battery (2x)
Spot charger
Tablet controller and charger
Robot case for storage and transportation
FREE SHIPPING!

Photo: Boston Dynamics

The basic package includes the robot, two batteries, charger, a tablet controller, and a storage case.

You can view detailed specs here.

So is $75k a lot of money for a robot like Spot, or not all that much? We don’t have many useful points of comparison, partially because it’s not clear to what extent other pre-commercial quadrupedal robots (like ANYmal or Aliengo) share capabilities and features with Spot. For more perspective on Spot’s price tag, we spoke to Michael Perry, vice president of business development at Boston Dynamics.

IEEE Spectrum: Why is Spot so affordable?

Michael Perry: The main goal of selling the robot at this stage is to try to get it into the hands of as many application developers as possible, so that we can learn from the community what the biggest driver of value is for Spot. As a platform, unlocking the value of an ecosystem is our core focus right now.

Spectrum: Why is Spot so expensive?

Perry: Expensive is relative, but compared to the initial prototypes of Spot, we’ve been able to drop down the cost pretty significantly. One key thing has been designing it for robustness—we’ve put hundreds and hundreds of hours on the robot to make sure that it’s able to be successful when it falls, or when it has an electrostatic discharge. We’ve made sure that it’s able to perceive a wide variety of environments that are difficult for traditional vision-based sensors to handle. A lot of that engineering is baked into the core product so that you don’t have to worry about the mobility or robotic side of the equation, you can just focus on application development.

Photos: Boston Dynamics

Accessories for Spot include [clockwise from top left]: Spot GXP with additional ports for payload integration; Spot CAM with panorama camera and advanced comms; Spot CAM+ with pan-tilt-zoom camera for inspections; Spot EAP with lidar to enhance autonomy on large sites; Spot EAP+ with Spot CAM camera plus lidar; and Spot CORE for additional processing power.

The $75k that you’ll pay for the Spot Explorer Kit, it’s important to note, is just the base price for the robot. As with other things that fall into this price range (like a luxury car), there are all kinds of fun ways to drive that cost up with accessories, although for Spot, some of those accessories will be necessary for many (if not most) applications. For example, a couple of expansion ports to make it easier to install your own payloads on Spot will run you $1,275. An additional battery is $4,620. And if you want to really get some work done, the Enhanced Autonomy Package (with 360 cameras, lights, better comms, and a Velodyne VLP-16) will set you back an additional $34,570. If you were hoping for an arm, you’ll have to wait until the end of the year.

Each Spot also includes a year’s worth of software updates and a warranty, although the standard warranty just covers “defects related to materials and workmanship” not “I drove my robot off a cliff” or “I tried to take my robot swimming.” For that sort of thing (user error) to be covered, you’ll need to upgrade to the $12,000 Spot CARE premium service plan to cover your robot for a year as long as you don’t subject it to willful abuse, which both of those examples I just gave probably qualify as.

While we’re on the subject of robot abuse, Boston Dynamics has very sensibly devoted a substantial amount of the Spot User Guide to help new users understand how they should not be using their robot, in order to “lessen the risk of serious injury, death, or robot and other property damage.” According to the guide, some things that could cause Spot to fall include holes, cliffs, slippery surfaces (like ice and wet grass), and cords. Spot’s sensors also get confused by “transparent, mirrored, or very bright obstacles,” and the guide specifically says Spot “may crash into glass doors and windows.” Also this: “Spot cannot predict trajectories of moving objects. Do not operate Spot around moving objects such as vehicles, children, or pets.”

We should emphasize that this is all totally reasonable, and while there are certainly a lot of things to be aware of, it’s frankly astonishing that these are the only things that Boston Dynamics explicitly warns users against. Obviously, not every potentially unsafe situation or thing is described above, but the point is that Boston Dynamics is willing to say to new users, “here’s your robot, go do stuff with it” without feeling the need to hold their hand the entire time.

There’s one more thing to be aware of before you decide to buy a Spot, which is the following:

“All orders will be subject to Boston Dynamics’ Terms and Conditions of Sale which require the beneficial use of its robots.”

Specifically, this appears to mean that you aren’t allowed to (or supposed to) use the robot in a way that could hurt living things, or “as a weapon, or to enable any weapon.” The conditions of sale also prohibit using the robot for “any illegal or ultra-hazardous purpose,” and there’s some stuff in there about it not being cool to use Spot for “nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons proliferation, or development of missile technology,” which seems weirdly specific.

“Once you make a technology more broadly available, the story of it starts slipping out of your hands. Our hope is that ahead of time we’re able to clearly articulate the beneficial uses of the robot in environments where we think the robot has a high potential to reduce the risk to people, rather than potentially causing harm.”
—Michael Perry, Boston Dynamics

I’m very glad that Boston Dynamics is being so upfront about requiring that Spot is used beneficially. However, it does put the company in a somewhat challenging position now that these robots are being sold. Boston Dynamics can (and will) perform some amount of due-diligence before shipping a Spot, but ultimately, once the robots are in someone else’s hands, there’s only so much that BD can do.

Spectrum: Why is beneficial use important to Boston Dynamics?

Perry: One of the key things that we’ve highlighted many times in our license and terms of use is that we don’t want to see the robot being used in any way that inflicts physical harm on people or animals. There are philosophical reasons for that—I think all of us don’t want to see our technology used in a way that would hurt people. But also from a business perspective, robots are really terrible at conveying intention. In order for the robot to be helpful long-term, it has to be trusted as a piece of technology. So rather than looking at a robot and wondering, “is this something that could potentially hurt me,” we want people to think “this is a robot that’s here to help me.” To the extent that people associate Boston Dynamics with cutting edge robots, we think that this is an important stance for the rollout of our first commercial product. If we find out that somebody’s violated our terms of use, their warranty is invalidated, we won’t repair their product, and we have a licensing timeout that would prevent them from accessing their robot after that timeout has expired. It’s a remediation path, but we do think that it’s important to at least provide that as something that helps enforce our position on use of our technology.

It’s very important to keep all of this in context: Spot is a tool. It’s got some autonomy and the appearance of agency, but it’s still just doing what people tell it to do, even if those things might be unsafe. If you read through the user guide, it’s clear how much of an effort Boston Dynamics is making to try to convey the importance of safety to Spot users—and ultimately, barring some unforeseen and catastrophic software or hardware issues, safety is about the users, rather than Boston Dynamics or Spot itself. I bring this up because as we start seeing more and more Spots doing things without Boston Dynamics watching over them quite so closely, accidents are likely inevitable. Spot might step on someone’s foot. It might knock someone over. If Spot was perfectly safe, it wouldn’t be useful, and we have to acknowledge that its impressive capabilities come with some risks, too.

Photo: Boston Dynamics

Each Spot includes a year’s worth of software updates and a warranty, although the standard warranty just covers “defects related to materials and workmanship” not “I drove my robot off a cliff.”

Now that Spot is on the market for real, we’re excited to see who steps up and orders one. Depending on who the potential customer is, Spot could either seem like an impossibly sophisticated piece of technology that they’d never be able to use, or a magical way of solving all of their problems overnight. In reality, it’s of course neither of those things. For the former (folks with an idea but without a lot of robotics knowledge or experience), Spot does a lot out of the box, but BD is happy to talk with people and facilitate connections with partners who might be able to integrate specific software and hardware to get Spot to do a unique task. And for the latter (who may also be folks with an idea but without a lot of robotics knowledge or experience), BD’s Perry offers a reminder Spot is not Rosie the Robot, and would be equally happy to talk about what the technology is actually capable of doing.

Looking forward a bit, we asked Perry whether Spot’s capabilities mean that customers are starting to think beyond using robots to simply replace humans, and are instead looking at them as a way of enabling a completely different way of getting things done.

Spectrum: Do customers interested in Spot tend to think of it as a way of replacing humans at a specific task, or as a system that can do things that humans aren’t able to do?

Perry: There are what I imagine as three levels of people understanding the robot applications. Right now, we’re at level one, where you take a person out of this dangerous, dull job, and put a robot in. That’s the entry point. The second level is, using the robot, can we increase the production of that task? For example, take site documentation on a construction site—right now, people do 360 image capture of a site maybe once a week, and they might do a laser scan of the site once per project. At the second level, the question is, what if you were able to get that data collection every day, or multiple times a day? What kinds of benefits would that add to your process? To continue the construction example, the third level would be, how could we completely redesign this space now that we know that this type of automation is available? To take one example, there are some things that we cannot physically build because it’s too unsafe for people to be a part of that process, but if you were to apply robotics to that process, then you could potentially open up a huge envelope of design that has been inaccessible to people.

To order a Spot of your very own, visit shop.bostondynamics.com.

A version of this post appears in the August 2020 print issue as “$74,500 Will Fetch You a Spot.” Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#437807 Why We Need Robot Sloths

Posted on November 30, 2020 by Android

An inherent characteristic of a robot (I would argue) is embodied motion. We tend to focus on motion rather a lot with robots, and the most dynamic robots get the most attention. This isn’t to say that highly dynamic robots don’t deserve our attention, but there are other robotic philosophies that, while perhaps less visually exciting, are equally valuable under the right circumstances. Magnus Egerstedt, a robotics professor at Georgia Tech, was inspired by some sloths he met in Costa Rica to explore the idea of “slowness as a design paradigm” through an arboreal robot called SlothBot.

Since the robot moves so slowly, why use a robot at all? It may be very energy-efficient, but it’s definitely not more energy efficient than a static sensing system that’s just bolted to a tree or whatever. The robot moves, of course, but it’s also going to be much more expensive (and likely much less reliable) than a handful of static sensors that could cover a similar area. The problem with static sensors, though, is that they’re constrained by power availability, and in environments like under a dense tree canopy, you’re not going to be able to augment their lifetime with solar panels. If your goal is a long-duration study of a small area (over weeks or months or more), SlothBot is uniquely useful in this context because it can crawl out from beneath a tree to find some sun to recharge itself, sunbathe for a while, and then crawl right back again to resume collecting data.

SlothBot is such an interesting concept that we had to check in with Egerstedt with a few more questions.

IEEE Spectrum: Tell us what you find so amazing about sloths!

Magnus Egerstedt: Apart from being kind of cute, the amazing thing about sloths is that they have carved out a successful ecological niche for themselves where being slow is not only acceptable but actually beneficial. Despite their pretty extreme low-energy lifestyle, they exhibit a number of interesting and sometimes outright strange behaviors. And, behaviors having to do with territoriality, foraging, or mating look rather different when you are that slow.

Are you leveraging the slothiness of the design for this robot somehow?

Sadly, the sloth design serves no technical purpose. But we are also viewing the SlothBot as an outreach platform to get kids excited about robotics and/or conservation biology. And having the robot look like a sloth certainly cannot hurt.

“Slowness is ideal for use cases that require a long-term, persistent presence in an environment, like for monitoring tasks. I can imagine slow robots being out on farm fields for entire growing cycles, or suspended on the ocean floor keeping track of pollutants or temperature variations.”
—Magnus Egerstedt, Georgia Tech

Can you talk more about slowness as a design paradigm?

The SlothBot is part of a broader design philosophy that I have started calling “Robot Ecology.” In ecology, the connections between individuals and their environments/habitats play a central role. And the same should hold true in robotics. The robot design must be understood in the environmental context in which it is to be deployed. And, if your task is to be present in a slowly varying environment over a long time scale, being slow seems like the right way to go. Slowness is ideal for use cases that require a long-term, persistent presence in an environment, like for monitoring tasks, where the environment itself is slowly varying. I can imagine slow robots being out on farm fields for entire growing cycles, or suspended on the ocean floor keeping track of pollutants or temperature variations.

How do sloths inspire SlothBot’s functionality?

Its motions are governed by what we call survival constraints. These constraints ensure that the SlothBot is always able to get to a sunny spot to recharge. The actual performance objective that we have given to the robot is to minimize energy consumption, i.e., to simply do nothing subject to the survival constraints. The majority of the time, the robot simply sits there under the trees, measuring various things, seemingly doing absolutely nothing and being rather sloth-like. Whenever the SlothBot does move, it does not move according to some fixed schedule. Instead, it moves because it has to in order to “survive.”

How would you like to improve SlothBot?

I have a few directions I would like to take the SlothBot. One is to make the sensor suites richer to make sure that it can become a versatile and useful science instrument. Another direction involves miniaturization – I would love to see a bunch of small SlothBots “living” among the trees somewhere in a rainforest for years, providing real-time data as to what is happening to the ecosystem. Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots