Tag Archives: style

#439073 There’s a ‘New’ Nirvana Song Out, ...

Posted on April 7, 2021 by Android

One of the primary capabilities separating human intelligence from artificial intelligence is our ability to be creative—to use nothing but the world around us, our experiences, and our brains to create art. At present, AI needs to be extensively trained on human-made works of art in order to produce new work, so we’ve still got a leg up. That said, neural networks like OpenAI’s GPT-3 and Russian designer Nikolay Ironov have been able to create content indistinguishable from human-made work.

Now there’s another example of AI artistry that’s hard to tell apart from the real thing, and it’s sure to excite 90s alternative rock fans the world over: a brand-new, never-heard-before Nirvana song. Or, more accurately, a song written by a neural network that was trained on Nirvana’s music.

The song is called “Drowned in the Sun,” and it does have a pretty Nirvana-esque ring to it. The neural network that wrote it is Magenta, which was launched by Google in 2016 with the goal of training machines to create art—or as the tool’s website puts it, exploring the role of machine learning as a tool in the creative process. Magenta was built using TensorFlow, Google’s massive open-source software library focused on deep learning applications.

The song was written as part of an album called Lost Tapes of the 27 Club, a project carried out by a Toronto-based organization called Over the Bridge focused on mental health in the music industry.

Here’s how a computer was able to write a song in the unique style of a deceased musician. Music, 20 to 30 tracks, was fed into Magenta’s neural network in the form of MIDI files. MIDI stands for Musical Instrument Digital Interface, and the format contains the details of a song written in code that represents musical parameters like pitch and tempo. Components of each song, like vocal melody or rhythm guitar, were fed in one at a time.

The neural network found patterns in these different components, and got enough of a handle on them that when given a few notes to start from, it could use those patterns to predict what would come next; in this case, chords and melodies that sound like they could’ve been written by Kurt Cobain.

To be clear, Magenta didn’t spit out a ready-to-go song complete with lyrics. The AI wrote the music, but a different neural network wrote the lyrics (using essentially the same process as Magenta), and the team then sifted through “pages and pages” of output to find lyrics that fit the melodies Magenta created.

Eric Hogan, a singer for a Nirvana tribute band who the Over the Bridge team hired to sing “Drowned in the Sun,” felt that the lyrics were spot-on. “The song is saying, ‘I’m a weirdo, but I like it,’” he said. “That is total Kurt Cobain right there. The sentiment is exactly what he would have said.”

Cobain isn’t the only musician the Lost Tapes project tried to emulate; songs in the styles of Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, and Amy Winehouse were also included. What all these artists have in common is that they died by suicide at the age of 27.

The project is meant to raise awareness around mental health, particularly among music industry professionals. It’s not hard to think of great artists of all persuasions—musicians, painters, writers, actors—whose lives are cut short due to severe depression and other mental health issues for which it can be hard to get help. These issues are sometimes romanticized, as suffering does tend to create art that’s meaningful, relatable, and timeless. But according to the Lost Tapes website, suicide attempts among music industry workers are more than double that of the general population.

How many more hit songs would these artists have written if they were still alive? We’ll never know, but hopefully Lost Tapes of the 27 Club and projects like it will raise awareness of mental health issues, both in the music industry and in general, and help people in need find the right resources. Because no matter how good computers eventually get at creating music, writing, or other art, as Lost Tapes’ website pointedly says, “Even AI will never replace the real thing.”

Image Credit: Edward Xu on Unsplash Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#439000 Can AI Stop People From Believing Fake ...

Posted on March 19, 2021 by Android

Machine learning algorithms provide a way to detect misinformation based on writing style and how articles are shared.

On topics as varied as climate change and the safety of vaccines, you will find a wave of misinformation all over social media. Trust in conventional news sources may seem lower than ever, but researchers are working on ways to give people more insight on whether they can believe what they read. Researchers have been testing artificial intelligence (AI) tools that could help filter legitimate news. But how trustworthy is AI when it comes to stopping the spread of misinformation?

Researchers at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and the University of Tennessee collaborated to study the role of AI in helping people identify whether the news they’re reading is legitimate or not.

The research paper, “Tailoring Heuristics and Timing AI Interventions for Supporting News Veracity Assessments,” was published in Computers in Human Behavior Reports. It discussed how crowdsourcing marketplace Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) can be used to identify misinformation for fresh news and specific heuristics, which are rules of thumb used to process information and consider its veracity. In other words, heuristics are essentially “shortcuts for decisions,” explained Dorit Nevo, an associate professor at RPI’s Lally School of Management and a lead author for the paper.

The study found that AI would be successful in flagging false stories only if the reader did not already have an opinion on the topic, Nevo said. When study subjects were set in their beliefs, confirmation bias kept them from reassessing their views.

Nevo said the first part of the project focused on whether subjects could detect misinformation around climate change and vaccines like the one designed to prevent chicken pox. Then, beginning in April 2020, her team studied how people responded to news related to COVID-19.

“With COVID-19, there was a significant difference,” Nevo said. They found that about 72 percent of respondents could identify misinformation about the coronavirus without heuristic clues, and roughly 93 percent were able to be convinced by the researcher’s heuristics that the content was fake.

Examples of heuristic clues include text with too many capital letters or the use of strong language, Nevo said.

There were two types of heuristics mentioned in the team’s paper: objective heuristics and source heuristics. They put a statement at the top of each article the subjects read; it instructed them to read the article and indicate whether they believed its central thesis.

“We either put a statement that says the AI finds this article reliable and accurate based on the objective heuristics, or we said the AI finds the source reliable,” Nevo said. “So that's the source heuristic.”

In her research on heuristics, Nevo found that people’s thinking takes one of two paths: The first path is to read the article, think about it and decide if they believe it; the second is to consider the source and what others think about the news, and decide whether to believe it before reading it.

Image: Dorit Nevo/RPI/IEEE Spectrum

Researchers at RPI researched the role of heuristics and AI in detecting whether people thought news was credible

Another research paper, “Timing Matters When Correcting Fake News,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by researchers at Harvard University, differed from the RPI researchers in its findings. While Nevo and her collaborators found that it’s easier to convince people that a story is fake news before reading it, the Harvard researchers, led by Nadia M. Brashier, a psychologist and neuroscientist, discovered that a fact-check can convince people of misinformation even after reading headlines. When study subjects read true or false labels after reading a headline, that resulted in a 25.3 percent reduction in “subsequent misclassification,” when compared to headlines with no tag, Brashier and her team found.

In the end, fighting misinformation will require both computing and human efforts such as policy changes, says Benjamin D. Horne, an assistant professor of Information Sciences at the University of Tennessee and one of Nevo’s co-authors. He says the RPI-Tennessee work was inspired by AI tools he designed previously. Horne was previously a research assistant at RPI, where he developed machine learning (ML) algorithms that can detect partial truths as well as decontextualized truths and out-of-date information.

“Our algorithms are trained on source-level behavior, both when using the textual content of an article and the network of other news sources that it draws news from,” Horne said. “We have found that these two types of features together are quite good at distinguishing between sources labeled as reliable or unreliable by external news source ratings.”

The machine learning algorithms analyze the writing style and the content-sharing behavior of news outlets, Horne said. Researchers trained a supervised ML algorithm called Random Forest, a classification algorithm that uses decision trees.

AI for Detecting Fake News

So, what’s the potential for AI to be successful in detecting misinformation?

“The tools we have developed, and other tools developed in this area, have fairly high accuracy in lab settings,” says Horne. “For example, our most recent technical work showed around 83% accuracy in predicting when the source of a news article is reliable or unreliable.”

Despite the effectiveness of algorithms, old-fashioned fact-checking by journalists will still be required to combat fake news. AI could filter the information for fact-checkers to verify, according to Horne.

“AI tools are great at dealing with high quantities of information at fast speeds but lack the nuanced analysis that a journalist or fact-checker can provide,” Horne said. “I see a future where the two work together.” Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#438801 This AI Thrashes the Hardest Atari Games ...

Posted on March 4, 2021 by Android

Learning from rewards seems like the simplest thing. I make coffee, I sip coffee, I’m happy. My brain registers “brewing coffee” as an action that leads to a reward.

That’s the guiding insight behind deep reinforcement learning, a family of algorithms that famously smashed most of Atari’s gaming catalog and triumphed over humans in strategy games like Go. Here, an AI “agent” explores the game, trying out different actions and registering ones that let it win.

Except it’s not that simple. “Brewing coffee” isn’t one action; it’s a series of actions spanning several minutes, where you’re only rewarded at the very end. By just tasting the final product, how do you learn to fine-tune grind coarseness, water to coffee ratio, brewing temperature, and a gazillion other factors that result in the reward—tasty, perk-me-up coffee?

That’s the problem with “sparse rewards,” which are ironically very abundant in our messy, complex world. We don’t immediately get feedback from our actions—no video-game-style dings or points for just grinding coffee beans—yet somehow we’re able to learn and perform an entire sequence of arm and hand movements while half-asleep.

This week, researchers from UberAI and OpenAI teamed up to bestow this talent on AI.

The trick is to encourage AI agents to “return” to a previous step, one that’s promising for a winning solution. The agent then keeps a record of that state, reloads it, and branches out again to intentionally explore other solutions that may have been left behind on the first go-around. Video gamers are likely familiar with this idea: live, die, reload a saved point, try something else, repeat for a perfect run-through.

The new family of algorithms, appropriately dubbed “Go-Explore,” smashed notoriously difficult Atari games like Montezuma’s Revenge that were previously unsolvable by its AI predecessors, while trouncing human performance along the way.

It’s not just games and digital fun. In a computer simulation of a robotic arm, the team found that installing Go-Explore as its “brain” allowed it to solve a challenging series of actions when given very sparse rewards. Because the overarching idea is so simple, the authors say, it can be adapted and expanded to other real-world problems, such as drug design or language learning.

Growing Pains
How do you reward an algorithm?

Rewards are very hard to craft, the authors say. Take the problem of asking a robot to go to a fridge. A sparse reward will only give the robot “happy points” if it reaches its destination, which is similar to asking a baby, with no concept of space and danger, to crawl through a potential minefield of toys and other obstacles towards a fridge.

“In practice, reinforcement learning works very well, if you have very rich feedback, if you can tell, ‘hey, this move is good, that move is bad, this move is good, that move is bad,’” said study author Joost Huinzinga. However, in situations that offer very little feedback, “rewards can intentionally lead to a dead end. Randomly exploring the space just doesn’t cut it.”

The other extreme is providing denser rewards. In the same robot-to-fridge example, you could frequently reward the bot as it goes along its journey, essentially helping “map out” the exact recipe to success. But that’s troubling as well. Over-holding an AI’s hand could result in an extremely rigid robot that ignores new additions to its path—a pet, for example—leading to dangerous situations. It’s a deceptive AI solution that seems effective in a simple environment, but crashes in the real world.

What we need are AI agents that can tackle both problems, the team said.

Intelligent Exploration
The key is to return to the past.

For AI, motivation usually comes from “exploring new or unusual situations,” said Huizinga. It’s efficient, but comes with significant downsides. For one, the AI agent could prematurely stop going back to promising areas because it thinks it had already found a good solution. For another, it could simply forget a previous decision point because of the mechanics of how it probes the next step in a problem.

For a complex task, the end result is an AI that randomly stumbles around towards a solution while ignoring potentially better ones.

“Detaching from a place that was previously visited after collecting a reward doesn’t work in difficult games, because you might leave out important clues,” Huinzinga explained.

Go-Explore solves these problems with a simple principle: first return, then explore. In essence, the algorithm saves different approaches it previously tried and loads promising save points—once more likely to lead to victory—to explore further.

Digging a bit deeper, the AI stores screen caps from a game. It then analyzes saved points and groups images that look alike as a potential promising “save point” to return to. Rinse and repeat. The AI tries to maximize its final score in the game, and updates its save points when it achieves a new record score. Because Atari doesn’t usually allow people to revisit any random point, the team used an emulator, which is a kind of software that mimics the Atari system but with custom abilities such as saving and reloading at any time.

The trick worked like magic. When pitted against 55 Atari games in the OpenAI gym, now commonly used to benchmark reinforcement learning algorithms, Go-Explore knocked out state-of-the-art AI competitors over 85 percent of the time.

It also crushed games previously unbeatable by AI. Montezuma’s Revenge, for example, requires you to move Pedro, the blocky protagonist, through a labyrinth of underground temples while evading obstacles such as traps and enemies and gathering jewels. One bad jump could derail the path to the next level. It’s a perfect example of sparse rewards: you need a series of good actions to get to the reward—advancing onward.

Go-Explore didn’t just beat all levels of the game, a first for AI. It also scored higher than any previous record for reinforcement learning algorithms at lower levels while toppling the human world record.

Outside a gaming environment, Go-Explore was also able to boost the performance of a simulated robot arm. While it’s easy for humans to follow high-level guidance like “put the cup on this shelf in a cupboard,” robots often need explicit training—from grasping the cup to recognizing a cupboard, moving towards it while avoiding obstacles, and learning motions to not smash the cup when putting it down.

Here, similar to the real world, the digital robot arm was only rewarded when it placed the cup onto the correct shelf, out of four possible shelves. When pitted against another algorithm, Go-Explore quickly figured out the movements needed to place the cup, while its competitor struggled with even reliably picking the cup up.

Combining Forces
By itself, the “first return, then explore” idea behind Go-Explore is already powerful. The team thinks it can do even better.

One idea is to change the mechanics of save points. Rather than reloading saved states through the emulator, it’s possible to train a neural network to do the same, without needing to relaunch a saved state. It’s a potential way to make the AI even smarter, the team said, because it can “learn” to overcome one obstacle once, instead of solving the same problem again and again. The downside? It’s much more computationally intensive.

Another idea is to combine Go-Explore with an alternative form of learning, called “imitation learning.” Here, an AI observes human behavior and mimics it through a series of actions. Combined with Go-Explore, said study author Adrien Ecoffet, this could make more robust robots capable of handling all the complexity and messiness in the real world.

To the team, the implications go far beyond Go-Explore. The concept of “first return, then explore” seems to be especially powerful, suggesting “it may be a fundamental feature of learning in general.” The team said, “Harnessing these insights…may be essential…to create generally intelligent agents.”

Image Credit: Adrien Ecoffet, Joost Huizinga, Joel Lehman, Kenneth O. Stanley, and Jeff Clune Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#438080 Boston Dynamics’ Spot Robot Is Now ...

Posted on February 3, 2021 by Android

Boston Dynamics has been working on an arm for its Spot quadruped for at least five years now. There have been plenty of teasers along the way, including this 45-second clip from early 2018 of Spot using its arm to open a door, which at 85 million views seems to be Boston Dynamics’ most popular video ever by a huge margin. Obviously, there’s a substantial amount of interest in turning Spot from a highly dynamic but mostly passive sensor platform into a mobile manipulator that can interact with its environment.

As anyone who’s done mobile manipulation will tell you, actually building an arm is just the first step—the really tricky part is getting that arm to do exactly what you want it to do. In particular, Spot’s arm needs to be able to interact with the world with some amount of autonomy in order to be commercially useful, because you can’t expect a human (remote or otherwise) to spend all their time positioning individual joints or whatever to pick something up. So the real question about this arm is whether Boston Dynamics has managed to get it to a point where it’s autonomous enough that users with relatively little robotics experience will be able to get it to do useful tasks without driving themselves nuts.

Today, Boston Dynamics is announcing commercial availability of the Spot arm, along with some improved software called Scout plus a self-charging dock that’ll give the robot even more independence. And to figure out exactly what Spot’s new arm can do, we spoke with Zachary Jackowski, Spot Chief Engineer at Boston Dynamics.

Although Boston Dynamics’ focus has been on dynamic mobility and legged robots, the company has been working on manipulation for a very long time. We first saw an arm prototype on an early iteration of Spot in 2016, where it demonstrated some impressive functionality, including loading a dishwasher and fetching a beer in a way that only resulted in a minor catastrophe. But we’re guessing that Spot’s arm can trace its history back to BigDog’s crazy powerful hydraulic face-arm, which was causing mayhem with cinder blocks back in 2013:

Spot’s arm is not quite that powerful (it has to drag cinder blocks along the ground rather than fling them into space), but you can certainly see the resemblance. Here’s the video that Boston Dynamics posted yesterday to introduce Spot’s new arm:

A couple of things jumped out from this video right away. First, Spot is doing whole body manipulation with its arm, as opposed to just acting as a four-legged base that brings the arm where it needs to go. Planning looks to be very tightly integrated, such that if you ask the robot to manipulate an object, its arm, legs, and torso all work together to optimize that manipulation. Also, when Spot flips that electrical switch, you see the robot successfully grasp the switch, and then reposition its body in a way that looks like it provides better leverage for the flip, which is a neat trick. It looks like it may be able to use the strength of its legs to augment the strength of its arm, as when it’s dragging the cinder block around, which is surely an homage to BigDog. The digging of a hole is particularly impressive. But again, the real question is how much of this is autonomous or semi-autonomous in a way that will be commercially useful?

Before we get to our interview with Spot Chief Engineer Zack Jackowski, it’s worth watching one more video that Boston Dynamics shared with us:

This is notable because Spot is opening a door that’s not ADA compliant, and the robot is doing it with a simple two-finger gripper. Most robots you see interacting with doors rely on ADA compliant hardware, meaning (among other things) a handle that can be pushed rather than a knob that has to be twisted, because it’s much more challenging for a robot to grasp and twist a smooth round door knob than it is to just kinda bash down on a handle. That capability, combined with Spot being able to pass through a spring-loaded door, potentially opens up a much wider array of human environments to the robot, and that’s where we started our conversation with Jackowski.

IEEE Spectrum: At what point did you decide that for Spot’s arm to be useful, it had to be able to handle round door knobs?

Zachary Jackowski: We're like a lot of roboticists, where someone in a meeting about manipulation would say “it's time for the round doorknob” and people would start groaning a little bit. But the reality is that, in order to make a robot useful, you have to engage with the environments that users have. Spot’s arm uses a very simple gripper—it’s a one degree of freedom gripper, but a ton of thought has gone into all of the fine geometric contours of it such that it can grab that ADA compliant lever handle, and it’ll also do an enclosing grasp around a round door knob. The major point of a robot like Spot is to engage with the environment you have, and so you can’t cut out stuff like round door knobs.

We're thrilled to be launching the arm and getting it out with users and to have them start telling us what doors it works really well on, and what they're having trouble with. And we're going to be working on rapidly improving all this stuff. We went through a few campaigns of like, “this isn’t ready until we can open every single door at Boston Dynamics!” But every single door at Boston Dynamics and at our test lab is a small fraction of all the doors in the world. So we're prepared to learn a lot this year.

When we see Spot open a door, or when it does those other manipulation behaviors in the launch video, how much of that is autonomous, how much is scripted, and to what extent is there a human in the loop?

All of the scenes where the robot does a pick, like the snow scene or the laundry scene, that is actually an almost fully integrated autonomous behavior that has a bit of a script wrapped around it. We trained a detector for an object, and the robot is identifying that object in the environment, picking it, and putting it in the bin all autonomously. The scripted part of that is telling the robot to perform a series of picks.

One of the things that we’re excited about, and that roboticists have been excited about going back probably all the way to the DRC, is semi-autonomous manipulation. And so we have modes built into the interface where if you see an object that you want the robot to grab, all you have to do is tap that object on the screen, and the robot will walk up to it, use the depth camera in its gripper to capture a depth map, and plan a grasp on its own in real time. That’s all built-in, too.

The jump rope—robots don’t just go and jump rope on their own. We scripted an arm motion to move the rope, and wrote a script using our API to coordinate all three robots. Drawing “Boston Dynamics” in chalk in our parking lot was scripted also. One of our engineers wrote a really cool G-code interpreter that vectorizes graphics so that Spot can draw them.

So for an end user, if you wanted Spot to autonomously flip some switches for you, you’d just have to train Spot on your switches, and then Spot could autonomously perform the task?

There are a couple of ways that task could break down depending on how you’re interfacing with the robot. If you’re a tablet user, you’d probably just identify the switch yourself on the tablet’s screen, and the robot will figure out the grasp, and grasp it. Then you’ll enter a constrained manipulation mode on the tablet, and the robot will be able to actuate the switch. But the robot will take care of the complicated controls aspects, like figuring out how hard it has to pull, the center of rotation of the switch, and so on.

The video of Spot digging was pretty cool—how did that work?

That’s mostly a scripted behavior. There are some really interesting control systems topics in there, like how you’d actually do the right kinds of force control while you insert the trowel into the dirt, and how to maintain robot stability while you do it. The higher level task of how to make a good hole in the dirt—that’s scripted. But the part of the problem that’s actually digging, you need the right control system to actually do that, or you’ll dig your trowel into the ground and flip your robot over.

The last time we saw Boston Dynamics robots flipping switches and turning valves I think might have been during the DRC in 2015, when they had expert robot operators with control over every degree of freedom. How are things different now with Spot, and will non-experts in the commercial space really be able to get the robot to do useful tasks?

A lot of the things, like “pick the stuff up in the room,” or ‘turn that switch,” can all be done by a lightly trained operator using just the tablet interface. If you want to actually command all of Spot’s arm degrees of freedom, you can do that— not through the tablet, but the API does expose all of it. That’s actually a notable difference from the base robot; we’ve never opened up the part of the API that lets you command individual leg degrees of freedom, because we don’t think it’s productive for someone to do that. The arm is a little bit different. There are a lot of smart people working on arm motion planning algorithms, and maybe you want to plan your arm trajectory in a super precise way and then do a DRC-style interface where you click to approve it. You can do all that through the API if you want, but fundamentally, it’s also user friendly. It follows our general API design philosophy of giving you the highest level pieces of the toolbox that will enable you to solve a complex problem that we haven't thought of.

Looking back on it now, it’s really cool to see, after so many years, robots do the stuff that Gill Pratt was excited about kicking off with the DRC. And now it’s just a thing you can buy.

Is Spot’s arm safe?

You should follow the same safety rules that you’d follow when working with Spot normally, and that’s that you shouldn’t get within two meters of the robot when it’s powered on. Spot is not a cobot. You shouldn’t hug it. Fundamentally, the places where the robot is the most valuable are places where people don’t want to be, or shouldn’t be.

We’ve seen how people reacted to earlier videos of Spot using its arm—can you help us set some reasonable expectations for what this means for Spot?

You know, it gets right back to the normal assumptions about our robots that people make that aren’t quite reality. All of this manipulation work we’re doing— the robot’s really acting as a tool. Even if it’s an autonomous behavior, it’s a tool. The robot is digging a hole because it’s got a set of instructions that say “apply this much force over this much distance here, here, and here.”

It’s not digging a hole and planting a tree because it loves trees, as much as I’d love to build a robot that works like that.

Photo: Boston Dynamics

There isn’t too much to say about the dock, except that it’s a requirement for making Spot long-term autonomous. The uncomfortable looking charging contacts that Spot impales itself on also include hardwired network connectivity, which is important because Spot often comes back home with a huge amount of data that all needs to be offloaded and processed. Docking and undocking are autonomous— as soon as the robot sees the fiducial markers on the dock, auto docking is enabled and it takes one click to settle the robot down.

During a brief remote demo, we also learned some other interesting things about Spot’s updated remote interface. It’s very latency tolerant, since you don’t have to drive the robot directly (although you can if you want to). Click a point on the camera view and Spot will move there autonomously while avoiding obstacles, meaning that even if you’re dealing with seconds of lag, the robot will continue making safe progress. This will be especially important if (when?) Spot starts exploring the Moon.

The remote interface also has an option to adjust how close Spot can get to obstacles, or to turn the obstacle avoidance off altogether. The latter functionality is useful if Spot sees something as an obstacle that really isn’t, like a curtain, while the former is useful if the robot is operating in an environment where it needs to give an especially wide berth to objects that could be dangerous to run into. “The robot’s not perfect—robots will never be perfect,” Jackowski reminds us, which is something we really (seriously) appreciate hearing from folks working on powerful, dynamic robots. “No matter how good the robot is, you should always de-risk as much as possible.”

Another part of that de-risking is having the user let Spot know when it’s about to go up or down some stairs by putting into “Stair Mode” with a toggle switch in the remote interface. Stairs are still a challenge for Spot, and Stair Mode slows the robot down and encourages it to pitch its body more aggressively to get a better view of the stairs. You’re encouraged to use stair mode, and also encouraged to send Spot up and down stairs with its “head” pointing up the stairs both ways, but these are not requirements for stair navigation— if you want to, you can send Spot down stairs head first without putting it in stair mode. Jackowski says that eventually, Spot will detect stairways by itself even when not in stair mode and adjust itself accordingly, but for now, that de-risking is solidly in the hands of the user.

Spot’s sensor payload, which is what we were trying out for the demo, provided a great opportunity for us to hear Spot STOMP STOMP STOMPING all over the place, which was also an opportunity for us to ask Jackowski why they can’t make Spot a little quieter. “It’s advantageous for Spot to step a little bit hard for the same reason it’s advantageous for you to step a little bit hard if you’re walking around blindfolded—that reason is that it really lets you know where the ground is, particularly when you’re not sure what to expect.” He adds, “It’s all in the name of robustness— the robot might be a little louder, but it’s a little more sure of its footing.”

Boston Dynamics isn’t yet ready to disclose the price of an arm-equipped Spot, but if you’re a potential customer, now is the time to contact the Boston Dynamics sales team to ask them about it. As a reminder, the base model of Spot costs US $74,500, with extra sensing or compute adding a substantial premium on top of that.

There will be a livestream launch event taking place at 11am ET today, during which Boston Dynamics’ CEO Robert Playter, VP of Marketing Michael Perry, and other folks from Boston Dynamics will make presentations on this new stuff. It’ll be live at this link, or you can watch it below. Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#437667 17 Teams to Take Part in DARPA’s ...

Posted on November 23, 2020 by Android

Among all of the other in-person events that have been totally wrecked by COVID-19 is the Cave Circuit of the DARPA Subterranean Challenge. DARPA has already hosted the in-person events for the Tunnel and Urban SubT circuits (see our previous coverage here), and the plan had always been for a trio of events representing three uniquely different underground environments in advance of the SubT Finals, which will somehow combine everything into one bonkers course.

While the SubT Urban Circuit event snuck in just under the lockdown wire in late February, DARPA made the difficult (but prudent) decision to cancel the in-person Cave Circuit event. What this means is that there will be no Systems Track Cave competition, which is a serious disappointment—we were very much looking forward to watching teams of robots navigating through an entirely unpredictable natural environment with a lot of verticality. Fortunately, DARPA is still running a Virtual Cave Circuit, and 17 teams will be taking part in this competition featuring a simulated cave environment that’s as dynamic and detailed as DARPA can make it.

From DARPA’s press releases:

DARPA’s Subterranean (SubT) Challenge will host its Cave Circuit Virtual Competition, which focuses on innovative solutions to map, navigate, and search complex, simulated cave environments November 17. Qualified teams have until Oct. 15 to develop and submit software-based solutions for the Cave Circuit via the SubT Virtual Portal, where their technologies will face unknown cave environments in the cloud-based SubT Simulator. Until then, teams can refine their roster of selected virtual robot models, choose sensor payloads, and continue to test autonomy approaches to maximize their score.

The Cave Circuit also introduces new simulation capabilities, including digital twins of Systems Competition robots to choose from, marsupial-style platforms combining air and ground robots, and breadcrumb nodes that can be dropped by robots to serve as communications relays. Each robot configuration has an associated cost, measured in SubT Credits – an in-simulation currency – based on performance characteristics such as speed, mobility, sensing, and battery life.

Each team’s simulated robots must navigate realistic caves, with features including natural terrain and dynamic rock falls, while they search for and locate various artifacts on the course within five meters of accuracy to score points during a 60-minute timed run. A correct report is worth one point. Each course contains 20 artifacts, which means each team has the potential for a maximum score of 20 points. Teams can leverage numerous practice worlds and even build their own worlds using the cave tiles found in the SubT Tech Repo to perfect their approach before they submit one official solution for scoring. The DARPA team will then evaluate the solution on a set of hidden competition scenarios.

Of the 17 qualified teams (you can see all of them here), there are a handful that we’ll quickly point out. Team BARCS, from Michigan Tech, was the winner of the SubT Virtual Urban Circuit, meaning that they may be the team to beat on Cave as well, although the course is likely to be unique enough that things will get interesting. Some Systems Track teams to watch include Coordinated Robotics, CTU-CRAS-NORLAB, MARBLE, NUS SEDS, and Robotika, and there are also a handful of brand new teams as well.

Now, just because there’s no dedicated Cave Circuit for the Systems Track teams, it doesn’t mean that there won’t be a Cave component (perhaps even a significant one) in the final event, which as far as we know is still scheduled to happen in fall of next year. We’ve heard that many of the Systems Track teams have been testing out their robots in caves anyway, and as the virtual event gets closer, we’ll be doing a sort of Virtual Systems Track series that highlights how different teams are doing mock Cave Circuits in caves they’ve found for themselves.

For more, we checked in with DARPA SubT program manager Dr. Timothy H. Chung.

IEEE Spectrum: Was it a difficult decision to cancel the Systems Track for Cave?

Tim Chung: The decision to go virtual only was heart wrenching, because I think DARPA’s role is to offer up opportunities that may be unimaginable for some of our competitors, like opening up a cave-type site for this competition. We crawled and climbed through a number of these sites, and I share the sense of disappointment that both our team and the competitors have that we won’t be able to share all the advances that have been made since the Urban Circuit. But what we’ve been able to do is pour a lot of our energy and the insights that we got from crawling around in those caves into what’s going to be a really great opportunity on the Virtual Competition side. And whether it’s a global pandemic, or just lack of access to physical sites like caves, virtual environments are an opportunity that we want to develop.

“The simulator offers us a chance to look at where things could be … it really allows for us to find where some of those limits are in the technology based only on our imagination.”
—Timothy H. Chung, DARPA

What kind of new features will be included in the Virtual Cave Circuit for this competition?

I’m really excited about these particular features because we’re seeing an opportunity for increased synergy between the physical and the virtual. The first I’d say is that we scanned some of the Systems Track robots using photogrammetry and combined that with some additional models that we got from the systems competitors themselves to turn their systems robots into virtual models. We often talk about the sim to real transfer and how successful we can get a simulation to transfer over to the physical world, but now we’ve taken something from the physical world and made it virtual. We’ve validated the controllers as well as the kinematics of the robots, we’ve iterated with the systems competitors themselves, and now we have these 13 robots (air and ground) in the SubT Tech Repo that now all virtual competitors can take advantage of.

We also have additional robot capability. Those comms bread crumbs are common among many of the competitors, so we’ve adopted that in the virtual world, and now you have comms relay nodes that are baked in to the SubT Simulator—you can have either six or twelve comms nodes that you can drop from a variety of our ground robot platforms. We have the marsupial deployment capability now, so now we have parent ground robots that can be mixed and matched with different child drones to become marsupial pairs.

And this is something I’ve been planning for for a while: we now have the ability to trigger things like rock falls. They still don’t quite look like Indiana Jones with the boulder coming down the corridor, but this comes really close. In addition to it just being an interesting and realistic consideration, we get to really dynamically test and stress the robots’ ability to navigate and recognize that something has changed in the environment and respond to it.

Image: DARPA

DARPA is still running a Virtual Cave Circuit, and 17 teams will be taking part in this competition featuring a simulated cave environment.

No simulation is perfect, so can you talk to us about what kinds of things aren’t being simulated right now? Where does the simulator not match up to reality?

I think that question is foundational to any conversation about simulation. I’ll give you a couple of examples:

We have the ability to represent wholesale damage to a robot, but it’s not at the actuator or component level. So there’s not a reliability model, although I think that would be really interesting to incorporate so that you could do assessments on things like mean time to failure. But if a robot falls off a ledge, it can be disabled by virtue of being too damaged to continue.

With communications, and this is one that’s near and dear not only to my heart but also to all of those that have lived through developing communication systems and robotic systems, we’ve gone through and conducted RF surveys of underground environments to get a better handle on what propagation effects are. There’s a lot of research that has gone into this, and trying to carry through some of that realism, we do have path loss models for RF communications baked into the SubT Simulator. For example, when you drop a bread crumb node, it’s using a path loss model so that it can represent the degradation of signal as you go farther into a cave. Now, we’re not modeling it at the Maxwell equations level, which I think would be awesome, but we’re not quite there yet.

We do have things like battery depletion, sensor degradation to the extent that simulators can degrade sensor inputs, and things like that. It’s just amazing how close we can get in some places, and how far away we still are in others, and I think showing where the limits are of how far you can get simulation is all part and parcel of why SubT Challenge wants to have both System and Virtual tracks. Simulation can be an accelerant, but it’s not going to be the panacea for development and innovation, and I think all the competitors are cognizant those limitations.

One of the most amazing things about the SubT Virtual Track is that all of the robots operate fully autonomously, without the human(s) in the loop that the System Track teams have when they compete. Why make the Virtual Track even more challenging in that way?

I think it’s one of the defining, delineating attributes of the Virtual Track. Our continued vision for the simulation side is that the simulator offers us a chance to look at where things could be, and allows for us to explore things like larger scales, or increased complexity, or types of environments that we can’t physically gain access to—it really allows for us to find where some of those limits are in the technology based only on our imagination, and this is one of the intrinsic values of simulation.

But I think finding a way to incorporate human input, or more generally human factors like teleoperation interfaces and the in-situ stress that you might not be able to recreate in the context of a virtual competition provided a good reason for us to delineate the two competitions, with the Virtual Competition really being about the role of fully autonomous or self-sufficient systems going off and doing their solution without human guidance, while also acknowledging that the real world has conditions that would not necessarily be represented by a fully simulated version. Having said that, I think cognitive engineering still has an incredibly important role to play in human robot interaction.

What do we have to look forward to during the Virtual Competition Showcase?

We have a number of additional features and capabilities that we’ve baked into the simulator that will allow for us to derive some additional insights into our competition runs. Those insights might involve things like the performance of one or more robots in a given scenario, or the impact of the environment on different types of robots, and what I can tease is that this will be an opportunity for us to showcase both the technology and also the excitement of the robots competing in the virtual environment. I’m trying not to give too many spoilers, but we’ll have an opportunity to really get into the details.

Check back as we get closer to the 17 November event for more on the DARPA SubT Challenge. Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots