Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Robots Are Net's Future, Says Vint Cerf

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the would-be-great-for-remote-grocery-picking dept.

The Internet 118

Ned Nederlander writes "Vint Cerf talks the future of the Internet with Ed Cone: 'I expect to see much more interesting interactions, including the possibility of haptic interactions — touch. Not just touch screens, but the ability to remotely interact with things. Little robots, for example, that are instantiations of you, and are remotely operated, giving you what is called telepresence. It's a step well beyond the kind of video telepresence we are accustomed to seeing today.'"

cancel ×

118 comments

At last! (5, Funny)

Haffner (1349071) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878007)

Slashdot readers will finally have satisfying girlfriends.

Re:At last! (4, Funny)

kalirion (728907) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878157)

Don't forget satisfied girlfriends.

Re:At last! ! ! ! (1, Funny)

kubitus (927806) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878369)

I fully agree and posted my agreement before I read your comment!

Re:At last! (4, Funny)

PMuse (320639) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878567)

The day when there are easily-available machines that mostly replace women for purposes of sex will be an interesting day in the history of women's liberation.

It has certainly been interesting [abovethelaw.com] since men were replaced.

Re:At last! (0)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878877)

I didn't forget yours!

BOOYA

Re:At last! (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24881819)

Don't forget satisfied girlfriends.

Imaginary conversation between a geek and a girl:

- So where do you work?
- I'm a computer programmer.
- Oh! Maybe you can help me. See, I'm having a technical problem with my "boyfriend"....

Re:At last! (2, Insightful)

mapleneckblues (1145545) | more than 5 years ago | (#24882065)

"satisfied girlfriend" is an oxymoron

Re:At last! (5, Funny)

TheLostSamurai (1051736) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878413)

Personally, I'm looking forward to this finally making it possible for me to be able to work from home. I can have a robot sitting in my office chair browsing Slashdot while pretending to work, being controlled by me from my house browsing Slashdot and pretending to work.

Re:At last! (0)

call-me-kenneth (1249496) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879217)

Puny earthling! The inevitable takeover of your environment by the metallic overlords of the future will ensure that the only office will be one in the "Real live humans diorama!" by which junior robotic overlords will occasionally amuse themselves my pulling the limbs off a helpless fleshy one! Call-Me-Kenneth says: Flesh Ones Must Die!

Re:At last! (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879665)

Tell me about it. Hell, I'll even skip the browsing slashdot at home and head over to LJ. Sucks I'm only allowed to post inane, pointless comments on tech sites at work and not social sites.

I like toidals!

Re:At last! (1)

Gryphoenix (1052272) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879913)

World of World of Warcraft!

Careful with those robots... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878477)

Crush! Kill! Destroy!

Re:Careful with those robots... (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878527)

Don't forget CLAMPS!

Re:At last! (2, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878497)

Only at slashdot would the first post be modded "redundant". [slashdot.org] Mods, please consult a dictionary, [reference.com] there are several on the internet. That was offtopic, not redundant.

As this comment will now directly address the parent, [uncyclopedia.org] it is not offtopic. Mod it -1, lame. [uncyclopedia.org]

Dude, robots are going to have to come a long, long way before... oops, bad choice of words.

Robots are going to have to, erm, get a lot more high tech before they'll satisfy. But at any rate, girlfriends go for twenty bucks here in Springfield. See A Nerd's Guide to Getting Laid [slashdot.org] . Unfortunately, there's nothing in that journal about robotics or the internet, although it does mention porn.

What was I talking about again?

Re:At last! (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879171)

It wasn't really offtopic either, was it? Just wanted to state that a first post can truly be redundant, imagine a first post that simply repeated the summary all over again...

Re:At last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24879219)

There is a long history in science fiction for robotic girlfriends. Article talks about remotely controlled robots that act as the person controlling it. The sex industry would love to have a remote controlled sex doll/robot available and under their patents so that they could try to keep it from being copied and used by those not paying license fees to them as well as preventing unpaid for control of them by those that gain access to them via chat room agreements. Of course the drawbacks to such chatroom agreements will be numerous, including the possibility of some bored 12 year old male gaining control of your girlfriend bot, police involvement and so forth.

So how is the GP offtopic?

Re:At last! (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879445)

There is a long history in science fiction for robotic girlfriends.

Isaac Asimov's Robots of Dawn comes to mind, where the woman falls in love with a humaniform robot. An early STNG episode had Data having sex with Tasha Yar.

The sex industry would love to have a remote controlled sex doll/robot

I'd like one that wasn't remote controlled, but rather one that I could program to act in any way I wanted it to. If a woman wants sex with me, why would I want a robot involved? Unless, of course, I had a spouse on the other side of the continent (but I wouldn't have a long distance relationship).

So how is the GP offtopic?

My whole post was a joke; note that I linked the word "redundant" to the GP? And linked uncyclopedia of all places?

Re:At last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24879901)

So how is the GP offtopic?

My whole post was a joke; note that I linked the word "redundant" to the GP? And linked uncyclopedia of all places?

Thanks for clarifying that because a moderator obviously thought you were serious or came to that mistaken conclusion on their own. Maybe now they will read our posts and consider posting in this article to clear their mistake, if they haven't already.

BTW in regards to one of your other posts [slashdot.org] there is already a robot [cnet.com] in use by a telecommuter, not extremely highly advanced but he can talk to the other employees with it as well as move it about the office building. With such robots in more common use it might reduce objections to people doing telecommuting. Using such to go to school would prove interesting in the medical field on research of it cutting down on communicable diseases and in contrast, its effects on immune system development. It might change all the violence in schools to robot wars. Would have put the link there but being a true AC am severely limited on number of posts by timed restrictions from Slashdot.

Re:At last! (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#24881077)

There is a long history in science fiction for robotic girlfriends

The current best being Megatokyo, with its semi-autonomous PS3 peripheral. Oldest/best may well be the android in the Fritz Lang movie "Metropolis".

Re:At last! (1)

Lobster Quadrille (965591) | more than 5 years ago | (#24880431)

It's a very tired joke. It's redundant.

Has to be said (1)

kithrup (778358) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878013)

I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.

It's not a truck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878163)

It's a series of psychotic killer robots. Waiting... patiently...

Re:Has to be said (1)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878211)

I just love all the articles that get past the firehose, that offer no scientific benefits except "theories" or rather predictions on the future... Still waiting on my flying car, and no, the German scientists haven't offered me sex for it yet. [imdb.com]

Re:Has to be said (0)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878249)

No, they're not your overlords. You control them. Except for one part of the world --

In Soviet Russia, robots control YOU!

Re:Has to be said (3, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878467)

But their efforts to refuel their humans [wikipedia.org] are a bit misguided. Not all of us run on radioactive isotopes.

I'll Be Back... (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878027)

But I thought this is what Sara Connor Was trying to prevent... Oh wait, that was Terminators.

The worst of it.... (2, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878059)

... just imagine what manifestation the new V!ag@ spam will take on.

Heinlein was right it seems (0)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878075)

Well look at that, Heilein was right yet again, just ahead of his time as usual.

Re:Heinlein was right it seems (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878359)

Heindsight is always 20/20.

It's sandwiches. (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878091)

Vint Cerf may have created the internet, but I'm a fortune teller and therefore have more authority over the future of the internet. The future is not robots, it's ham sandwiches. Amazing, isn't it? It will give you what I call telesancwichessence.

Pffft! (3, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878165)

Science fiction writers have been saying this for decades. Actually, I think the esteemed Vincent Cerf has been talking to Captain Obvious. [uncyclopedia.org]

Robotics will have to both become far less expensive, and far more developed than now before this happens. I'm already 56, I may not see it.

He's so good at being demure... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878173)

What Vint is really trying to say is we're all going to have sex remotely with teledildonics in the future. Which essentially means we'll be screwing our computers.

I for one welcome our teledildonic overlords.

In soviet russia, computer screws you.

reminds me of (1)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878177)

Westworld

Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (3, Interesting)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878205)

Imagine! You could control a robot playing tennis remotely! Oh wait.. What if the network lags. Oh we just simulate what would actually be going on the remote tennis court on the local machine and just pause the remote player's screen until we actually hit the ball and then we can send him a message telling him how hard we hit it and in what direction.

Oh WAIT! We're talking about REALITY not a simulation. Well then.. If we lagged we missed the ball and there's no way to paper over it like we can in virtual worlds.

If you had a traditional robot playing tennis running a hard real-time operating system then everything from moving into place, winding up and swinging would all take a predictable amount of time and given a good algorithm one could play a pretty good game.

Anyway, Tennis is a relatively trivial example but things that happen in the physical world where physical forces are in play do not tolerate internet like latency very well. You cannot send xon/xoff like flow control signals to reality.

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878351)

I don't think Tennis is to the sort of thing you'd use telepresence for..

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878507)

I don't think Tennis is to the sort of thing you'd use telepresence for..

Remember the trail they did with students where you could make the recipients phone vibrate when you squeezed yours?

It, ah, wasn't used in the way they expected.

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (2, Funny)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879789)

I can only really think of one reason to make someone else's phone buzz. Are there others?

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879775)

They did in The Lost Saucer [wikipedia.org] !

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879009)

You could control a robot playing tennis remotely! Oh wait.. What if the network lags.

The same thing that happened ten years ago when we were playing Quake over the internet. Except, of course, bots will be LEGAL. Look at the lag the Martian robots have, and they work incredibly well.

Ever since Pac man came out there is a robotic room I wanted to build. I wanted to make a 3D pack man game you actually got inside of. I even drew up plans once.

You would have LCD screens (my original vision had projectors; it was before LCD screens) on moveable, motorized walls and floors, each wall about the size of a standard door. A human would be physically inside the maze. The "ghosts" would be other humans outside the maze using terminals, to them the game would be much like a normal 1979 Pac Man.

Alas, it would take tons of money and I have only grams of it. But the idea would be a lot easier and cheaper with today's technology than when I first thought of it.

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (1)

KovaaK (1347019) | more than 5 years ago | (#24880363)

You could control a robot playing tennis remotely! Oh wait.. What if the network lags.

The same thing that happened ten years ago when we were playing Quake over the internet.

Take a look at what netcode in modern FPS games - they like to use client-side prediction algorithms that give you a good idea of where enemy players will be by the time your mouse click gets to the server to say that you fired your gun. With the Tennis ball's velocity/rotational velocity, wind speed, and a general idea of how lagged your network is, you can give the client side a smooth, "unlagged" feeling.

Of course, this gets more complicated in FPS games due to those evil enemy players not moving in predictable straight lines :).

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#24881177)

Look at the lag the Martian robots have

Indeed, 40 minutes one-way light time at some points in the orbit. Or at least it was during the 1976 Viking I landing, but I'm so out of touch they could have changed the universal constants since then.

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879419)

The robot would probably be able to handle some limited decisions should communication slow down.

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (2, Interesting)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 5 years ago | (#24880139)

"Anyway, Tennis is a relatively trivial example but things that happen in the physical world where physical forces are in play do not tolerate internet like latency very well. You cannot send xon/xoff like flow control signals to reality."

That is correct, so the way it would work is to isue higher level commands. Much like a coach would to a player. The coach gives only higher level statigy like "Stay more left of center and move up a bit." As robots become better they will need les and less real-time control.

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#24881113)

If you're going to have robots interacting with robots, skip the metal and play Warcraft.

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 5 years ago | (#24881805)

Put your hand on the back of your head. Feel about for the slight lump about an inch up from where your neck meets your head. Push it slightly left and in. A panel should pop open. Push the third DIP switch from the left (from your POV, looking in the mirror) into the second position. That should enable xon/xoff to reality. Unless you're one of the older models.

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24881871)

Anyway, Tennis is a relatively trivial example but things that happen in the physical world where physical forces are in play do not tolerate internet like latency very well. You cannot send xon/xoff like flow control signals to reality.

But if you can have sense-realistic telepresence, why need reality in the first place?

Re:Real-time Systems don't like latency.... (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 5 years ago | (#24882323)

There's lag in real life, it's called "reaction time". Most regular people have at least 150 milliseconds of this lag and probably a good deal more [humanbenchmark.com] . Yet, REALITY somehow works.

The only way to get network latency that bad nowadays is to use a dial up connection or a heavily congested link to a location on the opposite side of the world. The non-zero latency is of course something that has to be accounted for, but it's not a guarantee of failure.

Robot for President 2008 (1)

ilovesymbian (1341639) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878217)

If a robot stands for President 2008, I'll vote for it, err... him.

Re:Robot for President 2008 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878495)

Is this an example of Trollbait?

Re:Robot for President 2008 (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878551)

Vote for Bender in 3008!

Teledildonics (2, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878255)

Teledildonics [wikipedia.org] seem to be an instantiation of what he is talking about.

Re:Teledildonics (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878633)

I hope they choose a more mainstreamable name for this technology, which has great application for stuff beyond the naughty. I can think of a lot: teledonics, teletronics, telebotics, teletactlics, teletactics, teletouch ...

Re:Teledildonics (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879297)

Teletourism!
Go to Paris and don't have to deal with rude waiters, only rude electricians!

Re:Teledildonics (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879813)

iDildonics?

Low-latency.. (3, Insightful)

molo (94384) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878267)

I don't see how this would be possible without major commercial investment in high speed low-latency intercity links (like the .edus on Internet2). This kind of remote interactivity requires very low latency in order for it to be remotely feasible.

Remember what the original Quake was like on a 200ms connection? Talk about skating.. Oh, and you can't do client-side prediction in real-world telepresence. I wouldn't want to be in the room when someone was operating a remote machine with high latency.

Would have some definite applications in the DoD though. It might restore the original definition of "strafing".

-molo

Re:Low-latency.. (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879319)

Oh, and you can't do client-side prediction in real-world telepresence. I wouldn't want to be in the room when someone was operating a remote machine with high latency.

So surgery [timesonline.co.uk] is right out then ?

Re:Low-latency.. (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 5 years ago | (#24880629)

It is a prediction for 20 years in the future. Hopefully our internet connections will be better by then.

What's the point? (2, Interesting)

kalirion (728907) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878283)

For social meetings, etc, would a robot avatar be that much better than a virtual avatar? I can understand when physical actions are actually required on the other end. But meetings? That would just be creepy.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878457)

"I'm sorry, Kalirion... I can't go out to dinner and a movie with you in person tonight -- but I'm sending my robotic avatar in my place!"

Well, I guess it's better than the rejection we're used to getting...

Re:What's the point? (1)

Loko Draucarn (398556) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878919)

You could always send your robotic avatar to meet her robotic avatar.

Play your cards right, and you've got an interesting variation of Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots.

Re:What's the point? (1)

glittalogik (837604) | more than 5 years ago | (#24882695)

I know this is /. and we're not really meant to be experts on the subject, but I'm pretty sure beating up your date is doing it wrong.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Brumdail (1270932) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878609)

Virtual avatars can't punch them in the face. Let's see those cyber punks talk trash now.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878285)

I think the guys from Penny Arcade already knew this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/8/1/ [penny-arcade.com]

remote tactile feeling will be it! (0, Redundant)

kubitus (927806) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878353)

NOT SO MUCH ROBOTS

tele-sex will be THE HIT of the internet

remote touch/feeling will allow both person to person body-interaction

but will allow also interaction with a virtual sex-partner

or with a sex partner who is real, but wears the virtual look of some sexual attractive other

Re:remote tactile feeling will be it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878599)

I could have sworn that teledildonics was something that was already here... Well, just another example of the porn industry providing the impetus for new development and adoptions.

Re:remote tactile feeling will be it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24879077)

BWA HAHA

i was really a man ... o wait.. DAMN!

Re:remote tactile feeling will be it! (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879377)

I dunno. It sounds too much like the old joke where the punch line was, "Hand, jerk it off!"

Give me an Orb and a refurbed Orgasmatron and I will be set for life.

If you want to use that as a .sig, email me a dollar

Penny Arcade already covered this (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878357)

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/8/1/

As usual... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878373)

...the porn industry is way ahead [humorfactory.nl] of the curve.

Creativity ??? ... (3, Interesting)

foobsr (693224) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878401)

From TFA: Another change I'm pretty sure will happen over the course of the next 20 to 50 years is the way we interact these online systems, or even with local ones. Today it's keyboards and mice, but I expect interactions, conversational interactions, gestural interactions to be normal.

Sounds like a quote from a prediction of how interaction with computers will evolve from about 40 years ago.

Rather I would expect humans to become part of the cloud via low level (nano) interfaces on a borg line (or part of the 'Big Media' as a successor to the 'do no evil' corp).

CC.

1998 called (0, Offtopic)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878411)

they want their web agents back

same old shit, repackaged with new terms

i wonder what the next buzzword will be used to describe client-server architecture anew?

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878517)

Now we can outsource lawn maintenance, paper delivery, nursing, hot dog vendors....

Obligatory Penny Arcade (0)

crunch_ca (972937) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878545)

Old news. And the ramifications are very far reaching.

iChokeU [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878963)

However funny, it does have interesting ramifications. What will the pressure threshold be for receiving the telepresence signal? If it goes into pr0n type devices, how sensitive will it be? How hard can it squeeze? A soft grip? A pinprick? The snap of a whip? Hard enough to sever skin or crush blood vessels? There are important safety issues to look into for this.

Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879871)

I think you'd just set up your gear for what ever level you wanted and no matter how high a signal comes in, doesn't override.

Unless you get hosed by a virus. Man, getting digitally blackmailed will suck!

This would be a step backwards (2, Interesting)

Bicx (1042846) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878547)

One of the best things about the web is that it connects all of us without necessitating a physical presence. The resources necessary for multiple physical robots would be counter-productive and take away a good deal of what makes wide-area networks so effective and useful.

great (1, Interesting)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878579)

one more person who has to create another tangible step backward for technology.

its called a script, vint. ive been making these tiny robots my entire career.

theres a distint possibility Mr. Cerf is too old to be anything but a father figure to the tubes waxing steampunk on an internet he likely hasnt shared familiarity with in around a decade.. nothing to see here. move along

Outsource Labor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878687)

Yay! now we can outsource lawn maintenance, paper delivery, nurses, policemen, firefighters....

Uh huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878703)

I remember sitting across from Vint Cerf at the MCI headquarters in Virginia, looking out over the Pentagon, as he tells the board that they shouldn't buy my fledgling company because MCIMail was going to outgrow AOL and take over the corporate mail market.

He's one of those guys that people consider a leader in technology, but he hasn't really done anything of value in 40 years.

1990's??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878729)

For a moment, I thought someone was trying to sell us yet another old as new. I'm glad he wasn't talking about software agents and bots from 90's.

I can already interact remotely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24878811)

And I can look at pictures of the Eiffel tower too, but nothing beats going there to see it for myself.

Imagine... if you will (1)

xactuary (746078) | more than 5 years ago | (#24878865)

A slim cylinder plug that vibrates when "You've got mail!"

Re:Imagine... if you will (3, Funny)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879891)

People would stop filtering spam.

Robots, yes. Teleoperators, no. (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879041)

The whole point of robots is not to require an operator.

Teleoperators have their uses, but those uses are limited. They're useful if the worksite is dangerous (disarming bombs), unsuitable for humans (underwater), or on a different scale (surgical teleoperators). Remotely piloted vehicles have their uses, too, but even there, the trend is toward automated vehicles.

The remote-presence thing might be useful for people who go to too many meetings and don't have enough clout to force them to be videoconferences. This is a niche market.

Re:Robots, yes. Teleoperators, no. (2, Interesting)

AeroIllini (726211) | more than 5 years ago | (#24881367)

Teleoperators are required when the decision tree is too complex for a robot to do autonomously. They are used when nothing but a wet human brain will do, but the human hardware (fragile and/or poorly dexterous tissue and bone) is not up to task.

Your examples (bomb diffusing, underwater exploration, surgery) all fit this mold. Better to have a human brain making the decisions for hardened robotic hardware than to have a simplistic autonomous decision tree in charge. These applications are not going away.

Re:Robots, yes. Teleoperators, no. (1)

zobier (585066) | more than 5 years ago | (#24882773)

Yeah, I'm more interested in the field of full-body haptics as it relates to virtual reality, although I'm beginning to think lucid dreaming or astral projection might be more practical. Yes I have had lucid dreams although I can't trigger them regularly yet, no I'm not sure I believe astral projection is possible. I just want fully immersive VR damnit.

THIS JUST IN: Hot new toy straight out of China (2, Funny)

Willis13 (1357783) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879269)

Remote robots modeled after the the PRC leader will be the new craze this Christmas.

I, for one, welcome our new remote maoist robot overlords.

Something like this? (1)

TagrenHawk (19856) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879343)

Didn't we already have this discussion [slashdot.org] once after someone had already done it? [therecord.com]

When he was wandering around at night looking for someone to "plug him in" .... Talk about reaching out and touching someone. Wow!

Whew! (1)

MrNougat (927651) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879395)

It's a good thing I got my insurance [robotmarketplace.com] premiums paid up!

I shall call him... (2, Funny)

DeusExMach (1319255) | more than 5 years ago | (#24879723)

Robo-David-Coppafeel.

Robots on the Web in the future? (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24880425)

I just finished working on this project:
http://www.bpexplorer.com.au/ [bpexplorer.com.au]

(NB: Aussie and Kiwi users only can drive - sorry, but for obvious reasons of course)

Basically users queue up and control a robot tank with a web cam attached to it. The streaming IS slightly laggy, but very usable for the purpose.

I wrote the car controller etc. Lots of fun and the best dev project I have worked on. Unique challenges and all that. My degree/research just happened to be in Artificial Intellegence - so a nice (albeit accidental) complement there.

The intent for users was very similar to the experience article mentioned (without haptics) and the reaction from users was very positive. The idea of controlling something "real" over the internet instead of just interacting with bytes had great novelty.
One could imagine all sorts of extensions to this basic interaction. e.g. "robot tank counterstrike". Other types of robots. Car races.

The most obvious problem with this type of tech is scalability.
In the current scenario, users only get a max of 5 minutes each (with secret codes) and this still involves large wait times for even a modest (internet-wise) number of users.
Also, with moving parts containing hardware, the issue of upkeep is a lot more problematic. Cars will break down, require maintenance etc. To scale this scenario up is VERY expensive.

Having said this, how many people would be willing to pay for a high-bandwidth/realtime/gaming version of this? Perhaps enough to make it worthwhile?

hmm...
(runs off to drum up VC funding...)

Re:Robots on the Web in the future? (1)

Wobble-U (1112077) | more than 5 years ago | (#24882325)

I went to your page. I think your tank is stuck on something.

Re:Robots on the Web in the future? (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24882699)

I no longer work on it. I was just the DEV. :)

Oblig Simpsons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24880513)

Ro-bots, ro-bots
Fu-ture, fu-ture
Robots are our future, YEAH

Battle routine set! Execute! (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 5 years ago | (#24881259)

That's genius! In fact, we should connect all devices to the internet, from little robots to buses to ovens. And we create a VR world as a representation of the internet. In order to navigate this world we'd develop little avatars or "Navigators" who run around and interact with semi-sentient programs and each other. Of course there will still be malware, so I think we should use unptched security holes in the Navigator protocol (which viruses will also have to use) to allow Navigators to attack and even delete other programs (like viruses). We could use small terminals to store the Navigators when we don't need them online... the form factor could be called Portable Terminal or something like that.

That's an extremely good concept and I wonder why nobody had that idea before.

Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24882341)

If the little robots allow the long-held dream of being able to punch someone in the face through the internet, there will be griefers and it'll be banned.

If the little robots are helpless against physical humans, there will be griefers and it'll be a failure.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...