Beta
×

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!

World's Fastest Robot Versus the Wiimote

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the skynet-will-remember-your-taunting dept.

Input Devices 92

kkleiner writes "Adept's Quattro, a placement and sorting arm, took the title of fastest robot last year, but it was only recently during National Robotics Week that it met its most gruesome opponents: nerds with Wiimotes. Visitors tried to keep the Quattro from placing and sorting on a small mechanized platform by moving it using the Nintendo video controller. The bottom line is that when it comes to simplified and repetitive tasks there's really no beating robotic prowess."

cancel ×

92 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Extra Extra: Robot Beats Nerds! (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31944944)

Too bad the Quattro didn't get to celebrate by "sorting and stacking" a few nerds ;-)

Re:Extra Extra: Robot Beats Nerds! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31945110)

It'll never sell. Most kids prefer "Virutal Yard Work" over "Sorting and Stacking".

Oh I don't know about that... (1)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 4 years ago | (#31944950)

The bottom line is that when it comes to simplified and repetitive tasks there's really no beating robotic prowess

It all depends on the simple, repetitive task.

Re:Oh I don't know about that... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945038)

Yeah. I bet I could beat that robot at Breathing!

Re:Oh I don't know about that... (1)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945654)

Or wanking...which was what I was alluding too. Geez, if I have to spell out every last freaking thing...

Re:Oh I don't know about that... (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31952068)

... you would be typing

Frist post (1)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31944986)

I, for one, welcome our new Quattro overlords.

Quattro? (5, Funny)

Kraftwerk (629978) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945000)

Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Blades

Re:Quattro? (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945278)

I think of that every time I see a Flexpicker or Quattro.

Oddly named because it has 4 arms, and I always think they should've followed the Schick Corporation's lead and skipped from Flexpicker's 3 straight to 5.

Re:Quattro? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31945776)

Why limit yourself to 5, when the Quintippio [quintippio.co.uk] shatters all expectation! 15 blades compared to your puney 5!

Or enjoy the 16 powerful blades of the Gillette 3000! [youtube.com]

But then again, 16 seems rather slim, when you can dial it up to 20! Spishak Mach 20! [youtube.com]

Robotics improving our lives (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945004)

The bottom line is that when it comes to simplified and repetitive tasks there's really no beating robotic prowess.

Now if they can just teach the robot to play MMORPGs!

Re:Robotics improving our lives (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945180)

Now if they can just teach the robot to play MMORPGs!

That happened first, and years ago. There are automation scripts so sophisticated they can kill 10 mobs and /shout "STFU n00b!!!!111elebenty-one" every 30 seconds.

Really, virtual environments get solved first, and most easily. The real world is a good deal harder to deal with because analog data is noisy, incomplete, occasionally bogus, and often misleading. Digital data from a virtual environment is perfect by default. Robotics developers trying to use virtual environments to validate their designs have to artificially induce noise in the data being fed to their test platform.

You'll notice in the videos that the Quattro bot spends a lot of time working on white conveyor belts. Its sensors need the contrast. Dirty up the source conveyor belt a little and it could start having problems successfully engaging its target.

Re:Robotics improving our lives (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945342)

There are automation scripts so sophisticated they can kill 10 mobs and /shout "STFU n00b!!!!111elebenty-one" every 30 seconds.

That's not particularly sophisticated, though probably enough to buy them a bit more time once they're caught.

virtual environments get solved first, and most easily.

Well, in a sense, yes. They also make things similarly easy for the defense -- for instance, while it's easy for an aimbot to headshot people across the map and through obstacles, it's also easy for the server to log the entire event, and then perform some datamining, looking for how accurate the bot is.

Re:Robotics improving our lives (1)

ensignyu (417022) | more than 4 years ago | (#31951120)

Someone could write an aimbot that simulates a human-level of inaccuracy. The server would have a hard time telling the difference between a bot and a player with a really good aim, and you don't want to accidentally ban a legitimate player.

Re:Robotics improving our lives (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31954516)

There are many server admins that would disagree.

Re:Robotics improving our lives (1)

ldobehardcore (1738858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945212)

Lol Seriously. My little bro spends literally hours at the PC playing of all things RuneScape. In all the time he spends playing MMORPGs, he could at the very least, learn how to play at least one instrument well, as well as learn how to cook.

Re:Robotics improving our lives (1)

Shagg (99693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945700)

Now if they can just teach the robot to play MMORPGs!

I think they already taught it simplified and repetitive tasks.

So wait (3, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945016)

You took a robot, capable of crunching numbers at speeds in excess of a thousand calculations per second, programmed it and engineered it to perform a specific task, and then wanted to see if humans, who take 1/5th of a second just to react, can't do any more than a few SIMPLE calculations in a second, and had them use the worlds laggiest controller, and wanted to see who would win?

Is this like, one of those Hypothesises that's bound to be true by the laws of physics, but you gotta test it anyways?

Re:So wait (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945060)

Is this like, one of those Hypothesises that's bound to be true by the laws of physics, but you gotta test it anyways?

Mythbusters influence strikes again.

Re:So wait (offtopic) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31945710)

Mythbusters influence strikes again.

Ahh yes, like whether a beer bottle inflicts more damage (when wielded as a club) depending on whether it's empty or full... like they'd never heard of Newton's second law.

Re:So wait (1)

paradxum (67051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945248)

Yup!

But you have to admit, it looks pretty darn cool.

Re:So wait (1)

Razalhague (1497249) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945898)

Only until you realize that this isn't "Man versus Machine", but "Machine versus Man-controlled Slow Machine".

Re:So wait (3, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945358)

You took a robot, capable of crunching numbers at speeds in excess of a thousand calculations per second, programmed it and engineered it to perform a specific task, and then wanted to see if humans, who take 1/5th of a second just to react, can't do any more than a few SIMPLE calculations in a second, and had them use the worlds laggiest controller, and wanted to see who would win?

It's a pick-and-place machine. Most PnP require that the inputs and outputs are stored in well-known locations, and have pretty basic image recognition software (they can tell if a black blob is in the wrong place, for example - if it was loaded wrong). Or to handle the slight misalignment of the source or destination.

In this case, the robot is picking and placing from and to a platform that can move arbitrarily, while it's even doing the picking and placing. That implies it not only knows it has to look for the source and destination, but recognize the platform and perform the task. Even if the thing it's grabbing suddenly decided to move under it while it's doing the picking or placing.

The human might be slower, but they're also a lot more unpredictable, so the robot has it use up its millions of calculations per second to figure out where things are and react when things start moving from under it.

Re:So wait (1)

Parallax48 (990689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946564)

If you watch the video you'll see that the destination platform is under computer control. The pick and place machine probably knows (well in advance) where the wiimote commands have told the platform to move. There is a 100-500ms latency between tilting the controller and the platform velocity changing.

If the platform was attached to a long handle that a human could pull back and forth quickly I'd be more impressed. The platform could have a sensor underneath to tell the robot where it was or you could make the platform trackable by camera (which would add considerable latency).

However, most robots have well defined workspaces that don't have outside influences. A robot doesn't have to pass such a test to be useful.

Re:So wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31956606)

Exactly. And not only was it laggy, but the actual acceleration was pretty slow. I seriously doubt this robot could handle it if the platform was truly human controlled (by a stick in your example).

Re:So wait (3, Informative)

Laser Dan (707106) | more than 4 years ago | (#31952116)

It's a pick-and-place machine. Most PnP require that the inputs and outputs are stored in well-known locations, and have pretty basic image recognition software (they can tell if a black blob is in the wrong place, for example - if it was loaded wrong). Or to handle the slight misalignment of the source or destination.

In this case, the robot is picking and placing from and to a platform that can move arbitrarily, while it's even doing the picking and placing. That implies it not only knows it has to look for the source and destination, but recognize the platform and perform the task. Even if the thing it's grabbing suddenly decided to move under it while it's doing the picking or placing.

The human might be slower, but they're also a lot more unpredictable, so the robot has it use up its millions of calculations per second to figure out where things are and react when things start moving from under it.

I'm almost certain that the inputs and outputs ARE in well-known locations. As a robotics engineer, the first thing I noticed on looking at the video is that the movable part is mounted on a very solid, rigid, linear actuator. That thing knows the location of the plate to within microns. The second thing I noticed is that the plate that "moves arbitrarily" moves very smoothly with slow acceleration.

So you have a high speed robot putting things on a very slowly moving (compared to the actuator speed) plate, the position of which is known precisely. It would be impressive if the plate could move in 2D or 3D and had a handle for people to move it around with, but as it is.. not impressed at all.

Re:So wait (0, Redundant)

Bevilr (1258638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945476)

this just in: Car beat human in 500m dash

Re:So wait (2, Interesting)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946434)

Ah grasshopper you have achieved the first level... But to reach zen you must go to the next level. And after that one day you might even reach the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNG3sgk02Lc [youtube.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q395-F6hAcg [youtube.com]

I want a machine to beat that! My head just spins thinking, ok so where did that cup move to?

Re:So wait (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31952214)

This kid is faster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5H04yGfklY [youtube.com]

He can stack faster than many people can finish pronouncing his name ;).

That said, you can probably build a robot to beat that. Robots have been faster and more precise than humans for years.

The big thing about the robot in the article is it can "stack" on stuff that's moving _arbitrarily_.

Re:So wait (2, Funny)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946592)

Brain the size of a planet and they have em doing simple sorting.

Re:So wait (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946792)

I agree. It would have made a lot more sense to have had a mechanical connection to the tray. Then the human would have been able to use anticipation to try and catch the thing out.

I'm sure the robot would still have been able to deal with that to. Would have been nice to see.

Re:So wait (1)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 4 years ago | (#31950282)

<quote><p>You took a robot, capable of crunching numbers at speeds in excess of a thousand calculations per second, programmed it and engineered it to perform a specific task, </quote>

Let him pick small fuzzy things on a fuzzy surface. Hankerchiefs, ...  whatever.

reminds me of Aliens (5, Funny)

TravTrav (1236742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945116)

Bishop, do the knife thing again...

They're pretty good at working on humans, too (2, Interesting)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945156)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_surgery [wikipedia.org]

When my mother had her hip replaced, the surgeon said that robot-replaced hips lasted longer due to better hole size and placement, (they make a hole in your bones and hammer the replacement joint in...)

As for this kinda flaky 'robots vs. humans' story:
1. We'll never be able to beat a robot's reaction times {see note} speed and/or raw power, but
2. Until AI improves, we'll still be the ones programming the things

Note: What was that SciFi story about humans being 'paired' with cats in order to have both high intelligence and inhumanly fast reaction times?

Re:They're pretty good at working on humans, too (1)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945364)

Who do you sue when the robot fucks up?

Re:They're pretty good at working on humans, too (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945504)

Kinda depends on why the robot fucked up, doesn't it?

If it wasn't used properly, the human surgeon/operator.
If it had a manufacturing defect or programming error, the manufacturer.

Re:They're pretty good at working on humans, too (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945552)

Neither. You just sue the hospital/clinic - they, or their lawyers and/or insurers will take care of passing off the blame - I mean identifying the guilty party - for you. Probably ever faster than a robot :)

Re:They're pretty good at working on humans, too (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945690)

If it wasn't used properly, the human surgeon/operator.
If it had a manufacturing defect or programming error, the manufacturer.

What about if there's a power cut? Should a UPS be installed on every critical robot, together with a requirement for a backup generator?

Re:They're pretty good at working on humans, too (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945802)

What about if there's a power cut? Should a UPS be installed on every critical robot, together with a requirement for a backup generator?

Uh... yeah, I'd say so. Isn't that pretty common for hospital equipment?

If the hospital/clinic/whatever fails to take reasonable precautions against power failures during surgery I'd say they're probably going to be held liable for the consequences.

Re:They're pretty good at working on humans, too (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946754)

If somebody was reckless or malicious you sue them. Otherwise you simply have an insurance company agree to cover additional costs incurred in this unlikely but obviously quite plausible event. Why does everything have to be settled by litigation?

Re:They're pretty good at working on humans, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31951492)

Who do you sue when the robot fucks up?

How about no-one? Why not accept the risk that sometimes mistakes happen. No-one is forcing you to have a particular procedure. You can accept the risk and have the procedure, or decline the risk and go on with your arthritic hip.

Re:They're pretty good at working on humans, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31945638)

Note: What was that SciFi story about humans being 'paired' with cats in order to have both high intelligence and inhumanly fast reaction times?

Probably the short story "The Game of Rat and Dragon" in the "Rediscovery of Man" cycle from Cordwainer Smith -- I loved those stories...

Re:They're pretty good at working on humans, too (1)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 4 years ago | (#31950312)

<quote>1. We'll never be able to beat a robot's reaction times {see note} speed and/or raw power</quote>

A robot playing tennis?  Anyone

Re:They're pretty good at working on humans, too (1)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31951166)

Note: What was that SciFi story about humans being 'paired' with cats in order to have both high intelligence and inhumanly fast reaction times?

Sorry to undo the moderation of my AC friend, but The Game of Rat and Dragon [gutenberg.org] is available from Project Gutenberg!

Re:They're pretty good at working on humans, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31955034)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_surgery [wikipedia.org]

When my mother had her hip replaced, the surgeon said that robot-replaced hips lasted longer due to better hole size and placement, (they make a hole in your bones and hammer the replacement joint in...)

As for this kinda flaky 'robots vs. humans' story:
1. We'll never be able to beat a robot's reaction times {see note} speed and/or raw power, but
2. Until AI improves, we'll still be the ones programming the things

Note: What was that SciFi story about humans being 'paired' with cats in order to have both high intelligence and inhumanly fast reaction times?

Cats + People...."Ghatti's Tale" it sound like. (By Gayle Greeno)

Oblig. (1)

LordBmore (1794002) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945168)

Quattro: Bite my shiny metal ass.
Nerd w/ Wiimote: It doesn't look so shiny to me.
Quattro: Shinier than yours, meatbag.

Re:Oblig. (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946392)

I love how the correct voices automatically get overlaid in your mind when you read quotes like this.

really impressive (2, Interesting)

pz (113803) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945202)

Go to the linked article (yes, yes, do it anyway). Skip the Wii demo video that forms the basis of the post because it really isn't interesting. Go to the second video. Watch it.

Holy frick. Robotic vision and control has come a long way.

Re:really impressive (2, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945240)

Yeah, but am I the only one here who thinks that a lot of those tasks could have been done with machinery orders of magnitude simpler and cheaper than this robot? Seriously, half their examples of 'real world' usage were moving things from one conveyor to the other, with no sorting or filtering required. Some of their examples (like placing the chocolates in the correct locations in the box) were impressive, but it just felt to me like they were showing off when much simpler designs could have been used.

Re:really impressive (5, Insightful)

pz (113803) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945466)

I wonder if one of the implicit advantages of a highly flexible, programmable robotic system like this, rather than special-purpose hardware, is manufacturing flexibility.

I know that chocolate manufacturers need to retool their lines quite frequenty (Valentine's Day, Easter, etc.), and imagine that's true for lots of industries. Many of the examples from the second video are food handling: a processing plant that handles frozen burgers one week might be making chicken nuggets or fish sticks the next.

Re:really impressive (1)

superflex (318432) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948390)

You are correct.

Companies pay more money for flexibility. Food manufacturing in particular is one industry where the flexibility offered by vision-guided robotics provides an overall cost advantage vs. multiple automation systems for specific products.

IIRC, Adept specifically markets this robot to the food, medical, and semiconductor industries because it is cleanroom & washdown rated. Because the servomotors and electronics are all contained within the box at the top, it's much easier to keep the guts properly sealed from the work environment when compared to a 6-axis or SCARA robot.

Re:really impressive (1)

jcochran (309950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945726)

Oh? No sorting or filtering?

Then I suggest you look again at the video. What I was seeing was random placement of items on the source conveyor belt and quite orderly placement on the destination conveyor belt.

Re:really impressive (1)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946102)

I took him to mean 'all the items are the same type.' As opposed to, say, having to assemble a sandwich from a random assortment of ingredients coming down the line.

Re:really impressive (1)

tyger_purr (1563735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946020)

Yeah, but am I the only one here who thinks that a lot of those tasks could have been done with machinery orders of magnitude simpler and cheaper than this robot? Seriously, half their examples of 'real world' usage were moving things from one conveyor to the other, with no sorting or filtering required. Some of their examples (like placing the chocolates in the correct locations in the box) were impressive, but it just felt to me like they were showing off when much simpler designs could have been used.

as far as I can tell the other video is a promo video, not real world applications.

Currently most of the tasks show are done (faster and at a considerably lower price) by a high speed conveyor belt, a couple of metal fences, a little physics and an electric eye to sort the backward from the forward.

The machines ability to quickly find and organize is impressive.

The inability of a person to out maneuver the machine using a mechanized tray on a linear track, moving at a fixed speed that is slower than the robot is not impressive.

So will manufacturing return? (2, Insightful)

kg8484 (1755554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945210)

Whenever I see these reports, it makes me wonder about the implications on manufacturing. Someone in the US or Europe can't/won't compete with someone in China working 15 hour days in a sweatshop for 50 cents an hour, and so from the company's standpoint, it makes economic sense to move. But will the rise in robotics cause a return of manufacturing? You will still need some people working in the factory maintaining the robots and what-not, but it may be cheaper to manufacture things closer to their destination rather than manufacturing them in a developing country and shipping them.

Re:So will manufacturing return? (2, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945388)

Whenever I see these reports, it makes me wonder about the implications on manufacturing. Someone in the US or Europe can't/won't compete with someone in China working 15 hour days in a sweatshop for 50 cents an hour, and so from the company's standpoint, it makes economic sense to move. But will the rise in robotics cause a return of manufacturing? You will still need some people working in the factory maintaining the robots and what-not, but it may be cheaper to manufacture things closer to their destination rather than manufacturing them in a developing country and shipping them.

You do realize that manufacturing in the US has been automated for a very very long time and it is *still* going down the drain.

But even with automated manufacturing you still need manual labour to work the production lines. Its economically infeasible to produce a robot that has the flexibility and dexterity of a human for general purpose use. You should watch the shows like "how its made" etc. They show lots of automated processes, yet there are always manual steps involved. I remember seeing one show where a workers job was solely to turn socks inside out.

In the end, US companies have already cut resources to the bone in order to stay competitive with overseas manufacturing. What would really help is de-walmart-ing the consumer part of the equation.

Re:So will manufacturing return? (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945480)

You can pay for a lot of coolie labor for the price of one good robot, and with far less up front investment.

Re:So will manufacturing return? (2, Insightful)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945678)

You can pay for a lot of coolie labor for the price of one good robot, and with far less up front investment.

And no unions, and no insurance . . .

Not saying its a good thing, but a lot of companies would gladly take a robot over a human any day, just to avoid these two.

Re:So will manufacturing return? (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945844)

Sure, but they don't need to worry about that in China.

Re:So will manufacturing return? (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945524)

The rise of robotics has caused the return of manufacturing. China has been losing manufacturing jobs for quite some time now, as they lose jobs to robots faster than America ships jobs to China. Don't assume that just because there a fewer manufacturing jobs in America each year, that there is less manufacturing capacity. Most broad measures of industrial capacity show a 50% increase over the past 25 years, with "autos assembled" being the main exception (and those were basically flat until 2 years ago).

Re:So will manufacturing return? (1)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 4 years ago | (#31947976)

This is very interesting to me. Do you have a source?

Re:So will manufacturing return? (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#31960192)

The Fed tracks various measures of industrial production and capacity. There's a wealth of raw data here to dig through. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/download.htm [federalreserve.gov]

It has been this way for a while. (2, Interesting)

Whatsisname (891214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945220)

It's been known for a long time that robots and computerized systems are vastly superior to humans at simple tasks, their only downside is the upfront cost and often inflexibility.

One of the neatest applications I saw recently was in a factory where macadamia nuts were shelled. The nuts would pass through a big set of rollers, cracking the shells open. Then, the shell casings and the nuts would fall down, and a computer vision system would detect the nuts and the shells. Everything then fell through a collection of compressed air blowers, that would precisely blow the macademia nuts out of the stream of falling shells onto a conveyor platform, while the shells would fall seperated into a hopper off to somewhere else.

Re:It has been this way for a while. (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948194)

their only downside is the upfront cost and often inflexibility

Indeed.. it's why one Dutch entrepreneur is still shipping tons and tons of onions off to Poland to be graded, cut, peeled, and cut further (for rings, dices, etc.) by hand by 'low wage' workers, and then sent back to NL, rather than investing in something like...

http://www.onionpeeler.com/item.asp?id=3276&/NAKAYA/Automatic_Onion_Skin_Peeler_%5BNon_Abrasive%5D/ [onionpeeler.com] ...which only does the peeling part for regularly-shaped onions (at least it takes a fair range of sizes, better than what I've seen ~4 years ago). Add another machine + maintenance + operator for the cutting. Another for the ringing/dicing. Etc.

computerized systems are vastly superior to humans at simple tasks

Thus refers to -actually- simple tasks. Not just the tasks that -seem- like they should be pretty simple.. turns out most things rarely are.

a linear test only (1)

quercus.aeternam (1174283) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945224)

This is equivalent to testing how well a machine can put parts onto a variable speed conveyor belt. It is industrially useful, but not particularly interesting.

TFA's claims that 'the competition in the video above would have been closer if the platform had moved faster, but then you’re really talking about machine vs. machine.'

We are already talking about a machine vs. a machine. Pitting a specialized machine against a more basic machine will generally have one outcome. As the response speed of the platform controlled by the wiimote is slower than that of the robot, the human will always lose. Winning under these constraints is impossible.

Yay for nostalgia (1)

Psykechan (255694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945238)

The good news? Nintendo is releasing Stack Up for the Wii.

The bad news? R.O.B. will cost around $50k.

I am so going to have fun when they release Gyromite. When one of those suckers gets loose it won't just destory your TV, it'll take out your entire living room.

Human speed? (1)

Selpher (1795798) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945242)

So is there really any instance of a human being able to beat a robot at repetitive tasks? I mean, isn't the whole point of a manufacturing robot supposed to be to speed up the process? Can a human do any manufacturing process better?

Re:Human speed? (1)

swilver (617741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31952344)

The human could build a better robot, and use that to defeat the other robot at repetitive tasks :)

Not a fair comparison (1)

moosehooey (953907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945246)

Apparently the robot has access to the position of the platform. It would only be really impressive if it was using computer vision to see where a platform is. All this proves is that it can do some simple math and move really fast.

Re:Not a fair comparison (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945414)

What makes you think it's not being done with machine vision?

Interesting, but (1)

Whuffo (1043790) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945316)

Most of the packaging tasks that this machine performs are done by third-world workers who earn less than $5000 a year. Especially technology items: your new Microsoft mouse or iPod was packaged in China by workers who live at the factory and work long, long hours

That fancy robotic pick & place machine is impressive and it's much faster than a human. But it's not faster than a bunch of humans and when those humans are Chinese they cost much, much less than the robot (and its custom "workplace") does. The Chinese workers are so overworked that their ten minute breaks are used as an opportunity to get a few minutes of sleep. Here's the pick and place machine that packs Microsoft mice: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266643/Microsofts-Chinese-workforce-tired-stay-awake.html [dailymail.co.uk] They're just the tip of the iceberg, there's over 500,000 Chinese "pick and place" machines in service today.

And there are some business concerns that the robot can't address; it can't see or do anything it wasn't programmed for and the real world isn't quite that neat and tidy. And when there's a "failure" you'll have to wait for the robot technician - and hope that he has the parts on hand. If you're using Chinese workers they don't have these problems; humans are very, very good at dealing with the unexpected - and if one gets sick or hurt you just put another worker in that position and the line continues to operate.

Re:Interesting, but (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945448)

Solution: let those Chinese guys assemble a whole bunch of these robots cheaply, then send them home. Of course they'll then be jobless...

Re:Interesting, but (1)

bluie- (1172769) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945548)

I'm waiting for the day that people, rather than working, simply buy a robot or several robots and are in charge of making sure they do their jobs. Then, we can hire chinese people to maintain them for us, so we never have to work.

O RLY? (1)

Smartypants2712 (1795804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945406)

This is kind of like reporting that modern CPUs can perform more floating point operations per second than humans...

And Complex Tasks Also (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945582)

Robots can also accomplish quite complicated tasks as well. I've built robots that could change the tools and fixtures that they depend upon and cross feed conveyors which were also robots of a sort. When these units have computerised saws, lathes and mills as well as doing assembly the only issue is economic viability due to the skilled employees needed to modify and service the systems. But a wide variety of product can be quickly produced. In essence this is the American approach to robotics in industry. Japan placed its bet on using lots and lots of very simple robots to produce a product. In some ways the Japanese method works out better so far. But that will change as the technology improves.

That's nothing. See this high speed robot hand. (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945600)

That's nothing. The Adept robot is in production. Here's what's working in the lab. [youtube.com] Watch the fingered robot hand tie knots in a rope, dribble balls, and throw a cell phone in the air and catch it in a different grip, all at about 5x human speed or better. This system has 1ms visual reaction time.

Working at very high speed has advantages. Once the reaction time of the systems is faster than movement caused by gravity and other disturbances, flexible objects like ropes and cloth can be manipulated in a straightforward way.

Re:That's nothing. See this high speed robot hand. (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945762)

AWESOME ! I gawked while watching that, not being a robotician and therefore not really up-to-date with developments in that field. Isn't it about time to equip robots with Asimov's precepts ? I mean - such robots could cause serious harm to humans.

Hilarious... (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945684)

...although I found the video pretty interesting to watch. One thing, though: isn't there much more inertia in the Wiimote / tablet system than there is within the entire robot ? And if so, doesn't that skew the whole game in the robot's favor ?

Obituary for human menial labor is premature. (1)

superdude72 (322167) | more than 4 years ago | (#31945698)

A robot does fine at packing uniform objects into uniform packages, but good luck finding one that can pack your shipment from Amazon.com, or do basic construction work, or pull the ingredients for 50,000 gallons of Coca Cola off of shelves in a warehouse and mix them all together for you. There is still a lot of dull, brain-killing, menial work for humans to do. If you work in an office and have never set foot in any kind of industrial operation, you'll probably be surprised at how much stuff still needs to be done by humans.

Re:Obituary for human menial labor is premature. (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946622)

I worked as an automation engineer for about 5 years. We would get calls from people that wanted to automate their manufacturing. But it all comes down to money. Most of the time money was better spent doing semi-automation where we made the people more productive. So conveyor systems to move the parts from station to station. Some of the things would be automated like inspection and other things like screwing parts together would be manual. It was rare to build a fully automated system. Once of the coolest but low tech things was a vibratory part feeder. Check one out here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xFbj3zIOxQ&feature=PlayList&p=F93757C9C38DFF7D&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=5 [youtube.com] The folks made these bowls by hand and using small differences in where the CG of the part is they can make sure all of the parts are fed out in the same orientation. These things kick robots asses in how fast they can feed parts that come in a random orientation.

Re:Obituary for human menial labor is premature. (1)

Parallax48 (990689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31947008)

A robot does fine at packing uniform objects into uniform packages, but good luck finding one that can pack your shipment from Amazon.com, or do basic construction work, or pull the ingredients for 50,000 gallons of Coca Cola off of shelves in a warehouse and mix them all together for you. There is still a lot of dull, brain-killing, menial work for humans to do. If you work in an office and have never set foot in any kind of industrial operation, you'll probably be surprised at how much stuff still needs to be done by humans.

There are already automation systems for warehouses, for instance robotic forklifts http://www.inro.co.nz/ [inro.co.nz]

Humans are great at packing odd shaped stuff. But when you have a lot of regular objects, look out for robots. This is just a matter of low hanging fruit - why make a flexible robot when simple robots are cheaper and the market is still huge and unsatisfied.

Grabbing large quantites of ingredients is a large scale logistical exercise. There are very few "moves" and a lot of small difficulties. Humans make sense here.

Construction is moving more in the direction of prefabed portions, where the tree was cut robotically by an operator assisted machine. The frames assembled in a factory under robot control. Humans on the job site are doing less and less of the raw, repetitive framing work - again we are well suited to decision making.

I like to think that Robots are doing all the boring stuff so we can do the fun stuff.

hmm (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946110)

Seems to me that if the conveyor being controlled by the Wiimote could possibly go faster than the robot could track, then this would be kind-of interesting. My $0.02

Lucy could not keep up with that. (1)

elgee (308600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946140)

I am impressed. As far as the reference to Lucy goes, think of the episode where she has taken a job in a candy factory.

It's not the human it's the linear actuator. (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 4 years ago | (#31946532)

Anyone notice that the actuator that the robot is picking from is VERY slow? If you want to see fun have a person hold the puck and wave it around.

Re:It's not the human it's the linear actuator. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31952234)

Imho the vid is more a showcase of advancements on the electromechanical side anyway, rather than AI. Once you can perfom a software task in a 1 minute, you can also perform it in a tenth of a second, just get more processing power. So from that aspect doing those tasks so that it looks subjectively 'speedy' is not impressive at all.
On the electromechanical and sensor side, speed improvements are much harder to achieve.

Man, this is old. (1)

xmidway (1088143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31947438)

Was on EG a few days ago

Victory hump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31947764)

Is it just me or does the post placement analysis of the divots look like a a victory molestation?

not fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31948062)

impressive, but doesn't seem very fair since the speed of the platform appears to be pretty slow

Where's the ghost of John Henry? (1)

JThaddeus (531998) | more than 4 years ago | (#31950032)

John Henry told his captain, "Lord, a man ain't nothin' but a man. But before I let that steam drill beat me down, I'm gonna die with a hammer in my hand--Lord, Lord--I'll die with a hammer in my hand."

I Love Lucy (1)

Boawk (525582) | more than 4 years ago | (#31950754)

The second video which shows the robot performing actual packaging tasks is remarkable given how it used to be done. [youtube.com]

deciving app (1)

iinlane (948356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31950984)

We have used a previous version of the robot, it was called flexpicker back then. The fexpicker had quite impressing acceleration of 15G. It was quite scary experience to work near the robot even when it was stopped.
The specific application could, however, be implemented by using even slow robot. The trick is to use what's called conveyor tracking. The button panel is connected to encoder that is synchronized with robot coordinate system.
Usually a more complex version of the application is used: the target object is placed loosely on moving flatbelt conveyor, the robot has to locate it by using smart camera and only then it can pick.
(sorry about my bad english)

I would have liked... (1)

twosmokes (704364) | more than 4 years ago | (#31953828)

...to have seen the robot vs a person moving the tray. This wasn't robot vs human. This was robot vs wiimote lag. The video only serves to demonstrate my biggest problem with the Wii as a platform - it's far too imprecise for anything that doesn't require flailing the remote like a spaz.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?