
DARPA and Boston Dynamics unveil a new humanoid robot - Dj_Anthony2013
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/161193-meet-darpas-real-world-terminator-atlas
======
uncoder0
I'm getting tired of extremetech blogspam and sensationalism. This source
video was posted yesterday by me and didn't really make it anywhere. It seems
I should get a voting ring and embellish my titles a bit more.

If anyone wants to read up on the DRC the two latest press releases are here:
[http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/07/11.aspx](http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/07/11.aspx)
[http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/06/27.aspx](http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/06/27.aspx).

~~~
nsxwolf
I don't know. This pretty much looks like the Terminator to me. It just needs
some good software and a gun. Google's self-driving car technology could be
adapted into a formidable killing machine brain.

~~~
robotresearcher
"It just needs some good software."

This is of course the hard part. But this robot was built to be a common
platform for DARPA to build a project around: the DARPA Humanoid Challenge.
The idea is to supply a very expensive robot to a few groups and a simulation
of it to lots of groups, and have them compete on the control software. No
guns this time around.

~~~
nsxwolf
Well, a bipedal humanoid robot that can walk on any terrain and can't easily
be pushed over was also the hard part, and those problems are starting to look
solved.

Probably before these things are autonomous we're going to have these as human
controlled drones, which is a pretty scary thought all by itself.

------
lmg643
Terminator has always been one of my favorite movies, and reality has an
uncanny way of getting us closer and closer to the fantasy. We justify this
new technology in the same way - "it's for our protection"!

Dictators run into trouble when the armies decide they won't attack a local
population because, hey, it's their families and friends we're talking about.
Robots eliminate that pesky detail. Imagine how a secession crisis, based on,
say, widespread spying by the government on its own citizens, might be dealt
with today versus fifty years from now.

\-----

If you were a resident of Afghanistan, the concept of a war against the robots
is already a reality. From that perspective, is a fairly minor detail that the
robots are currently piloted by people and not computers. And I expect the AI
would get effective pretty quickly - I'm sure they will develop some effective
way to identify a potential combatant based on either holding a weapon or some
body language/temperature cues.

This technology might not be field ready right now, but it won't be long. It's
reasonable to expect that with some work, it would far exceed human capacity
upon a few key dimensions - running speed, targeting ability, carrying
armor/defensibility. Just like no human being can outrun even the crappiest
car over any reasonable distance.

~~~
speeder
One day my dad spotted me playing Mech Warrior, and asked:

"Why bipedal war machines? That is stupid, just push them over and they now
are useless."

After that, I never figured why someone would build a bipedal war machine,
even though I still have my nerdgasms watching all the mecha anime, movies and
games...

Anyone has a idea of why the hell someone would build a bipedal war machine?

~~~
incision
_> Anyone has a idea of why the hell someone would build a bipedal war
machine?_

Off the top of my head...

1.) I'd have think there's something to bipedal locomotion considering the
evolutionary success it has had.

2.) We're bipedal. As long as pilots we'd recognize as human are involved,
having an analog to the kind of movement they've necessarily trained a
lifetime for seems sensible.

~~~
NegativeK
What are you using to define evolutionary success? Most pedal species aren't
bipedal, and the more populous species don't even have legs.

------
sbarre
The stuff that Boston Dynamics is doing with DARPA funding feels like a
current-generation parallel to how DARPA funded the early efforts at building
the Internet.

I suspect we will look back on these guys as some of the early pioneers of the
yet-to-come ubiquitous robotics era.

~~~
mempko
ARPA funded the early efforts of building the internet.... the D came later

~~~
sbarre
Thanks for the clarification

~~~
drivers99
Both, really: 'ARPA, was renamed to "DARPA" (for Defense) in March 1972, then
renamed "ARPA" again in February 1993, and then renamed "DARPA" again in March
1996.' (Copied from wikipedia.)

~~~
mpyne
And each time some General somewhere noted 'Reorganized unit to align with
modern mission goals' as a performance evaluation bullet item for themselves.

------
hedonist
God this is awful. Just a matter of time before these beasts are used to serve
search warrants, deal with "difficult" protests, etc.

~~~
ianstallings
Or on the flip side, pulling someone from a burning building or performing
CPR.

~~~
Renaud
Judging by the budgets of the army and law enforcement against the various
wars, abroad and local (drug enforcement for instance), I doubt that a lot of
these robots will find their way in the underfunded fire stations or emergency
services...

Furthermore, since defence agencies are financing the development, it's more
likely they will program the robots to be sharp shooters before they learn the
more complex tasks of pulling people safely out of rubble and giving them CPR.

------
doctoboggan
When the US uses robots like this in war (and it will) we will enjoy a
significant reduction in casualties and probably an increase in battle
victories. This will probably embolden future US leaders, similar to when the
US had the only nuclear weapons.

During the cold war we learned the hard way that time lowers costs of
technology, and soon everyone had nuclear weapons.

I am sure the same will happen with robotic warriors and I fear the day when a
terrorist can pilot a drone over my home and kill me with the same prejudice
we use when piloting drones in the middle east today.

My only hope is that some politicians also understand this and move to create
international robotic warrior regulations and treaties. I am skeptical of this
happening however. It is always more fun to lord your power over your enemies
today than to have some foresight.

~~~
nooneelse
Having an international inspection system to watch for the development of
nuclear weapons would seem a much easier task than one that would be needed to
monitor for the development of robotic warrior/weapon systems. The pieces
needed for the later can much more easily look like normal production/assembly
tool development given that they are, in fact, largely the same pieces.

------
dicroce
Used to think these things were cool but now that I can't trust my government
anymore... I find them deeply disturbing.

~~~
dm2
Just because they are being transparent with their research?

50 years ago the US govt had amazingly cool technology (SR-71, satellites,
nukes, computers, submarines, lasers, chemical weapons) but it was kept
halfway secretive.

Just because some people are uncomfortable with new technology shouldn't mean
that the government is untrustworthy or evil. If anything, the transparency
makes them more trustworthy.

The stuff the CDC works with is 1,000 times more destructive than any humanoid
robot prototype. Imagine if they posted a video, "well, this little vial of
liquid will cause your skin to fall off and your organs to melt."

Do you think other countries are going to avoid this type of research?
Humanoid robots have been developed in Japan for 20 years.

~~~
drakeandrews
I think a video tour of the CDC's vaults would be quite interesting,
personally.

------
Shivetya
What is the point of having it be bipedal?

Would not the dog/four legged system work out better? You could still have it
manipulate items with forelegs if you wanted but keep the inherit stability

~~~
blhack
Because most of the parts of the world that are designed, are designed for
bipedal things that occupy about 1.5 feet^2, and are about 6ft tall.

Think about bigdog trying to walk through a house. It would have a lot of
problems, because the house wasn't designed for something that looks like
that.

~~~
rralian
Well, actually big dogs do quite well walking through a house. They're quite
popular. They just need to make BigDog a little smaller, and I think the four-
legs approach would work quite well.

------
jotm
Disaster recovery, assistance and space applications (asteroid mining?) are
the only real applications of these robots.

This is not going to be useful in the military. The only advantage it may have
over humans is increased accuracy, and even then, a mobile gun platform on
wheels will do a much better job.

This robot is less mobile, less reliable, less endurable, much less smart and
much less flexible than any average soldier. The only applications I can think
of are extreme weather conditions (i.e. Antarctica and the Sahara desert), and
even then it would probably fail fast.

I don't think it's complete garbage, it's just that I don't see it being close
to useful in real military applications this century.

~~~
robotresearcher
There are many applications of humanoid robots _when they become good and
cheap_. Right now they are neither, but DARPA is funding people to work on
this.

Cheap, good humanoid robots will fill the slave niche in society, without the
ethical problems (at least in terms of the slaves themselves - it might not be
good for us to be slave owners, but we'll see how that pans out). Who said the
researchers are or should be thinking about only this century?

By the way, a mobile gun platform on wheels is not going to be great in built-
up areas. This is why we don't have combat soldiers fighting in powered
wheelchairs, and why Daleks suck.

~~~
finnw
> ... _without the ethical problems_...

I think that is a bit too optimistic. Political battles over robots' rights
are inevitable.

Edit: I think this is also relevant: [http://www-
formal.stanford.edu/jmc/robotandbaby/](http://www-
formal.stanford.edu/jmc/robotandbaby/)

~~~
robotresearcher
OK, how about "greatly reduced ethical problems".

As long as we're still killing and eating animals, we can make robots work for
us.

Also, ideally we'll build them to like it. Then it'd be unkind to let them
rest.

------
bitwize
Now all we have to do is scale it up and we'll be ready for when the kaiju
attack.

~~~
CodeCube
So pumped to see that!

------
sanoli
I'd like to know about its energy consumption, and how long would it operate
with today's best battery technologies. That seems to me to be one of the
bigger hurdles for turning this into something operational, but I might be
wrong. Still, it's 330 lbs to move on two legs (future versions of course will
be lighter, but, being military, it probably can't be all lightweight stuff).
Anyone here with more knowledge about this care to give their opinion?

------
kevincennis
Slightly off-topic, but the video of this thing's predecessor, BigDog, is
simultaneously fascinating and hilarious:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2jvL...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2jvLalY6ubc)

------
mamcx
The current geek want it, the future geek with the robotic gun in his head
don't.

~~~
snorkel
Considering how hard it is for bi-pedal bots to maintain balance, you could
just kick it over and walk away.

~~~
finnw
This one is quite good at maintaining balance. It is demonstrated in the
video.

------
hooo
What's the advantage of making the robot humanoid?

~~~
jloughry
Doorways, access hatches, and the like are designed for human-sized and human-
shaped entities to pass through them. Stairs are problematic for wheeled
locomotion.

------
racecar789
Looks like it has the Matrix of Leadership in its chest, just like Optimus
Prime.

------
ianstallings
Damn, no robot balls to kick. There goes my plan.

I think this is incredible actually. It's worth noting they tend to try not to
show power tether feeding the thing. But once they get it all nailed it's
gonna be amazing. Truly _awesome_.

------
colmvp
Why does it have two lenses on its head instead of just one?

~~~
mturmon
Two video cameras allow stereo vision for placing obstacles, etc., into a map
for motion planning.

This robot also uses a laser range finder for mapping, but there are trade
offs between the two approaches, so often they are used together.

------
taylodl
We really need to ratify and institute Isaac Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics))
otherwise I'm afraid our future selves will regret it.

~~~
robotresearcher
The three laws worked really well as a literary device exactly because they
are completely inadequate as an design / engineering / ethical tool. The
stories are about the problems caused by the three laws, and how interesting
they are. No one who has thought about it a bit, and certainly not Asimov,
would seriously recommend them as an engineering solution.

~~~
lukifer
Moreover, he sidestepped misuse of the tech by claiming that the Laws were
"hard-wired" into the design of the positronic brain. Not only could be the
Laws not be over-written, it was literally impossible in Asimov's universe to
create a robot that was without them.

In real life, we know how trivial it would be to completely overwrite the
operating system with arbritary software.

