
What Prominent Roboticists Think Google Should Do with Its Robots - mrfusion
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/robotics-hardware/what-google-should-do-with-its-robots#.VvMLpmu3Gb4.reddit
======
sounds
I think Robin Murphy, Texas A&M Professor, has the right suggestion for
Google. No idea if Google will actually do it.

> If I were a large company with deep pockets, I would accept that robotics is
> what is called a ‘formative’ market and just like shopping on the web, it
> will take a decade or so to ramp up. Robots are innovations that do not
> directly replace people and thus it is hard for people to imagine how to use
> them—thus the market is formative. The theory of diffusion of innovation
> indicates that potential end-users, not developers, need to experiment with
> applications to see what works (and not just physically but human-robot
> interaction as well).

> However, robots have to be extremely reliable and the software customizable
> enough to allow the end-users to tinker and adapt the robots, so that the
> end-user can find the ‘killer app.’ Essentially, you can crowdsource the
> task of finding the best, most profitable uses of robots, but only if you
> have good enough robots that can be reconfigure easily and the software is
> open enough. I would concentrate on creating generic ground, aerial, and
> marine robots with customizable software and user interfaces in order to
> enable their regular employees (and customers) to figure out the best uses.

> In order to make sure the development was pushing towards the most reliable,
> reconfigurable, and open robots possible, I suggest the developers focus on
> the emergency response domain. Disasters are the most demanding application
> and come in so many variations that it is a constant test of technology and
> users. Imagine the wealth of ideas and feedback from fire rescue teams, the
> Coast Guard, and the American Red Cross, just to name a few! Focusing on
> emergency management would also have a positive societal benefit.

~~~
jpm_sd
Xoogler here. There is zero chance that Google would get into this market. All
the internal talk lately is about "only creating businesses at Google scale"
which means $billions in potential revenue, or GTFO.

~~~
grandalf
Yes. And thus Google treads softly down the path to becoming a defense
contractor.

~~~
massemphasis
That is the only path not available to the dominating robotics countries of
Germany, Japan and Korea who are literally under the gun not to develop such
arms and weapons (without approval of the US).

~~~
i_laugh_at_you
I don't believe you. Virtually maybe but literally? Even if virtual I still do
not believe you. Sounds like hyperbole.

~~~
massemphasis
Literally the US can dictate what kind arms they can develop. It is required
they comply to receive consideration for US military aid and to remain under
the US nuclear umbrella (from other nuclear armed countries like China, India,
Russia, etc...).

~~~
NotSammyHagar
Those countries also don't want to spend too much money on their military. So
they can't develop nukes, their citizens don't want that. We actually want
them to spend more, not less, like Japan. South Korea actually built automatic
turret guns that shoot without human control. So I call BS on the evil us
wants to stop them from building robots.

------
simonh
Hardly any of the problems they suggest robots can solve are problems Google
faces though. Last 10 metres delivery, supply chain control and management,
disaster relief work, oil and gas, home assistants - particularly for seniors.
There are too many comments in there to address all of them but here's a few:

"If anyone could crack the indoor social robot market that is seeing such high
interest right now in both the consumer and commercial spaces, it would be
them"

Why on earth would Google care about the indoor social robot market?

"If I were a large company with deep pockets, ... it will take a decade or so
to ramp up"

It's always easy to say how other people should spend their money, and just
because a company is one of the few that can do a thing, it doesn't follow
that they should do it. A lot of the speculation seems to be of the "if I had
a billion dollars, I would..." wish fulfilment sort.

I can see the point of self driving cars. They were doing street view anyway
and that's a pretty obvious application for autonomous vehicles. But they're
not actually a manufacturing or supply chain company. Their foray into that
with Motorola was an expensive mistake. I just don't see that a lot of the
other robotics stuff they're doing is relevant to their business. That doesn't
mean nobody should be investing in this. Sure there are applications down the
line, but are they relevant to Google?

The only one I can think of is data centre build out and maintenance. But
Google aren't near the scale to support an entire industrial robot development
and manufacturing industry just for a handful of data centres.

~~~
IanCal
Having said that, are they profitable problems to solve? It doesn't really
matter if they're things vital for google now, but if they're profitable and
google are well placed to profit from them then it makes sense to do surely.

> Why on earth would Google care about the indoor social robot market?

Why on earth would google care about the home heating market?

------
Animats
From the article: _" What are those guys up to?"_

The answer seems to be "not very much". Google bought all those robotics
companies but didn't get them to work together. All the companies are still in
their original locations. Nobody has a product. Even Bot and Dolly, which had
a product, no longer seems to be selling it. Boston Dynamics is being sold
because they don't play well with others.

The whole robotics exercise seems to have been a hobby of Andy Rubin, and when
he left, nobody had a clue what to do. Google/Alphabet, through mismanagement,
may have added negative value to the robotics industry. Google's secrecy here
seems to be more about hiding management failure than protecting intellectual
property.

Martin Buehler, the brains behind BigDog, is now at Disney, and I expect we'll
see more mobile robots there. Disney has wanted this for years; around 2000,
they hired Danny Hillis to work on theme park robots. They got some
improvements to their anamatronics, and a dino robot that pulls a cart but
gets its balance from the cart wheels.

The next killer app in robotics is probably really good bin-picking. Kiva's
mobile platforms can bring the shelf to the picker, but a human still takes
the thing out of one bin and puts it into another. Amazon is working on
solutions to that.

~~~
Animats
After reading "Google parent Alphabet ushers in 'fiscal discipline era'"[1],
it's likely that Google/Alphabet will effectively be out of robotics shortly,
after trashing most of the R&D startups in the field. Nobody they acquired is
2 years from making big bucks. Workers will be, as previously threatened,
reallocated to other parts of the business. Probably related to ads; that's
still 94% of revenue.

This is discouraging. It's the acquire-trash-dump thing Paul Allen was
notorious for.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11357131](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11357131)

------
resoluteteeth
> 17 Prominent Roboticists Think Google Should Do with Its Robots

Apparently this includes having robots write titles for HN posts?

------
monk_e_boy
> For autonomous deliveries, it's the last 10 meters that is the hard part.

Couldn't someone build a delivery box (like an american mail box) that could
be mounted on your property, close to the curb, within reachable distance from
a delivery truck.

The truck could stop, tell the 'amazon delivery box' to unlock and open. Then
place items in it. There could be various different sized boxes, from small to
large chest freezer type things. The box would have some electronics in it, a
solar panel on top, it doesn't matter how expensive they are - you can rent
them from Amazon or whoever.

This would then reduce all the complex variables of how to drop packages off
at the destination.

~~~
saulrh
This would be ridiculously useful for apartments, if you can find the space
for it curbside. Large packages right now are delivered in one of two ways: 1)
They leave it at the door. Risk of theft. 2) They leave it with the rent
office, which is only open 9-5. Regular job? You have to either wait until
Saturday, or you're screwed if your rent office isn't open Saturday.

I've thought in the past about trying to design a door door with a mail flap
equivalent that works for really large packages, or something you could build
into the wall next to a door to replace a coat closet that'd serve the same
purpose. Moving it out to the curb and making it automation-capable sounds
like an excellent proposal for this purpose.

~~~
allannienhuis
You wouldn't even need one container per apartment/resident - just a
reasonable number of various sized compartments. A keypad/pinpad or touch
screen login would open the appropriate container for the customer. This is
how Canada post handles parcel deliveries with their 'super mailboxes'
(without the keypad part as they do have a small box for each unit where a key
is dropped).

[edit] Authentication could be handled in a lot of different ways: QR code,
RFID or other card/dongle/phone/internet based ways.

~~~
kaybe
Like this you mean?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packstation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packstation)

We have those in Germany, it's quite common. Opening is done with a card and
code or barcode. The article mentions countries with similar systems: Austria,
Finnland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Canada, Australia and United Arab Emirates.

edit: And not mentioned in the text but there is an image from Denmark.

------
reacweb
Google is doing research in AI to reach the singularity. I think robotic is
very important for Google, but reassuring people is more important. Google
does not want to be associated with something frightening like "terminator".

~~~
duaneb
> Google does not want to be associated with something frightening like
> "terminator".

Is this a danger? They don't have military robots to my knowledge.

~~~
cmiles74
Boston Dynamics is involved with defense contracts.
[http://www.bostondynamics.com/](http://www.bostondynamics.com/)

~~~
duaneb
So are many non-military technologies. I don't see the link here with google
building assassination machines.

~~~
cmiles74
I think it's the humanoid robot aspect more than the defense contract thing.

------
Isamu
What, nobody wants tap-dancing? Vaudeville anyone?

Geez, that was the FIRST thing Walt Disney went for. Look up "Project Little
Man" with Buddy Ebsen as the model.

[http://www.waltdisney.org/blog/early-days-audio-
animatronics...](http://www.waltdisney.org/blog/early-days-audio-
animatronics%C2%A9)

------
bliti
I think Google should continue with its self-driving effort. They have their
maps and fiber technology that provide some hard-to-get pieces of the puzzle.
This is the robot that will impact humanity the most. An automated box on
wheels (seats optional). Just think of the things a self driving car could do
for you:

\- Pick up anything from mostly anywhere.

\- Schedule pickup around the clock.

\- Move things/people securely and be able to track the contents through a
camera.

\- Act as a mobile living space. Not requiring a dashboard frees up a lot of
space.

------
ikeboy
Title is borked. Should have a what in the beginning.

~~~
basicallydan
Probably yes, but consider this interpretation:

> Seventeen prominent roboticists think: "Google should _do_ with its robots."

Doesn't matter what. They should just _do_.

~~~
kaybe
That would mean that Google is able to fulfill a task with the robots, no? As
a figure of speech, 'this should do' means that something is sufficient. Any
first-language speakers?

~~~
basicallydan
Makes sense to me!

Q: "Which company is sufficient with its robots?" A: "Google should do. [with
its robots]"

