
Google Puts Money on Robots, Using the Man Behind Android - ipince
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/technology/google-puts-money-on-robots-using-the-man-behind-android.html
======
shdon
I wonder how long it will be before the sex industry catches on. Surely
realistic and anatomically correct androids are preferable to blow-up dolls
are what have you... even Star Trek mentioned the issue.

It might seem flippant, but I genuinely think that is a potentially huge
market (though probably not Google's cup of tea). After all, why create a
robot that is shaped like a human? The human form is remarkably versatile, but
there's a reason that industrial robots don't look even remotely human. Each
has a specialised function and corresponding form that makes them far more
efficient than a human being.

The best reason for having a robot that emulates human form and behaviour
would be for interacting with other humans. There are fewer more basic human
needs than that for sex, as much as we'd all like to be prudes and deny it.
Though the uncanny valley may be an issue, human nature makes it unavoidable
that this will happen eventually.

~~~
eitally
This was the key theme of only the second episode of the new cop drama Almost
Human. I agree with you. However, I think there is a more immediate market in
industry, and one that doesn't require nearly as complex robots.

~~~
shdon
Almost Human has been on my list of things to watch, I suppose I should move
it up a notch. The industrial market will undoubtedly be served first by this
(and Google's probably carefully avoiding any hint of what I suggested --
heck, I already got downvoted for merely mentioning the possibility), but I'm
pretty sure it will happen. The ethical implications are interesting to say
the least. Complexity is interesting, too. Historically, it's always been
better to have specialised programming for the domain of use.
Industrial/manufacturing purposes would indeed be a nicely delineated area.
Once you make androids that have to deal with humans on a human level, pretty
much all limits are gone as the entire gamut of human behaviour needs to be
dealt with and a portion of it simulated. I suppose a sexbot of some kind is
possible without being too complicated, just don't expect it to cook you
dinner afterwards. Perhaps too much complexity would actually be detrimental
in this case, as no sane person has yet worried about whether their blowup-
doll likes them or has a good time. Moral and ethical issues will arise. But
that hasn't stopped humanity in the past.

------
lifeisstillgood
For me this article tells me I am growing up. Previously I would have thought
"gosh Google is getting into robots, well that sews up the market everyone
will buy from them."

today I think - "Wow, Google is path blazing, there is going to be so many
opportunities - let's dig out ROS and find a local company with a needs"

~~~
fidotron
And you'll know you're grown up when you can spot a reactionary PR fluff piece
instead of anything with actual content in it!

The Amazon announcement had a concrete end goal and time commitments, and was
met with cynicism, whereas this fuzzy approach allowing people to project what
they want into what they're reading creates a sort of delusional optimism
among many.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I used to (and still do) run the opposite direction that the crowd is going.
Its just that I am choosing my tribe - and my tribe is full of people who also
run the opposite direction from the crowd.

So I have to be careful to spot both the larger crowd, the crowd that is now
my tribe and when people are dropping FUD scent markers over their desired
territory.

In short - robots still look like a hobby that will pay off the same way
writing games for the ZX 80 or Atari will pay off.

~~~
saraid216
> In short - robots still look like a hobby that will pay off the same way
> writing games for the ZX 80 or Atari will pay off.

You realize that that "pay off" is entirely social, right? For people who made
careers out of game development, it wasn't because they made an early
investment on the Atari. It was because they developed a passion.

If robots take off the way computer games did (and they probably will), the
fact that you tinkered on them twenty years ago is not going to be good for
anything other than stories over a beer, the same way my dad likes to talk
about programming with punch cards. (Spoiler: tmk, my dad hasn't programmed
anything in maybe 30 years. Kept up he has not.)

------
sown
I feel like I'm greatly missing out on new stuff like this. I'm trying to get
a turtle bot together and build a sort of lab component of Prof Thrun's robot
car class. But I wonder what else I could be doing. Anyone have pointers?

~~~
waps
Some suggestions. To learn:

1) [http://societyofrobots.com/](http://societyofrobots.com/) especially the
forum

2)
[https://www.coursera.org/course/conrob](https://www.coursera.org/course/conrob)

3) download the old coursera course on computer vision from some torrent site

4) anything and everything on 3d mathematics you can find.

Get a job making robots. Oh and the interview question is "how do you find a
path for a non-point robot with non-line obstacles". The answer is to add the
point-inversion of the robot to every point in the scene, and find a path in
the resulting "configuration space" (google that and program it once. In 2d.
No need to torture yourself with the 3d implementation). Worst-case followup
question : and how do you find paths if rotation is allowed ? Tell the
interviewer that you don't know, but he doesn't know that either (and it's
easy to use the previous answer to come up with a -way to slow- algorithm
suggestion, doing it efficiently and correctly however ...).

If you just want to make a robot. I suggest :

(shortcut if you got money to burn and don't care about electronics :
[http://www.robotis.com/xe/bioloid_en](http://www.robotis.com/xe/bioloid_en) .
Lego motors are slow and crappy)

1) forward kinematics (given 3 translated and rotated robot arm sections, what
movement makes the end effector ?). Oh and mobile platform kinematics (robot
arm is now a robot paw. What is the effect on a mobile platform if you move
the arm, given that the end effector is on the ground)

2) make a robot arm. Bonus points if you make a walker.

3) actually program forward kinematics.

4) notice that the engines get really, really hot

5) learn control algorithms. Summary : the position of a motor is a function.
Find the derivative of that function, speed. Make your control loop limit that
speed (meaning speed needs to remain within -x and +x. Slow down if you find
your robot risks exceeding that). Find the derivative of the speed function,
acceleration. Make your control loop limit it's value.

5.5) find that the limits imposed in 5 are too strict. Find a way to relax
them so that over a "small" time period of, say 2-3 seconds they're always
true, but allow for small periods that exceed these limits.

6) notice that if you limit the torque (the derivative of the acceleration
function to relatively low values) humans will not notice the movement of the
robot, even though it doesn't preclude the robot moving quite fast. Have some
fun with that.

6.5) attempt to make your robot pick up an unboiled egg. Break 100 eggs.
Publish the traditional "look I can pick up an egg" (in 100 attempts you'll
have a single egg that survives. Don't mention the other 99)

7) find ways to get your control loops based on other values. For example,
find a way to have an end effector exert constant force on an object, as
opposed to having a specific position. Find a way for your end effector to
track an object.

7.5) make your robot pick up an unboiled egg. Get the breakage under 10%.
Publish another paper. Do mention the 10 broken eggs. 8) find a way to do 7
while making sure your robot doesn't crash into itself, that generally there
is no way to trick it into attempting to intersect with itself.

After step 7, you now know more than 80% of the people working on robotics. If
you're still having fun, I'd definitely suggest getting into a phd program.
Note that all this is bloody hard. Before you have step 8 covered you will be
one of the 100 best-informed people in your state when it comes to 3d geometry
and how forces affect objects. You will get irritated everytime you see a
crane or bulldozer or escalator or elevator ... Your girlfriend will hate you
for pointing out ways that those things can easily or suddenly accelerate
large masses and cause disasters, and how easy it would be to prevent that.

Note that we really aren't that far when it comes to robotics. That means that
with basic electronics you can achieve the state of the art (exception :
battery life). It is not necessary to utilize expensive motors to achieve any
of this, nor do you need things like a 3d printer or the like (servos + balsa
wood(and something more solid, when you inevitable make a bigger robot) + saw
+ drill) will get you to step 6.5, and there is plenty of information on the
internet on how to replace the servo ciruits to make 7+8 possible.

~~~
jdorw
I've been a robotics hobbyist for a few years and still can't answer any of
those questions. I can get my turtlebot to follow me around and chase the cat
though. Is there a practical programming robotics book/course out there? I've
taken tons of math, controls, read robotics books, but still can't program
anything harder than a PID or Kalman filter. I think part of that is me
relying on ROS libraries too much.

~~~
waps
Both of those can be really easy or really hard, depending. What exactly would
you like to learn ?

Both things are related to control loops, so how about you make a slightly
more complex robot that can detect it's position somehow, and get some
pathfinding going ?

------
munificent
In case the automated cars weren't enough of a wake up call, this is a pretty
clear indication that the millions (billions?) of people we currently employ
to do low-skill manual labor will be out of a job before too long. If we don't
come up with useful for things for them to fill their time with, it's going to
be a hugely destabilizing force in society.

~~~
dm2
What about a law that requires companies to train employees with a usable
skill for X months before they can be replaced with a robot?

Hopefully all of these innovations will not only replace humans with robots
but will also create new industries and new jobs.

Something that's more Utopian would be if there was no meaning of currency. I
think it happened in Star Trek (never seen it but someone told me about the
concept). If you have re-arrange the molecules of any object to create any
other object, then why would everyone need to work? If you wanted MORE things
then you could work, but to live day to day, would you have to pay for small
items and food in the future or could you just "print" or create them from re-
atomizing anything you already own?

------
saosebastiao
To put some weight behind the quote from Andrew McAfee's quote (“The
opportunity is massive,” said Andrew McAfee, a principal research scientist at
the M.I.T. Center for Digital Business. “There are still people who walk
around in factories and pick things up in distribution centers and work in the
back rooms of grocery stores.”), just the external logistics of the Supply
Chain of modern businesses accounts for around 7-9% of the GDP[1]. In
developing countries, it is much higher (although I don't have a non-gated
reference for other developing countries, the link in [1] shows China's cost
at 18%). Interestingly, while inventory holding costs are included in that
estimate, internal fulfillment costs (think Pick and Pack, Rail Shunt Yards,
Crossdocking, etc) is not included as that is typically considered an
operations cost. Those costs vary wildly by industry, but I can imagine it
tacks on another 20-30% on top of that.

This would mean that the modern industrial supply chain costs the US around
$1.5 trillion/yr.

[1]
[http://www.kpmg.com.cn/en/virtual_library/Property_Infrastru...](http://www.kpmg.com.cn/en/virtual_library/Property_Infrastructure/LogisticsChina.pdf)

------
conjecTech
What kind of background is Google looking for when recruiting people to work
on teams like these?

~~~
ijs
Bot & Dolly is hiring:
[http://www.botndolly.com/jobs](http://www.botndolly.com/jobs)

~~~
tlb
They're a good company to work for. Less nerdy than 99% of robotics companies.

~~~
aray
I'm not sure how 'less nerdy' would be a plus for a robotics company, but good
to have a positive review of the place nonetheless. Do you work there?

~~~
wpietri
Just guessing, but for me it's about the audience. Software in the 70s and 80s
was very nerdy. With the rise of the web, it got less so, driven by the need
to reach consumers and the influence of print design. In the last decade, a
lot of tech is downright chic, and succeeds because of that. Look at the iPod
and the iPhone, for example.

I think robotics is coming up on a similar transition. For years it was 99%
research projects and industrial uses: pure nerdery. But Bot & Dolly is
selling to Hollywood, and is very slickly marketed. Aesthetics are starting to
really matter.

~~~
wpietri
Whoa. It's worth checking out their video "Box":

[http://www.botndolly.com/box](http://www.botndolly.com/box)

Gorgeous.

~~~
jessaustin
We can see the two robots manipulating the rectangular screens, and infer one
positioning the camera. What I'm trying to figure out, is if there are at
least two additional robots positioning the projectors that light the screens,
or if they just transformed the animation and the projectors are kept in
basically the same place as the camera.

------
hunterwalk
they seem to have used a file photo from 2007 NYT story that has a toy robot.
Hmm, bit tricky - to average person I think the photo suggests THIS is an
example of the robots he's working on, no?

[http://hunterwalk.com/2013/12/03/andy-rubin-poses-with-
same-...](http://hunterwalk.com/2013/12/03/andy-rubin-poses-with-same-
drone-2007-2013-what-does-it-all-mean/)

~~~
tomkarlo
More likely he just was hard to schedule for a photo shoot, so they used a
file photo and this was better than a headshot of him speaking at some
conference. Unless there were new robots to show from Google, it wouldn't add
much to take a new photo.

------
username42
The long term plan of Google is "the skynet of terminator movie". Larry Page
has always said it: [http://blog.beacontechnologies.com/google-ai-artificial-
inte...](http://blog.beacontechnologies.com/google-ai-artificial-intelligence-
is-the-future-of-google-search/) ,
[http://www.artificialbrains.com/google](http://www.artificialbrains.com/google)
.

------
yRetsyM
Is it too early to reference Skynet and Terminator?

~~~
chmike
Why the down vote ? This is a pertinent question. It's a problem we will face
soon or later. Internet has also it's problem. The ostrich attitude or
obscurantism about them is plain stupid.

My answer to this question is that dynamite and machine have good use and bad
use. There were also good reason to fear the bad use of them. But mankind
manage to keep the balance largely in favor of the good use. I'll not prone
obscurantism or the ostrich attitude regarding the risks of this new
technologies. But we will have to manage that type of problem. It's easier
when we have a little time left in front of us before things get out of
control. I beleive that artificial intelligence reproducing the brain
capabilities is just behind the corner. So we are in a race that I hope the
good people and use will win.

~~~
icebraining
_I beleive that artificial intelligence reproducing the brain capabilities is
just behind the corner._

Why?

~~~
chmike
All the cogs of the brain are well known and documented since years and their
interoperation as well. But we still don't know how it all work together and
what function is implemented by it.(I mean publicly. Some people may already
know and keep it secret)

This is like DNA. All the puzzle pieces (molecules) were known but what was
missing is how these pieces fit together. It was a aha moment that made the
difference between before and after.

For the explanation on how the cortical neural network works the aha moment is
the only missing step. All the puzzle pieces are known (of coures in the
hypothesis that only bioelectrical mechanisms are in play).

~~~
leokun
> All the cogs of the brain are well known and documented since years and
> their interoperation as well. But we still don't know how it all work
> together and what function is implemented by it.(I mean publicly. Some
> people may already know and keep it secret)

I don't think there's a single correct thing about anything in this sentence,
it's also a little bit conspiracy crazed.

~~~
chmike
What a troll! Anything more concrete to justify what you "think" or should I
say _believe_ ?

I don't see what could be "conspiracy crazed" in my comment. It looks like you
believe that if someone knew how it worked, the whole world would immediatly
know it as well. This might be a shock for you but this world is not sesame
street.

------
anoplus
The only job robot can't do is politician.

~~~
charlieflowers
Not so sure ... read some Isaac Asimov. (And yes, I'm generalizing from
fictional evidence, but I'm only playing).

------
IBM
Not keen on letting Amazon hog the PR spotlight, Google lets Andy Rubin out of
the doghouse because the X Labs are all tapped out.

~~~
DannyBee
Could you explain how giving a guy free run of the place and acquiring 7
companies on his say so counts as "being in the doghouse".

Maybe i'm just not used to silicon valley doghouses; I know things are
expensive out here.

~~~
declan
Exactly. This would be a dream job for a heck of a lot of HN regulars: running
your own shop, with no significant money worries, and a decent chance of
changing the world. If this is the "doghouse," I'd be happy to be there too.

~~~
enneff
Just to state the obvious: Andy is not (and was not) in the doghouse. He had a
massively successful run as the leader of Android and is now doing something
else. I look forward to seeing what his team comes up with.

