See, this is a real video. Compare it with the obvious cgi fake that was put out a few months ago by Figure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq1QZB5baNw I still can't believe how noone has called them out on that one.
Well, anything could be fake these days even the Boston Dynamic's video could be fake in this day and age but...
I tend to believe both videos probably are not fake. With speech recognition, text to speech AGI and the advancements in machine learning as applied to robotics, it is not impossible for many or any committed enough group of engineers with financial means to make some notable progress on that front.
But Figure 01 do have real videos of their robot walking. Compare the wobbliness in those videos vs the one I've linked. The difference is easily noticeable. One moves like a physical thing, the other moves like a scripted rigid body simulation from a game cutscene.
Also, I didn't say what they demoed was impossible (other than the unnaturally smooth motion). There's probably good reason they went with a cgi video, but we don't know.
Motion is the telltale sign. It's too smooth in their video. Real physical mechanisms shake a bit, the actuators have a bit of backlash, the whole structure wobbles a bit when a limb is moved due to torque, etc. The micro-movements are missing from the Figure 01 video, because they are hard to simulate convincingly. Basically, their robot moves like Optimis Prime in a Transformers movie. Unnatural, and un-physical.
You might not be able to see it if you don't know what to look for, just like how some people seem unable to notice when that ugly motion interpolation is turned on their TV ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I often call out the cgi "enhancements" that I notice on Boston Dynamics videos. This one doesn't seem to have any that I can tell. On others, however, when I point them out, I get borderline religious vitriol pushback.
From what I've observed, (so preface the following with "It seems to me that:")
BD obviously has a well-honed "playback" tool. They have the ability to command the robot to operate in a new environment, record its own movements to sub-millimeter accuracy, and record the environment (it has a live 3d point map after all.). Then, they load in the recorded environment+motion data, and play it back as a 3D scene. Naturally, this would be needed to analyze the performance and make software and hardware iterations. However, this data is likely also used to re-create a digital scene for the purposes of cgi enhancement of a performance that's intended to be recorded and released to Youtube. Similar to how Favreau uses a giant screen to approximate the lighting on the chroma-keyed subjects[1] as they perform, this data -- a giant shiny rectangle goes here, a window and a flashing blue light bulb there, these steps over here -- combined with accurate camera motion data, is then used to create a digital model with the exact shadows that one would need to create a more realistic "fake video" in the first place. The trick is that Boston Dynamics then takes the original take (or iterations of takes of it running the exact same sequence), and iterate a cgi-enhanced version of their "cool dance video" that the marketing team then signs off on. "Ohh yeah, that's what our vision is. We don't want them to see shaky appendages, or micro-stutters. Add in some extra scuff marks, too! Perfect. Upload it."
I can see that. Because you're posting incoherent scenarios with no evidence.
Meanwhile we have Spot being deployed in Australian mines for surveillance where the environment is constantly changing. Not sure how they would accomplish this if everything they do is CGI.
I did not say everything they do is CGI. Your response is prime example. Just doubting Boston Dynamic's MARKETING brings out the strawman fallacies. Simply proves the marketing is working. I don't doubt the robots exist. How stupid do you think the average HN commenter is?
