←back to thread

217 points mfiguiere | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.41s | source
Show context
ethagknight ◴[] No.41842902[source]
To be honest, the autonomous control of the robot seems like the easier part of the equation. (doing it safely in a room with guests, unguided... thats another matter). The physical limitations and packaging are a big challenge, and I dont think I saw Optimus lift anything remotely heavy.. just pull a beer tap.. a decision that probably speaks volumes about current limits of the technology.

To apply my first point to reality: put an Optimus in its current state/capability, on a commercial 0-turn lawn mower, plug Optimus into the mower's power takeoff, and have someone in another country remotely pilot the mower. That right there is worth every commercial lawn service having at least one on their crew TODAY.

The appeal of hot swapping an operator real time on the equipment you already own, whether it's a push lawn mower or a huge mining truck, provides enormous value right out of the gate. Especially in tasks where the Optimus can handle 90% of the task autonomously but needs to step aside or oversight for the last 10% of the job. Compare to a business model that requires purchase of all new very expensive and unique equipment.

replies(4): >>41843438 #>>41843485 #>>41843490 #>>41843507 #
jvanderbot ◴[] No.41843485[source]
I've worked in robotics for over 10 years, at state of the art labs and high quality startups.

There are really only two hard problems in robotics: Perception and Funding.

Perception, especially around a bunch of people, with depth, mapping, understanding traffic and gestures, all in real time etc etc will be a huge problem for these machines for a while.

Funding though? I doubt that's an issue right now.

replies(2): >>41843839 #>>41843954 #
robotresearcher ◴[] No.41843954[source]
I'm also a roboticist. Perception and funding are hard. But don't forget battery energy density, and the power-to-weight ratio and energy efficiency of actuators. Also very very hard, and Moore's law helps not at all.

Autonomous cars are in a nice niche since they store vast energy for actuation anyway, it's OK to be heavy, and the controls are relatively simple. They are limited by perception and decision making.

Humanoids are way more limited by energy storage and actuation. Animals are absurdly efficient.

replies(3): >>41844109 #>>41844549 #>>41848416 #
jjk166 ◴[] No.41844549[source]
Battery density is only an issue if these things are spending most of their time moving long distances. If you are targeting a drop in replacement for a human worker who is spending most of their time at a workstation, it can be plugged in while working. Even in a scenario where the robot can not be connected to power while working, that's easily solved with redundancy - get two robots, one works while the other charges. Obviously better battery life is a nice to have, but it's not an impediment to large scale adoption the way other big robotics problems are.
replies(1): >>41845575 #
robotresearcher ◴[] No.41845575[source]
> easily solved with redundancy - get two robots.

Yay, twice as expensive.

And power tethers on robots suck so hard. Try it sometime, you’ll hate it.

replies(2): >>41849252 #>>41857984 #
1. jjk166 ◴[] No.41849252[source]
And how much more expensive is the twice as efficient power system that hasn't been developed yet?

Nearly all robots in actual use have tethers, it's really not a big concern. Further there are other methods of providing power, such as induction. For any situation where long range mobility is really a concern, you probably don't want a humanoid robot to begin with.