Quote:

Rob Kamphausen said:
just about once a week, now, i'll see some big news article on how some group from berkeley or MIT or honda or something has developed some form of new robotics.

there's a major quest going on for a bipedal walking robot, for 'smart' robots that can defuse bombs, or for exoskeleton-like framed robotics, that will assist firefighters.

thoughts?




To bring things a bit more toward the topic theme Rob originally posted:

When I think of robots developing in the present era (as opposed to cool-looking fantasy robots in movies) I think of Isaac Asimov's original
I, Robot short story collection, that I first read in 1983.

These were stories Asimov wrote over a 10-year period beginning about 1940, a group of short stories, some loosely connected, some not, projecting a future beginning in the 1990's, where robots gradually become an increasingly greater part of human culture.
And are early-on established with a set of basic programs, allowing robot self-preservation, with their only higher commands (beyond self-preservation) being protection of humans from danger.

And from what I've seen, robotics development is pretty close to the timeframe Asimov projected.






For about 10 years, we've had the technology to create robots that can do a lot of basic functions, if people just had the demand to warrant manufacturing a supply of them.

There are robots that you could activate with a phone call to your home, that would have the robot take the frozen chicken out of your freezer, prepare dinner, and have it on the table ready to eat when you get home.

There are robots that can be programmed to vaccuum the carpets of your home, and other menial chores.

They're working on independent pilot systems for cars, so at some point we won't have to drive, robots will do that for us.






And since the 1991 Gulf War, there's been smart-bomb technology that, with remote-control guidance technology, could turn any private airplane into a guided missile.

And with computer-guidance for cars, for the first time the technology exists to do air-traffic control for air-cars like you see in The Jetsons and Blade Runner.
Prototype air-cars have existed for years, and cost about $250,000. And if there were a popular demand for air-cars, they could go into mass production, which would bring unit retail price down to between $40,000 to $60,000 --not much more than you'd pay for a conventional car. If there were just a demand for them.

And since the Afghan War in 2001, we've had robot-controlled airplanes that can allow troops in the field to see what's ahead of them ( a position formerly a risky army special forces job, called a Forward Observer, done at high risk by field soldiers, infiltrating enemy lines to give advance reconnaissance).
The new robot Forward Observer allows much better advance reconnaissance, at no human risk, and at a relatively low cost per unit (about 70,000 dollars each).






It kind of reminds me of the origins of radio communication. Morse code existed from the late 1800's, because long and short impulses were initially the only sound that technology allowed to be transmitted, and it was used for telegraph and ship-to-ship communication.
And voice communication was later developed shortly before World War I. And it continued to be used that way (one-to-one communication) until 1925.

At which point someone said: You know we could manufacture millions of receivers, and broadcast messages and programs to millions of people at once !
And at that exact moment, broadcast radio began.
But the technology existed for close to 20 years before then. It just took time for someone to realize how it could be utilized.






Likewise, with robots, hydrogen powered cars, electric cars and so forth.

But it's both:
1) learning how to utilize the technology,
and
2) having people believe in technology enough to utilize it on a mass scale, to economically support the development of that technology.






Another example is BETAMAX and VHS video technology. Betamax was actually the superior technology to VHS.

But Sony (who owned the BETAMAX technology) didn't have the rights to all the Hollywood movies, the owners of VHS had that, the ability to make a vast percentage of movies available on VHS, and this caused the popular demand to be for VHS, and not BETA. Despite that BETA was the superior technology.






Another example is highways -vs- train rail system. Early on in the U.S., a Federal decision was made to build a massive highway system.
Whereas Europe invested much more in rail systems, and as a result, Europe has a much higher ratio of people who still use rail for travel, because that was the infrastructure they chose to invest in. The rail system in the U.S., however, is slowly dying, and requires subsidies to keep it alive, because far less people use it.






And needless to say, with each new technology, there's a corporate interest who dominates the existing technology, whether it's the oil industry, or the nuclear power industry (who do everything they can to leverage out alternative feul technologies, that would replace them and lose them money), or pharmaceutical companies and the American Medical Association (who do everything they can to leverage out developing homeopathic/nutritional remedies, chiropractors, massage therapists and other non-antibiotic and non-surgical health care options, because that would put them out of business), or other dominant industries.

Corrective eye surgery is quickly making glasses and contact lenses obsolete.
E-mail and internet communication has threatened postal service and telephone long-distance carriers.
E-bay has threatened the existence of retail stores.






For every new technology, there is a winner and a loser.

Which in many ways is good, because then the new technology has to be developed to a credible level, to the point that the public has a confidence in it, before it begins to replace the system that already works.
But the dominant industry can also often unfairly shut out new technologies, and block investment in developing new technologies, to obstructively preserve their monopoly.






So, I guess with robots, while there is a public interest, and the technology has arguably existed for at least 10 to 20 years to some level, the level of public confidence in widespread use of robots hasn't quite developed yet.





[** NOTE** I corrected some glaring errors, and added some nice images to my previous post, at the bottom of page 1 ]