Comments on: Hey Jules

Hey Jules

Blingo — Fri, 04 May 2007 14:26:58 -0800

Meet Jules, a new humanoid robot from Hanson Robotics, the folks who built the Einstein and Phillip K. Dick robots, (the latter's head went missing a while back.) Jules loves you, as much as his newfangled software will allow. He also seems a little awkward and angst ridden for a robot, but it's not his fault; it must be the designers who made his software.

By: Muddler

Muddler — Fri, 04 May 2007 14:44:52 -0800

Let's take a strole through the Uncanny Valley, shall we?

By: mckenney

mckenney — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:00:09 -0800

Jesus fucking Christ. According to my very, very serious and highly scientific copy of "How To Survive A Robot Uprising", this is the beginning. I need to invest in one of those defunct missile silos in the middle of Nebraska, like, stat. It is only a matter of time before laser eyes and buzzsaw hands.

By: quin

quin — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:03:22 -0800

He wants more life, fucker.

By: kosher_jenny

kosher_jenny — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:10:00 -0800

Man, talking a robot through his sexual identity crisis...how awkward must that conversation be?

By: Zinger

Zinger — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:21:21 -0800

Okay, we're getting closer to my personal nirvana: A robot that smiles while it vacuums my floor.

By: quite unimportant

quite unimportant — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:24:41 -0800

Kill it. KILL IT. Save me some space in that silo, mckenney. I don't trust these toasters one damn bit.

By: stenseng

stenseng — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:34:17 -0800

"Thank you for riding with Johnnycab!"

By: effwerd

effwerd — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:43:23 -0800

I didn't get that much of an uncanny valley response despite his jerky movements. That grin was terrible though. Otherwise, freakin awesome. I even didn't mind his brains hanging out the back, and actually thought it looked quite cool.

By: billypilgrim

billypilgrim — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:47:48 -0800

Am I the only one that was disappointed that it's not Samuel L. Jackson?

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Fri, 04 May 2007 16:08:26 -0800

billypilgrim writes "Am I the only one that was disappointed that it's not Samuel L. Jackson?" Jesus! What are you thinking?! Then he'd be unstoppable! What next? Chuck Norris? It's a slippery slope, man. A slippery slope.

By: lostburner

lostburner — Fri, 04 May 2007 16:20:11 -0800

billypilgrim writes "Am I the only one that was disappointed that it's not Samuel L. Jackson?" I was hoping it'd be Travolta's character. Shows how long it's been since I've seen Pulp Fiction.

By: Opposite George

Opposite George — Fri, 04 May 2007 16:23:06 -0800

billypilgrim, First thing I thought when I saw the name was, does it quote Ezekiel? Sadly, Jules the robot is far from a Bad Motherfucker.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 04 May 2007 16:33:43 -0800

Just watching it move wasn't creepy. It was just, you know, a mechanical puppet. But listening to it expound on its "philosophy": Super creepy. How much of that was just a programmed script? When I worked at the Virtual Reality Applications I wrote this "talking head" app that would play back scripts that could include emotional markup that would appear in the head. My guess is that the "AI" that powers this is the 1960s style eliza programmed to talk about random robot philosophy.

By: parallax7d

parallax7d — Fri, 04 May 2007 16:42:19 -0800

It strikes me that we are working on things in the wrong order when it comes to robots. We are working on getting them to walk, blink, track things with their eyes etc. It seems to me that until a program can think and learn, it will never be able to successfully interact in our world in physical (robot) form. Creating machines that can walk and talk wont be much use to us. Machines that can think and learn will be able to teach themselves to walk and talk, and then they will be supremely useful.

By: Richard Daly

Richard Daly — Fri, 04 May 2007 16:52:32 -0800

Well, sure, paralax7d, except that think and learn exponentially harder tasks than walking and blinking. It's a bit like, "once we have Nuclear Fusion Reactors, mowing the lawn will be easy!"

By: mckenney

mckenney — Fri, 04 May 2007 16:53:12 -0800

Yeah, and then teach themselves how to build other robots and kill us giant sacks of meat. Most displeasing.

By: Richard Daly

Richard Daly — Fri, 04 May 2007 16:53:22 -0800

Er, "thinking and learning are exponentially harder".... Maybe I should think and learn.

By: everichon

everichon — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:11:42 -0800

Enigmarelle 2.0

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:12:30 -0800

The facial movements are interesting, but god - the high-school play script shit is fucking lame.

By: DU

DU — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:13:30 -0800

Machines that can think and learn will be able to teach themselves to walk and talk.. Welcome to the state of the art of AI....circa 1960. They've only just recently (in the scheme of history, funding, etc) gotten away from the idea that people and animals are just faster, capacious computers and everything they do is a logical operation: "I DESIRE COOKIE. PLAN FORMALIZED TO ACQUIRE COOKIE. STEP 1: MOVE LEFT FOOT FORWARD 8 INCHES...." The current thinking, at least by some (most?) and AFAIK, is that particular, specialized types of tasks are handled by subsubsubsystems, the output of which is handled by subsubsystems, the output of which is handled by subsystems, etc. It's a bunch of interacting "agents" (or whatever the current buzzword is) that kind of trickle up to a complete response.

By: DU

DU — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:17:38 -0800

Also, I call BS on this "robot". We are seeing a mechanical head and a recorded voice. Maybe text-to-speech, but given that they didn't even attempt to sync the (preprogrammed, I assume) lips to the words, I doubt they went to that much trouble.

By: everichon

everichon — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:21:43 -0800

What DU said. Disney nailed this years ago.

By: effugas

effugas — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:35:59 -0800

Hmmm. Stepper motors -- not appropriate for this task. Not even a little.

By: DU

DU — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:39:24 -0800

Wait wait--I have a much snarkier way of dismissing this: You guys must be really impressed at Chucky Cheese. OH.SNAP.

By: Item

Item — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:40:24 -0800

My girlfriend works for Hanson Robotics. These robots are very real - she's touched them. The reason they look so realistic is they use Frubber (or 'flesh-rubber'), a proprietary silicone-based polymer that mimics human musculature nearly exactly . Unlink all other commercial polymers, Frubber doesn't degrade under UV or direct sunlight. The press section of the HR site's got more vids, including the robots interacting with humans.

By: parallax7d

parallax7d — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:52:30 -0800

Richard Daly, I'm not so sure that training a program to learn is exponentially harder than programming each and every action a robot has to do in order to mow the lawn. I think it's the other way around. (yes I realize there are lawn mowing and floor vacuuming robots already!) If we spent a few decades working on a program that can learn to orient itself physically, and set it goals, eventually it will be able to mow the lawn, get gas, get the groceries, fix the mower, make dinner, build a house, etc.. all without needing to explicitly break down and code all these numerous activities. But if they learned and thought for themselves we couldn't guarantee total control over them. They won't be just machines at the point, and they may decide one day that they are sick of being bossed around.

By: Item

Item — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:56:54 -0800

...and upon further inspection of above comments I now realize it wasn't being debated that the robots are real, but rather if they're 'really' real. Gotcha. And still, they're smarter than you think.

By: DU

DU — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:59:47 -0800

I'm not so sure that training a program to learn is exponentially harder than programming each and every action a robot has to do in order to mow the lawn. I think it's the other way around. ... If we spent a few decades working on a program that can learn.... OMGIHBT

By: dopamine

dopamine — Fri, 04 May 2007 18:08:11 -0800

shit.

By: yeloson

yeloson — Fri, 04 May 2007 18:36:23 -0800

You fools. You imagine that people build robots for useful reasons, like thinking. Wrong, wrong, wrong. We build robots for 3 things, and 3 things only: 1. To make shit we can sell (see auto factories) 2. To help us kill people/avoid people from killing us (drones, bomb bots, etc.) 3. To have sex with (Real Doll) I'll leave which categories this one goes into to your own logic processors.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Fri, 04 May 2007 18:44:24 -0800

When can I have my #3, yeloson?

By: sourwookie

sourwookie — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:09:29 -0800

Did the robot just ask someone named David if he was going to dream when turned off? Straight outta 2010.

By: sourwookie

sourwookie — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:17:46 -0800

It seemed to me that the sex discussion was like a bad LaForge/Data flashback from ST:TNG.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:20:10 -0800

I think it's stupid to start out by making polite robots--rather, I think if they started out with no sense of manners (just a set of desires) and had to learn the value of politeness like the rest of us, they could be much more realistic in interaction.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:21:24 -0800

Did the robot just ask someone named David if he was going to dream when turned off? Straight outta 2010. Only three years to go...

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:22:34 -0800

And I'm pretty damn sure the text was just written by someone else and is merely being used as an example of how the robot can flex its facial muscles like a human being as it talks. Impressive, but only from a mechanical standpoint.

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:27:23 -0800

Hanson Robotics' Quiet Genius.

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:31:04 -0800

I need to invest in one of those defunct missile silos in the middle of Nebraska, like, stat. These sites are for sale.

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:44:25 -0800

My Roomba just asked me for a date. Please advise.

By: JParker

JParker — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:47:08 -0800

Talking frubber head, a little freaky. The part where he gets tears in his eyes from having to say goodbye, pretty freaky. Robot sexual orientation discussion, really freaky. The part at the end where he tells the little baby, "I don't know if you will remember me, but I will never forget you. Someday I will come and find you...", super-ultra-mondo freaky.

By: Avenger

Avenger — Fri, 04 May 2007 20:27:02 -0800

Hanson Robotics: Proudly 3 Laws Safe since 2007.

By: liquorice

liquorice — Fri, 04 May 2007 20:51:19 -0800

*squinty eyes* I don't want one of them watching me while I sleep.

By: Bort

Bort — Fri, 04 May 2007 21:04:55 -0800

If we spent a few decades working on a program that can learn... We've spent 4 or 5 decades on that so far and still aren't very far along.

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Fri, 04 May 2007 22:11:23 -0800

This post reassures my long-held belief that there will never be convincing mechanical humans.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Fri, 04 May 2007 22:31:39 -0800

"This post reassures my long-held belief that there will never be convincing mechanical humans." That's really sort of like some guy saying the same thing about human flight after he saw someone kill themselves jumping off a cliff with strapped-on feathered 'wings'. This stuff is still in its infancy, right now it's mostly just smoke-and-mirrors. And not very convincing smoke-and-mirrors at that. When I watched the video I thought "meh" and then got frustrated. Almost every component of the system is so far from even minimally emulating its human counterpart that it's silly. The only advance I see in that video is that they're obviously using knowledge of actual facial muscle anatomy and how it relates to expressions. They may, in fact, be using FACS. And that's such an obvious thing to do—but it's still an advance of the state-of-the-art. That's how pitiful the state-of-the-art really is. Fast forward fifty years and we may have convincing androids, at least with regard to anatomy and motion. I think AI is possible, but I won't estimate a timetable—though I'll say I think it's much longer away than most people think. Longer than fifty years, probably.

By: kid ichorous

kid ichorous — Fri, 04 May 2007 22:32:41 -0800

America:"Bite my shiny metal ass."::England:"Are you telling me that my sexual identity issues are normal?"

By: tehloki

tehloki — Sat, 05 May 2007 01:05:06 -0800

Wow, a robotic head that's programmed to mimic facial expressions while claiming it's self-aware. Wake me up when we've got a robot that's programmed to mimic sexual intercourse while claiming to "want more of your hard cock".

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Sat, 05 May 2007 01:18:09 -0800

Dizzy writes "My Roomba just asked me for a date.
"Please advise." Clean underwear.

By: kisch mokusch

kisch mokusch — Sat, 05 May 2007 03:58:57 -0800

Can it see?

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Sat, 05 May 2007 06:04:46 -0800

My Roomba totally stood me up at Outback. Found him over by the Sears parking lot, putting the moves on a weed whacker. I have never been so humiliated in my life. Anyway, long story short, we went to Denny's for coffee and talked 'til 3 am. Got pretty heavy. Woke up with my pants off, covered in dryer lint. Can we make this work?

By: Uther Bentrazor

Uther Bentrazor — Sat, 05 May 2007 07:04:47 -0800

man, Frontline Assembly isn't even trying anymore.

By: zhivota

zhivota — Sat, 05 May 2007 08:19:30 -0800

I'm not so sure that training a program to learn is exponentially harder than programming each and every action a robot has to do in order to mow the lawn. I think it's the other way around. Heh. Get yourself an introductory AI book, my friend. If the lawn didn't change, you could certainly program the bot to mow it, and it wouldn't even be that hard. Maybe a month's work. It's just tedium. What you're talking about? Paradigm change. Breakthrough. Might as well say "it's too hard trying to make renewable energy and more efficient automobiles, let's just wait for fusion power and hoverboards."

By: Parannoyed

Parannoyed — Sat, 05 May 2007 09:31:49 -0800

Okay, am I the only one that gets the impression that Hanson Robotics is more proud of their "Frubber" than they are of their AI routines? I can't seem to find word-one getting into the nitty-gritty of how they programmed Jules and what kind of dynamic responses he's capable of. Did you see the Einstien bot? It was an Asimo with a fucking dolls head glued to the top. Not impressed.

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Sat, 05 May 2007 10:27:08 -0800

So what's the deal with that Philip K. Dick head? They just never found it? I can't believe somebody would steal something like that and not tell enough people to get busted. It's not like you could sell it. On preview: Oh never mind, I get it. Can't resist: Huh huh. I said dick head.

By: ninjew

ninjew — Sat, 05 May 2007 11:30:07 -0800

Singularity?

By: blacklite

blacklite — Sat, 05 May 2007 14:29:24 -0800

What a total waste of time. Okay, not total. Simulating some facial expressions is nice. Text-to-speech is nice. Calling it an android? Pretty disingenuous.

By: blacklite

blacklite — Sat, 05 May 2007 14:29:39 -0800

(Thanks for the post though.) :)

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Mon, 07 May 2007 21:57:31 -0800

That's really sort of like some guy saying the same thing about human flight after he saw someone kill themselves jumping off a cliff with strapped-on feathered 'wings'. This stuff is still in its infancy, right now it's mostly just smoke-and-mirrors. And not very convincing smoke-and-mirrors at that. When I watched the video I thought "meh" and then got frustrated. Almost every component of the system is so far from even minimally emulating its human counterpart that it's silly. The only advance I see in that video is that they're obviously using knowledge of actual facial muscle anatomy and how it relates to expressions. They may, in fact, be using FACS. And that's such an obvious thing to do—but it's still an advance of the state-of-the-art. That's how pitiful the state-of-the-art really is. Fast forward fifty years and we may have convincing androids, at least with regard to anatomy and motion. I think AI is possible, but I won't estimate a timetable—though I'll say I think it's much longer away than most people think. Longer than fifty years, probably Um, no. Kiss your sad and cranky BOBOT wife with just the right temperature lips and ask her why she's sad.