Hey Jules
May 4, 2007 2:26 PM Subscribe
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.
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.
posted by mckenney at 3:00 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by mckenney at 3:00 PM on May 4, 2007
Man, talking a robot through his sexual identity crisis...how awkward must that conversation be?
posted by kosher_jenny at 3:10 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by kosher_jenny at 3:10 PM on May 4, 2007
Okay, we're getting closer to my personal nirvana: A robot that smiles while it vacuums my floor.
posted by Zinger at 3:21 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by Zinger at 3:21 PM on May 4, 2007
Kill it. KILL IT.
Save me some space in that silo, mckenney. I don't trust these toasters one damn bit.
posted by quite unimportant at 3:24 PM on May 4, 2007
Save me some space in that silo, mckenney. I don't trust these toasters one damn bit.
posted by quite unimportant at 3:24 PM on May 4, 2007
"Thank you for riding with Johnnycab!"
posted by stenseng at 3:34 PM on May 4, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by stenseng at 3:34 PM on May 4, 2007 [3 favorites]
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.
posted by effwerd at 3:43 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by effwerd at 3:43 PM on May 4, 2007
Am I the only one that was disappointed that it's not Samuel L. Jackson?
posted by billypilgrim at 3:47 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by billypilgrim at 3:47 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by brundlefly at 4:08 PM on May 4, 2007
Jesus! What are you thinking?! Then he'd be unstoppable! What next? Chuck Norris? It's a slippery slope, man. A slippery slope.
posted by brundlefly at 4:08 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by lostburner at 4:20 PM on May 4, 2007
I was hoping it'd be Travolta's character. Shows how long it's been since I've seen Pulp Fiction.
posted by lostburner at 4:20 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by Opposite George at 4:23 PM on May 4, 2007
First thing I thought when I saw the name was, does it quote Ezekiel? Sadly, Jules the robot is far from a Bad Motherfucker.
posted by Opposite George at 4:23 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by delmoi at 4:33 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by delmoi at 4:33 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by parallax7d at 4:42 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by parallax7d at 4:42 PM on May 4, 2007
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!"
posted by Richard Daly at 4:52 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by Richard Daly at 4:52 PM on May 4, 2007
Yeah, and then teach themselves how to build other robots and kill us giant sacks of meat. Most displeasing.
posted by mckenney at 4:53 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by mckenney at 4:53 PM on May 4, 2007
Er, "thinking and learning are exponentially harder"....
Maybe I should think and learn.
posted by Richard Daly at 4:53 PM on May 4, 2007
Maybe I should think and learn.
posted by Richard Daly at 4:53 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by DU at 5:13 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by DU at 5:13 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by DU at 5:17 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by DU at 5:17 PM on May 4, 2007
Hmmm. Stepper motors -- not appropriate for this task. Not even a little.
posted by effugas at 5:35 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by effugas at 5:35 PM on May 4, 2007
Wait wait--I have a much snarkier way of dismissing this:
You guys must be really impressed at Chucky Cheese.
OH.SNAP.
posted by DU at 5:39 PM on May 4, 2007 [3 favorites]
You guys must be really impressed at Chucky Cheese.
OH.SNAP.
posted by DU at 5:39 PM on May 4, 2007 [3 favorites]
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.
posted by parallax7d at 5:52 PM on May 4, 2007
(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.
posted by parallax7d at 5:52 PM on May 4, 2007
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
posted by DU at 5:59 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
OMGIHBT
posted by DU at 5:59 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by yeloson at 6:36 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by yeloson at 6:36 PM on May 4, 2007
Did the robot just ask someone named David if he was going to dream when turned off?
Straight outta 2010.
posted by sourwookie at 7:09 PM on May 4, 2007
Straight outta 2010.
posted by sourwookie at 7:09 PM on May 4, 2007
It seemed to me that the sex discussion was like a bad LaForge/Data flashback from ST:TNG.
posted by sourwookie at 7:17 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by sourwookie at 7:17 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by Citizen Premier at 7:20 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by Citizen Premier at 7:20 PM on May 4, 2007
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...
posted by delmoi at 7:21 PM on May 4, 2007
Straight outta 2010.
Only three years to go...
posted by delmoi at 7:21 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by Citizen Premier at 7:22 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by Citizen Premier at 7:22 PM on May 4, 2007
I need to invest in one of those defunct missile silos in the middle of Nebraska, like, stat.
These sites are for sale.
posted by ericb at 7:31 PM on May 4, 2007
These sites are for sale.
posted by ericb at 7:31 PM on May 4, 2007
My Roomba just asked me for a date.
Please advise.
posted by Dizzy at 7:44 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Please advise.
posted by Dizzy at 7:44 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by JParker at 7:47 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by JParker at 7:47 PM on May 4, 2007
Hanson Robotics: Proudly 3 Laws Safe since 2007.
posted by Avenger at 8:27 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Avenger at 8:27 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
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.
posted by Bort at 9:04 PM on May 4, 2007
We've spent 4 or 5 decades on that so far and still aren't very far along.
posted by Bort at 9:04 PM on May 4, 2007
This post reassures my long-held belief that there will never be convincing mechanical humans.
posted by longsleeves at 10:11 PM on May 4, 2007
posted by longsleeves at 10:11 PM on May 4, 2007
“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.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:31 PM on May 4, 2007
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.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:31 PM on May 4, 2007
America:"Bite my shiny metal ass."::England:"Are you telling me that my sexual identity issues are normal?"
posted by kid ichorous at 10:32 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by kid ichorous at 10:32 PM on May 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
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".
posted by tehloki at 1:05 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by tehloki at 1:05 AM on May 5, 2007
Dizzy writes "My Roomba just asked me for a date.
"Please advise."
Clean underwear.
posted by brundlefly at 1:18 AM on May 5, 2007
"Please advise."
Clean underwear.
posted by brundlefly at 1:18 AM on May 5, 2007
Can it see?
posted by kisch mokusch at 3:58 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by kisch mokusch at 3:58 AM on May 5, 2007
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?
posted by Dizzy at 6:04 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
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?
posted by Dizzy at 6:04 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
man, Frontline Assembly isn't even trying anymore.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 7:04 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 7:04 AM on May 5, 2007
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."
posted by zhivota at 8:19 AM on May 5, 2007
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."
posted by zhivota at 8:19 AM on May 5, 2007
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.
posted by Parannoyed at 9:31 AM on May 5, 2007
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.
posted by Parannoyed at 9:31 AM on May 5, 2007
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.
posted by dgaicun at 10:27 AM on May 5, 2007
On preview: Oh never mind, I get it.
Can't resist: Huh huh. I said dick head.
posted by dgaicun at 10:27 AM on May 5, 2007
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.
posted by blacklite at 2:29 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by blacklite at 2:29 PM on May 5, 2007
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.
posted by longsleeves at 9:57 PM on May 7, 2007
Um, no. Kiss your sad and cranky BOBOT wife with just the right temperature lips and ask her why she's sad.
posted by longsleeves at 9:57 PM on May 7, 2007
« Older NO ONE Expects the Fashion Inquisition! | Think again. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Muddler at 2:44 PM on May 4, 2007