PDA

View Full Version : The Most realistic looking Robot!



prometheus
11-03-2011, 02:12 PM
drop your links here please..

this one looks okay, nevermind the bla bla talk about sex etc, I wouldnīt think of such things of course, I just wanīt a robo helper to fix breakfast in the morning...I think:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAuam8iiH3Q&feature=related

Michael

Dexter2999
11-03-2011, 02:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bYiXIVyguU

non-girl robot

prometheus
11-03-2011, 02:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bYiXIVyguU

non-girl robot

Great..Havenīt seen that before, a philip k dick robot, he would be honoured I guess..the writer of "do androids dream of electric sheep" wich became the movie blade runner.
Blade runner was more of a cloned orga thou than a Meka:)

Ivé just been discussing AI with a collegue at work and my mind got stuck on robots and AI.

I love to discuss why or why not a robot face still looks stiff and why that is.

they still have a long way to goo..both in terms of getting the mechanics to drive the face muscles in a proper way, then theres the software and programmed face expressions, and after that you have the way we perceive it as real or not when the robot face doesnīt fix the eyes and move the head as to respond to the environment and to those people around..so that is necessary...but I really havenīt seen any good example of that yet.

Michael

prometheus
11-03-2011, 02:58 PM
Not as realistic, but I like to see him honoured...
Einstein...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkpWCu1k0ZI&feature=related

I would like to see dalai lama too, combined with the watson jeopardy software project and some other stuff, you could have a nice robot oracle.

Perhaps spock "Leonard Nimoy" would fit in to be honoured too.

Michael

Dexter2999
11-03-2011, 03:58 PM
Not as realistic, but I like to see him honoured...
Einstein...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkpWCu1k0ZI&feature=related

I would like to see dalai lama too, combined with the watson jeopardy software project and some other stuff, you could have a nice robot oracle.

Perhaps spock "Leonard Nimoy" would fit in to be honoured too.

Michael

Make it a Yoda desktop piece and I'll buy one.

Dexter2999
11-03-2011, 04:12 PM
Ivé just been discussing AI with a collegue at work and my mind got stuck on robots and AI.

I love to discuss why or why not a robot face still looks stiff and why that is.

they still have a long way to goo..both in terms of getting the mechanics to drive the face muscles in a proper way, then theres the software and programmed face expressions, and after that you have the way we perceive it as real or not when the robot face doesnīt fix the eyes and move the head as to respond to the environment and to those people around..so that is necessary...but I really havenīt seen any good example of that yet.

Michael
Well, for one thing if you look at the close ups in any of these videos where the motion is stiff and choppy,it looks like they are using standard hobby stepper motors. I'm not sure that those are built with the finess necessary to pull off smooth and subtle changes.

Plus they are being built by engineers.To get a truly realistic result you might have to enlist the help of someone like on the series "LIE TO ME", a person trained to recognize "micro expressions". These people could consult on what these things mean. A psychologist can tell you why these little things are important. Overall this gap in the technology is sort of their version of the "uncanny valley", they look good but not "real".

I have a theory that non-human appearing robots may be easier to assimilate just for this reason. As long as you try to make them look real but fall short, then the general public will always be hesitant. It's like sending a message "we are trying to trick you into believing this is real." And in the back of your mind you aren't going to trust something you know is trying to trick you.

Similarly in 3D, a more stylized character is more readily accepted by the audience than a bad 3D photoreal character.

So, following the precedence of 3D animation and viewers and apply that to the field of robotics, if you present someone with a robot that is obviously a robot and not meant to "trick" anyone, I think this would make people feel more comfortable in its "honesty".

Just my two cents, not that I am any kind of expert...on anything.

prometheus
11-04-2011, 03:03 AM
Well, for one thing if you look at the close ups in any of these videos where the motion is stiff and choppy,it looks like they are using standard hobby stepper motors. I'm not sure that those are built with the finess necessary to pull off smooth and subtle changes.

Plus they are being built by engineers.To get a truly realistic result you might have to enlist the help of someone like on the series "LIE TO ME", a person trained to recognize "micro expressions". These people could consult on what these things mean. A psychologist can tell you why these little things are important. Overall this gap in the technology is sort of their version of the "uncanny valley", they look good but not "real".

I have a theory that non-human appearing robots may be easier to assimilate just for this reason. As long as you try to make them look real but fall short, then the general public will always be hesitant. It's like sending a message "we are trying to trick you into believing this is real." And in the back of your mind you aren't going to trust something you know is trying to trick you.

Similarly in 3D, a more stylized character is more readily accepted by the audience than a bad 3D photoreal character.

So, following the precedence of 3D animation and viewers and apply that to the field of robotics, if you present someone with a robot that is obviously a robot and not meant to "trick" anyone, I think this would make people feel more comfortable in its "honesty".Just my two cents, not that I am any kind of expert...on anything.

well interesting thought about honesty, but I donīt think humans would settle for anything than less than as real it can get.

portraiting the full set of emotions and making us really believe it is a human, that would affect how we respond to It too, and therefore the whole interaction depends on it.

"more human than human is our motto"

Michael

Dexter2999
11-04-2011, 07:38 AM
I maintain that much like audiences appear to prefer stylized representations of humans in animation, (like DESPICABLE ME, THE INCREDIBLES, or HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON) over attempts that fall short of photoreal (like BEOWULF, or POLAR EXPRESS) the same holds true for tangible representations.

The "uncanny valley" is the problem that your brain knows that something is approaching realism but knows that it falls short. In other words it is "wrong" because it doesn't match your experience of what a person should be. So, you can work on it in a lab until you get it right and have bridged the "valley", but until then it is probably best to never attempt a widespread introduction of models that fall short of that mark. Any attempt to do so would most likely result in a good test of finding out what percentage of the population get freaked out by ventriloquist dummies. ;)

I think some market research probably has already told industry this to some point. Look at how many different robot dogs are out there. There are literally a dozen or more and I can think of only one that even has "fur". Their popularity lies in their novelty not in their ability to mimic the traits of real dogs.

prometheus
11-04-2011, 09:10 AM
I maintain that much like audiences appear to prefer stylized representations of humans in animation, (like DESPICABLE ME, THE INCREDIBLES, or HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON) over attempts that fall short of photoreal (like BEOWULF, or POLAR EXPRESS) the same holds true for tangible representations.

The "uncanny valley" is the problem that your brain knows that something is approaching realism but knows that it falls short. In other words it is "wrong" because it doesn't match your experience of what a person should be. So, you can work on it in a lab until you get it right and have bridged the "valley", but until then it is probably best to never attempt a widespread introduction of models that fall short of that mark. Any attempt to do so would most likely result in a good test of finding out what percentage of the population get freaked out by ventriloquist dummies. ;)

I think some market research probably has already told industry this to some point. Look at how many different robot dogs are out there. There are literally a dozen or more and I can think of only one that even has "fur". Their popularity lies in their novelty not in their ability to mimic the traits of real dogs.

I think I understand you, but to make my point clear of what I think...

The question isnīt about how we like it or not or popularity, I think that it needs to be so realistic as it possible can be in order for a very advanced robot with AI senses to percieve the human reactions, that is important for the AI system to learn evolutionary and thereby develop itīs own internal AI in relation to human behavior.

It needs true human emotions to registrate and learn from, if we were to understand that it is a robot we will treat it differently than we would a human and ergo it will not develop a proper AI sense that would work satisfactory together with humans.

Do you understand what I mean?

Michael

Dexter2999
11-04-2011, 10:09 AM
I think you lost me at "true emotions". I think you are a little grey in the area of "Artificial Intelligence" vs. "Artificial Lifeform".

I don't think you are ever going to get a computer to "feel". The closest you are going to get is to simulate it perhaps with a point system of some kind. Doing acts that increase points make the computer "feel" better. Acts that decrease points make the computer "feel" bad. Then you get into exercises where the computer has to make decisions that are required but it has to weigh them against how it makes it "feel". Will the result be a loss of points that the computer finds it difficult to recover from? Do you want a computer that can be "depressed"?

And if you can't make a computer "sad" can people ever forget that it isn't real? And so continue to treat it as a machine or "slave"? Is this bad for people to get socially trained to treat other people (even if just by appearance) as secondary or inferior? Won't this just lead to people in general becoming more self centered and rude?

I don't believe that I am off base in this thinking. There was a survey/research done many years ago about men shooting the enemy during battle. When they practice shooting a "bullseye" target, only 2 out of 10 men would shoot a man during battle. The others couldn't bring themselves to kill another man. Surprisingly by simply changing the practice targets to being shaped like people they flipped the percentage of men willing to shoot the enemy. This one act changed the psychological conditioning of those participating.

Also of note, AI doesn't need an android body to exist. Smart homes of the future like the house "SARAH" on EUREKA, or an AI personal assistant kind of like the old Office Assistant Paperclip are examples of viable uses of AI.

jasonwestmas
11-04-2011, 10:31 AM
As long as the exterrior of these robots is nothing like flesh and blood and real muscle, the weirdness factor is always going to be at play here. Maybe she can do my laundry though =P. The muscle movements in the face are still only 50% there, I'm not sure what all the rave is about tbh. although, this kind of technology would be cool at a amusement park and seen from a certain distance.

jasonwestmas
11-04-2011, 10:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bYiXIVyguU

non-girl robot

That software is far more interesting.

prometheus
11-04-2011, 10:58 AM
I think you lost me at "true emotions". I think you are a little grey in the area of "Artificial Intelligence" vs. "Artificial Lifeform".
of AI.

Ill get back to you, got to go home for friday now..but you might be right in me being in the grey area, I donīt take two perspectives of artificial intelligence and artificial lifeform..I could explain that later perhaps when I get home.
By the way..How exactly do you define the difference between those two?

Interesting to discuss this thou..I guess we all have different views thou on how we wich and how we believe future robots,Ai would look like.

Michael

art
11-04-2011, 12:36 PM
A game, piece of software or hardware can have AI built in in order to make "intelligent" decisions, but it is not exactly a lifeform.
I may be wrong, but to me not all AI has to be artificial lifeform, but all artificial lifeforms have some sort of AI.
The distinction probably gets blurry once the AI gets advanced enough. Would we consider extremely advanced software/hardware based AI a lifeform? Does it have to be cell based in order to be considered a lifeform?

prometheus
11-04-2011, 12:46 PM
I think theres maybe 3 things to consider when disussing this..

1. what we believe and expect it will be int the future
2. what we in fact would want it to be.
3. what it infact will be.

An AI system that can portray/simulate sadness would in my mind possibly
work well togheter with interactions with humans, it has to recognize sadness in a human in order to interact with the sad human and further along the road, help that sad human to feel better.

Now if it doesnīt understand sadness, it can not Fully interact in such ways satisfactory and consequently it needs to Really understand sadness in itīs core and to the highest level, wich means actually being able to feel.

Now donīt confuse that with what will eventually be in the future, thatīs a different thing.

The question might be if we should go that route if we could, and what then, if it getīs recognized as having real emotions will it have earned a title as a living lifeform or a new species with itīs own rights than no one can command over?

By the way..This isnīt written by a supercomputer on the other side, Itīs just me..Itīs awkward thou, I do have feelings but it doesnt show.

Im all for the most realistic simulation that can ever be conceived, for the AI-system and the human to learn and make the most out of their experiences.

Im not sure, but I believe computer components will change for that very purpose and functions in a hight degree in the same way as a human brain.
Sample like memristor..read potential applications and how pulses can learn and imprint simular to unicellular organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor

We could also speculate if the future will bring together cloned cells wich has been design to work with nanotechnology, here we are bordering to creating organic life thou.

If we get there or if we should go there is another story I guess.

Michael

jasonwestmas
11-04-2011, 01:22 PM
#2 is the scariest question ;) I say that because we often don't know what we even want to happen when we create "stuff". From my own design experience the creation is telling me what it wants to do. . . Graphically speaking of course. Granted I have to know the creation's "language" before I can help it along.

prometheus
11-04-2011, 03:18 PM
#2 is the scariest question ;) I say that because we often don't know what we even want to happen when we create "stuff". From my own design experience the creation is telling me what it wants to do. . . Graphically speaking of course. Granted I have to know the creation's "language" before I can help it along.

Arenīt we touching the old myths and my Alias here..Prometheus.
Frankenstein or the second coming of prometheus.

Be careful of what we dream and create, we donīt know if it will come back and haunt us in the future, it also touches every decision we make every day of course.

sci-fi sagas has been touching this in several movies like I robot,blade runner...or the creation of life as in frankenstein.

Michael

jasonwestmas
11-04-2011, 04:00 PM
A myth? No not hardly ;)

Andy Meyer
11-04-2011, 06:49 PM
These are the latest word in android replicant technology. Lethal, efficient, brutal. No man can resist their charm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTv9AhCuSU4

prometheus
11-05-2011, 06:36 AM
These are the latest word in android replicant technology. Lethal, efficient, brutal. No man can resist their charm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTv9AhCuSU4

They would be no match thou against real women thou..

fembot got feelings too..:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmFu-hF6iKc

Michael

prometheus
11-05-2011, 08:27 AM
this looks pretty real...they are coming:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2wYWAlg8Do&feature=related

this one has indeed a much smoother motion when a movement comes to rest, the characteristics of movement stopping rapidly is showing too much in all other robotics due to the type of motor driven mechanical muscles, and indeed in character animation as well

( I wonder why there isnīt a good tool in cg graphics? to work with every limb movement when it comes to rest in a smooth manner, I would like to sea a good sample in a 3d figure)

Im also curious if not vfx animatronics builders would do a better job at the mechanics at least for robots?

Michael

Andy Meyer
11-05-2011, 11:05 AM
fembot got feelings too..:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmFu-hF6iKc

Michael

that fembot looks fairly human, but you can still see that she is a robot :-)

djwaterman
11-08-2011, 05:35 AM
It's totally unnecessary to make robots look real, like humans. People will respond better to something that just does it's job well and is useful to them, like cars. People already invest objects with all kinds of love, affection and meaning. In fact, it's always going to creep people out seeing a human that doesn't quite seem 100% normal, even real humans who appear slightly defective creep out most people. People already relate easily to mechanical looking robots, transferring their own ideas and feelings on to them, the first Star Wars movie's biggest stars were the two comedy droids, and we all thought the little fire hydrant was such a plucky dude, it made silly beeping noises that we ascribed meaning too.
Easier to just make robots that do their job well and help us, if they do that we will give them all the love they need (which they don't because they'll be robots).

prometheus
11-08-2011, 06:10 AM
It's totally unnecessary to make robots look real, like humans. People will respond better to something that just does it's job well and is useful to them, like cars. People already invest objects with all kinds of love, affection and meaning. In fact, it's always going to creep people out seeing a human that doesn't quite seem 100% normal, even real humans who appear slightly defective creep out most people. People already relate easily to mechanical looking robots, transferring their own ideas and feelings on to them, the first Star Wars movie's biggest stars were the two comedy droids, and we all thought the little fire hydrant was such a plucky dude, it made silly beeping noises that we ascribed meaning too.
Easier to just make robots that do their job well and help us, if they do that we will give them all the love they need (which they don't because they'll be robots).


I beg to differ..here this question rises again wether or not to have them look uber real as humans or not.

As Ivé mentioned before..the question about how we perceive AI robots is in fact secondary, first comes the interaction then the perception, and if you are aware that it is a robot you will treat it as a robot, ergo the robot doesnt interact and learn about human experiences in a fundamental way wich would be necessary for it to interact in a best manner..it will be lacking expected human behavior in itīs actions and are therefore limited in what it can do for us.
Im talking about future robots with such technology that can adapt and learn to simulate neural patterns and behaviors.

Your point might be very valid for today, since we do not have that advanced AI technology..Yet, but I would like to look a little further than that.

Michael

gordonrobb
11-08-2011, 06:09 PM
this looks pretty real...they are coming:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2wYWAlg8Do&feature=related

this one has indeed a much smoother motion when a movement comes to rest, the characteristics of movement stopping rapidly is showing too much in all other robotics due to the type of motor driven mechanical muscles, and indeed in character animation as well

( I wonder why there isnīt a good tool in cg graphics? to work with every limb movement when it comes to rest in a smooth manner, I would like to sea a good sample in a 3d figure)

Im also curious if not vfx animatronics builders would do a better job at the mechanics at least for robots?

Michael

This vid looks more like a spoof, and the robot looks more like person acting like a robot. You sure it's genuine?

prometheus
11-09-2011, 12:53 AM
This vid looks more like a spoof, and the robot looks more like person acting like a robot. You sure it's genuine?

I thought my smiley would suggest that I knew this was a spoof, this is of course not a real robot, but a very real human acting as a robot.
cg characters looks more real today than robots, and thatīs without AI.
A proof of that the underlying motor and muscle techology and movement behavior is still poor in AI robots.

Michael

gordonrobb
11-09-2011, 12:55 AM
I thought my smiley would suggest that I knew this was a spoof, this is of course not a real robot, but a very real human acting as a robot.

Michael

Doh! Didn't note the smiley, sorry.

prometheus
11-09-2011, 01:10 AM
Actors replicating the look of a robot that is supposed to be real is interesting to watch, it can serve as a help tool to verify where in the motion and looks we as humans recognize the faults or the non human look.

This actor has a robot pose with those classic arms up and stretched fingers...who the hell stands like that?
in this case the actor is blinkning very slow, most human made robots tend to have either a to fast static blink, or a too slow blink..and the area around
the eyes are mostly lacking muscle changes to follow the eyelid blinks, then thereīs a question of skin tension/viscosity.

The area around the eye and mouth are those most important along with having eyes that have a proper fluid secret and that follows people in the environment accordingly to where they are and also what the robot hears and depending on what it hears it reacts different, but to do so it would
need to understand the human language and behavior itself,the head needs to follow properly too in a natural way.

Itīs still a long way to go.

Michael

Dexter2999
11-09-2011, 01:28 AM
http://www.media.mit.edu/research/groups-projects

jasonwestmas
11-09-2011, 09:50 AM
I think these Robot Tinker junkies need the help of an animator. ;)

djwaterman
11-12-2011, 11:15 AM
I still can't see a future where there will be a need to make exact replicant humans, to do what exactly? What purpose? Take for instance those guys that live with and fall in love with full sized dolls, do you think they would continue the relationship if the doll suddenly expressed opinions and real emotions, like anger! Those guys love their dolls because they can't handle real relationships, a perfect replicant sex partner that had feelings and thoughts would be wasted on them.
If you are relying on a humanoid that is impervious to nuclear radiation to come rescue you, why would you invest it with real human feelings, feelings that might have the rescuer decide it doesn't agree with your politics so randomly decides to leave you to die.
I think this is one of those things like flying cars, teleportation or deep space star treking, a science fiction concept that will never come to be. I'm human and I have trouble sometimes knowing what to say in a social situation, even the coolest dude will say the wrong thing sometimes, can we program robots to know the right way to act socially? If someone who had been posing as human for years in the workplace was outed as a robot, I'm pretty sure people would get hostile about it, certainly anyone who'd built up a friendship with it would feel hugely cheated.
Give me Robbie the robot any day (still the best looking robot design ever, actually that would make a cool modeling project).

prometheus
11-12-2011, 01:05 PM
I still can't see a future where there will be a need to make exact replicant humans, to do what exactly? What purpose? Take for instance those guys that live with and fall in love with full sized dolls, do you think they would continue the relationship if the doll suddenly expressed opinions and real emotions, like anger! Those guys love their dolls because they can't handle real relationships, a perfect replicant sex partner that had feelings and thoughts would be wasted on them.
If you are relying on a humanoid that is impervious to nuclear radiation to come rescue you, why would you invest it with real human feelings, feelings that might have the rescuer decide it doesn't agree with your politics so randomly decides to leave you to die.
I think this is one of those things like flying cars, teleportation or deep space star treking, a science fiction concept that will never come to be. I'm human and I have trouble sometimes knowing what to say in a social situation, even the coolest dude will say the wrong thing sometimes, can we program robots to know the right way to act socially? If someone who had been posing as human for years in the workplace was outed as a robot, I'm pretty sure people would get hostile about it, certainly anyone who'd built up a friendship with it would feel hugely cheated.
Give me Robbie the robot any day (still the best looking robot design ever, actually that would make a cool modeling project).

Well I see we seem to be stuck on our own views on this, you donīt see reason for them to mimic exact human behaviors or replicate that look, where I do see the need for that.

Im not sure someone else or anyone of us really could give a valid point of view to what would be the right thing to do.

The thing is that I believe we are in baby stages of our journey in to creating robots, and it all comes down to who creates them and for what purpose, and we really canīt begin to see the potential of where,when and for what we would use the robots today.

Today robbie the robot might work for its purposes, but wouldnīt work for interaction with pshycological depth.

So didnīt the Movie AI rise any thoughts on believable robots mimicing humans? is there any good thoughts behind the idea of a substitute child son or was it just pure fiction that wouldnīt work or shouldnīt work in true life in the future?

Proffessor hobby wanted the real emotions put in there..check the beginning of the movie.

Remember quality checking of robot products is important, especially for love robots:)

Believing or trusting a robot will be a huge topic for humans to deal with
when deciding how much AI or how much control and own behavior rights they should be allowed to have, for now that doesnīt seem too scary or that big question since itīs hard enough getting our own pcīs to do what we want or work for them self.

I tell ya, I wouldnīt like to have that robot that was cutting vegetables in I robot and that cold suspicious look it had.:D

I would prefer the bicentennial man serving funny comments when feeling sad.
Hereīs a memorable quote..
"A man with demensia is driving on the freeway. His wife calls him on the mobile phone and says "Sweetheart, I heard there's someone driving the wrong way on the freeway." He says "One? There's hundreds!"

As always..I am glad to be of service:)

Michael

Dexter2999
11-12-2011, 04:50 PM
Well, realistic robots would serve as poor substitutes as children as they would never grow up and the "parents" would tire of perpetual children.

Although, realistic robots could serve elderly people well as companions of sorts.

Practical service based robots would have little or no need to pass as human. They simply need to perform a task as necessary.

Dexter2999
12-05-2011, 06:07 PM
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/top_right/2011/08/make_friends_with_the_robots_of_tomorrow.html

Matt
12-05-2011, 08:40 PM
None of the above links compare to the realism of this one, uncanny valley truly bridged:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLXGS0J52co

prometheus
12-06-2011, 01:40 AM
None of the above links compare to the realism of this one, uncanny valley truly bridged:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLXGS0J52co

Really?..kidding?...that looks way to simplified.

hereīs some more stuff..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9figWCdq7U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=IhVu2hxm07E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsryDzjN7Ig&feature=related

Michael

InfoCentral
12-06-2011, 04:44 AM
The Stepford Wives