Hyundai to buy 'thousands' of Boston Dynamics robots(therobotreport.com)
therobotreport.com
Hyundai to buy 'thousands' of Boston Dynamics robots
https://www.therobotreport.com/hyundai-purchase-tens-of-thousands-boston-dynamics-robots/
67 comments
Hyundai owns Boston dynamics... Still interesting, but it's like buying lemonade from your kid's lemonade stand to support them. Others will see you buying the juice and get thirsty, hopefully.
Presumably though Hyundai bought Boston dynamics for some reason. Hyundai bought them in 2021, so it’s not like they didn’t have a plan at the time. (At least one hopes)
If I had a son I would buy his lemonade stand, buy every lemon in town, and double the price of lemonade...
That’s only one half of the scheme. The other half is to create a heat wave with the Ozone Hole Generator 5000.
I'm always confused by the need for humanoid robots in heavy industry.
isn't it always easier to build factories machine first ?
same as the idea of building self driving cars enabled tracks with sensors and all instead of trying to resolve self driving cars in the wild.
isn't it always easier to build factories machine first ?
same as the idea of building self driving cars enabled tracks with sensors and all instead of trying to resolve self driving cars in the wild.
You're right, which is why factories are already automated that way.
Where humans still reign supreme is in two areas: assembly and work in human-centered environments.
So, it's a lot easier to have a human welder do welding inside a Hyundai-built ship because the interior of the ship is designed for humans to walk around.
Likewise, it's easier for humans to work with machines on assembly, because humans are flexible and assembly lines typically need to be rapidly reconfigured for different production runs.
A purpose-built facility excels at maximizing throughput for mass produced parts (paperclips), but doesn't work well for lower-volume integration tasks (cars, ships, etc.).
Where humans still reign supreme is in two areas: assembly and work in human-centered environments.
So, it's a lot easier to have a human welder do welding inside a Hyundai-built ship because the interior of the ship is designed for humans to walk around.
Likewise, it's easier for humans to work with machines on assembly, because humans are flexible and assembly lines typically need to be rapidly reconfigured for different production runs.
A purpose-built facility excels at maximizing throughput for mass produced parts (paperclips), but doesn't work well for lower-volume integration tasks (cars, ships, etc.).
I wouldn't be surprised if a large chunk of this order is for non-humanoids: https://bostondynamics.com/products/stretch/
I remember an old interview with Musk where he said that when he just got into manufacturing, he would try to automate all the things, but then found that it makes the assembly line overly rigid and difficult to improve, especially when they're still learning about a new assembly process. So he switched to only automating only the obvious parts at start, keeping humans in the loop for every step where it's not entirely clear how best to perform it, and then automate these other steps gradually as they learn.
So I assume that the idea is that humanoid robots could fully replace some of these temporary roles (or allow a single human to operate several robots), maintaining flexibility while a new production line is optimized, and then easily moved off to another.
So I assume that the idea is that humanoid robots could fully replace some of these temporary roles (or allow a single human to operate several robots), maintaining flexibility while a new production line is optimized, and then easily moved off to another.
Pretty sure he was simply informed of all of that and he put himself on a pedestal as the CEO as he's done for countless interviews.
He seems to have a mostly surface level of understanding of what goes on at his companies, which is all a CEO needs. But it doesn't justify all the people I see idolising him as some sort of technical God. I heard he's a master of PoE, too ;)
He seems to have a mostly surface level of understanding of what goes on at his companies, which is all a CEO needs. But it doesn't justify all the people I see idolising him as some sort of technical God. I heard he's a master of PoE, too ;)
Yeah, I suppose that could be true, but I don't think it takes away from the reasoning process and the benefits of holding off on premature full automation.
You build a factory machine. Then the job changes and you need to build an entirely new machine. You offer a new product with a different shape and you need to build an entirely new machine.
Doesn't have to be humanoid specifically but a roaming robot based on biological patterning is so much more capable for retooling.
Doesn't have to be humanoid specifically but a roaming robot based on biological patterning is so much more capable for retooling.
Boston Dynamics makes other robots as well. I think the key innovation behind their robots is broad applications and easy programming. While making a custom factory robot could take a half year, configuring and installing a Boston Dynamics robot takes days.
The APIs where designed for humans,
AI learns the world through the
spectacles of a human.
The appeal is to replace workers by using a generic platform, that when mass produced, costs less and don't require retooling. One human commodity for a mechanical one.
why do they need to _look_ human though? two legs, torso, head, two arms, does a robot need that. Why not just a giant arm (or five whatever) that can roll around?
Evolution's optimisation pressure on the humanoid shape has already done a lot of that work for us. Certain instruments like the hand and thumb are very thoroughly refined in humans. On top of that, most interfaces in the world are already designed for humans, so by making a humanoid robot you guarantee it can operate in a superset of environments that a human can.
They explicitly want robots that can replace what humans currently do, in existing human workstations, etc. You don't have to redesign a tractor for a humanoid bot. This is a kind of skeuomorphism but more functional than ornamental.
There is a lot of machinery that is designed to be operated by humans using their arms and legs, a lot of processes built around it. The appeal of humanoid robots is in the idea that all this stuff wouldn't need to change. Whether or not this is possible remains to be seen
Hot swappable parts. Any job can be performed by any worker be they human or humanoid.
Marketing.
Not heavy industry, but here is a video of an automated grocery warehouse: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE
If you stick with the human first design, you miss out on enormous potential efficiency gains.
If you stick with the human first design, you miss out on enormous potential efficiency gains.
[deleted]
Normal industrial machines have to operate in special cages - both so humans can keep out, and to restrain the incredibly powerful machines in case they malfunction.
Can humans work alongside such humanoids safely? I mean, even with no spectacular failures, imagine the humanoid carrying heavy items and dropping them on a real human.
Can humans work alongside such humanoids safely? I mean, even with no spectacular failures, imagine the humanoid carrying heavy items and dropping them on a real human.
The whole point of making them humanoid is to make it possible to use them in the same environment as humans. It's the end goal so it needs to start somewhere
Well, maybe, but apart from the form factor, it's the same: imperfect sensors driving potentially very powerful actuators.
If we can't trust a gimballed robot arm, I can't see why we would trust these guys.
If we can't trust a gimballed robot arm, I can't see why we would trust these guys.
Factory arms have next to no sensing. They blindly wave around on preprogrammed trajectories. They are much stronger than humanoids and they are bolted to the floor. They will crush you without noticing at all and continue about their work.
They use high gear ratios on their motors, which means they are extremely stiff and they have much more inertia in motion than you would expect even from their large size and weight. The rotor in the motor is rotating at tremendous speed and its kinetic energy goes with the speed squared. If the arm hits you it will keep going, and if it pins you against something you will not be able to push it even a centimeter.
Humanoids use lower gear ratios and, of course, are not bolted to the floor. I would much rather be bumped by a humanoid than a factory arm.
They use high gear ratios on their motors, which means they are extremely stiff and they have much more inertia in motion than you would expect even from their large size and weight. The rotor in the motor is rotating at tremendous speed and its kinetic energy goes with the speed squared. If the arm hits you it will keep going, and if it pins you against something you will not be able to push it even a centimeter.
Humanoids use lower gear ratios and, of course, are not bolted to the floor. I would much rather be bumped by a humanoid than a factory arm.
So lets say Hyundai sets up a factory with such robots.
I am sure that Boston Dynamic robots have AI ,so we don't need humans but lets assume so for this moment. And they can be controlled (let's say with VR?) with Humans.
and those humans can be from different countries. So a US factory with workers from China?
I am sure that Boston Dynamic robots have AI ,so we don't need humans but lets assume so for this moment. And they can be controlled (let's say with VR?) with Humans.
and those humans can be from different countries. So a US factory with workers from China?
I think latency has to be taken into account too. Human reaction times are already on the order of 200ms, so any network latency would be additive. Anywhere close to 1000ms is too much, so you'd probably need to be less than 100ms or so from the bot you're operating.
Well maybe many govt incentivizes special super fast internet speed with minimal latency which might be different from civilian internet?
Doesn't most of these takes 200 ms still so it's 200 +200 which is close to 400 which might be manageable?? Though I don't know anything about this.
Doesn't most of these takes 200 ms still so it's 200 +200 which is close to 400 which might be manageable?? Though I don't know anything about this.
I'm always thinking: actuators are close to their peak efficiency for some time now, i.e. electric motors can barely get any better. Same with with mechanical construction, materials and all the newtonian bits. These things are probably close to a theoretical optimum. Now these things weigh a certain amount for a set amount of power needed. It's all a bit like the rocket equation: the more power you need, the heavier the power supply, the bigger and heavier the motors have to be, and so on. So there's a hard limit of what an autonomous robot can do for how long. Now, the Boston Dynamics machines certainly are impressive in their promotional videos. But I've not found any reliable public information on how long their humanoid robots can operate autonomously without recharging. Minutes? Hours? Not that charging is that big of an issue, especially in a factory. But still, I'd be interested how long the machine can actually operate on its own. Maybe someone has information on that?
I imagine anything that actually is used in a factory environment to not look as humanoid as the press photos (especially the head there's no point in having that top appendage which does nothing but remind the reader of star wars) and also have a beefy power-cable suspended from the ceiling.
To do what? Even the humanoid bots don't have clear use cases imo
Boston Dynamics has video of the humanoids tasked to unpack or pack freight. You could hire people to come in and pack or unpack trucks, or, you could have a humanoid robot. Truck pulls up to the loading dock, opens doors, robot takes all the boxes out and puts them on the conveyor, or takes boxes off a conveyor and puts them in the truck. Doesn't matter when the truck arrives, the robot isn't at lunch break or on holiday or gone home for the day, so like if you'd hired 3-4 shifts you can always do this. But while 3-4 shifts makes sense if you really do this 24/7, if you do it once a month but with no predictable schedule you cannot hire for that.
Likewise if every truck has 85cm cube boxes in it, you don't need humanoids you can purchase a solution. But the Boston Dynamics robots, just like human workers don't care that the boxes are a bit different, within reason. The robots are less adaptable than humans, but they're much more adaptable than previous non-human approaches.
Likewise if every truck has 85cm cube boxes in it, you don't need humanoids you can purchase a solution. But the Boston Dynamics robots, just like human workers don't care that the boxes are a bit different, within reason. The robots are less adaptable than humans, but they're much more adaptable than previous non-human approaches.
I think my larger point is that it seems doubtful that most use cases need a humanoid form. Like is there any reason to think a specialized unloading bot is worse than a humanoid bot in this case?
There are loads of edge cases where of course your specialist bot can be geared for that edge case, but each such bot is different.
So Boston Dynamics sells fifty companies their $1M robots (example, I have no idea of actual prices) meanwhile a custom robot costs $1M because of the extensive design and engineering work for each such custom robot. If you were buying a lot of them they'd be cheaper, but you aren't and they know this custom design won't suit the next customer.
If you were conjuring into existence arbitrary environments, Boston's humanoids lose, but the reason they picked humanoids† is that in these environments the existing workforce are humans. Humans don't mind the weird ledge needed because of a legal change in 1896, or the uneven weight distribution in the boxes, they adapt and so can Boston's robots. Humanoids couldn't fit down a 6cm diameter pipe, a custom robot could, but, since the people doing the job last month were humans it's not in a 6cm diameter pipe, the humans doing it required an access hatch, and the humanoid robot can operate that hatch too.
† You can make a similar argument for the canine robots. People already use dogs so more of our world is tweaked to make it suitable for dogs.
So Boston Dynamics sells fifty companies their $1M robots (example, I have no idea of actual prices) meanwhile a custom robot costs $1M because of the extensive design and engineering work for each such custom robot. If you were buying a lot of them they'd be cheaper, but you aren't and they know this custom design won't suit the next customer.
If you were conjuring into existence arbitrary environments, Boston's humanoids lose, but the reason they picked humanoids† is that in these environments the existing workforce are humans. Humans don't mind the weird ledge needed because of a legal change in 1896, or the uneven weight distribution in the boxes, they adapt and so can Boston's robots. Humanoids couldn't fit down a 6cm diameter pipe, a custom robot could, but, since the people doing the job last month were humans it's not in a 6cm diameter pipe, the humans doing it required an access hatch, and the humanoid robot can operate that hatch too.
† You can make a similar argument for the canine robots. People already use dogs so more of our world is tweaked to make it suitable for dogs.
Seems at most a transitory situation until places retool for dedicated bot environments. Its simply less efficient to cater to humanoid workers.
I thought Hyundai owns Boston Dynamics?
Quite dystopian thinking how a full factory and beyond could be run completely in the dark, just robots running around doing their thing. Faster, stronger, more accurate, never tired, never sleeping. Add in a small nuclear battery like the one from Betavolt coming up and mass produce it. And you have an autonomous "thinking" thing in the physical world capable of almost anything that humans are capable. Endless possibilities...
Never has the future been brighter and darker at the same time.. lets see.
Never has the future been brighter and darker at the same time.. lets see.
Why is it dystopian? This is how you keep cost of stuff low. Many people don’t realize that prices of cars have remained stable over last 20-30 years (beating inflation), because we outsourced and made a global economy work for us. Similarly the ‘cheap robot factory’ will output more and should cost less. Maybe we get a 20k car in next few years…
> Many people don’t realize that prices of cars have remained stable over last 20-30 years (beating inflation)
Many people don't realize that the average real wages remained stable over the last 30 years either lol. You can buy more subscriptions and other useless gadgets but the basics are the same (cars) or higher (rent/building). You're in a blind spot because you're in the top 30%, go ask the bottom 70%...
Even if everything was "stable adjusted to inflation" it would hardly be a win, and definitely not something to cheer for or call "progress", that's 30 years of stagnation with a few bells and whistles
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/blog_...
https://inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2023/1...
https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcX...
Many people don't realize that the average real wages remained stable over the last 30 years either lol. You can buy more subscriptions and other useless gadgets but the basics are the same (cars) or higher (rent/building). You're in a blind spot because you're in the top 30%, go ask the bottom 70%...
Even if everything was "stable adjusted to inflation" it would hardly be a win, and definitely not something to cheer for or call "progress", that's 30 years of stagnation with a few bells and whistles
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/blog_...
https://inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2023/1...
https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcX...
>Even if everything was "stable adjusted to inflation" it would hardly be a win, and definitely not something to cheer for or call "progress", that's 30 years of stagnation with a few bells and whistles
not if you have wage growth that exceeds inflation.
not if you have wage growth that exceeds inflation.
If I imagine I run into a factory full of "thinking" (current LLM level top of line benchmark) humanoid looking robots who are collaborating on tasks dynamically as needed in the dark (because they don't need light, ... or oxygen ... or basically anything but electricity)...
In my book that is as dystopian as it gets and has nothing to do with the current level of automation with robots that's happening, that's a whole new level. Production efficiency is one thing, but not far and the DOD or someone else on the other end of the world has some creative ideas how to use that to "make the world great again"...
In my book that is as dystopian as it gets and has nothing to do with the current level of automation with robots that's happening, that's a whole new level. Production efficiency is one thing, but not far and the DOD or someone else on the other end of the world has some creative ideas how to use that to "make the world great again"...
> This is how you keep cost of stuff low. Many people don’t realize that prices of cars have remained stable over last 20-30 years (beating inflation)
They absolutely haven't.
They absolutely haven't.
Correct. They've become significantly cheaper to run, and their lifetime costs are vastly more affordable.
In the 1960's, getting a car to 100,000 miles was an achievement; now, the car is just getting broken in.
In the 1960's, getting a car to 100,000 miles was an achievement; now, the car is just getting broken in.
Car repairs have increased as well. So I'd like a bit more sources regarding your assertions.
> In the 1960's, getting a car to 100,000 miles was an achievement; now, the car is just getting broken in.
The average car reaches 160K miles before end of life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_longevity.
So by 100K miles, 50% of cars have already lived two thirds of their life.
> In the 1960's, getting a car to 100,000 miles was an achievement; now, the car is just getting broken in.
The average car reaches 160K miles before end of life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_longevity.
So by 100K miles, 50% of cars have already lived two thirds of their life.
For overnight shifts, it's been a thing for a long while --- the term to look for is "lights out manufacturing"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing)
100%, I have family in manufacturing and this isn't anything new. Most current manufacturing plants already run on effectively a skeleton staff vs 50 years ago.
yes, they do, that is true, however that's with [some]-axis stationary robots. Not humanoid robots literally running around. The best we can do right now afaik is that robot-dog-like thing which can overcome obstacles and be equipped with sensors. Nothing human like.
If I imagine I run into a factory full of "thinking" (current LLM level top of line benchmark) humanoid looking robots who are collaborating on tasks dynamically as needed... In my book that is as dystopian as it gets and has nothing to do with the current level of automation that's happening, that's a whole new level.
If I imagine I run into a factory full of "thinking" (current LLM level top of line benchmark) humanoid looking robots who are collaborating on tasks dynamically as needed... In my book that is as dystopian as it gets and has nothing to do with the current level of automation that's happening, that's a whole new level.
Safety standards in terms of programming and logic an OSHA are going to have to change a lot before that happens:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62286017
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62286017
Nuclear batteries aren't nearly powerful enough for industrial robots.
> Quite dystopian thinking how a full factory and beyond could be run completely in the dark, just robots running around doing their thing.
There is nothing dystopian about this image. Human being weren’t designed, evolved, nor destined to be a worker in a factory. Their absence in factories isn’t in and of itself a problem.
The dystopian part is how the wealthy and powerful will chose to use the fact that so much can be automated. I doubt they’ll be willing to use it to create Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
There is nothing dystopian about this image. Human being weren’t designed, evolved, nor destined to be a worker in a factory. Their absence in factories isn’t in and of itself a problem.
The dystopian part is how the wealthy and powerful will chose to use the fact that so much can be automated. I doubt they’ll be willing to use it to create Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
In practice, it will be used to liquidate us: at best, we get the mass-fabbed social housing and a minimal dole to keep us from revolting; at worst, they leave us to die on the streets like we currently do to the mentally ill and the medically bankrupt.
Those betavolt batteries are about as powerful as a potato battery. Seriously, they both have power output measured in microwatts.
Nuclear battery? Why not have the robots recharge themselves? They could coordinate their shift changes in a staggered fashion (unlike human shift changes) so that the line never stops moving.
Battery swapping makes more sense in a 24/7 factory using humanoid robots than most other operations.
You’ve got manipulators on hand to do the swap, controlled environment, minimal downtime, etc.
You’ve got manipulators on hand to do the swap, controlled environment, minimal downtime, etc.
I can already smell the terrafoam
[deleted]
Can we have a law for a universal kill switch for these machines?
What if your universal kill switch was hacked to become a universal "kill!" switch? The universal part means all the robots are connected, so the ability is there.
I don't see how that would be possible if the hardware of the kill switch is able to break the power circuit only.
Because to enable engaging that switch you need to be able to issue global commands. The same communication functionality can be used to engage other functionality. Presumably, the robot can be instructed to do things other than turn itself off.
Well, that's not how you implement it, then. Use an air-gap.
Is this going to help them build engines that don't have piston slap after less than 200k miles even with consistent maintenance?