Robotistry

RE: https://mastodon.social/@stemsearchgroup/116370623815342121

So much wrong with this and I haven't even clicked through yet.

A) "Feel" is a function of sensors, not AI, and people have been working on tactile sensors with a wide range of properties for years. The TacTip that senses direction of force as well as pressure. The artificial skin. The Festo tentacle gripper. The jamming gripper (coffee grounds in a balloon is makes a surprisingly good gripper!).

B) A robot doesn't "go blind" when it touches something. All its other sensors still work, plus whatever sensors it has specifically for contact and touch (and yes, it needs those).

C) There has been tons of work in this area that doesn't involve "AI" at all. Traditionally, this is both a hardware problem and a software problem. And Gill Pratt said "grasping is solved" at IROS in Portugal in 2012.

D) WTF is "physical AI"? We have had "autonomous robots" "intelligent agents" "cyber-physical systems" - now we have yet another stupid term foisted on us by the "robotics is a subset of CS" crowd? Again? If it's AI, it's software. If it has a body and it's trying to pick things up without destroying them, it's a robot.

#GetOffMyLawn #Robotics #TactileSensing

Apr 9 at 1:02amWeb
Show threadSTEM Search Group5d ago

@Robotistry

Great points and more than fair critique. We could have been clearer that we are looking at the massive leap required to match the integrated system of human skin and the brain. Instead it came across as more AI hype and lacking of appreciation of the foundation laid by cyber-physical systems and traditional robotics. We intended our post to focus on how we build upon those strides to reach that next level of biological-like intuition. Thanks for commenting.