Future Humanoid Robots #Mind Blow (Documentary)

10 Amazing Robots That Will Change the World

Google Buys Scary Military Robot Maker

Amazon Asks FAA for Permission to Fly Drones

These Quadcoptors Are Better Robotic Musicians Than the Rock-Afire Explosion

In his book Musicophilia, Oliver Sacks writes that, “Anatomists would be hard put to identify the brain of a visual artist, a writer, or a mathematician—but they could recognize the brain of a professional musician without a moment's hesitation."

Making music is one of the most neurologically demanding things we people can do. When you're playing off sheet music you're performing a combination of fine physical and mental operations—translating the symbols to motion, memorizing and reciting phrases, all while simultaneously getting and integrating feedback from what you're playing. And just as a guitarist's fingers become calloused in response to repeated exposure to strings, a musician's brain changes in response.

A study comparing the brains of professional musicians, amateur musicians, and non-musicians found a positive correlation between between being a musician and an increase in gray matter volume in the brain's perirolandic regions, including “primary motor and somatosensory areas, premotor areas, anterior superior parietal areas, and in the inferior temporal gyrus bilaterally.”

Now, what these drones are doing in the video above isn't really comparable—the drones aren't listening to the music they're making, learning from it, or getting any more gray matter.

Of course, the credit still lies with the programmers, which, in the case of the video above, KMel Robotics, particularly for how cleverly they rigged up the slide guitar. For now, the culpability for when robots do something stupid, like fly by a jetliner, or when they do something rad, like the national anthem, still resides with Team Flesh & Blood.

But it is an example of the fine coordination, timing and incremental movements that we people can now program groups of drones to perform, which is very cool. Coordinating swarming groups of robots remains an engineering/bandwidth puzzle, and each of these drones singing videos—while indisputably sort of silly—is also an amazing, if incremental step toward robots repairing bridges and building stuff on Mars.

If they start playing other songs of their own volition, maybe this should all be filed away under “better left undone.” As Motherboard's loyal readers will know, superintelligent AI carries real risk. It's nice to imagine that, if its ever developed, it will also carry a tune.

TOPICS: drones, video, fun, music, culture

Written by

BEN RICHMOND

Squarepusher Makes Music with Robots, for Robots

UK-based artist Squarepusher (a pseudonym for Tom Jenkinson) is not shy when it comes to mixing music with cutting-edge tech, and his upcoming release Music for Robots continues to push at technological limits.

His previous album Ufabulum was focused on live performance; an exchange between a backdrop of LEDs and a flurry of breaks and screeching synths. With his latest venture, the music is still live, but it isn't a human performing. Instead, a band of robots, made up of two guitarists, a drummer, and a pianist, play music that Squarepusher has composed for them. The “Z-Machines,” designed by Kenjiro Matsuo, have mostly been used to shred metal in the past, probably due to the incredible speeds they 're capable of reaching. But Squarepusher is taking a different approach.

“To make music using instrument-playing robots fascinates me,” he says in a promo video. “People have often assumed that for music to be emotionally powerful it has to come directly from a human hand, whereas I disagree with that, and enjoy proving these people wrong. This project is an excellent way of exploring that area more.”

Are machines capable of producing music that is compelling or interesting? If they are, is that emotional component coming from their composers, or do they have something of their own to contribute?

I called up Squarepusher to ask him to explain the thesis behind the Music for RobotsEP, and the challenges that arise when composing for machines.

Motherboard: How does composing for robots differ to composing for humans?
Squarepusher: One way to consider that is in terms of the limits of each respective type of performer. Taking the guitar player as an example, they will have certain limits such as how many notes they can play a second, and the amount of span they have across the frets. With a robot guitar player there are very different answers to any given set of questions. In terms of what the robots can do, it's quite different: the speed at which they can play is much faster, and the frets they can span is greater.

Squarepusher. Image: Warp

Sure. 
But compositional ideas can come from experimenting with the limits of what the machine can do. For example, a section of track number four on this EP is not really borne of any compositional process that I would call strictly musical. It's much more about assembling sequences of notes on the basis of mathematical equations and plotting the results of those equations onto what the robot will do. That was done partly as a means of exploring what would happen at the very limits of its speed. The point of using this equation-based process to generate sequences of notes was to push that system into overload to see what it would do.

And when you're not pushing the limits of these robots, do you find the range of possibilities overwhelming? The guitarists have 72 fingers, and the drummer has 22 arms. With so much at your disposal, is it quite difficult to start?
I'm quite used to sitting in a studio that is absolutely chocker full of equipment and lots of different instruments, all of which have their own capacities and idiosyncrasies. One way which I've described it before is to basically run a virtual image of the studio in your head at the same time as using it, so that instead of accessing physically the front-panel or functions of a particular device, you can do it in advance in your head.

Okay. What sort of technical obstacles did you come across?
One was the drumming robot. If you picture a drum stick-wielding mechanical device, which swings towards the drums when you set the command to play a note, there's a time delay between when you send the note and when you hear the drum being played. So if you send a new note before the stick has come back to a rest position, then the distance is shorter, therefore the time delay is different. Aspects like that can be a problem. But one way you could look at it is actually as an advantage: What I was trying to do was to make a machine kind of funk that uses these idiosyncrasies to generate a swing and a flow to the way in which the rhythms were generated.

The robot guitarist. Image: Warp

A swing, a funk—these are things that are predominantly human, right?
Yeah, those terms can refer to human nuance in playing. You may simply emulate what a human being would do, and generate your composition accordingly. But what I've been trying to do is certainly not that; instead I'm trying to explore robot characteristics rather than trying to force robot characteristics into human ones.

It's the robots' own nuances coming out. So what sort of questions came up when you were composing for these robots?
There is often a prejudice that if music isn't being played by humans, it is prejudged as incapable of generating emotional responses. I wanted to ask whether music performed by robots could be compelling or interesting. 

Yeah, there is often the idea that machines are somehow lesser when it comes to performing music.
I personally think that [humans and robots] stand shoulder to shoulder. I don't see it in terms of being better or worse than each other, so much as having different characteristics. 

The robot drummer. Image: Warp

In this project the machines were ready-built and ready to play music. I was interested to see whether they could bring a nuance that was inhuman but compelling; whether having something interesting about music is necessarily also a human thing. The broadest question that I'm trying to ask is, even if these robots do something that is interesting, or something that aggravates people, whatever it is—if it produces a response, given that the performers themselves are not sentient, then does the responsibility shift wholeheartedly back to myself, the composer? 

Sure. What about the future, and a computer that could autonomously compose music? Would that have the potential to create compelling music?
I think people who take time to design such algorithms might be trying to generate a system that would echo or mimic the kind of behaviour human composers undertake when they write music. What I'm interested in is actually what happens when you set aside emulation of human characteristics and instead engage with the characteristics of the machine, as you find it. In some ways, I am at my most inspired and dynamic when I'm having to struggle with the machines, the methods with which I've chosen to compose, and the situation I'm in. Working with these machines has been a fascinating situation. 

Music for Robots will be released digitally April 8, and on vinyl May 20.

@josephfcox

TOPICS: music, robots, squarepusher, guitars, drums, culture

Post by BWP Tech Blog.

Bioinspired Robotics

This robot fly, capable of lift-off, was created using layered micromachined composite structures. With a tiny carbon fiber body and wings made of thin plastic sheets, the fly was inspired by the way real insects move. See video...

From insects in your backyard, to creatures in the sea, to what you see in the mirror, this team draws inspiration from Nature to design a whole new class of smart robotic devices.

Many of the most advanced robots in use today are still far less sophisticated than ants that "self-organize" to build an ant hill, or termites that work together to build impressive, massive mounds in Africa. That is why Wyss scientists are taking their cues from the insect world to design and fabricate a new, "smarter" class of robotic devices that move and adapt like living creatures and harness the power of self assembly. They are working toward the day when an army of robo-bees, for example, will be able to pollinate crops just as well as "real" bees do.

Lead Projects and Technologies

	Autonomous Flying Microrobots Writing the engineering "code" for meso-scale flying robots		Pop-Up MEMS A new manufacturing technique enabling complex three-dimensional machines in the mesoscale
	Swarm Robotics Autonomous robots forcollective construction		Soft Exosuit Lightweight suit to increase the wearer's strength and endurance

Immersive VR Enables Safe and Effective Control of Big Scary Robots

Industrial robots, as a rule, are not at all safe to be around. With a few exceptions, most of them live in safety cages, or depend on a sophisticated combination of hardware, software, and sensors to make sure that they don't accidentally, you know, purposefully disembowel whatever human is within immediate purposeful disembowelment range. This not only precludes humans working with robots directly, but it also means that whenever the robots screw something up, you have to power down all of that infrastructure before you can safely get in there to fix anything.

We can fix all of this, all of it, with immersive virtual reality.

Johns Hopkins' Computational and Interactive Robotics Laboratory has been developing an Immersive Virtual Robotics Environment (IVRE) that "enables a user to instruct, collaborate and otherwise interact with a robotic system either in simulation or in real-time via a virtual proxy." In other words, you can do stuff with robots in virtual reality where it looks like the robot's right there, but it's actually nowhere near you. This is a technique that could be valuable not just for big scary disembowely industrial robots, but also for less scary robots doing things in environments where a human really wouldn't want to be.

Beyond just virtual reality, the IVRE also offers augmented reality, in which users can visually access information about the robot, the environment, and what the robot is trying to do. There's a huge amount of potential for extendability here, and it could make tasks like the DARPA Robotics Challenge both easier and more accessible for people without robotics training. For example, if you want a robot to open a door or turn a valve, imagine if you could just pop into a virtual environment, virtually grab the robot's hands, and just get it to do what you want it to do directly. It's a simple yet powerful idea, and with the pending (we hope) commercial availability affordableof immersive VR hardware like the Oculus Rift, it'll be a simple yet powerful idea that lots of people (and robots) will be able to take advantage of.

[ IVRE ]

Learn More

 augmented reality cirl industrial robots jhu johns hopkins oculus rift safety virtual reality

Apple, Amazon, and Now Google: An Exciting Time for Robotics

This is a guest post. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent positions of IEEE Spectrum or the IEEE.

The recent robot-related news from Apple, Amazon, and Google shows serious momentum for the robotics industry. In case you missed it, here's a recap:

• Apple announced that it was investing $10.5 billion in supply chain robots and automation equipment and recently confirmed its acquisition of PrimeSense for $350 million (PrimeSense developed the 3D sensing technology originally used in the Microsoft Kinect).
• Amazon, in a CBS 60 Minutes piece aired early this month, showed off a new concept delivery system using an octocopter. Remember that in 2012 Amazon spent $775 million to acquire Kiva Systems, the warehouse-automation technology enabling robotically-delivered goods to picker/packer workers.
• And more recently, news broke that Google has set up a robotics division headed by the man behind the Android mobile operating system, Andy Rubin [pictured below]. In Rubin's first six months he has acquired eight robotic companies to jumpstart his new operation. (Google's latest acquisition, confirmed this week, is Boston Dynamics, an engineering company that specializes in building dynamic robots and simulation software. The acquisition adds more than 80 engineers and scientists to the new Google robots division talent pool—plus a new location: Boston Dynamics is located in Waltham, outside Boston.

What does all this activity mean?

Andy Rubin and Meka M1 robot. Image: Karitsu/Flickr; Meka Robotics; + Fotor

First, more details.

From a New York Times article by John Markoff interviewing Google's Andy Rubin:

• Google acquired seven tech companies in the last six months. Schaft, a Japanese start-up developing a humanoid robot; Industrial Perception, a Silicon Valley start-up that developed a computer vision system for loading and unloading trucks; Meka Robotics, a robot developer for academia; Redwood Robotics, a start-up intended to compete with the Baxter robot (and others) entering the small and medium-sized shop and factory marketplace; Bot & Dolly, a maker of robotic camera systems used for special effects such as in the movie "Gravity;" Autofuss, a design and marketing firm and a partner in Bot & Dolly; and Holomni, a maker of powered caster modules for omnidirectional vehicles.
• Although Google won't disclose their plans, the article suggests that the company's initial market will be in manufacturing and logistics, including possibly electronics assembly that is mostly done by hand. "Manufacturing and logistics markets not being served by today's robotic technologies are clear opportunity markets," Rubin told the Times.
• The article suggests that the new Google robots could be able to automate any or all of the processes from the supply chain to the distribution channels to the consumer's front door, thereby creating a massive opportunity.
• Google is already experimenting with urban deliveries including making home deliveries for companies like Target, Walgreens, and others.
• According to Markoff, "Mr. Rubin said he had pondered the possibility of a commercial effort in robotics for more than a decade. He has only recently come to think that a range of technologies have matured to the point where new kinds of automated systems can be commercialized."

From The SFGate Tech Chronicles by James Temple:

• Google is transforming itself in many ways, and its new robotics division is another example of that. The company is constantly transforming its search engine into a sophisticated learning machine using AI tools. In fact, some of Google's AI talent might be moving over to the new Robotics Division.
• Google has been hiring super brains such as Ray Kurzweil and Peter Norvig to head groups and divisions, some of which are working on product development and even hardware manufacturing (remember that Google acquired Motorola, which could be a client for assembly and material-handling robots and a resource of factories, equipment, and manpower).
• "Google's move into robotics is likely to draw renewed attention and money into the space," said Brian Gerkey (CEO of the Open Source Robotics Foundation) in the article. "It's a pretty exciting day for robotics when someone like Google makes an investment like that in robots, others are likely to follow suit. It can only spur investment and innovation."

From Bloomberg News by Adam Satariano:

• Apple is investing $10.5 billion in new automation technologies and robotics to, among other things, polish the iPhone 5C plastic cover, carve the MacBook's aluminum body, and test and inspect gear for iPhone and iPad lenses.
• Apple invested $6.5 billion on similar robotics and factory automation equipment in their previous fiscal year.

For a review of the CBS 60 Minutes interview of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Charlie Rose, see my post, "Jeff Bezos Reaches for Tip of UAS Iceberg."

From a New York Times article by Markoff about the Boston Dynamics acquisition:

• Markoff writes: "The deal is also the clearest indication yet that Google is intent on building a new class of autonomous systems that might do anything from warehouse work to package delivery and even elder care."
• Boston Dynamics is a 1992 spin-off from MIT, and many of its robots have been feature in popular YouTube videos. One of their BigDog videos has been watched by more than 15 million times; and a video of their ATLAS robot, the robotic platform given to some of the DARPA Robotics Challenge teams, has already passed the 2.5 million view mark.
• This is not an insignificant acquisition. An ongoing business employing 80-plus highly paid engineers and scientists has to have cost Google a very high amount, perhaps in the low 9 figures.
• Boston Dynamics founder Marc Raibert was quoted in the article: "I am excited by Andy and Google's ability to think very, very big, with the resources to make it happen."

So what's my take on these recent developments?

I think the above quote from Brian Gerkey sums up things nicely: It's a pretty exciting day for robotics when Google, Apple, and Amazon ALL invest in robots and related tech. Others are likely to follow, spurring further investment and innovation. Up until now, four big European and Japanese firms (Kuka, ABB, Fanuc, and Yaskawa Motoman) dominated the well-established industrial robotics sector, while smaller companies (including U.S. firms like iRobot and Intuitive Surgical) attempted to build and grow the consumer and service robotics markets.

So it's exciting to imagine that in the remainder of this decade we may see amazing new robotics products from a variety of new providers like Apple, Amazon, and Google.

What robot or robotic application you wish these companies would create?

Frank Tobe is the editor of The Robot Report. This post originally appeared in his personal blog, Everything Robotic.

Learn More

 abb amazon andy rubin apple automation boston dynamicsfanuc frank tobe google industrial perception irobot jeff bezos john markoffkuka manufacturing marc raibert meka new york times robotics industryrobotics software robots schaft