Full dosclosure: I am a roboticist. I've been in the field professionally for about thirty years.
I'm really skeptical that there is anything “after the roomba”. Or, to be more specific, I'm skeptical that technology used in the home will look anything like a robot, a self-contained intelligent machine that moves around and cleans/folds laundry/does dishes.
Ther are a couple of reasons for this. This first is that these problems are extremely hard to solve. And this is not true just in terms of algorithms, but also in terms of hardware. A humanoid robot is as complex as, if not more complex than, an automobile. Currently, humanoid robots go for $500,000 a pop. Even after economies of scale it's hard for me to imagine that getting below $50,000 — much less $5,000, which is probably the price range that makes them viable as anything other than a novelty for wealthy people.
Which brings up the second point. One thing I have learned the hard way in robotics is that you have to understand precisely what your competition is and how much money that competition requires to solve the problem. In the case of an in-home robot, for most of us the competition is our own labor or that of our significant others/kids/housemates. But we are not the early adopters of this technology. Wealthy people are. For wealthy people, the competition is either a live-in assistant or a contract cleaning service. Contract cleaning services pay their workers approximately minimum wage. Minimum wage is a very difficult price target for a robot to meet.
And the third issue is that to first approximation these problems are already solved. And not by what we would consider a robot, but by appliances. My grandmother, for most of her life, kept house without elecricity, and hence without a dishwasher, vacuum, or dryer. These appliances dramatically reduced the effort it takes to keep house, without being robots. I strongly suspect that any cost-efficient solution to folding clothes or taking dirty dishes from the sink and turning them into clean dishes in a cupboard will resemble an appliance. If you want your dishes cleaned robotically, then you don't put a robot in the kitchen. You turn the kitchen into a robot.
> you don't put a robot in the kitchen. You turn the kitchen into a robot.
That was my thinking too after reading the article. Why jump through all those hoops, trying to get a robot mimicking us getting around the house and instead just build smarter, more capable appliances.
E.g.:
- having cupboards that double as dishwashers (the robot does the sorting and drying...)
- having wardrobes that double as washing machines (the robot does the sorting and drying...)
- having trash bins that do the seperation, maybe even compression
But in any of those cases, the "robot" could be a grappler on a track that never leaves the casing of the appliance
If you truly had a humanoid robot that could do the dishes and the laundry and cook and clean the house, you would have no trouble at all selling it for $50,000. It would sell like hotcakes at that price. People would use financing to buy it just like cars.
A contract cleaning service is cheap, but they aren't in your home helping you 24/7. This hypothetical $50,000 robot would be much more useful and not that much more expensive if amortized over, say, 10 years with regular maintenance.
1. You are imagining current technologies at scale, but future technologies are likely to get cheaper and better. Robotics is still a newborn field. Cars have also gotten cheaper and better; the Model T started out around 20k in today's dollars for a 20hp car that went 45mph.
2. You're comparing an in-home robot to a contract cleaner. Robots would be cheaper for the customer on a contract basis, just as a live-in maid costs more than a contract cleaning service.
I do agree that the Jetsons-esque conception of a humanoid service robot is not how things will likely shake out as domestic robotics matures; IMO the humanoid is a simplistic image that demonstrates a lack of imagination.
One "cleaning" task that I think is often overlooked is basic organization of small clutter and such. It takes up tons of spaces, is often poorly organized, and finding things you lost is a huge headache.
I'd love to see some sort of out of the way storage system with an in-home Kiva style robot that lets you select what you want in an app, and it goes and fetches it. When you want to put something away, the robot shows up, collects your item, and stores it.
To be truly useful, you'd probably need a somewhat decent sized storage area, and the robot may need to be decent sized depending on the weight and size of objects to be handled.
For me the robot vacuum was just a fun way to vacuum. I wasn't making any grand calculation of competition or value added, I just thought it'd be fun to have a robot. Also, I'm skeptical of humanoid robots because companies can just pay actual humans dirt wages and get away with it in most countries.
> her are a couple of reasons for this. This first is that these problems are extremely hard to solve. And this is not true just in terms of algorithms, but also in terms of hardware. A humanoid robot is as complex as, if not more complex than, an automobile. Currently, humanoid robots go for $500,000 a pop. Even after economies of scale it's hard for me to imagine that getting below $50,000 — much less $5,000, which is probably the price range that makes them viable as anything other than a novelty for wealthy people.
I'm curious why you think that is the case? What is so expensive about humanoid robots? I don't disagree with you, I have no knowledge on the matter, i'm just curious as it doesn't comport with my intuition.
Hmm, this makes me think there will be first sex bots that will get some extra new useful function for household in each iteration... VHS story all over again, pushing for economies of scale.
> I'm really skeptical that there is anything “after the roomba”. Or, to be more specific, I'm skeptical that technology used in the home will look anything like a robot, a self-contained intelligent machine that moves around and cleans/folds laundry/does dishes.
I think your right there. Personally I don't even have room for a humanoid robot, it'd be getting in my way constantly.
What I would like to see is something more along the lines of a series of those programmable industrial robotic arms extending from my ceiling. That's something that could fetch me a beer from the fridge, take my empty plate to the sink and move my dirty clothes to the laundry, all without getting in my way. That would be a good base to start expanding functionality on.
If a robot were to do the entire household, I think people would be willing to pay north of 2k per year for that. If you spend an hour a day doing laundry, cleaning dishes, emptying the washing machine, that's 365*8.5= 3k
I don't think humanoid is a viable form factor. A mobile robotic arm is easier to build and has similar benefits.
It has the benefit, that we already build plenty of them and they have proven their usability in industrial settings. Now we"just" need the brains to run one of these in the kitchen
You can get a spot mini for ~30k according to Raibert.
I think limiting our analysis to one particular form of robot is probably not a good idea. As we're still trying to figure out which form is the best for whatever that "killer app" is in robotics.
Also one reason to not turn a kitchen into a robot is generality of solution. If you can have 1 robot work in 3 kitchens is cheaper than retrofitting the 3 kitchens.
All of that being said I generally agree with your sentiment, and I think we'll see robots move into places they're needed/bring more additional value than general house chores. For example, restaurants. Where they can be faster, safer with food, but still general enough to put cheese on one burger and not the next without an engineer coming in after installation.
You wouldn’t have to buy a humanoid robot; you could rent it, and given the typical rental factor, the monthly price wouldn’t be far off that off in-home domestic labor. Less when you account for labor law compliance.
I think you are looking it the wrong way. It's very easy to come up with things that are not possible, but not very useful exercise. Technology evolves in the direction of what is possible and useful now. The original Roomba came into being when it was possible for something as dumb as a doormat to navigate the house.
Other applications of the same algorithm are already happening - Husqvarna uses the same random walk to mow the lawn, and there are other robots that will weed the garden. I have a retired engineering mate who armed himself with 3D printer, a CAD package and an eBay account to construct his own automatic lawn mower. It doesn't use a random walk - it uses the 8mm precision of an RTK GPS to go through a planned an arbitrarily complex path. 8mm is good enough for all sorts tasks of course - like hedge trimming, cleaning outside windows and using compressed air to clean gutters.
Inside the house Roomba's mates have already evolved. They now know where they are in the house, which was introduced to allow them to resume where they left off. But it has also meant they can have virtual boundaries, which means the can be told where the border between time tiles and barriste carpet is so some of them are sporting mops now. Cleaning walls, side webs of ceilings and bathrooms can't be too far away. Dusting will follow shortly thereafter.
The point is these things evolve. I don't know what point you say it isn't a Roomba any more, I daresay it won't be obvious - I'm sure you will say the current lawnmowers are just Roomba's with blades. However while something that puts a wet rag on a wall won't be much smarter than today's vacuum cleaners, it won't look like a Roomba.
I think the explosion week come with imaging. I don't mean image recognition - just the recognition of 3D boundaries of objects - things like walls, bench tops, obstacles on the floor, where the windows and mirrors that need to be cleaned are, where cupboard doors that can open and shut are, where dishwashers that contain round flat things like plates that always go into the same place into those cupboards are - this is how things will evolve.
I agree we won't see a Boston dynamics style robot in the house time soon. What we will get will be far dumber, and far more useful.
A friend's family "solved" the problem of cleaning dishes and putting them in the cupboard by having two diswashers, a magnet that said "clean", and a magnet that said "dirty".
I think robots have an uncanny-valley effect not just in aesthetics, but utility. For example, I actually really like my roomba because it only does one thing: it cleans my floor (when it doesn't get tangled in some cord). However, if there was a humanoid robot that can walk around and possibly knock over something or do something unexpected, I don't want that thing in my house. What prevents some hacker to compromise the robot and have it stab me in my sleep?
Another example is Alexa/Google Home. Some people love the convenience these in-home services provide, but others find the utility itself a liability: is this thing always listening to me and recording me in my home? The robots can do too much, they have too many functions and abilities, which makes me question the intent of the robot.
For robotics to really take off, I think there needs to be a kind of anthropomorphization that needs to happen: the utility of the robot must be high enough that I know that it understands my intention and can respond accordingly; that is to say, that I can have a relationship with my robot.
Yes, I was just thinking the other day why can't more robots be like Roomba. It does its task well in a way that enriches my life and makes it easier. Maybe it is because its task is really simple, although it was designed really well also. I specifically live in a house with all hard floors so it can do its job for me, which is kind of interesting. I molded myself around what the robot is most capable of.
when I last had a roomba many years ago I spent as much time picking hair/strings out of the rollers as I would have just vacuuming with a normal vaccuum. Has this improved?
The article mentions "fast, cheap and out-of-control" but doesn't point out the excellent documentary by the same name: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119107/
The 1997 film, directed by master documentarian Errol Morris, covers 4 people: a lion tamer, a topiary gardener, an expert on the naked mole rat, and a then-obscure robot scientist. That robot scientist is Rodney Brooks, founder and former CTO of the Roomba's maker, iRobot.
I haven't seen it in years, but I adored the film. I saw it in the theater and had my mind blown: it was clear Errol Morris thought these very different people had something in common, but he never beats you over the head with it, letting you make up your own mind. I liked it so much I went back the next day and the next, something I've never done with a movie before or since. I'll have to watch it again to see how it looks these days.
I attended some lectures by Rodney Brooks - and I similarly had my mind blown. Over a few lectures he covered a wide variety of research, much of it for 3-letter organizations and it included his development of "scurrying" robots with multiple sensors and multiple actuators. Of course, much of it was subsumption architecture - still an interesting topic. He also talked about how he was trying to find a use for his robotic prototypes, and was creating a company to release a product. (So I guess this is yet another case of government investments resulting directly in privatized profit. Pretty typical - though many seem to want to deny it.)
To me, food preparation is the big void in automation. A few companies are trying it here and there, but being able to prepare a decent-tasting meal (even if you have to do the cleaning yourself) would change some lives dramatically.
These aren't things that necessarily require advanced AI or sensors or anything; the basic elements of cooking are relatively simple. The real issue is the vast diversity of cooking/compilation methods. In other words, automating meals could be done, but automating all meals would require something monumental.
But consider simple baked meals, which comprise thousands of recipes.
There are people in the space, but I think a commercial grade Cookbot is a holy grail for home automation.
Before dreaming on, why not make a Roomba that actually works.
I have an older Roomba and a newer BotVac, and the BotVac is slightly more clever, but it's about 10% chance that I won't find it bleeping helplessly on some new minor obstruction that it found. It's impossible to have a house where there are absolutely no cables, dropped socks, dropped toys, rugs, furniture with "tank stopper" properties, curtains that are slightly too low, etc, etc.
When my vacuum cleaner can untangle itself, I will pay silly money for something that takes care of my laundry.
After that, something that loads, unloads and sorts my dishwasher would be nice, but nothing comes close to pairing socks...
I'd really like a robot capable of creating standard meals. If something could cook up a small variety of basic dinners with customizations, or make a sandwich, I'd be really pleased. I imagine for a decently sized family, also having it handle ordering food delivery of necessary ingredients as they start to run low would be awesome.
Roomba is a great product. I've one that I've used for 4 years thrice a week without any problem. Another one that I've found indispensable is litter-robot. If I pay someone $5 to clear the litter of two cats, I'll have broken even in 100 days.
Sci-fi is rife with humanoid robots doing everything, while all customers want is specialized products that do one specific thing well and don't cost a lot.
Robotic lawn-mowers - considering there's such a huge market for it especially in the US, I'm surprised no one has come up with a cheap robotic lawn mower yet.
A bit off-topic, but as somebody living in Europe, I found it interesting to discover from the comments here that lawn mower robots are not popular in the US. Some of the readers don't even seem to know they exist.
What is the reason for this? I know that estates are bigger in the US than in Europe on average, but there must be still millions of families with lawns smaller than 10,000 sqft? (which is the maximum lawn size for most robots below $1500)
(Of course, there could be some bias here; many HN readers probably live in big cities)
Having hacked on Roombas[0], one thing which dissatisfies me is open hardware access. That is, let advanced users SSH into the robots and let them read the sensor data and control the robot. Once you have that you could repurpose the robot for your own needs, which for me in [0] was basic object detection (trying to find something resembling human legs in this case). This could be used for either counting people in the room or to give spatial data information for other use-cases. As demonstrated in my later YouTube video[1] the floorplans created with the vacuum cleaner laser can be used to position IoT devices for your own augmented reality stuff, that is, for real-time position tracking in relation to the room in which the robot is standing in, or just simply calibrating a gyroscope of another device which then uses the pre-made floorplans.
Anyhow, one thing which I have been thinking is that given a smart home, do people rather want to talk to an abstract thing like an Alexa, or will they want to have a physical thing to which they talk to, like the vacuum cleaner. I imagine the interaction is a bit different regarding whether you just command Alexa to turn things off, rather than have a vacuum cleaner, which you can call to come to you, and still respond similarly to Alexa. With kids, I guess they'd essentially prefer vacuum cleaners, albeit I haven't really tested their reaction because the toddlers I know do not speak English for which the speech recognition stuff is mature. My peers do not expect my vacuum cleaner to either talk or listen, which it can do both, so it seems like it should also roam the room around (without cleaning objective) for others to interact with it. Given the time and artistic freedom, I'd probably buy plenty of vacuum cleaners and have them scan the campus corridors for stationary people to talk to, to essentially just see what people talk back to the robots.
Sorry if the text is incomprehensible, it is quite late.
The botvacs (at least my D85) has a uart interface, and a published API[1] that allows you to control and read back all sorts of information, including raw data from the lidar.
I'm surprised (or maybe I just missed it) there isn't a Roomba thing to mow the lawn that works as well as the Roomba does for floors. That is, does a decent, but not perfect job. Maybe this is a harder problem to solve mostly due to the danger?
I think there's still some innovation remaining for the robot vacuum.
Like a robot vacuum that can handle stairs. The Roomba does a pretty decent job on a single-level, but has to be manually carried up/down stairs and someone still has to vacuum the stairs themselves.
And one that can automatically detect when it's ingested a wire would be nice, I've lost 2 USB cables to our Roomba so far.
And this guy would like his robot vacuum to detect when it's run over soft, pliable waste before it spreads it throughout the house:
"self driving" cars are effectively cars with a robotic driver. They aren't here yet but they are on the horizon.
Arguably, the car itself is a robot. "Hey robot, go pick up soandso at the airport" or "hey robot please drop off these packages at the UPS store", etc.
Robotic locks "Alexa, lock the front door".
AR technologies on phones is straight out of sci fi, but in sci fi it would have been glasses or goggles offered by a humanoid robot... but now nearly everyone's phone can do it.
The Roomba is a great example of a robot that required a significant redefinition of the "problem" of vacuuming. A normal vacuum picks up some dirt, a Dyson will pick up significantly more dirt. A Roomba barely picks up any. The secret is that the Roomba goes all over the floor many times and eventually does a job comparable to a standard vacuum, but with no human labor required. The task is also stretched in time, the Roomba takes 5x or 10x longer than a human would take to do the same job, but it's OK because it can do the work when nobody is home to be annoyed by the noise.
Industrial automation is significantly enhanced by robotics, and it does a good enough job that we just buy the resulting products at the store, not knowing or caring how they were made.
Some robots that could be made with existing tech that would save lives would be:
- crossing guard robots that scoot out into the intersection to create a physical barrier before pedestrians begin to cross, then quickly scoot back to allow cars once the light changes.
- yoga robots that stretch and massage the muscles of humans to gently improve mobility and strength.
- sex robots create companionship for those who have difficulty with human companionship.
- tiny pest control robots will detect and help exterminate rodent and insect infestations, preventing disease.
- guardian robots will accompany elderly people, always ready to catch them if they fall and to call for help if needed. Similar units will accompany children while they walk to school or go about their communities unattended by adults.
This article missed an artful nod to Robert A. Heinlen's "The Door into Summer." This terrific novel not only heavily features the rise and use of home-robots, but has a bunch of cat stuff in it to-boot.
I give this a hearty recommend for imaginative cat companion-having, home-robot enthusiasts.
I know it's a 1000x harder but I'd pay for a dusting roomba that climb all the hard surfaces in my house and removed the dust. Of course apparently roombas can't even handle the floor so I have no hope there will be shelf crawling min roombas anytime soon.
There exist remote control cars that are light enough to stick to the wall with a little suction. Add brushes, a filter, dust storage, and automation and there's your solution.
Why, oh why! does nobody build electric cooktops with built in timers?!
At least, I haven't been able to find one here in Australia at a reasonable price. I think I saw some huge six zone one with touch controls that had it, but it was $6,9999.
[+] [-] GlenTheMachine|7 years ago|reply
I'm really skeptical that there is anything “after the roomba”. Or, to be more specific, I'm skeptical that technology used in the home will look anything like a robot, a self-contained intelligent machine that moves around and cleans/folds laundry/does dishes.
Ther are a couple of reasons for this. This first is that these problems are extremely hard to solve. And this is not true just in terms of algorithms, but also in terms of hardware. A humanoid robot is as complex as, if not more complex than, an automobile. Currently, humanoid robots go for $500,000 a pop. Even after economies of scale it's hard for me to imagine that getting below $50,000 — much less $5,000, which is probably the price range that makes them viable as anything other than a novelty for wealthy people.
Which brings up the second point. One thing I have learned the hard way in robotics is that you have to understand precisely what your competition is and how much money that competition requires to solve the problem. In the case of an in-home robot, for most of us the competition is our own labor or that of our significant others/kids/housemates. But we are not the early adopters of this technology. Wealthy people are. For wealthy people, the competition is either a live-in assistant or a contract cleaning service. Contract cleaning services pay their workers approximately minimum wage. Minimum wage is a very difficult price target for a robot to meet.
And the third issue is that to first approximation these problems are already solved. And not by what we would consider a robot, but by appliances. My grandmother, for most of her life, kept house without elecricity, and hence without a dishwasher, vacuum, or dryer. These appliances dramatically reduced the effort it takes to keep house, without being robots. I strongly suspect that any cost-efficient solution to folding clothes or taking dirty dishes from the sink and turning them into clean dishes in a cupboard will resemble an appliance. If you want your dishes cleaned robotically, then you don't put a robot in the kitchen. You turn the kitchen into a robot.
[+] [-] woodpanel|7 years ago|reply
That was my thinking too after reading the article. Why jump through all those hoops, trying to get a robot mimicking us getting around the house and instead just build smarter, more capable appliances.
E.g.:
- having cupboards that double as dishwashers (the robot does the sorting and drying...)
- having wardrobes that double as washing machines (the robot does the sorting and drying...)
- having trash bins that do the seperation, maybe even compression
But in any of those cases, the "robot" could be a grappler on a track that never leaves the casing of the appliance
[+] [-] modeless|7 years ago|reply
A contract cleaning service is cheap, but they aren't in your home helping you 24/7. This hypothetical $50,000 robot would be much more useful and not that much more expensive if amortized over, say, 10 years with regular maintenance.
[+] [-] totalZero|7 years ago|reply
2. You're comparing an in-home robot to a contract cleaner. Robots would be cheaper for the customer on a contract basis, just as a live-in maid costs more than a contract cleaning service.
I do agree that the Jetsons-esque conception of a humanoid service robot is not how things will likely shake out as domestic robotics matures; IMO the humanoid is a simplistic image that demonstrates a lack of imagination.
[+] [-] shostack|7 years ago|reply
I'd love to see some sort of out of the way storage system with an in-home Kiva style robot that lets you select what you want in an app, and it goes and fetches it. When you want to put something away, the robot shows up, collects your item, and stores it.
To be truly useful, you'd probably need a somewhat decent sized storage area, and the robot may need to be decent sized depending on the weight and size of objects to be handled.
[+] [-] WhompingWindows|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darawk|7 years ago|reply
I'm curious why you think that is the case? What is so expensive about humanoid robots? I don't disagree with you, I have no knowledge on the matter, i'm just curious as it doesn't comport with my intuition.
[+] [-] bitL|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flukus|7 years ago|reply
I think your right there. Personally I don't even have room for a humanoid robot, it'd be getting in my way constantly.
What I would like to see is something more along the lines of a series of those programmable industrial robotic arms extending from my ceiling. That's something that could fetch me a beer from the fridge, take my empty plate to the sink and move my dirty clothes to the laundry, all without getting in my way. That would be a good base to start expanding functionality on.
[+] [-] nielsole|7 years ago|reply
I don't think humanoid is a viable form factor. A mobile robotic arm is easier to build and has similar benefits.
It has the benefit, that we already build plenty of them and they have proven their usability in industrial settings. Now we"just" need the brains to run one of these in the kitchen
[+] [-] btbuildem|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbames89|7 years ago|reply
I think limiting our analysis to one particular form of robot is probably not a good idea. As we're still trying to figure out which form is the best for whatever that "killer app" is in robotics.
Also one reason to not turn a kitchen into a robot is generality of solution. If you can have 1 robot work in 3 kitchens is cheaper than retrofitting the 3 kitchens.
All of that being said I generally agree with your sentiment, and I think we'll see robots move into places they're needed/bring more additional value than general house chores. For example, restaurants. Where they can be faster, safer with food, but still general enough to put cheese on one burger and not the next without an engineer coming in after installation.
[+] [-] SilasX|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rstuart4133|7 years ago|reply
Other applications of the same algorithm are already happening - Husqvarna uses the same random walk to mow the lawn, and there are other robots that will weed the garden. I have a retired engineering mate who armed himself with 3D printer, a CAD package and an eBay account to construct his own automatic lawn mower. It doesn't use a random walk - it uses the 8mm precision of an RTK GPS to go through a planned an arbitrarily complex path. 8mm is good enough for all sorts tasks of course - like hedge trimming, cleaning outside windows and using compressed air to clean gutters.
Inside the house Roomba's mates have already evolved. They now know where they are in the house, which was introduced to allow them to resume where they left off. But it has also meant they can have virtual boundaries, which means the can be told where the border between time tiles and barriste carpet is so some of them are sporting mops now. Cleaning walls, side webs of ceilings and bathrooms can't be too far away. Dusting will follow shortly thereafter.
The point is these things evolve. I don't know what point you say it isn't a Roomba any more, I daresay it won't be obvious - I'm sure you will say the current lawnmowers are just Roomba's with blades. However while something that puts a wet rag on a wall won't be much smarter than today's vacuum cleaners, it won't look like a Roomba.
I think the explosion week come with imaging. I don't mean image recognition - just the recognition of 3D boundaries of objects - things like walls, bench tops, obstacles on the floor, where the windows and mirrors that need to be cleaned are, where cupboard doors that can open and shut are, where dishwashers that contain round flat things like plates that always go into the same place into those cupboards are - this is how things will evolve.
I agree we won't see a Boston dynamics style robot in the house time soon. What we will get will be far dumber, and far more useful.
[+] [-] sigi45|7 years ago|reply
After the autonomous car phase will become boring people will spend more in robotic.
[+] [-] tr33house|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] russdill|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notatoad|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Endama|7 years ago|reply
Another example is Alexa/Google Home. Some people love the convenience these in-home services provide, but others find the utility itself a liability: is this thing always listening to me and recording me in my home? The robots can do too much, they have too many functions and abilities, which makes me question the intent of the robot.
For robotics to really take off, I think there needs to be a kind of anthropomorphization that needs to happen: the utility of the robot must be high enough that I know that it understands my intention and can respond accordingly; that is to say, that I can have a relationship with my robot.
[+] [-] jpm_sd|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnJamesRambo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patall|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colanderman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gameswithgo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wpietri|7 years ago|reply
The 1997 film, directed by master documentarian Errol Morris, covers 4 people: a lion tamer, a topiary gardener, an expert on the naked mole rat, and a then-obscure robot scientist. That robot scientist is Rodney Brooks, founder and former CTO of the Roomba's maker, iRobot.
I haven't seen it in years, but I adored the film. I saw it in the theater and had my mind blown: it was clear Errol Morris thought these very different people had something in common, but he never beats you over the head with it, letting you make up your own mind. I liked it so much I went back the next day and the next, something I've never done with a movie before or since. I'll have to watch it again to see how it looks these days.
[+] [-] MrTonyD|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nkozyra|7 years ago|reply
These aren't things that necessarily require advanced AI or sensors or anything; the basic elements of cooking are relatively simple. The real issue is the vast diversity of cooking/compilation methods. In other words, automating meals could be done, but automating all meals would require something monumental.
But consider simple baked meals, which comprise thousands of recipes.
There are people in the space, but I think a commercial grade Cookbot is a holy grail for home automation.
[+] [-] kpil|7 years ago|reply
I have an older Roomba and a newer BotVac, and the BotVac is slightly more clever, but it's about 10% chance that I won't find it bleeping helplessly on some new minor obstruction that it found. It's impossible to have a house where there are absolutely no cables, dropped socks, dropped toys, rugs, furniture with "tank stopper" properties, curtains that are slightly too low, etc, etc.
When my vacuum cleaner can untangle itself, I will pay silly money for something that takes care of my laundry.
After that, something that loads, unloads and sorts my dishwasher would be nice, but nothing comes close to pairing socks...
[+] [-] bluedino|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JaRail|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jagat|7 years ago|reply
Sci-fi is rife with humanoid robots doing everything, while all customers want is specialized products that do one specific thing well and don't cost a lot.
Robotic lawn-mowers - considering there's such a huge market for it especially in the US, I'm surprised no one has come up with a cheap robotic lawn mower yet.
There was some rumor about iRobot coming up with their own lawn mower, but that was in 2016 and we've heard nothing of it yet. https://gizmodo.com/we-can-finally-stick-a-name-on-irobots-r...
[+] [-] keiferski|7 years ago|reply
Sweeping and vacuuming, on the other hand, isn’t nearly as interesting.
[+] [-] ngvrnd|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tralarpa|7 years ago|reply
What is the reason for this? I know that estates are bigger in the US than in Europe on average, but there must be still millions of families with lawns smaller than 10,000 sqft? (which is the maximum lawn size for most robots below $1500)
(Of course, there could be some bias here; many HN readers probably live in big cities)
[+] [-] Jhsto|7 years ago|reply
Anyhow, one thing which I have been thinking is that given a smart home, do people rather want to talk to an abstract thing like an Alexa, or will they want to have a physical thing to which they talk to, like the vacuum cleaner. I imagine the interaction is a bit different regarding whether you just command Alexa to turn things off, rather than have a vacuum cleaner, which you can call to come to you, and still respond similarly to Alexa. With kids, I guess they'd essentially prefer vacuum cleaners, albeit I haven't really tested their reaction because the toddlers I know do not speak English for which the speech recognition stuff is mature. My peers do not expect my vacuum cleaner to either talk or listen, which it can do both, so it seems like it should also roam the room around (without cleaning objective) for others to interact with it. Given the time and artistic freedom, I'd probably buy plenty of vacuum cleaners and have them scan the campus corridors for stationary people to talk to, to essentially just see what people talk back to the robots.
Sorry if the text is incomprehensible, it is quite late.
[0]: https://youtu.be/mlAEZZ5fPbo [1]: https://youtu.be/OTlOULeNUUo
[+] [-] craftyguy|7 years ago|reply
1. https://www.neatorobotics.com/resources/programmersmanual_20...
Edit: damn, they moved the document, or took it down altogether :(
[+] [-] blakesterz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Johnny555|7 years ago|reply
Like a robot vacuum that can handle stairs. The Roomba does a pretty decent job on a single-level, but has to be manually carried up/down stairs and someone still has to vacuum the stairs themselves.
And one that can automatically detect when it's ingested a wire would be nice, I've lost 2 USB cables to our Roomba so far.
And this guy would like his robot vacuum to detect when it's run over soft, pliable waste before it spreads it throughout the house:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/08/15/po...
[+] [-] resters|7 years ago|reply
"self driving" cars are effectively cars with a robotic driver. They aren't here yet but they are on the horizon.
Arguably, the car itself is a robot. "Hey robot, go pick up soandso at the airport" or "hey robot please drop off these packages at the UPS store", etc.
Robotic locks "Alexa, lock the front door".
AR technologies on phones is straight out of sci fi, but in sci fi it would have been glasses or goggles offered by a humanoid robot... but now nearly everyone's phone can do it.
The Roomba is a great example of a robot that required a significant redefinition of the "problem" of vacuuming. A normal vacuum picks up some dirt, a Dyson will pick up significantly more dirt. A Roomba barely picks up any. The secret is that the Roomba goes all over the floor many times and eventually does a job comparable to a standard vacuum, but with no human labor required. The task is also stretched in time, the Roomba takes 5x or 10x longer than a human would take to do the same job, but it's OK because it can do the work when nobody is home to be annoyed by the noise.
Industrial automation is significantly enhanced by robotics, and it does a good enough job that we just buy the resulting products at the store, not knowing or caring how they were made.
Some robots that could be made with existing tech that would save lives would be:
- crossing guard robots that scoot out into the intersection to create a physical barrier before pedestrians begin to cross, then quickly scoot back to allow cars once the light changes.
- yoga robots that stretch and massage the muscles of humans to gently improve mobility and strength.
- sex robots create companionship for those who have difficulty with human companionship.
- tiny pest control robots will detect and help exterminate rodent and insect infestations, preventing disease.
- guardian robots will accompany elderly people, always ready to catch them if they fall and to call for help if needed. Similar units will accompany children while they walk to school or go about their communities unattended by adults.
[+] [-] bredren|7 years ago|reply
I give this a hearty recommend for imaginative cat companion-having, home-robot enthusiasts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Door_into_Summer
[+] [-] zygotic12|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moonbug|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokyodude|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tk75x|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheSpiceIsLife|7 years ago|reply
Electric cooktops with built in timers.
Why, oh why! does nobody build electric cooktops with built in timers?!
At least, I haven't been able to find one here in Australia at a reasonable price. I think I saw some huge six zone one with touch controls that had it, but it was $6,9999.
[+] [-] thomk|7 years ago|reply
I would happily spend double the amount of todays best Roomba if they could invent one that would simply stop when it found pet poop.
After breaking 3 robots over my knee for covering my floor in pet poo, I decided to simply not vacuum. :D
[+] [-] k__|7 years ago|reply
The Roomba never cleaned everything and we had to modify our home quite much to prevent it from getting stuck.
So, after the Roomba is before the Roomba, I guess.
[+] [-] Spooky23|7 years ago|reply
Robots imo are less interesting than novel applications of lithium ion batteries.
[+] [-] ngvrnd|7 years ago|reply