[pixelesque]

Some people on X are saying they're "just" cloning/copying "puppet" human movements.

I know very little about robotics, but given these appear totally free-standing, if that was the case (I personally don't think it is), wouldn't that imply they have the same centre of gravity and weight of limbs as humans? Surely they'd have to be able to balance themselves, and copying a human's movements "exactly" wouldn't work for their own motion otherwise?

I think when watching I saw one or two of the robots "judder" their feet a bit out of sync with others - this seems to imply they are capable of balancing their own motion a bit individually.

[michaelt]

I've worked on much less expensive, much smaller humanoid robots.

These robots are certainly running through a scripted set of poses which has been extensively tested for the conditions (Humans would also be choreographed and have to hit certain marks at certain times). If you covered the stage in loose gravel or a thick carpet they'd all start falling over. The things the robots hold are almost certainly taped into their hands.

Despite that, this is a very impressive demo. Those robots are $40k+, they've got 20+ of them. And not a single one fell over. They're fast too - and there are a load of corners they could have cut, but they didn't.

The floor has two textures, it would have been easier without that. The humans right alongside them? Much less safety paperwork without them. The robot wearing trousers and a cape? Much easier without that. The fewer robots you have, the lower the chances on falls over landing their backflip. Lose the audience and record it in multiple takes. Hell, you could have human acrobats in robot costumes and it'd cost far less and be much easier.

So this demo is very much a costly signal of confidence.

[flakeoil]

> The things the robots hold are almost certainly taped into their hands.

You can clearly see that the robots change their grip of their sword, so it cannot be taped to their hands.

[somenameforme]

Why do you think it would be the case about e.g. swapping to thick carpet would throw things off? Intuitively it seems like they must have a tremendous amount of dynamic adjustment going on. For instance think of how much variance, driven by dynamics, that there's going to be in the scene at 2:48 [1] where the robot [intentionally] falls over and then aerobically picks itself back up.

The motion is certainly scripted, but the exact mechanics in play there almost certainly vary radically from take to take. Imagine something simple like a pool/billiards break. Even if you set up a machine to rack the balls and break them in as close to identical as possible, you'd get wildly different results each time. And the dynamics in this motion is going to dwarf that.

[1] - https://youtu.be/mUmlv814aJo?t=168

[verdverm]

> They're fast too

That was of of the two things that impressed me most, along with the choreography involving close and direct contact

[Joel_Mckay]

Smaller platforms are actually harder to build: minimal power budget, weaker drive systems, less sensors, and fewer processing options.

Not a fan of bipedal platforms or 50kg of servos for a number of reasons.

Best regards. =3

[jansan]

Of course the robots have been pre-trained and the movements are scripted, and nobody is claiming otherwise. But there must be a lot of autonomous balancing taking place. At one point you can see the robots adjusting their feet slightly different although they are all in sync, and that catapult does not look like its movement is exactly the same every time. It is just super impressive.

Does anyone remember when Honda's Asimo robot clumsily fell down the stairs during a demonstration[1] and we thought we were safe from a robot invasion by just moving to the upper floor? That was about 20 years ago.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mx6paHrnIE

[wasmainiac]

It’s not a 1:1 human motion capture to servo translation. There is some work done to fix Center of gravity like you said and issues with friction and momentum.

The hard part with “autonomy” is interpretation of the environment and feeding that back into some control loop to accomplish a goal in real time. That is why most of these demos are basically recordings of movements, like choreography.

[pixelesque]

They're also interacting with the environment (vaulting boxes / walls), which implies they either know their 3D position very accurately, or they have some form of sensors and can adapt a bit.

[clifdweller]

They do use keyframes most likely captured from a human controller. you can see this after they do the backflip at :29s they land a bit differently and recover in slightly different ways but all end up in a static pose for a moment before moving on to next movement. The advancement here is the dynamics to go between those frames. Looking at last years performance you can see they pretty much go from frame a to b then stabilize then to c then stabilize. This is what makes this years look much more lifelike there seems to be some active stabilization going on during the movements. It also seems to let them chain movements that can take advantage of momentum much better rather than needing to be at rest between frames.

[tw1984]

> balancing their own motion a bit individually.

check this 4 months old video below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPSLMX_V38E

I'd willing to bet that it is already close to impossible to get the robot lose its balance without some significant external forces.

[simonjgreen]

As someone who owns a pair of Unitree G2s this blew my mind

[faeyanpiraat]

what are you using those for ?

[imtringued]

The impressive part here isn't the movement itself. You can easily train a model to perform a "procedural animation" that includes a full body control policy. The hard part is making it reliable enough to perform long sequences of movements and adapting to differences in robot placement. In other words, performing a flawless stage play is the hardest part.

[tianqi]

I'm afraid you might not understand what you're talking about. Animation is a geometry problem, while robotics is a dynamics problem. The latter is subject to constraints many times greater than the former. There is no such "easy" model as you imagined that can transform the former into the latter.

[noxin]

It looks like they have a point https://x.com/Osint613/status/2024068210660643009

[holoduke]

Those are the same people that say that China is 30 years behind in chip manufacturing.

[suddenlybananas]

I don't know if you're aware but robots and chips are different things that require different expertise.

[mesrik]

Yes, the autonomy level of these robots was what I was yesterday emailing with my former colleagues we were wondering. Two months ago CNET & PC-Mag posted following video which suggests more about robots movements being assisted by humans. And it also shows Chinese have being edge of the development at that point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXTibM33SDg

However, then another short video bit alike popped up and is puzzling too.

Apparently Unitree robot is playing pingpong match like a pro. Sorry about german announcer, I couldn't find with english.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BgD1ukTyNnw

There is another match viewable by pressing that "Robot plays ping ppng #robot" arrow.

How about that robot? Is it human assisted or not? Our opinions diverted, I'm quite sure it is assisted but my former colleague thinks it's got to be autonomous as it would be too difficult and slow to do that fast movements with remote control assisted robot.

It would be nice to hear opinions about that playing robot too if anyone could provide some insight in that.

edit: I think the serve waiting robot hand movement and after losing wiping left eye gesture as a disappointing a bit in my opinion gives up it's human. Or if not, why would a robot do such a human like gestures.

edit2: OK, good points, I see now. It's definitely a fake. Thanks to all who replied :)

[robots0only]

here is a real video of a unitree robot playing ping pong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOfPKW6D3gE

[imtringued]

The second video you've linked is fake in every aspect in regards to the robot.

The robot is floating above the ground.

The paddle is phasing in and out of existence.

The robot has a realistic human hand and uses it to hit the ball.

The robot randomly turns around mid-air near the end of the video.

The robot looks nothing like a Unitree robot.

Oh, how could I forget, the entire robot looks so obviously fake even when disregarding all of the above that I can't believe you're even trying to analyze anything in that video.

[Keyframe]

that ping pong video is a CG robot, whether realtime superimposed or otherwise who knows. Look at the :27 when it gets out of tracking breaking all of physics, feet aren't planted to the ground, light, shadows.. etc.

[sheept]

I think the ping pong match video might be misleading you. Based on the visual artifacts around the robot, the original footage likely had a human player that was swapped in with a robot in this video. It also has an altered content warning.

[tudelo]

The ping pong video you linked is clearly fake. Look at the paddle... anyways...

[eunos]

I can think that future use of pingpot robot is to replicate specific pro player style (from various recording) and be used to spar by pro players before their specific matches.

[otikik]

The pingpong video is very obviously computer generated. The robot feet give it away immediately

[reeeeee]

Watch out, the two shorts you linked (both of robots playing ping-pong) are fake.

[Bewelge]

I'm 99% sure that ping pong match is CGI. The whole robot has this green screen effect. Look at its feet. And at second 17 it just disappears entirely for a few frames.