GE Walking Truck - Cybernetic Anthropomorphous Machine (CAM) 1969.

In a different thread there was an argument about the relative futility of some of today's robotics experiments [0]. As it is sometimes typical on HN, the poster with a message outside the "go team" cargo-cult mentality wasn't very welcome. I happen to think he had a very interesting point. And that point translates well into this thread. Why don't we see practical applications of all of these robotics experiments? The answer is very simple really: Most of them are relatively pointless and add very little to the robotics knowledge-base that will be needed to really move robotics forward into real-world applied robots. Think of something like robotics vacuum cleaners. Nothing whatsoever innovative about any of them. It's a wheeled platform that has been in use in hobby and research robotics since, well, forever. The '70's and '80's were full of robots with this basic platform. What changed? Electronics got better, batteries smaller, microprocessors more capable, manufacturing more efficient. What was retained and reused from prior research? Probably not much. I started in college with the goal of becoming a robotics engineer. An EE with specialization in robotics. It didn't take long for me to realize that the field wasn't as interesting and exciting as I made it out to be in my mind. The R2D2's and C3-PO's were nowhere to be found and were easily decades away from becoming reality. If I wanted to be in robotics I would end-up making industrial manipulators or things with moto

Not sure I understand your position. In the spectrum of what robotics could do for society I see a wide range of truly paradigm shifting applications. These are applications that can change the lives of millions of people. They all require massive improvements in the areas I mentioned in my post. The mechanics are almost academic as is evidenced by the GE walker from 1965 [0]. In terms of mechanical engineering we could do an insanely complex machine back in 1965. I see no point in creating something as clumsy as Wildcat when what we need are significant improvements in AI. Think of what would be required for a quadruped to be able to climb a rocky terrain like a goat. We can do the mechanics. We could do the mechanics in 1965. What we can't do yet is the reasoning, control and path planning required to complete such a task. We don't need to continue to build a bunch of useless contraptions to advance these fields. We are throwing money at the wrong problems. [0] [this video]

Progress takes time, and ambulatory motion is a finicky, delicate nightmare that only seems simple in humans and animals thanks to millions of years of evolution. CAM was created in the 1960s[0], but BigDog[1] and other recent Boston Dynamics quadrupeds that aren't designed for human passengers are much faster[2], but still awkward. Also remember these are expensive prototypes designed to test things other than speed. Making them faster only guarantees that they break themselves harder when they run into a wall or trip over a cliff or something. [0] [this video] [1] [link] [2] [link] >I think Neal Stephenson described a skateboard with hundreds of tiny feet, moving faster than wheels on any surface. I want to see that. I am neither Neal Stephenson nor a physicist but I'm pretty sure the friction caused by the increased surface contact of "hundreds of tiny feet" versus wheels would still make the wheels faster and more efficient. Geckos and things can stick to vertical surfaces and move quickly because they're lightweight. Anything capable of sticking to an arbitrary surface and supporting human weight is going to be slow. And if moving downhill, wheels don't really need to do work - gravity does the work. Something with "hundreds of tiny feet" either has to slide or "walk."