Another note: I remember a colleague telling me about a San Francisco Robotics Challenge they were part of (as staff/judging). The challenge was simply to navigate a tiny, tiny maze of plywood walls with one jog in an otherwise straight corridor. Flat floor, good lighting.
I remembered a paper-airplane contest where the winning time-in-air entry was a simple strip of stiff paper with a slight bend - flip it and it 'rolled' in the air descending surprisingly slowly. It was disqualified for 'not looking like an airplane'.
So I naturally asked, what was the criterion for 'robot'? He said two categories, autonomous and fly-by-wire (this was the early 80s).
Was the task complete when the robot was entirely out of the maze, or when any part of the robot passed the finish line? Any part he said.
Good enough for me. I told him I had several entries, and would he let me know if any were suitable for their contest? Sure, he said, what are they?
The first looks like a bucket of confetti and a fan. The fan is sitting on a step ladder. You tip the bucket of confetti by hand, but after that the robot is self-guided.
That's not a robot, he said.
Ok, my next one is simpler. It looks like a bucket of water. You tip it over at the entrance, and it naturally follows the maze using gravity and surface tension.
That's not a robot, he said.
Ok, can it have biological components? Sure, he said, getting excited. What do you have in mind?
Well, my next robot looks like a cat with a propeller beanie (the receiver). Somebody puts it down by the entrance, and I transmit a homing signal (Here Kitty! Kitty!) at the exit.
That's not a robot, he said.
Turns out, none of my robots would suit his criterion. Not even my nanobot - in a glass vial, pull the stopper at the entrance and when my detector went Ding! at the exit (looked like an oven timer) the nano-bot had arrived. Despite all his assurances, all they would actually admit were electromechanical devices with wheels, solenoids etc.
You're just being difficult with the judges, it's a small event, they don't have enough money to hire big lawyers to come up with a 1 ton rulebook that would cover every eventuality.
Keep in the spirit of the competition and try not to cheese things too much and everybody would be much happier.
If you still can't understand, well, feel free to set up your own robotics competition and see how many people would sign up.
These sort of low level competitions aren't there to spur innovation - it's just to kindle some interest with kids or the general public. Once you realise that, just smile and move on and let them play fast and loose with words.
If you really want to do innovation, there's DARPA - they've lots of problems that they need solving they can't do with today's robots. Or if you have something against the military, there's always something similar to the Amazon Picking Challenge.
thanks I'm glad to meet someone with my same passion :) do you have a website?
yes some of them I manage to test, others no but make the reviews on particular parameters like presence of AI, responsiveness ,presence of sdk, functionalities, etc
Another note: I remember a colleague telling me about a San Francisco Robotics Challenge they were part of (as staff/judging). The challenge was simply to navigate a tiny, tiny maze of plywood walls with one jog in an otherwise straight corridor. Flat floor, good lighting.
I remembered a paper-airplane contest where the winning time-in-air entry was a simple strip of stiff paper with a slight bend - flip it and it 'rolled' in the air descending surprisingly slowly. It was disqualified for 'not looking like an airplane'.
So I naturally asked, what was the criterion for 'robot'? He said two categories, autonomous and fly-by-wire (this was the early 80s).
Was the task complete when the robot was entirely out of the maze, or when any part of the robot passed the finish line? Any part he said.
Good enough for me. I told him I had several entries, and would he let me know if any were suitable for their contest? Sure, he said, what are they?
The first looks like a bucket of confetti and a fan. The fan is sitting on a step ladder. You tip the bucket of confetti by hand, but after that the robot is self-guided.
That's not a robot, he said.
Ok, my next one is simpler. It looks like a bucket of water. You tip it over at the entrance, and it naturally follows the maze using gravity and surface tension.
That's not a robot, he said.
Ok, can it have biological components? Sure, he said, getting excited. What do you have in mind?
Well, my next robot looks like a cat with a propeller beanie (the receiver). Somebody puts it down by the entrance, and I transmit a homing signal (Here Kitty! Kitty!) at the exit.
That's not a robot, he said.
Turns out, none of my robots would suit his criterion. Not even my nanobot - in a glass vial, pull the stopper at the entrance and when my detector went Ding! at the exit (looked like an oven timer) the nano-bot had arrived. Despite all his assurances, all they would actually admit were electromechanical devices with wheels, solenoids etc.
So that put me off robotics for 20 years.
You're just being difficult with the judges, it's a small event, they don't have enough money to hire big lawyers to come up with a 1 ton rulebook that would cover every eventuality.
Keep in the spirit of the competition and try not to cheese things too much and everybody would be much happier.
If you still can't understand, well, feel free to set up your own robotics competition and see how many people would sign up.
Spirit? Supposed to spur innovation, but turned into a remote-control-car event by dry unimaginative robotics folk.
Nobody was unhappy; folks were smiling. Just pedants on HN that have an issue far as I can see.
These sort of low level competitions aren't there to spur innovation - it's just to kindle some interest with kids or the general public. Once you realise that, just smile and move on and let them play fast and loose with words.
If you really want to do innovation, there's DARPA - they've lots of problems that they need solving they can't do with today's robots. Or if you have something against the military, there's always something similar to the Amazon Picking Challenge.
It's always interesting to meet a fellow Robotics enthusiast! Do you test the robots yourself before you write about them?
thanks I'm glad to meet someone with my same passion :) do you have a website?
yes some of them I manage to test, others no but make the reviews on particular parameters like presence of AI, responsiveness ,presence of sdk, functionalities, etc
I have a newsletter: https://weeklyrobotics.com/
and a personal blog that I should update more often: https://msadowski.github.io/
thanks! :)