"We introduce a system in which a humanoid robot executes commands before it actually receives them, so that the visual feedback appears to be synchronized to the operator, whereas the robot executed the commands in the past. To do so, the robot continuously predicts future commands by querying a machine learning model that is trained on past trajectories and conditioned on the last received commands. In our experiments, an operator was able to successfully control a humanoid robot (32 degrees of freedom) with stochastic delays up to 2 seconds in several whole-body manipulation tasks, including reaching different targets, picking up, and placing a box at distinct locations."
we are also happy with waf, wich gives us a lot of flexibility (e.g., use python libs that are not build-related) and use a language that the team already know.
(https://waf.io)
Gaussian Processes are very good when you do not have much data (< 500 points) and and your data are low-dimensional (<10 dimensions). For this, they are more accurate than anything else, and they provide both a prediction and variance.
Most journals are OK with authors posting a paper on their own website, especially the 'pre-print' (pre-review, pre-layout). See: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php
(even Nature is OK for all the pre-prints, arxiv and your own website).
My definition: there is no clear limit, but there is a spectrum of ‘roboticity’ that corresponds to the spectrum of ‘versatility’. The more versatile a machine is, the more a robot it is.
For instance, a blender is not versatile. But a cooking robot can do more things (it blends, but also cooks, mixes, etc.). This is why the cooking robot is more a robot than a blender.
This is similar in industry. You have specialized machines, which can do a single thing. Industrial robots are more versatile because we can program them to achieve different task (e.g. when there is a new model of car). The ultimate robot would be as versatile as a human. This kind of humanoid would have the highest level of ‘roboticity’.
> The more versatile a machine is, the more a robot it is. . . . Industrial robots are more versatile because we can program them to achieve different task (e.g. when there is a new model of car).
Agreed. I actually think movies downplay "robot" arms too much, making them look like dumb graspers/movers when in fact they're incredibly versatile not only mechanically, but also programmatically (for example, being able to specify maximum forces, a center of mass, "up", and have it work with all of these parameters as efficiently as possible).
Great question. I think it stems from the origin of robotics itself. The desire to build a machine that is "alive" and get it to obey at all our commands. Sometimes I think that robots are slaves 2.0, and as such, they will have human traits.
... or more than 100 top French researchers for 3 years (Research Director, top pay at the end of the career is about 6000 euros / ~10000 for the company).
A bit like linguee but for scientists: (at the bottom of the page): https://www.linguee.fr/francais-anglais/search?source=auto&q...