It's pretty impressive when it comes to simulating facial muscles and expressions, not so much for actually acting like a normal person (understandably). Everytime I see "lifelike robots" they just make them play random facial expressions and move their eyebrows while they're talking, completely disconnected from what they're actually saying
remember Boston Dynamics?
[img]https://31.media.tumblr.com/010e86f54d7a79f47bfcd3cdbf5f9873/tumblr_njjhrnB9mx1u1zexho1_500.gif[/img]
imagine that they collaborated and made a robot together
The robot in the movie "Moon" used smileys displayed on a LCD screen, and looked much friendlier, even though it was just a big grey metal box:
[quote][img]http://www.wired.com/geekdad/wp-content/gallery/robot_sidekicks/gerty.jpg[/img][/quote]
[QUOTE=AntonioR;49970172]The robot in the movie "Moon" used smileys displayed on a LCD screen, and looked much friendlier, even though it was just a big grey metal box:[/QUOTE]
People really ought to stop trying to make realistic face robots for general purpose use. I'd say most of the most famous pop cultural robots of all time have simple and cute "faces."
I mean hell, I'm pretty sure a lot of the robots they throw realistic faces on are villains. Look at the Terminator.
if i could get one of those things i would fuck its face up, why don't they just do that? talking to something that looks like this is a million times cooler
[img]http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a514/Nefilim2012/6_zpsc724986f.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cinema52.com/2013/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Terminator11.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=AntonioR;49970172]The robot in the movie "Moon" used smileys displayed on a LCD screen, and looked much friendlier, even though it was just a big grey metal box:[/QUOTE]
That's the uncanny valley for you.
"Sophia, do you want to destroy humans?"
"Ok I will destroy humans!"
:v:
Can't wait to see sex dolls with that technology.
I think the media coverage of robotics research is extremely misleading. Every time someone builds a thing, its implied to be something that has somehow advanced the state of technology but often it brings nothing new to the game. This article is maybe not the best example, but it happens a lot with this type of news in general.
Facial expressions on that level have been around for a while, mostly in practical movie sfx. The only unique idea here is the ambition to get this technology out there, but that's been tried unsuccessfully so many times before. It's just very hard to market such a product in customer service, mostly because it just alienates people to have a 'lifelike' animatronic head talking to them like you're in some sort of theme park. It's not psychologically sound unless we as a culture suddenly get used to something like that, the way the Japanese are used to anthropomorphism and just think about what an insanely huge step that would be.
The Idea that a machine needs human facial expressions in order to interface with people itself is a strange concept. Its the same concept that works in hyper-realism, when you give something the form of a thing people are used to interact with in a context where they should logically not be able to (disembodied, lifelike head or body as part of a machine), they will try to interact with it in all the ways they expect it to work, until they find some sort of boundary where the illusion falls apart and logical order is restored in our minds. Up until that point, we cannot process what is happening and we feel unsettled, disturbed or generally uncomfortable around the thing, the way Ron Mueck sculptures work in exhibitions. The only way a human-like robot would work is to make it VERY close to human behavior, with a range of possible reactions that far exceeds its originally intended functionality (cash register clerk) which is insane from a business perspective. If you don't do that, it becomes functionally identical to a lifeless, faceless machine again and it becomes an expensive novelty, a gimmick by definition.
In our society and with the future technology we can expect, it is way smarter to just have disembodied voices or stylized interfaces, cartoon faces and such. It already fulfills the goal because having just a voice leaves a level of ambiguity, we can easily imagine a person talking over a microphone on a subconscious level. Especially this ridiculous statement about the possible application in therapy ties in nicely with this [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1511223"]other thread[/URL] about people trying to input commands related to personal crisis or emergencies to phone voice platforms. Nobody would to that with a creepy puppet head. If you explicitly show the human form, we cannot suspend out disbelief anymore. And stylized or abstract interfaces don't deed to react the way we except humans to because the empathetic connection is broken up and we just accept the way the interface looks and behaves as a new form of interaction, independent from what we are used to with humans.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;49970172]The robot in the movie "Moon" used smileys displayed on a LCD screen, and looked much friendlier, even though it was just a big grey metal box:[/QUOTE]
Friggin' this sort of thing is a lot easier and would most likely work a lot easier in the long run, but i don't knock the guys for trying the Hard Way
I personally find the idea of human-looking robots impractical. I would be more comfortable with a faceless robot than try to keep a conversation with one that tries to mimic our emotions and look like rubber mannequins. At least with some of the early AIs that won't be able to mask their speech imperfections.
[QUOTE=Marden;49970483]I personally find the idea of human-looking robots impractical. I would be more comfortable with a faceless robot than try to keep a conversation with one that tries to mimic our emotions and look like rubber mannequins. At least with some of the early AIs that won't be able to mask their speech imperfections.[/QUOTE]
to be fair these videos never put the robots in the best light because they're made more to be like "look how crazy we can make her eyebrows go" rather than actually fool anyone. in this one especially the way they just cycle through the various facial expressions with no in-between is very unnerving, but it shows the precision of the technology quite well.
if they were really trying to give the robot a fair chance to trick you they would just have a random vlog end with it peeling its face off
This reminds me more of HL2's face poser tool than an actual human being.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;49970172]The robot in the movie "Moon" used smileys displayed on a LCD screen, and looked much friendlier, even though it was just a big grey metal box:[/QUOTE]
Also voiced by Kevin Spacey. He was the coolest movie robot ever. [sp] they even subvert all sci fi tropes and have him not betray the protagonist and help him even though the robot easily could[/sp]
Are you sure that's not just female Nic Cage?
Designing robots to look human as possible is stupid as fuck.
They're better if they're designed around functional ergonomics. Baymax is more relatable than this.
I'll have to say that this looks better than those Japanese robots also touted as "realistic". It's an advancement at least
It kind of looks like [URL="http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_hillary_clinton_ss_high_school_yr_book_lpl_121024_3x4_1600.jpg"]young Hillary Clinton[/URL]
But seriously though the most impressive thing about this to me is the lip sync.
I was convinced that she was a CG monstrosity because that really didn't fool me into thinking she was "lifelike".
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;49971069]It kind of looks like [URL="http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_hillary_clinton_ss_high_school_yr_book_lpl_121024_3x4_1600.jpg"]young Hillary Clinton[/URL]
But seriously though the most impressive thing about this to me is the lip sync.[/QUOTE]
That's because Clinton was the prototype, sadly she turned sentient and is now punishing humanity for the mistake of creating her.
Goddamn,the part from 1:01 to 1:23 had me laughing uncontrollably.
While the guy's talking she's like "check out this idiot".
When "Sophia" talks it looks like someone took the faceposer tool in gmod and started applying random effects to it
[QUOTE=aznz888;49971148]When "Sophia" talks it looks like someone took the faceposer tool in gmod and started applying random effects to it[/QUOTE]
I hope someone takes the audio and remakes this in Gmod
[img]http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/multimedia/dynamic/00293/42Thatcher_293043k.jpg[/img]
Pretty much all this reminds me of
My reaction
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/r3sbWj3.gif[/IMG]
at least the lipsync looks really good
like, much better than the lipsync in most new video games
i'd like to see this done with more stylized faces, then the lack of realism wouldn't be as distracting. bring some artists in to help them out
the creasing at the neck is very distracting though
and why do they always end up making the shoulders so wide when they do stuff like this
Hillary Clinton?
[QUOTE=NA_PREDATOR;49970195]if i could get one of those things i would fuck its face up, why don't they just do that? talking to something that looks like this is a million times cooler
[img]http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a514/Nefilim2012/6_zpsc724986f.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cinema52.com/2013/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Terminator11.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
watching this video I was constantly thinking of
[img]https://media.giphy.com/media/JV7sokLFwQdfG/giphy.gif[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
