Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Showerthoughts_Mod t1_je9yljk wrote

This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.

1

Groftsan t1_je9z3yq wrote

Humans experience issues and accidents around spinning objects such as propellers, due to a lack of attention span and general awareness.

883

Killer-Barbie t1_jea2wjx wrote

Replying to Groftsan (#2,485,324)

When I did my ADHD testing there is one test you have to listen for a cue and watch for a cue and then hit a button when either happens for 10 minutes. I did moderately okay for the first 3 minutes and then you can see where I stopped paying attention because my accuracy went from 70% to 4%. So yeah, I agree with you. I would be propellered meat

244

me_I_my t1_jea4ag4 wrote

Not just humanoid robots, but any robot using cameras. Another interesting issue is with led headlights and tail lights, because the way they maintain their brightness is by pulsing, if the framerate is synced with the pulse your self driving car never sees the brake lights or something similar

163

Evening-Dizzy t1_jea4x0i wrote

Replying to Killer-Barbie (#2,486,372)

I did the opposite. I kept an accuracy rate of 90+% through the whole test. Doc "oh that's a hyperfocus if i ever saw one" but I'm also the person who falls over when they're trying to stand still for longer thzn 15 seconds so who knows

127

calartnick t1_jea8m3o wrote

You and I think of very different things in the shower my friend

17

raff7 t1_jeaajku wrote

What does the fact that they have humanoid and that they have cameras for eyes have to do with anything?

Wouldn't a dog shaped robod with a camera in his butt have the same issue?

34

BreakfastBeerz t1_jeakwwt wrote

Considering the human eye sees somewhere between 30 and 60 frames per second, and current high speed cameras can see well over 250 frames per second I think those humanoid robots will be just fine.

−10

IDontHaveNicknameToo t1_jeaue9n wrote

Large prime number for framerate should make it way more robust. Fun problem to think about.

3

InjuryApart6808 t1_jeavfky wrote

Replying to BreakfastBeerz (#2,493,535)

Not if something is spinning at the frame rate of the camera. Which is what the post is about. Then that object would appear stationary. Human eyes don’t do that, it would appear as a blur, and we would infer that the object is moving.

1

Fiberdonkey5 t1_jeaxk8c wrote

Replying to InjuryApart6808 (#2,493,441)

This can occur with the naked eye as well. Spinning motor shafts can often appear stationary when looking at them which is why there is a tool called a stroboscope that rapidly flashes light at variable speeds so you can visually see if the shaft has stopped spinning.

3

Cantsmegwontsmeg t1_jeayxv2 wrote

So you're saying we can become invisible by twirling?

Advantage: Humans

10

TheGrumpyre t1_jeazf6d wrote

Replying to me_I_my (#2,486,748)

I always wonder if I'm especially sensitive to the flickering on those lights or if the ones that annoy me are all defective in some way that makes the flickering more noticeable. I hate them.

18

Zncon t1_jeb1z28 wrote

Replying to TheGrumpyre (#2,494,579)

There are a few different ways to design these electrical systems. A cheap one like Christmas lights will flicker at 60hz or 120hz depending on design, both of which some people can detect.

I absolutely hate it.

10

blueeyedkittens t1_jeb34cx wrote

It shouldn't be too hard to just vary the frame rate or use multiple cameras with different framerates

7

Interesting-Space-24 t1_jeb3b4m wrote

They could simply vary the camera framerate to detect the fast movement of the impeller.

1

Yorspider t1_jeb3vio wrote

So long as there are two cameras, that are not synced they would have no issue.

3

AceExaminer t1_jeb5y0p wrote

They can just assume solid object when they detect its diameter

1

Niminal t1_jeb6ice wrote

In theory would adding a frame rate variation routine into their programming fix that?

1

Sir_Lord_Pumpkin t1_jeb6s9l wrote

At a certain point it stops being about framerate and more about how fast the processor can compare frames.

1

TheGrumpyre t1_jeb7k71 wrote

Replying to frivolousfry (#2,496,116)

No. Do you think that would make a difference? I would assume that would only affect the cells in your eye that detect the difference between wavelengths of light, not the ones that detect changes in light intensity. Unless it's one of those things where you become more attuned to other kinds of visual input to make up for the lost data.

3

Vapur9 t1_jeb89dp wrote

Humans have the same frame-rate issue. However, we also have a sense of awareness.

Knowing that something spinning quickly creates sound and a draft is enough of a warning sign to be aware of danger.

Pattern recognition in robots should produce the same results.

8

frivolousfry t1_jeb9wdy wrote

Replying to TheGrumpyre (#2,496,570)

Indeed it is. There are two different types of cells responsible for visual stimulus. "Rods", as they are known, are responsible for differences in light intensity while "cones" are responsible for colour differential. Colour blind people don't necessarily have less eye cells overall, but rather a deficiency of cone cells. The totality of cells is comparable to a normal sighted person and the lack of cones is made up by rods, which in turn can cause an increase in light sensitivity for colourblind individuals.

7

zephyrprime t1_jebbyhj wrote

Humans have limited readout speed from their eyeballs as well. There's a lot of image processing that goes on. They'll probably just increase the readout speed of cameras or use global shutter. BTW, the problem you are describing is called rolling shutter.

1

randomwalkin01 t1_jebcns4 wrote

Wouldn't machine learning be implemented in these robots so that they would recognize that a propeller would exist even though they might not directly see them?

1

AlpaxT1 t1_jebebce wrote

Replying to me_I_my (#2,486,748)

A self driving car doesn’t need to look for break lights noir headlights. I guess you could run into this issue with something like a traffic light (not at all sure if these work in the same way you’re describing). Either way, an issue like this could probably be solved really easily with regular standards since neither frequency change over time.

3

sakonigsberg t1_jebfrf8 wrote

This is relevant for us today. If your fluorescent lights or whatever are at a harmonic frequency with whatever is rotating, it will still look than it actually is moving.

It's called the stroboscopic effect

1

SecretRecipe t1_jebguan wrote

Have the cameras run at different frame rates. Problem solved

1

the-z t1_jebhewz wrote

Replying to PoopIsAlwaysSunny (#2,498,560)

Nah, when you're testing for a disorder that affects how well you can control your attention, you expect to get stuff at both extremes.

A normal person will get distracted (because the task is boring), then think, "oh! i'm supposed to be doing the thing", and then go back to doing the thing.

A person with ADHD will probably have the same thought, but no amount of effort can guarantee that you can go back to doing the thing.

With ADHD, whether the distraction happens is unpredictable, so both hyperfocus and getting distracted and unable to recover are indicators of disordered processing.

12

N0085K1LL5 t1_jebhmcs wrote

Not if they make it mandatory that all spinning things have some sticker the robots can identify.

1

PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_jebifr3 wrote

Replying to the-z (#2,499,022)

“Whether you get distracted or not you have ADHD”

I hope in the future humanity is able to see the barbarity of modern psychiatry as we see all of the history of psychiatry: based in brutality, pseudoscience, and often the violation of human rights.

−21

zinky30 t1_jebj9c4 wrote

This could be how humans defeat androids in some future dystopian movie.

1

JeffryRelatedIssue t1_jebkvzy wrote

You sweet summer child. High framerate cameras go up to 76 000 frames per second. The human eye of a well trianed person with perfect vision is sensible to about 60fps. Going even to 120 fps (which would be more manageable to process as 76k is a stupid amount of data that isn't even useful in most cases) where processing is possible would still be a major improvement to human eyesight.

6

zoltan99 t1_jeblbm6 wrote

Robot designers know what rolling shutter is and can specify that that won’t be part of the design

1

Apollo7788 t1_jebni6o wrote

Replying to PoopIsAlwaysSunny (#2,499,305)

"Both a difficulty of attention and a tendancy to hyperfocus on certain tasks is indocative of ADHD"

Its literally the name of the disorder. Attention deficit hyperactive disorder. People with ADHD can struggle to pay attention to certain tasks or hyperfocus on the task.

3

Inttegers t1_jebp1ls wrote

I wonder if you could get around this with a variable, but reasonably predictable frame rate.

1

littlebitsofspider t1_jebr74v wrote

Replying to BanzoClaymore (#2,497,817)

If you like flicker artifacts and bouncing around gaze vergence, sure. If you want stereo fusion, good edge detection and depth estimation, and smooth saccades, you'll probably want an event camera. Ideally, you'd have a robot eyeball with a beamsplitter inside with an event camera sensor grid on one side, and a traditional camera-CCD sensor on the other. That way, an event at one of the event camera pixels can trigger a pixel dump on the corresponding CCD color subpixels. Better yet would be a Foveon-style stacked-RGB CCD, which could match 1:1 resolution with the event camera in color. You could do the sensor fusion on a dedicated ASIC hooked up to both cameras and let them both do what they do best.

7

LoopholeHacker t1_jebt4eo wrote

A good solution to this would be a varying shutter angle to allow them to distinguish motion.

1

ImmoralModerator t1_jebu2aa wrote

Can’t this be worked around like the machine guns that shoot through propeller gaps?

1

PracticalExperiense t1_jebun7b wrote

Disagree. There are cameras capable of recording at 300,000fps. 10,000 is no issue anymore.

If referring to the effect where objects look still or moving slowly, that's because our displays aren't yet capable of showing those incredible frame rates. Or the recordings are at low level fps like 60 or 120.

3

ColonyRuinScavanger t1_jebuqu6 wrote

If you're a visual thinker your mind's eye is your visual buffer, so you can't think intensely and see at the same time, indeed a lot of sleight of hand exploits this by prompting you to think about how the trick is being done so you're not actually paying attention.

1

Zeshicage85 t1_jebwbto wrote

What if the cameras shutter speed was offset? So one is always on/open? (Not sure of the accurate lingo for digital cameras)

1

adeptus_fognates t1_jebwfgt wrote

Your eye doesn't exactly have a "frame rate." But you still have a minimum time of exposure before you notice something, so this is actually something that applies more to you than robots.

Also you are assuming all computer vision is raster based, like the way images are drawn on a TV screen, (pixel by pixel from top left to bottom right, rows over colums) and you are also assuming that computers will see with images.

Computers can visualize sound, as well as many other things that we are not capable of.

4

Cindexxx t1_jec1z96 wrote

Replying to PoopIsAlwaysSunny (#2,503,167)

We already have too many old people. Two birds, one stone.

Also people with ADHD take daily stimulants for years. We're getting to the point there'll be people who have been on them virtually their entire lives.

−1

Phate4569 t1_jec85mi wrote

Replying to Groftsan (#2,485,324)

Funny you should mention human eyes.

Human eyes have a 30-60 fps rate.

Cameras currently can get up to 240, granted those are standard cameras. Depth cameras are currently at about 30fps, but getting better.

As tech increases robots will be BETTER at seeing fast moving objects.

−2

Hushwater t1_jec8a48 wrote

By the time there is humanoid robots advanced enough to be doing their own thing something like frame rate isn't going to be problem.

1

AnyAmphibianWillDo t1_jec8yo0 wrote

Replying to Zncon (#2,495,239)

you can also find plenty of DC Christmas lights with no flicker at all. downsides are they have a brick to plug in and they can't be daisychained as much. I've got some strands that can be daisychained up to 300ft/91m - these cover the vast majority of home use cases, and the lead between the plug and first light is about 20ft/6m so it's usually possible to combine multiple sets. I once had 12 strands on one tree and while that required 3 plugs, it was something like 60w total so I just used a 3 outlet end on a 16awg extension cord

1

DarkSpartan301 t1_jec8zc9 wrote

Maybe an array of cameras with varying framerates would fix the problem, they'd be able to use that information to see the speed it's spinning at.

1

PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_jedkit2 wrote

Replying to Cindexxx (#2,503,893)

So, so many things wrong with this comment. You're encouraging what is essentially genocide, or biochemical warfare against entire populations.

Also, "too many old people" means you fundamentally don't understand the issue. It's not like people will be healthy forever then just keel over 10 years earlier than average. They'll get sick and feel progressively shittier.

0

GeraldBWilsonJr t1_jefckyf wrote

Replying to Fat_Bottomed_Redhead (#2,502,382)

Not exciting, when my brother and I were little we were playing around with a friend in a dark room with just the strobe for fun, and being idiotic little kids were just kind of running around and my face smacked into his head. He still has a scar and I still deal with tooth infection issues this much time later

2

PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_jeh3j8g wrote

Replying to Cindexxx (#2,559,953)

I didn’t say people shouldn’t have them. Doctors shouldn’t be prescribing them so much and they shouldn’t be treated so casually.

But also yeah if people want them recreationally they should be able to buy them. We just shouldn’t act like it’s a good thing.

1