RIA

May 23, 2015, 6:50 pm

≪ Previous: Mixing biology with technology: what could possibly go wrong?

ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012 American National Standard for Industrial Robots and Robot Systems- Safety Requirements (revision of ANSI/RIA R15.06-1999)

↧

News from The Associated Press

June 2, 2015, 6:22 pm

≫ Next: Isaac Asimov Asks, “How Do People Get New Ideas?”

≪ Previous: RIA

ﾂｩ 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. ﾂｩ2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Terms under which this site is provided. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

↧

Isaac Asimov Asks, “How Do People Get New Ideas?”

February 5, 2016, 2:35 pm

≫ Next: Anomaly Updates

≪ Previous: News from The Associated Press

Note from Arthur Obermayer, friend of the author: In 1959, I worked as a scientist at Allied Research Associates in Boston. The company was an MIT spinoff that originally focused on the effects of nuclear weapons on aircraft structures. The company received a contract with the acronym GLIPAR (Guide Line Identification Program for Antimissile Research) from the Advanced Research Projects Agency to elicit the most creative approaches possible for a ballistic missile defense system. The government recognized that no matter how much was spent on improving and expanding current technology, it would remain inadequate. They wanted us and a few other contractors to think “out of the box.” When I first became involved in the project, I suggested that Isaac Asimov, who was a good friend of mine, would be an appropriate person to participate. He expressed his willingness and came to a few meetings. He eventually decided not to continue, because he did not want to have access to any secret classified information; it would limit his freedom of expression. Before he left, however, he wrote this essay on creativity as his single formal input. This essay was never published or used beyond our small group. When I recently rediscovered it while cleaning out some old files, I recognized that its contents are as broadly relevant today as when he wrote it. It describes not only the creative process and the nature of creative people but also the kind of environment that promotes creativity. ON CREATIVITY How do people get new ideas? Presumably, the process of creativity, whatever it is, is essentially the same in all its branches and varieties, so that the evolution of a new art form, a new gadget, a new scientific principle, all involve common factors. We are most interested in the “creation” of a new scientific principle or a new application of an old one, but we can be general here. One way of investigating the problem is to consider the great ideas of the past and see just how they were generated. Unfortunately, the method of generation is never clear even to the “generators” themselves. But what if the same earth-shaking idea occurred to two men, simultaneously and independently? Perhaps, the common factors involved would be illuminating. Consider the theory of evolution by natural selection, independently created by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. There is a great deal in common there. Both traveled to far places, observing strange species of plants and animals and the manner in which they varied from place to place. Both were keenly interested in finding an explanation for this, and both failed until each happened to read Malthus’s “Essay on Population.” Both then saw how the notion of overpopulation and weeding out (which Malthus had applied to human beings) would fit into the doctrine of evolution by natural selection (if applied to species generally). Obviously, then, what is needed is not only people with a good background in a particular field, but also people capable of making a connection between item 1 and item 2 which might not ordinarily seem connected. Undoubtedly in the first half of the 19th century, a great many naturalists had studied the manner in which species were differentiated among themselves. A great many people had read Malthus. Perhaps some both studied species and read Malthus. But what you needed was someone who studied species, read Malthus, and had the ability to make a cross-connection. That is the crucial point that is the rare characteristic that must be found. Once the cross-connection is made, it becomes obvious. Thomas H. Huxley is supposed to have exclaimed after reading On the Origin of Species, “How stupid of me not to have thought of this.” But why didn’t he think of it? The history of human thought would make it seem that there is difficulty in thinking of an idea even when all the facts are on the table. Making the cross-connection requires a certain daring. It must, for any cross-connection that does not require daring is performed at once by many and develops not as a “new idea,” but as a mere “corollary of an old idea.” It is only afterward that a new idea seems reasonable. To begin with, it usually seems unreasonable. It seems the height of unreason to suppose the earth was round instead of flat, or that it moved instead of the sun, or that objects required a force to stop them when in motion, instead of a force to keep them moving, and so on. A person willing to fly in the face of reason, authority, and common sense must be a person of considerable self-assurance. Since he occurs only rarely, he must seem eccentric (in at least that respect) to the rest of us. A person eccentric in one respect is often eccentric in others. Consequently, the person who is most likely to get new ideas is a person of good background in the field of interest and one who is unconventional in his habits. (To be a crackpot is not, however, enough in itself.) Once you have the people you want, the next question is: Do you want to bring them together so that they may discuss the problem mutually, or should you inform each of the problem and allow them to work in isolation? My feeling is that as far as creativity is concerned, isolation is required. The creative person is, in any case, continually working at it. His mind is shuffling his information at all times, even when he is not conscious of it. (The famous example of Kekule working out the structure of benzene in his sleep is well-known.) The presence of others can only inhibit this process, since creation is embarrassing. For every new good idea you have, there are a hundred, ten thousand foolish ones, which you naturally do not care to display. Nevertheless, a meeting of such people may be desirable for reasons other than the act of creation itself. No two people exactly duplicate each other’s mental stores of items. One person may know A and not B, another may know B and not A, and either knowing A and B, both may get the idea—though not necessarily at once or even soon. Furthermore, the information may not only be of individual items A and B, but even of combinations such as A-B, which in themselves are not significant. However, if one person mentions the unusual combination of A-B and another the unusual combination A-C, it may well be that the combination A-B-C, which neither has thought of separately, may yield an answer. It seems to me then that the purpose of cerebration sessions is not to think up new ideas but to educate the participants in facts and fact-combinations, in theories and vagrant thoughts. But how to persuade creative people to do so? First and foremost, there must be ease, relaxation, and a general sense of permissiveness. The world in general disapproves of creativity, and to be creative in public is particularly bad. Even to speculate in public is rather worrisome. The individuals must, therefore, have the feeling that the others won’t object. If a single individual present is unsympathetic to the foolishness that would be bound to go on at such a session, the others would freeze. The unsympathetic individual may be a gold mine of information, but the harm he does will more than compensate for that. It seems necessary to me, then, that all people at a session be willing to sound foolish and listen to others sound foolish. If a single individual present has a much greater reputation than the others, or is more articulate, or has a distinctly more commanding personality, he may well take over the conference and reduce the rest to little more than passive obedience. The individual may himself be extremely useful, but he might as well be put to work solo, for he is neutralizing the rest. The optimum number of the group would probably not be very high. I should guess that no more than five would be wanted. A larger group might have a larger total supply of information, but there would be the tension of waiting to speak, which can be very frustrating. It would probably be better to have a number of sessions at which the people attending would vary, rather than one session including them all. (This would involve a certain repetition, but even repetition is not in itself undesirable. It is not what people say at these conferences, but what they inspire in each other later on.) For best purposes, there should be a feeling of informality. Joviality, the use of first names, joking, relaxed kidding are, I think, of the essence—not in themselves, but because they encourage a willingness to be involved in the folly of creativeness. For this purpose I think a meeting in someone’s home or over a dinner table at some restaurant is perhaps more useful than one in a conference room. Probably more inhibiting than anything else is a feeling of responsibility. The great ideas of the ages have come from people who weren’t paid to have great ideas, but were paid to be teachers or patent clerks or petty officials, or were not paid at all. The great ideas came as side issues. To feel guilty because one has not earned one’s salary because one has not had a great idea is the surest way, it seems to me, of making it certain that no great idea will come in the next time either. Yet your company is conducting this cerebration program on government money. To think of congressmen or the general public hearing about scientists fooling around, boondoggling, telling dirty jokes, perhaps, at government expense, is to break into a cold sweat. In fact, the average scientist has enough public conscience not to want to feel he is doing this even if no one finds out. I would suggest that members at a cerebration session be given sinecure tasks to do—short reports to write, or summaries of their conclusions, or brief answers to suggested problems—and be paid for that, the payment being the fee that would ordinarily be paid for the cerebration session. The cerebration session would then be officially unpaid-for and that, too, would allow considerable relaxation. I do not think that cerebration sessions can be left unguided. There must be someone in charge who plays a role equivalent to that of a psychoanalyst. A psychoanalyst, as I understand it, by asking the right questions (and except for that interfering as little as possible), gets the patient himself to discuss his past life in such a way as to elicit new understanding of it in his own eyes. In the same way, a session-arbiter will have to sit there, stirring up the animals, asking the shrewd question, making the necessary comment, bringing them gently back to the point. Since the arbiter will not know which question is shrewd, which comment necessary, and what the point is, his will not be an easy job. As for “gadgets” designed to elicit creativity, I think these should arise out of the bull sessions themselves. If thoroughly relaxed, free of responsibility, discussing something of interest, and being by nature unconventional, the participants themselves will create devices to stimulate discussion. Published with permission of Asimov Holdings.

↧

Anomaly Updates

September 2, 2016, 11:22 pm

≫ Next: How the FBI polices do-it-yourself biology labs

≪ Previous: Isaac Asimov Asks, “How Do People Get New Ideas?”

Below are updates regarding the anomaly that occurred in preparation for the AMOS-6 mission: September 2, 6:45pm EDT SpaceX has begun the careful and deliberate process of understanding the causes and fixes for yesterday's incident. We will continue to provide regular updates on our progress and findings, to the fullest extent we can share publicly. We deeply regret the loss of AMOS-6, and safely and reliably returning to flight to meet the demands of our customers is our chief priority. SpaceX's business is robust, with approximately 70 missions on our manifest worth over $10 billion. In the aftermath of yesterday's events, we are grateful for the continued support and unwavering confidence that our commercial customers as well as NASA and the United States Air Force have placed in us. Overview of the incident: - Yesterday, at SpaceX's Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, an anomaly took place about eight minutes in advance of a scheduled test firing of a Falcon 9 rocket. - The anomaly on the pad resulted in the loss of the vehicle. This was part of a standard pre-launch static fire to demonstrate the health of the vehicle prior to an eventual launch. At the time of the loss, the launch vehicle was vertical and in the process of being fueled for the test. At this time, the data indicates the anomaly originated around the upper stage liquid oxygen tank. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad. There were no injuries. To identify the root cause of the anomaly, SpaceX began its investigation immediately after the loss, consistent with accident investigation plans prepared for such a contingency. These plans include the preservation of all possible evidence and the assembly of an Accident Investigation Team, with oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration and participation by NASA, the United States Air Force and other industry experts. We are currently in the early process of reviewing approximately 3000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55 milliseconds. As for the Launch Pad itself, our teams are now investigating the status of SLC-40. The pad clearly incurred damage, but the scope has yet to be fully determined. We will share more data as it becomes available. SpaceX currently operates 3 launch pads – 2 in Florida and 1 in California at Vandenberg Air Force Base. SpaceX's other launch sites were not affected by yesterday's events. Space Launch Complex 4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base is in the final stages of an operational upgrade and Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center remains on schedule to be operational in November. Both pads are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. We are confident the two launch pads can support our return to flight and fulfill our upcoming manifest needs. Again, our number one priority is to safely and reliably return to flight for our customers, as well as to take all the necessary steps to ensure the highest possible levels of safety for future crewed missions with the Falcon 9. We will carefully and thoroughly investigate and address this issue. September 2, 9:00am EDT Statement from SpaceX President and COO, Gwynne Shotwell: “We deeply regret the loss of Amos-6. Our number one priority is to safely and reliably return to flight for our customers, and we will carefully investigate and address this issue. We are grateful for the continued support that our customers have expressed to us.” September 1, 1:28pm EDT At approximately 9:07 am ET, during a standard pre-launch static fire test for the AMOS-6 mission, there was an anomaly at SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 40 resulting in loss of the vehicle. The anomaly originated around the upper stage oxygen tank and occurred during propellant loading of the vehicle. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad and there were no injuries. We are continuing to review the data to identify the root cause. Additional updates will be provided as they become available. September 1, 10:22am EDT SpaceX can confirm that in preparation for today's static fire, there was an anomaly on the pad resulting in the loss of the vehicle and its payload. Per standard procedure, the pad was clear and there were no injuries.

↧

How the FBI polices do-it-yourself biology labs

October 20, 2016, 4:04 am

≫ Next: A Semi-Automated Benchtop System to Produce Genetically Modified Stem Cells: Interview with Professor Jennifer Adair

≪ Previous: Anomaly Updates

Will garage gene-editing unleash a biological plague? Special Agent Ed You is ready if it does. by Antonio Regalado October 20, 2016 Seen something strange growing in a petri dish in a friend’s basement? Know an angry graduate student working odd hours in a pathogen lab? You might want to call Edward You. As a supervisory special agent in the weapons of mass destruction directorate in the FBI’s Washington, D.C., headquarters, You is effectively America’s top biology cop. His job: track fast-moving developments in labs and make sure they don’t lead to a bio-attack. It’s a tough assignment. Methods of engineering DNA of microӧrganisms are readily available and getting more powerful. What’s more, a new “do it yourself” movement is starting to shift genetic engineering out of large institutions and into DIY labs or people’s homes, where it’s harder to keep tabs on. People who know him say You, who joined the FBI in 2005, has stretched the boundaries of his role at the agency, influenced policy makers to look at blind spots, and has carried out a friendly, out-in-the-open campaign to infiltrate communities of “indie” biologists by getting to know them. You refers to his network of sources as a “web of detection” that allows him to learn what scientists are worried about. So far, You says, he hasn’t been in any car chases. “It is really more 911 calls about people driving recklessly” with biology, he says. You’s approach is well tailored to the problem of biological threats. Nuclear weapons can be controlled by keeping secrets or by tracking special high-speed centrifuges that turn uranium into bomb fuel. But biological expertise can’t easily be contained. The challenge is that the same germs, techniques, and skills needed to study disease can also be used as a weapon. The result: potentially dangerous technology is freely available. In February, the U.S. declared gene editing, a new way of easily modifying DNA, to be a potential weapon of mass destruction. At the same time, home kits to modify the genes of bacteria using the method, called CRISPR, are on sale online for $140. That has created the theoretical possibility an evildoer could develop a deadly designer germ, or re-create an old one like smallpox. In practice, such engineering is not simple to do, but it may be in the near future. “Barriers to entry are lower for doing something malicious, and that jeopardizes all of us,” says Nevin Summers, executive director of MIT’s Synthetic Biology Center. “The next generation of kids going into biology will have to solve some tough issues about security.” The FBI is a law enforcement and domestic intelligence agency. That means You is on the lookout more for homegrown biological Unabombers than for foreign agents. Bio-crime also remains very rare—though when it does happen, someone with scientific training is often to blame. In 1996, a laboratory technician at St. Paul Medical Center named Diane Thompson told colleagues she’d left blueberry muffins and doughnuts in the kitchen. But she’d laced them with the bacteria shigella, sending nine people to the hospital (she was sentenced to 20 years). The deadly 2001 anthrax attack through the U.S. Postal system, the FBI concluded, was carried out by a mentally disturbed military scientist. You says part of his role is to help scientists learn how to spot such “insider” threats. Attacks are often preceded by a suspect acting out, in inappropriate e-mails or outbursts, working strange hours, or using too many supplies. Yet most academic biologists, working on curing cancer or new tests, are oblivious to the warning signs. “Preventing the misuse of technology is a shared responsibility,” says You. “Now more than ever we need to have an army of white hats to be on the lookout for black hat activity.” You was in action earlier this month during SynBioBeta, a two-day conference in San Francisco that draws a mix of large companies, like DuPont, startups making lab-grown meat, and bio-hobbyists. He worked the room with handshakes and air kisses while his partner, a tattooed agent with a nose ring from the local FBI field office, handed out her card. “If there is anything you want to tell us, we can send it up to the mothership in Washington,” she told one entrepreneur. You was dressed in a blue suit, making himself known to the crowd. On the event’s second day, he showed up in an untucked shirt and ascot cap. People milled around the coffee and cookies and ogled lab equipment on display. I asked You if he came to such events armed. “We’re all special agents,” he answered ambiguously. You earned a master’s degree in molecular biology and later took a job at Amgen. Since joining the FBI he has also helped teach the government “to be less dumb” about biology, says Ken Oye, a political scientist at MIT. In 2004, the FBI showed just how poorly prepared it was when it detained a Buffalo bio-artist, Steve Kurtz, later charged under the Patriot Act, after finding bacterial cultures in his home. Touted as a big blow against bioterrorism, a judge eventually threw the case out as meritless. “There was nothing there, it was a harmless bug, and you could have licked the petri dish,” says Rob Carlson, an investor and analyst who had his own garage lab. By 2009, the bureau had changed course. It began sponsoring the International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition, an annual fair where 3,000 student teams engineer microbes. (This year, the FBI will set up a career booth.) And it courted DIY biologists, members of a counterculture movement whose projects include efforts to manufacture open-source insulin, dairy-free cheese, and other cheeky affronts to commercial biotechnology. Rather than persecute the group—which attracts its share of fringe characters—under You’s direction the FBI has lent it credibility and sometimes financial support. Sebastian Cocioba, who operates a laboratory in a spare bedroom where he lives in New York, says he has a “go-to contact” in the FBI’s regional field office. “I chime in on a regular basis to let her know what’s up,” he says. I learned how effective You’s network is while trying to learn more about him. At least one person reported my questions directly to him, part of a stream of tips from far corners of biotechnology that now flow into his D.C. office. Megan Palmer, a biosecurity scholar at Stanford University, says about twice a month she refers people to You. These have included a biotech company manager alarmed by a customer’s questions and a person from the DIY community worried by an experiment they’d heard about. “He’s the person you call when you don’t know who to call,” says Palmer. You is often the first to hear about scientists’ darkest worries. Lately some of these have been connected to the gene-editing method CRISPR, which can be used to create self-spreading gene alterations in insects or DNA-slashing viruses. He is “going all over the place and asking the right questions” says Palmer. Another security risk that You has been looking into is connected to large DNA and biological databases. The U.S. is mounting a million-person precision medicine study that will gather such data, and vast commercial troves exist already. Even though it’s not yet clear why cyber intruders might want to hack such data, You is sponsoring workshops on “safeguarding the bioeconomy” that will delve into the possible hazards. One thing the FBI hasn’t done is describe the results of its work. How many bio-threats are out there? How many get investigated? And how many originate inside government germ labs, which have a record of mishaps? Palmer says scientists also want to know how the information they provide the FBI gets used, but right now communicating with agents is a one-way street. He wouldn’t describe any of his investigations, but You admits he is pursuing bio-threats that might never materialize. “A threat implies intent, and we haven’t seen that yet,” he says. “But as things become more widely available, more widely distributed, the bar gets lower, and the possibility of an incident gets higher.” Can't be at EmTech today? We've got you covered. Read coverage Watch video

↧

A Semi-Automated Benchtop System to Produce Genetically Modified Stem Cells: Interview with Professor Jennifer Adair

November 11, 2016, 6:22 pm

≫ Next: This incredible soft robot needs no batteries or computer chips

≪ Previous: How the FBI polices do-it-yourself biology labs

Scientists at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington have developed a semi-automated benchtop system to produce clinical-grade genetically modified haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). The research was recently published in Nature Communications. Genetically modified HSCs have significant therapeutic potential for patients with bone marrow disorders. However, producing such cells so they remain contamination-free and fit for purpose usually requires cell handling and manipulation at sophisticated Good Manufacturing Practices facilities, which limits the availability of these cells. The researchers were able to use a closed, semi-automated benchtop system to produce genetically-modified HSCs in just one night and hope that such systems will increase the availability and affordability of cell therapies. Medgadget had the chance to interview the lead author on the study, Professor Jennifer Adair of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Conn Hastings, Medgadget: Can you give us a brief overview of how this technology works? Jennifer Adair, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center: This technology includes a benchtop device, several liquid components in individual packages and a disposable, closed tubing set that is mounted on the device for single-patient use. A cell product such as bone marrow or blood is collected and connected to the disposable tubing set, along with the other liquid components in a defined configuration. Using a touch screen, the user follows prompts to mount the tubing set and liquid components onto the device. The user is then prompted to initiate a program to begin processing the blood cell product. Depending on the type of blood cell product, the user might interface with the touch screen on the device to make decisions or enter additional information for the process. The whole automated process includes initial preparation of the blood cell product for target cell separation, separation of the target cells for genetic modification and the genetic modification step. For blood stem cells this process takes less than 36 hours. At the end of the process, the genetically modified cells are prepared for infusion and transferred to an infusion bag on the tubing set. Once the process is completed, the user is notified and removes the infusion bag containing the genetically modified cells from the device for transport back to the patient. The user can then dismount the tubing set and any leftover components and dispose of them. The device is immediately ready for the next patient product. Medgadget: Despite their promise, cell therapy and gene therapy have not yet achieved widespread clinical use, in large part because of safety concerns. Do genetically modified cells compound safety issues? Jennifer Adair: The safety concerns of genetically modified cells are synonymous with the safety concerns of gene therapy. While earlier clinical trials raised safety concerns for genetically modified cells, especially in the context of inherited blood diseases such as X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (X-SCID), the risk-to-benefit ratio for these patients favors gene therapy. Building on the lessons learned from those trials, we now have adjusted the tools we use in genetic modification to address these safety concerns. There are numerous clinical trials applying these adjustments in genetically modified cells for various diseases including X-SCID which have not raised safety concerns in hundreds of treated patients to date. Medgadget: How does the system compare with conventional methods to produce clinical-grade cell therapies? Jennifer Adair: We were able to show that our system results in cell products which meet the same criteria as conventionally produced cell products for use in patients. Many of the components used to manufacture clinical-grade cell therapies are the same in this system as they are in the conventional methods. The major difference is that the technology in our approach is dramatically more compact and requires less infrastructure than the current Good Manufacturing Practices clean room facility. Some other differences include physical and chemical components that are typically used in the conventional method but that we removed from this system. For example, we no longer use individual bags or flasks to culture cells in this system. Instead we use a disposable chamber and tubing. In the conventional approach, most processes require the bags or flasks to be coated with a protein prior to gene modification. We have also removed this protein-coating from the current system. Medgadget: Could the system be applied in a point-of-care situation, to treat a patient with their own cells? Jennifer Adair: Yes, we believe it could be applied in a point-of-care approach, and that is our goal. Cell therapy and gene therapy need to be available worldwide, and many nations could not support the current infrastructure necessary for such treatments. We hope that our work can help to offer a solution. Medgadget: Are there any plans to trial the cells produced by the system in humans, to validate their safety and therapeutic potential? Jennifer Adair: Yes. We are testing this technology in a clinical trial of gene therapy for an inherited disease called Fanconi anemia. We hope to expand its use into clinical trials of other gene therapies in the next few years. Medgadget: Do you think that benchtop technologies such as this can play a role in a more widespread use of cell therapies? Jennifer Adair: Absolutely. While the point-of-care approach is our ultimate goal, more immediately this technology could be used in commercial manufacturing to scale up production, permitting more patients to be treated. It also could increase the number of researchers who can investigate and study these therapies. Right now, there are only a dozen or so research centers worldwide that have the technology and staffing to produce such cells. Our approach could change that. Study in Nature Communications: Semi-automated closed system manufacturing of lentivirus gene-modified haematopoietic stem cells for gene therapy

↧

This incredible soft robot needs no batteries or computer chips

December 9, 2016, 3:14 pm

≫ Next: EFF's full-page Wired ad: Dear tech, delete your logs before it's too late

≪ Previous: A Semi-Automated Benchtop System to Produce Genetically Modified Stem Cells: Interview with Professor Jennifer Adair

Researchers use an ingenious design to make a soft robot that moves on its own. by Julia Sklar December 8, 2016 The “octobot” is a squishy little robot that fits in the palm of your hand and looks like something in a goody bag from a child’s birthday party. But despite its quirky name and diminutive size, this bot represents an astonishing advance in robotics. According to the Harvard researchers who created it, it’s the first soft robot that is completely self-contained. It has no hard electronic components—no batteries or computer chips—and moves without being tethered to a computer. The octobot is basically a pneumatic tube with a very cute exterior. To make it move, hydrogen peroxide—much more concentrated than the kind in your medicine cabinet—is pumped into two reservoirs inside the middle of the octobot’s body. Pressure pushes the liquid through tubes inside the body, where it eventually hits a line of platinum, catalyzing a reaction that produces a gas. From there, the gas expands and moves through a tiny chip known as a microfluidic controller. It alternately directs the gas down one half of the octobot’s tentacles at a time. The alternating release of gas is what makes the bot do what looks like a little dance, wiggling its tentacles up and down and moving around in the process. The octobot can move for about eight minutes on one milliliter of fuel. So how do you even build something like this? “You have to make all the parts yourself,” says Ryan Truby, a graduate student in Jennifer Lewis’s lab at Harvard, where the materials half of this research is taking place. The mold for the octopus shape and the microfluidic chip were among the things developed nearby in Robert Woods’s lab. The octobot is made out of materials that most microfluidics labs have on hand. But it took the researchers 300 tries to get the recipe right. First they place a microfluidic chip in an empty, custom-made octopus mold. Then they pour a silicone mixture into the mold, covering the chip. After they use a 3-D printer to inject lines of ink into the silicone, they bake it for four days. This seals the shape of the octobot and makes one of the inks evaporate, leaving behind hollow vessels through which the pressurized gas will flow. Still missing are sensing and programming abilities that would afford more control over the robot’s movement. But the octobot is purposefully minimalist, meant just to show that such a soft robot can be made at all. Learn more about robotics at EmTech Digital 2017. Register now

↧

EFF's full-page Wired ad: Dear tech, delete your logs before it's too late

December 20, 2016, 4:42 am

≫ Next: We Take a Walk in Hyundai’s Iron Man-Inspired Exoskeleton

≪ Previous: This incredible soft robot needs no batteries or computer chips

EFF has run a full-page ad in this month's Wired, addressed to the technology industry, under the banner "Your threat model just changed," warning them that the incoming administration has vowed to spy on and deport millions of their fellow Americans on the basis of religion and race, and that they are in grave risk of having their services conscripted to help with this effort. (Trump is also an avowed opponent of net neutrality) report this ad It’s time to unite in defense of users. [EFF] report this ad

↧

We Take a Walk in Hyundai’s Iron Man-Inspired Exoskeleton

December 21, 2016, 12:34 pm

≫ Next: First-time VR users open a new reality on Christmas and start freaking out

≪ Previous: EFF's full-page Wired ad: Dear tech, delete your logs before it's too late

Hyundai is best known for reasonably priced, reasonably good cars. But the Korean automaker wants to show it’s as ready as anyone for a changing transportation landscape. It’s not just working on electric and autonomous cars—everyone’s doing that. It’s taking mobility to new places—by building exoskeletons. Yes, Hyundai has made a line of robotic suits to help paraplegic patients walk, and to reduce back injuries in manual laborers. It may seem a strange move, but Hyundai researchers say that although autonomous cars hold the promise of giving back some freedom to people who can’t drive, they’re not much use if an aging global population can’t get to the curb first. A robotic suit could help, and there’s overlap in the sensors and software both need to operate safely. To see what these suits are all about, we strapped one on and flexed our new, electric muscles, in the video above. Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.

↧

First-time VR users open a new reality on Christmas and start freaking out

December 25, 2016, 11:55 pm

≫ Next: Why the Latest AI Wave Will Gain Momentum in the Coming Year

≪ Previous: We Take a Walk in Hyundai’s Iron Man-Inspired Exoskeleton

The year 2016 may have been the year when virtual reality didn't quite hit the mainstream, but that's mostly because most people didn't have a VR headset. That all changed on Sunday, as so many woke up on Christmas morning to discover a VR headset under the tree. SEE ALSO: Oculus Medium hands-on: Now everyone gets to be a 3D artist The signs were all there: Best Buy and Amazon have been sold out of the Oculus Touch controllers for over a week, and a lot of chatter on social media involved hopes of possibly getting one of the major VR systems such as the HTC Vive, Oculus Rift and the Sony PlayStation VR (PSVR). Not everyone got their wish, with many instead getting cheaper, less immersive versions of smartphone-dependent VR headsets like the Samsung Gear VR, Google Daydream View and a wide array of low-end headsets being sold at Walmart for under $50. Nevertheless, whether it's a full Oculus Touch-enabled system or a much lesser device, the reactions of first time VR users have been priceless. And finally, now that you know how not react to VR (at least when there are cameras around) here's the proper way to react when someone gives you the give of VR.

↧

Why the Latest AI Wave Will Gain Momentum in the Coming Year

December 26, 2016, 4:05 pm

≫ Next: 11 technologies to watch in 2017

≪ Previous: First-time VR users open a new reality on Christmas and start freaking out

It can read lips and create new food recipes. It can win at chess, Jeopardy and the game Go. Every major technology company appears to be integrating it into how they organize and operate their business. And it seems like just about every new app in existence claims its software uses some sort of machine learning to make life even better. Artificial intelligence is splashed across headlines like never before. The AI revolution is here, and the most obvious question to ask as 2016 draws to an end is: what’s next? We recently asked James Hendler this question. Hendler is director of the Rensselaer Institute for Data Exploration and Applications and one of the developers of the semantic web. He recently co-wrote, with Alice M. Mulvehill, the book Social Machines: The Coming Collision of Artificial Intelligence, Social Networking, and Humanity. The book is less about predictions and more about setting expectations about what AI can and can’t do. The problem, as Hendler sees it, is that many people view AI with Terminator trepidation or as a utopian dream, while completely taking humanity out of the equation. “People want to paint this technology in black and white,” he explains. “It needs humans in the loop, and humans are better at dealing with the grays.” To borrow a slightly used political slogan: we—humans and AI—are stronger together. That’s Hendler’s a priori when discussing the future of artificial intelligence. “I think the thing that excites me short-term is how much of AI technology [is being] made accessible at a much simpler level for programmers to use. It’s no longer a specialist thing,” Hendler says. A class he is currently teaching on AI cognitive computing illustrates this point. Undergraduates are doing projects, like creating a chatbot able to answer questions about the Harry Potter universe, in a matter of weeks. A few years ago, such a feat would have been fodder for a PhD thesis. What’s changed? It’s no longer necessary to build deep learning, computer vision or natural language components from scratch. Just download an open source package and integrate it into your system with some tweaking. It’s a bit like playing with WordPress, though Hendler prefers to talk about the nascent days of the internet. In the early 1990s, with some basic understanding of HTML, it was possible to build a website thanks to a sort of pre-packaged code that could be installed on a machine. “AI has been packaged in a usable way,” Hendler says. “[It’s] more like putting the pieces together and finding what works than doing the basic research into what those components are, at least for the more applied side to the technology space.” In the short term, Hendler says, that opens up the game to players of all sizes. “We’re going to see a huge amount of innovation in small companies using existing techniques for deep learning, vision and language tasks,” he says. “The heavyweights—Microsoft, Google, Facebook—will invest heavily in the technology they do but in new directions.” Meanwhile, academia and government will continue to play roles in the evolution of AI-related technologies. Hendler uses the example of autonomous vehicles, first developed by universities like Stanford to win the DARPA Grand Challenge. Google then further matured the technology. Now it seems every car company on the planet is working to put robotic cars on the road. While there is still a need to develop new AI technologies to solve problems, Hendler says the near-term focus will be on the sorts of business cases that can be made with existing tools. “I think that kind of innovation is where you see entrepreneurs and startups starting to focus now. I think we’re going to see a tremendous amount of that,” Hendler says. And what might the casual technology user see from AI in 2017 and beyond? In this case, more may mean less, as technology slips seamlessly into the background. “It’s not going to be as obvious as you buy something and the whole world is different,” Hendler says. Take Siri, Apple’s ubiquitous virtual assistant. Siri’s competence at performing increasingly complex tasks is constantly improving, but it still (and often) defaults back to a web search for the answer. One day not too far into the future, one could imagine asking Siri or one of her counterparts a question like, “Show me a photo of my kids from lunch today,” and the machine quickly and correctly pulling out the results. In fact, we see some of the startups Hendler mentions already on the cusp of such achievements. A company called Snips uses an AI technique called "context aware" to build a sort of memory, almost an alter ego, on a user’s mobile device, by sorting through data like contacts, emails, calendars, photos and so on. It learns what is important in the user’s life over time, serving as the single portal to all the apps and information stored on the device. “It’s about using this artificial intelligence to make technology disappear in a way that you can just go about your day and not care about it anymore,” says Rand Hindi, CEO and founder of Snips, during a TEDx talk in 2015. Of course, these are developed world problems—making technology disappear. Hendler is optimistic that projects to improve conditions in developing countries will involve the appearance of AI in the near future. In particular, he and others are working with IBM to bring literacy to one billion people in the next five years. “You’re talking about being able to significantly change the lives of huge amounts of people, especially in countries where literacy rates are currently low,” he says. “That’s where those people will see technology suddenly come into their lives in a way it never has before.” Upheavals and massive disruptions—both good and bad—are ahead in a world increasingly powered by artificial intelligence and related technologies. On one side of the argument are people like the 1.8 million truck drivers who could feasibly be put out of work in less than a generation by self-driving vehicles. On the flip side are the potential savings in industries like medicine, where AI is already being employed on a large scale with IBM’s Watson, the poster child—computer—for those high-tech services. Consider that health care accounts for 17.5 percent of US GDP, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Hendler says government needs to be involved to help manage these changes without setting up roadblocks to innovation. Education will be key to the AI revolution, he maintains, so people will understand where computers excel and where they struggle. “That’s where we need people to be smarter, and for technical people to help policy makers to understand those differences and where they lie,” he says. “It’s understanding those differences that will be so important.” Banner Image Credit: Rob Bulmahn/Flickr

↧

11 technologies to watch in 2017

December 27, 2016, 2:52 pm

≫ Next: Engineers built a tiny robot that can jump four times its height and spring off walls

≪ Previous: Why the Latest AI Wave Will Gain Momentum in the Coming Year

Much like The Force, technology surrounds us, penetrates us and binds together our galaxy, which is why it’s so hard to identify which technologies might have the most significant impact in the coming year. SEE ALSO: What you should expect from the iPhone in 2017 What we can count on in 2017 is that a myriad of innovations will arrive. Some will alter our lives with the tectonic force of an earthquake. Other will sneak in quietly and change things in gentle, almost unnoticeable ways. My goal here is to focus on the technologies that will undergo the most significant change and have the biggest impact on our lives. As I predicted a year ago, virtual reality saw significant growth, improvement and visibility in 2016. It did not, however, transform society. VR will remain among the most important developing technologies in the coming year, but 2017 will mark the beginning of its transition from a curiosity into a tangible tool for enhancing otherwise mundane activities. Expect, for example, fewer hardware introductions, but more integration with existing platforms. 2017 will be the year people get social in VR. Facebook made some big promises and offered some eye-popping demonstrations in 2016 during its annual F8 developers conference (VR selfie sticks, anyone?). If you (and your Facebook friends) own even the most basic VR hardware, Facebook should have a big upgrade for you in the new year. Also, keep your eyes open for an explosion of consumer content (more games, full-length movies, TV shows and concerts) and, better yet, VR art. While VR spreads its wings, augmented reality will be 2017’s true star. Microsoft’s mixed reality platform Windows Holographic, which recently had a big hardware infusion, will mean new mixed reality experiences for Windows users. This should also be the year Apple finally dips its toe into AR (nope, not VR). Augmented reality will win over VR next year because it will arrive through mobile devices and without the need for additional hardware. Initial experiences through existing mobile handsets will help drive those purchases of new AR headsets, with, especially as consumer and businesses look for a slightly more immersive and hands-free version of augmented reality. In case you’re wondering what you’ll do with AR, it will continue to enhance games, toys (the Star Wars toy line has done great things with AR this year), work and retail. This may even be the year we see a shipping version of Magic Leap, assuming it wasn’t all just a big load of hype. In 2017, you might be enjoying a lot of that AR and VR on a new 4K smartphone screen. As the trajectory of HDTV technology flatlined over the last few years (no one really cares about curved screens or 3D, and “bigger” does not count as innovation), display manufactures have turned their attention to transforming the screens that are with us almost 24/7. OLED screens should help 2017’s smartphones get thinner and more battery-efficient than ever. UHD screens arrived on smartphones back in 2015 (thanks, Sony! sort of), but haven’t expanded much beyond that. That will change in 2017. The big question is, can we even tell the difference between full HD (1080p) and UHD on a screen that small? Why will it matter in 2017? See the first tech I mentioned. Consumers will be sliding more of their smartphones into VR headsets next year. When the screen is that close and magnified, the higher the resolution, the better. There’s also been a lot of talk about folding screens. We know a rollable display is possible, but don’t expect any kind of flexible smartphone display in 2017 until manufacturers like LG, Samsung, and Apple can figure out how to make designs practical for consumers. Thinner will win over flexible for the foreseeable future. Few technologies have been as interesting to watch as Artificial Intelligence. 2016 was the year that regular people got familiar with machine .earning and consumers had multiple digital voice assistants to choose from. There will be more AI hardware competition in 2017. Microsoft will probably introduce a Cortana device and maybe (just maybe) Apple will find a new kitchen-friendly hardware home for Siri. AI, though, will also be the most-under-the-hood technology with the biggest impact on virtually everything we do. Increasingly, you will find it powering software and services of all kinds. And AI will just keep getting smarter. Every year I say a little prayer: let this be the year that I finally get my C-3PO and every year, I’m disappointed. There are humanoid and animal robots in our world, including Pepper, Asimo, Boston Robotics' menagerie, but none of them are heading into our homes anytime soon. 2017, though, might be the breakout year for human-enhancement robotics — exoskeletons and some of the most cutting-edge prosthesis we’ve ever seen. The exoskeletons will focus on helping people walk again, stand for long periods of time and lift heavy loads. Iron Man, here we come. 2016 proved that if you're not very very careful in how you manufacture batteries and the technology surrounding them, things can go very very wrong. In 2017, there’ll be renewed focus on increasing the safety and longevity of lithium-ion technology. We may even see a trial run of lithium metal battery technology. It’s been another 12 months of bad news on the data breach front. Humans (and businesses) simply can’t be trusted to protect their own privacy with uncrackable security and decent passwords. For years, fingerprint technology was reserved for business-class systems. Fingerprint readers on our smartphones have been a first step in broad consumerization of biometric security. The introduction of facial recognition on computers (Windows Hello) and Touch ID on MacBook Pros is a sign that the password is loosening its death grip on our personal privacy. 2017 may be biometric security’s breakout year. We’ll uses our fingers, faces, eyes, heartbeats and even activity patterns to unlock technology and protect our finances and privacy. By 2018, anyone who doesn’t use a body part to unlock technology will be viewed as a reckless oddball. Encryption will continue its spread throughout mobile and communication technology, even as the incoming administration pressures companies to break into devices as law enforcement’s request. Will there be a very public battle about backdoor technologies in 2017? Probably. Self-driving cars are increasingly becoming a feature of everyday life. In 2017, we’ll see more autonomous people-mover style solutions (think minivans and buses) and a cascade of deregulation across the country. By the end of the year, most states will be autonomous-vehicle-friendly. 2017 may also be the year we finally see Elon Musk’s near-supersonic travel dream become real or at least tested in the real world when Hyperloop One runs its first, full test of the tube-based transportation system (assuming the company doesn’t implode before then). The currency of technology is data and its collection and application will be no less important in the coming year. With so many questions about fake news and facts, data may be the key to identifying the truth in a field of uncertainty. Expect some smart companies with interesting ideas about how to use the mountains of data, programming and machine learning to finally separate fact from fiction is a clinical and incontrovertible way. With so many personal broadcast options out there 2017 will see an explosion of personal broadcast hardware. Think Snapchat Spectacles are cool (yes, we know they don't exactly stream content)? Expect other social media and consumer electronics companies to start delivering wearable broadcast products that elevate the wearable fashion game while minimizing the “Are you recording me?!” creep factor. Smartwatches will continue their slow expansion next year, but 2017 should, finally, be the year of truly wearable technology. Clothes, coat, shoes, socks, underwear, bras and more will get a deep tech infusions, especially if Google's Project Jacquard and other smart textile innovations can migrate from the lab to retail rack. You’ll have to get used to putting on and plugging in your clothing.

↧

Engineers built a tiny robot that can jump four times its height and spring off walls

December 28, 2016, 5:48 pm

≫ Next: IBM is working on a robot that takes care of elderly people who live alone

≪ Previous: 11 technologies to watch in 2017

Few robots can jump with the agility of Salto. The robot was designed and built this year by engineers at UC Berkeley to navigate rough terrain in search and rescue missions. It was modeled after the African primate, galago, which has a unique ability to take a series of high jumps in a row. Watch the video above to see Salto in action.

↧

IBM is working on a robot that takes care of elderly people who live alone

December 28, 2016, 6:14 pm

≫ Next: 'Rewired' cells could use custom powers against cancer

≪ Previous: Engineers built a tiny robot that can jump four times its height and spring off walls

Fifty-year-olds, take notice: In a few decades you might have a robot roommate taking care of you. In conjunction with Rice University, IBM is developing a series of sensors that can someday live inside a robot interface to help senior citizens stay safe. Susanne Keohane, senior technologist at IBM Research, says the project addresses a growing need for technology that helps aging populations preserve both their independence and their overall health, while also avoiding disruption in their daily lives. "If you slap an Apple Watch on an 88-year-old, that's not feasible for most 88-year-olds," Keohane tells Business Insider. "That's just not in their world." Keohane says technology must be wholly intuitive for senior citizens to use it on a regular basis. As designers say, it must be "frictionless." IBM has tried to achieve that goal by developing sensors that detect changes in motion, scent, and audio, all of which could indicate a potentially dangerous scenario for elders living alone. The prototype robot for this solution is the IBM Multi-Purpose Eldercare Robot Assistant (IBM MERA), which the company has been testing at its "Aging in Place" lab based in Austin, Texas. The lab was designed to mimic experiences seniors have in their own home. Sensors can detect when the stove's burners are on, or when a person has fallen down. Even in its prototype stage, MERA is equipped with cameras to read facial expressions, sensors to capture vital signs, and Watson-powered speech recognition to know when to call for help. MERA isn't available to consumers yet. Keohane says the company still has a lot of research to do before it begins to think about bringing the robot to market. IBM also wants the robot to enter each person's home already chock-full of important information, and to do that requires collecting it first. "In the near-term, it would be more of the ambient sensors in the home starting to gather all of this data," Keohane says. Then a robot could come in and download those batches of data to "learn" about its resident. Keohane suspects a country like Japan, where aging has become a national concern, will be the first to adopt such a robot (in fact, robots for the elderly are already popping up there). For the first time since data was collected in 1899, Japan saw fewer than 1 million births in 2016. Meanwhile, the country has millions of seniors, 65,000 of whom over the age of 100. Where young people are missing, robots could step in to save the day.

↧

'Rewired' cells could use custom powers against cancer

December 28, 2016, 8:17 pm

≫ Next: Inside the sprawling robot-infested warehouse that powers the world’s largest online grocery store

≪ Previous: IBM is working on a robot that takes care of elderly people who live alone

Synthetic biologists have developed a general method for “rewiring” immune cells to reverse cancer’s suppression of the immune system. “Right now, one of the most promising frontiers in cancer treatment is immunotherapy—harnessing the immune system to combat a wide range of cancers,” says lead author Joshua N. Leonard, associate professor of chemical and biological engineering at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering. “The simple cell rewiring we’ve done ultimately could help overcome immunosuppression at the tumor site…” “The simple cell rewiring we’ve done ultimately could help overcome immunosuppression at the tumor site, one of the most intransigent barriers to making progress in this field.” When cancer is present, molecules secreted at tumor sites render many immune cells inactive. The researchers genetically engineered human immune cells to sense the tumor-derived molecules in the immediate environment and to respond by becoming more active, not less. This customized function, which is not observed in nature, is clinically attractive and relevant to cancer immunotherapy. The general approach for rewiring cellular input and output functions should be useful in fighting other diseases, not just cancer. Algorithm learns to tell apart types of cancer cells “This work is motivated by clinical observations, in which we may know why something goes wrong in the body, and how this may be corrected, but we lack the tools to translate those insights into a therapy,” says Leonard, a member of Northwestern’s Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center. “With the technology we have developed, we can first imagine a cell function we wish existed, and then our approach enables us to build—by design—a cell that carries out that function.” Currently, scientists and engineers lack the ability to program cells to exhibit all the functions that, from a clinical standpoint, physicians might wish them to exhibit, such as becoming active only when next to a tumor. This study addresses that gap, Leonard says. The study, published in the journal Nature Chemical Biology, provides details of the first synthetic biology technology enabling researchers to rewire how mammalian cells sense and respond to a broad class of physiologically relevant cues. Cancer’s metabolism might be a way to kill it Starting with human T cells in culture, the research team genetically engineered changes in the cells’ input and output, including adding a sensing mode, and built a cell that is relevant to cancer immunotherapy. Specifically, the engineered cells sense vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a protein found in tumors that directly manipulates and in some ways suppresses the immune response. When the rewired cells sense VEGF in their environment, these cells, instead of being suppressed, respond by secreting interleukin 2 (IL-2), a protein that stimulates nearby immune cells to become activated specifically at that site. Normal unmodified T cells do not produce IL-2 when exposed to VEGF, so the engineered behavior is both useful and novel. This work took place in cells in culture, and the technology next will be tested in animal studies. While Leonard’s team has initially focused on the application of this cell programming technology to enabling cancer immunotherapy, it can be readily extended to distinct cellular engineering goals and therapeutic applications. Leonard’s “parts” are also intentionally modular, such that they can be combined with other synthetic biology innovations to write more sophisticated cellular programs. “To truly accelerate the rate at which we can translate scientific insights into treatments, we need technologies that let us rapidly try out new ideas, in this case by building living cells that manifest a desired biological function,” says Leonard, who also is a founding member of the Center for Synthetic Biology and a member of the Chemistry of Life Processes Institute. “Our technology also provides a powerful new tool for fundamental research, enabling biologists to test otherwise untestable theories about how cells coordinate their functions in complex, multicellular organisms,” he says. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and a Cancer Center Support Grant supported the research. Source: Northwestern University

↧

Inside the sprawling robot-infested warehouse that powers the world’s largest online grocery store

December 29, 2016, 5:05 am

≫ Next: 4 ways Industry 4.0 will look different in the coming year

≪ Previous: 'Rewired' cells could use custom powers against cancer

Swarm robotics, autonomous delivery vehicles, and machine-learned preferences will help deliver your food faster. Reporting by Jamie Condliffe December 29, 2016 Most people don’t buy a jar of relish every week. But when they decide to buy one from Ocado—the world’s largest online-only grocery retailer—they don’t have to scrabble at the back of the store. Instead, they call on robots and artificial intelligence to have it delivered to their door. Ocado claims that its 350,000-square-foot warehouse in Dorden, near the U.K.’s second city of Birmingham, is more heavily automated than Amazon’s warehouse facilities. The company’s task is certainly more challenging in many respects: most of the 48,000 lines of goods that it sells are perishable, and many must be chilled or frozen. Some, such as sushi, must be delivered on the same day they arrive in the warehouse. That turns storing, picking, and shipping items into a complex, time-constrained optimization problem. But in order for Ocado to grow and turn a profit—which it does, despite a crowded U.K. grocery market—it has to make every step as efficient as possible. Currently, when a customer orders groceries via Ocado’s website, large plastic crates are swiftly filled. The containers are packed by hand, but little legwork is required: 30 kilometers of conveyor belts at the Dorden warehouse carry empty boxes straight to people who work as pickers. They grab items from shelves that are replenished by robots, or from boxes brought out of storage via cranes and conveyors. Ocado’s algorithms monitor demand for products and use the information to map out an optimal storage scheme, so that popular items are always within easy reach. Once an order is packed, it’s hauled off in a large truck and taken to a distribution center to be loaded into a van. Each van then embarks on a delivery route that can be carefully optimized according to factors such as customer time preferences, traffic, and even weather. But Ocado wants to be faster. “Fractions of a second in our business count,” says Paul Clarke, Ocado’s chief technology officer. “It's all about how we can shave the next little bit off our process.” So its third warehouse—currently in live trials near Andover, west of London—is being designed from scratch. Its main floor is laid out in giant grid about the size of a football field, split into washing-machine-size squares. Beneath each square is a vertical stack of five crates of groceries. On the surface of the grid are up to 1,000 robots, each able to lift crates from below. The robots scuttle around, passing within centimeters of each other, at up to nine miles per hour . Orders relayed via a specially designed 4G network instruct the robots to grab crates and shuttle them to the edge of the grid, where pickers can grab the needed products. The robots work as a swarm: if the required product is four crates down in a stack, say, several can remove boxes to open the way. The Andover warehouse, which is likely to enter full service in 2017, is a trial for an even larger facility in Erith, just outside London, which will begin construction next year. Its storage area will be three times the size. That means working out where to store goods and retrieve them, using thousands of robots, is incredibly complex. Clarke says that the computational demands of this optimization problem are bearable, but he adds that the company is investing in GPU-based systems and keeping a watchful eye on quantum computing for the future. Ocado is working on robotics that could one day pick orders from the crates carried by its swarm of robots, but that’s difficult, thanks to the wide variation in the shape of groceries—from, say, a bag of oranges to a bottle of wine. As a result, Clarke says, humans will be involved for the foreseeable future. He’s similarly restrained about automation of the delivery process. While the company is already in discussions with the University of Oxford’s self-driving-vehicle spinout Oxbotica—though it won’t say about exactly what—Clarke says many customers will continue to prefer a human to deliver their order, even if autonomous vehicles make it possible for robots to take over the job. Still, Ocado’s business is by nature one in which robots will ultimately be preferable to humans. When pushed on the impact of automation on employment, Clarke is bullish. He insists that it’s a “game that is going to play out regardless,” adding that “this is happening on a world stage … if we as a U.K. business don’t continue to get better using automation, somebody else will, and we’re determined not to let that happen.” The customer experience, meanwhile, will benefit from AI systems being built by Ocado’s developers. “With more data comes greater intelligence—because that’s the food of machine learning,” says Clarke. The company uses machine learning to spot missing items in a shop, populate a basket of groceries on the basis of learned preferences, and even suggest versions of products that are lower in salt or sugar. Over time, Ocado plans to streamline the ordering process as far as it possibly can. Clarke suggests that the company could acquire consumption data from your smart fridge, listen to what recipes you’re talking about via a smart assistant like Amazon’s Alexa, and even mine your calendar for data so it knows you’ll be cooking for friends next weekend. Ultimately, he says, it would like for “the right groceries to turn up, at the right time, as if by magic, without you even having to ask for them.” It’s not the only company asking food shoppers to sacrifice anonymity for convenience. Amazon’s new Go convenience store, for instance, allows shoppers to scan their phone, pick up food from the shelf, and walk straight out, paying later because the company knows just what they took. Still, if customers can stomach the loss of privacy, Ocado offers something valuable in return. “We can free people up,” says Clarke, “so that they have more time to experiment and experience the delight of food.” Learn more about machine learning at EmTech Digital 2017. Register now

↧

4 ways Industry 4.0 will look different in the coming year

January 1, 2017, 11:38 pm

≫ Next: Japanese white-collar workers are already being replaced by artificial intelligence

≪ Previous: Inside the sprawling robot-infested warehouse that powers the world’s largest online grocery store

It’s been a big year for Industrial IoT — or Industry 4.0 — as both long-term established companies and start-ups have worked to find solutions to problems that have plagued traditional workplaces for many years. Underlying aims have included increased efficiency, improved supply chains, reduced waste and greater safety and speed. Amidst an advancing ecosystem of interconnectivity, initiatives such as robotics, wearable technology, 3D imaging, AR and smart shipping processes have led the way. Let’s take a look: The notion of robotics in factories and warehouses is often viewed in the first instance as a replacement to human labor without due consideration that robotics and automated processes have been a feature of large-scale workplaces since their creation. The use of robotics can increase efficiency, decrease strenuous workplace roles, improve the supply chain and reduce wastage. An example is InVia Robotics, a company that this year launched the world’s first “goods-to-box” robotics system, which was created to transform the fulfillment and material handling operations of e-commerce providers and warehouses. As CEO Lior Elazary explained: “E-commerce is booming, but retailers are struggling to keep up with consumer demand, due to rising price pressures, increasing expectations for faster delivery and a shortage of warehouse labor. For decades, the man-to-goods model reigned supreme, but now with robots in the warehouse, goods can autonomously navigate across warehouses to be sent to their final destinations quickly and cheaply. Robotics is the next evolution of automation and unlocking its benefits will enable more businesses to stay competitive, which will positively impact the industry and economy.” Similar efforts are in action in the UK at Ocado, the world’s largest online-only grocery retailer, reaching over 70% of British households and shipping over 200,000 orders per week. They were one of the first pioneers in the use of robotics and automation alongside its human workforce. This year they’ve partnered with SecondHands and Soma soft manipulation whose work includes efforts to design a robot that can offer help to a maintenance technician in a pro-active manner and robotic grasping respectively. We can expect to see the continuation of robotics across a range of workplaces-Amazon even holds an annual Amazon Robotics Challenge to build the best pick and pack’ robotics. It’ll be a while before robots take our jobs but they may change our roles. This year ThyssenKrupp launched the use of Microsoft HoloLens technology in its elevator service operations worldwide. Currently, the global elevator service industry is valued at over $44 billion per year, and more than 12 million elevators transport over 1 billion people each day. Microsoft HoloLens is the first fully self-contained wearable holographic computer running Windows 10. It is completely self-contained–no wires, phones, or connection to a PC needed. Microsoft HoloLens allows you to place holograms in your physical environment and provides a new way to see the world. The special mixed reality device empowers more than 24,000 of the company’s service technicians to do their jobs more safely and efficiently, and keep people and cities moving better than ever before. It is completely self-contained–no wires, phones, or connection to a PC needed. Microsoft HoloLens allows you to place holograms in your physical environment and provides a new way to see the world. The special mixed reality device empowers more than 24,000 of the company’s service technicians to do their jobs more safely and efficiently, and keep people and cities moving better than ever before. Using HoloLens, service technicians can visualize and identify problems with elevators ahead of a job, and have remote, hands-free access to technical and expert information when onsite – all resulting in significant savings in time and stress. Initial field trials have already shown that a service maintenance intervention can be done up to four times faster. Israeli company Vayyar this year released industrial and DIY versions of the Walabot, a smart device that turns a smartphone into a powerful 3D-imaging system. It enables people to look through solid objects like walls to show the pipes hidden beneath on a phone’s screen. Digital tape measuring devices like Bagel eschew the need for pen and paper with infrared as an alternative to a traditional tape for unwieldy corners with a platform recording measurements, voice memos, and data. This year we’ve seen wearables grow increasingly sophisticated in providing real-time data for a range of workplaces. German start-up ProGlove develops sensor enabled smart gloves that enable manufacturing and logistics staff to work faster, safer and easier. Process steps can be documented handsfree and the smart glove gives instant feedback to its user. Its current applications include the hands-free scanning of goods, monitoring and training of workflow sequences, identification of tools and parts to avoid incorrect usage, and documentation of goods and processes with users including Audi and BMW. At BMW the hi-tech gloves allow workers to keep hold of items with both hands while scanning more quickly. While this may only save a few seconds each time, BMW reckons it adds up to 4,000 work minutes, or 66 hours, a day. Wearables are also being used in increasingly advanced ways to monitor and ensure worker safety. North Star Bluescope Steel, a steel producer for global building and construction industries for Australia, New Zealand, and North American markets, is working with IBM to develop a cognitive platform that taps into IBM Watson IoT technology for wearable safety technology to help employees stay safer in dangerous environments. By gathering and analyzing sensor data collected from sensors embedded in helmets and wristbands, the technology, IBM Employee Wellness and Safety Solution, provides real-time alerts to employees and their managers, enabling preventive measures if physical well-being is compromised or safety procedures are not being followed. This year IoT technology has also disrupted freight forwarding and the cargo supply chain, sectors of the shipping industry where global supply chains are clouded by lack of visibility, confusing paperwork, complicated regulations, rampant price discrimination, and unpredictable delays. At Flexport freight forwarding, the traditional means of managing a company’s global freight shipments is replaced with a simple online app that allows the customer to request and book shipments, track all global freight movements, manage product data, visual their supply chain, view analytics and more – all in real-time. By comparison, CargoChain is working on applications which connect shipments equipped with a RFID chip via the Blockchain. This enables them to provide real-time visibility of shipments and increased trust between business parties. For example importers and exporters can use the trustless escrow system for conditional payment release, banks and insurance companies acquire additional, unforgeable data and can thus provide their services with confidence, customs can clear shipments faster by knowing the exact, provable chain of custody. As well as the topics discussed, the increased evolution of the smart grid has gained focus in 2016. It will be an integral part of IIoT, as will interoperability, safety monitoring, and distributed technology. We can expect further progression in 2017 as the demand will only increase as we delve deeper into the realities of Industry 4.o.

↧

Japanese white-collar workers are already being replaced by artificial intelligence

January 2, 2017, 11:22 am

≫ Next: Franka: A Robot Arm That’s Safe, Low Cost, and Can Replicate Itself

≪ Previous: 4 ways Industry 4.0 will look different in the coming year

Most of the attention around automation focuses on how factory robots and self-driving cars may fundamentally change our workforce, potentially eliminating millions of jobs. But AI that can handle knowledge-based, white-collar work are also becoming increasingly competent. One Japanese insurance company, Fukoku Mutual Life Insurance, is reportedly replacing 34 human insurance claim workers with “IBM Watson Explorer,” starting by January 2017. The AI will scan hospital records and other documents to determine insurance payouts, according to a company press release, factoring injuries, patient medical histories, and procedures administered. Automation of these research and data gathering tasks will help the remaining human workers process the final payout faster, the release says. Fukoku Mutual will spend $1.7 million (200 million yen) to install the AI system, and $128,000 per year for maintenance, according to Japan’s The Mainichi. The company saves roughly $1.1 million per year on employee salaries by using the IBM software, meaning it hopes to see a return on the investment in less than two years. Watson AI is expected to improve productivity by 30%, Fukoku Mutual says. The company was encouraged by its use of similar IBM technology to analyze customer’s voices during complaints. The software typically takes the customer’s words, converts them to text, and analyzes whether those words are positive or negative. Similar sentiment analysis software is also being used by a range of US companies for customer service; incidentally, a large benefit of the software is understanding when customers get frustrated with automated systems. The Mainichi reports that three other Japanese insurance companies are testing or implementing AI systems to automate work such as finding ideal plans for customers. An Israeli insurance startup, Lemonade, has raised $60 million on the idea of “replacing brokers and paperwork with bots and machine learning,” says CEO Daniel Schreiber. Artificial intelligence systems like IBM’s are poised to upend knowledge-based professions, like insurance and financial services, according to the Harvard Business Review, due to the fact that many jobs can be “composed of work that can be codified into standard steps and of decisions based on cleanly formatted data.” But whether that means augmenting workers’ ability to be productive, or replacing them entirely remains to be seen. “Almost all jobs have major elements that—for the foreseeable future—won’t be possible for computers to handle,” HBR writes. “And yet, we have to admit that there are some knowledge-work jobs that will simply succumb to the rise of the robots.”

↧

Franka: A Robot Arm That’s Safe, Low Cost, and Can Replicate Itself

January 2, 2017, 11:23 am

≫ Next: The Technologies We're Most Fired Up to Watch in 2017

≪ Previous: Japanese white-collar workers are already being replaced by artificial intelligence

Editor's Pick Sami Haddadin once attached a knife to a robot manipulator and programmed it to impale his arm. No, it wasn’t a daredevil stunt. He was demonstrating how a new force-sensing control scheme he designed was able to detect the contact and instantly stop the robot, as it did. Now Haddadin wants to make that same kind of safety feature, which has long been limited to highly sophisticated and expensive systems, affordable to anyone using robots around people. Sometime in 2017, his Munich-based startup, Franka Emika, will start shipping a rather remarkable robotic arm. It’s designed to be easy to set up and program, which is nice. But what makes it special is that, unlike typical factory robots, which are so dangerous they are often put inside cages, this arm can operate right next to people, assisting them with tasks without posing a risk. And did I mention that it can build copies of itself? The robot, also called Franka Emika—“It’s like first and last name,” Haddadin explains—is not the only one ever designed to operate alongside human workers. Indeed, this type of system, known as a collaborative robot, or cobot, is one of the fastest growing segments in the robotics market, with global sales expected to jump from US $100 million in 2016 to over $3.3 billion in just five years, according to one estimate. All the big industrial robot makers are trying to develop their own cobots, but the most innovative designs have come from startups. Rethink Robotics introduced its Baxter dual-arm robot in 2012, and more recently it unveiled a single-arm robot called Sawyer. The cobot sector, however, is currently dominated by Danish company Universal Robots, which ships thousands of robots each year. Even so, such robots remain pretty rare. Expect that to change rapidly over the next few years as Haddadin’s company—which is financially backed by a group of investors that include German robot maker Kuka—and other firms enter the market. Haddadin, who’s worked at one of Germany’s top robotics labs and had a brief stint at the celebrated robotics company Willow Garage in Silicon Valley, says one thing that will set Franka apart from the competition is its manipulation skills. While some of its specs [PDF]—seven axes of motion, 80-centimeter reach, 3-kilogram payload, and 0.1-millimeter accuracy—are comparable with those of other robots, Franka is designed to perform tasks that require direct physical contact in a carefully controlled manner. These include drilling, screwing, and buffing, as well as a variety of inspection and assembly tasks that electronics manufacturers in particular have long wanted to automate. Franka has more dexterity than is typical for a robotic arm because it is what is known as a torque-controlled robot. It uses strain gauges to measure forces on all of its seven joints, allowing it to detect even the slightest collisions. In contrast, most industrial robots have no force-sensing capabilities at all—and that’s why they are dangerous: They’ll take you out and won’t even notice it. One prerequisite for torque control is an extremely detailed model of your robot’s dynamics. You need to factor in even the smallest effects, such as elasticity, vibration, and friction in the components. That’s because torque control works by comparing actual force measurements on the robot to reference values computed from a model in real time. So if your model is off, your control will be off too. Haddadin saw that not as a hurdle but as an advantage. “The truth is, I model the hell out of everything I build,” he says. Gerd Hirzinger, a pioneer of torque-controlled robots and one of Haddadin’s mentors at the German Aerospace Center’s Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics, called Franka a “long-yearned-for breakthrough.” Another factor that will make Franka stand out is cost. At the time of this writing, the robot was available for preorder at a yet-to-be-confirmed price of €9,900, or about $10,500. That’s a startlingly low figure for such a capable robotic arm. For comparison, Rethink’s Sawyer sells for $29,000, and Universal Robots’ best-selling UR5 costs even more, at $35,000. Henrik Christensen, director of the Contextual Robotics Institute at the University of California, San Diego, says Franka is “an impressive piece of hardware.” But he adds that with cobots the main challenge is “not just the hardware but also the software to make it easily accessible to nonexperts.” Universal Robots, he says, is “beating the competition by having by far the best user interface.” So that’s an area where Franka will need to prove itself. Haddadin says his company devoted just as much attention to software as it did to the design of the robot itself. Users can program Franka by moving it with their hands and tapping on a touch screen, with a variety of preprogrammed motions readily available. And once you’ve created a program for one Franka, you can just copy it over the cloud to one or more other Frankas. But perhaps the most ambitious part of Haddadin’s plan is getting Franka to essentially clone itself. During initial production runs, the robot was performing about 80 percent of the work, but the goal is 100 percent, he insists. Looking further into the future, Haddadin envisions sending containers all around the world as mobile robot factories. “Inside there will be Frankas building Frankas,” he says. Hordes of self-replicating robots popping up everywhere? For whatever it’s worth, it’s probably a good thing Haddadin is making them very human friendly—even when holding a knife. This article appears in the January 2017 print issue as “Employee of the Month. Every Month.”

↧

The Technologies We're Most Fired Up to Watch in 2017

January 2, 2017, 4:05 pm

≫ Next: RooBee One is an open-source SLA/DLP 3D printer

≪ Previous: Franka: A Robot Arm That’s Safe, Low Cost, and Can Replicate Itself

Covering technology is exhilarating. Each year is filled with unforeseen surprises—advances we thought were years away, unexpected technology applications (like AI used for mental healthcare), and unlikely startups reimagining entire markets. These breakthroughs keep Singularity Hub's team of tech-enthusiasts on our toes around the clock. Though we can’t forecast like famous futurist Ray Kurzweil, many of us have a favorite technology or two that we constantly track. Moving into the new year, these are some of the technologies we’ll be eagerly watching in 2017 and beyond. “AI really made headlines this year. AlphaGo was on the tongue, OpenAI got a billion dollars to develop ethical AI, and toddlers talked to Google Home and Amazon Echo. (This generation won’t remember when they couldn’t converse with computers.) The first two developments are fascinating, but the third may be more immediately relevant. The idea of X product + AI will get legs next year—but it’s the surprises I’m most looking forward to.” –Jason Dorrier, Managing Editor Recommended reading: The AI Conversation Has Exploded This Decade With Big Advances “Cybersecurity means a lot of things to a lot of people, and often one person’s definition is at total odds with another’s. For me, I long for the type of unbeatable encryption promised by quantum computing, because quantum computing is going to make today’s encryption worthless. It’s something of a sinister race between computing power, encryption, and political motives. Meanwhile, billions of smart gadgets are coming online, and most of us already conduct our daily lives by digital means. With governments demanding access to digital devices and histories, I fear loss of citizen privacy, but still have faith in the democratization of cybersecurity.” –Matthew Straub, Digital Engagement Manager (the voice behind Singularity Hub’s social media) Recommended reading: Quantum Computing Is About to Overturn Cybersecurity’s Balance of Power "I'm most excited about the future of decentralized peer-to-peer (p2p) networks. As we've seen with the sharing economy, it may be all too easy for a small startup to siphon the wealth of a local community sharing resources amongst themselves. We can use technologies like blockchain, cryptocurrencies and BitTorrent to redefine value by integrating blockchain-based democratic decision making, decentralized peer-run organizations, and organizational principles from platform cooperativism. Ultimately, as this trend continues, we'll have an opportunity to regenerate local economies with the resources already available instead of extracting value where there isn't much to begin with." –Andrew O’Keefe, Media Producer Recommended reading: In the Future, Ownerless Companies Will Live on the Blockchain “Over the last few years there have been great cases of technology used to enhance classroom learning, like VR experiences that take students inside the bloodstream or into Darwin’s lab to assemble a skeleton. This year, Zuckerberg Education Ventures invested in Volley, an AI learning assistant for students. The application provides students links to additional resources and highlights critical information when a user points their smartphone's camera at a homework assignment or textbook page. In 2017, I’ll be watching for a new wave of AI applications focused on improving classroom learning for students with unique learning needs by providing resources like customized learning plans and personalized evaluations. Volley talks about 'engineering for knowledge,' and I’m hoping to see a lot more of this in the coming year.” –Alison E. Berman, Staff Writer Recommended reading: Put Down the Textbook: How VR Is Reimagining Classroom Education “In November, SpaceX submitted an application to the FCC to launch over 4,000 satellites into space to envelop Earth in high-speed internet, providing connectivity to even the most remote areas of the planet. If approved, SpaceX's plan will pose serious competition to Google's Project Loon, which has the same mission. Besides seeing which method has more success, it will be exciting to watch the effects of increased connectivity on the global population, particularly in developing nations that have yet to solve larger challenges related to education, healthcare, and access to natural resources.” –Vanessa Bates Ramirez, Associate Editor Recommended reading: Meet the Rising Billion Who Will Fuel Disruption in the Global Economy The Race to Wrap the Earth in Internet Is Heating Up “I have a fantasy that one day in the future, I will be able to design, create and grow different types of biological products at home — anything from perfumes and medicine to cool materials like mushroom leather. The day when anyone can have an easy-to-use biological manufacturing facility at home is still a ways off, but the first step to that future is having something like the Amino Lab to learn bioengineering and start small, like making bacteria that grows.” –Sveta McShane, Production Manager Recommended reading: Why We Should Teach Kids to Code Biology, Not Just Software In 2017, we will truly begin to see the coming disruption self-driving vehicles will have on our society and future. Open source machine learning agents, more advanced algorithms, and better hardware technologies are bringing this autonomous reality closer. Tesla has already said vehicles now being produced have the hardware for level 5 autonomy capabilities (no need for steering wheel or brakes). Down the road, when the algorithm is ready, Tesla may make these cars autonomous with a software update. –Kirk Nankivell, Web Production Editor Banner Image Credit: Shutterstock

↧