Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Dr Fei-Fei-Li explains with a simple example how everyday household chores are so extremely difficult for Robots. "If you tell a robot to open the top drawer and watch out for the vase, this is actually a really hard task for robots." because the robot must ground language into...

rohanpaul_ai's profile picture

Rohan Paul

154,001 subscribers

342,627 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

ОбразованиеЗдоровье и велнесНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

NEW AXIS TASK GUIDE 👇 Task: Franka, Put the Charger into the Upper Drawer of the Cabinet. Home – Variant A The goal is simple: Open both cabinet drawers, pick up the charger and place it inside the upper drawer. First, pull both drawers completely open so the robot has enough access to the cabinet. Then identify and grab the charger carefully. After that, move the charger toward the upper drawer, not the lower one. Finally, place the charger inside the drawer and complete the task. 🔌 What makes this interesting is that the robot isn’t just moving an object from A to B. It has to understand the environment, drawer positions, object location and the final target before completing the action. This is actually similar to something we do every day opening a drawer, grabbing a charger and putting it away without even thinking about the steps. For a robot, these small actions require learning how different objects interact and how movements need to change depending on the environment. I also like that this task involves multiple actions in sequence, rather than one simple movement. That kind of sequential interaction can be important for robots operating in homes, offices and other real world environments. For me, this is where Axis Robotics becomes interesting, turning everyday human actions into structured robotic training data. Simple household task → complex robotic learning.
0:26

NEW AXIS TASK GUIDE 👇 Task: Franka, Put the Charger into the Upper Drawer of the Cabinet. Home – Variant A The goal is simple: Open both cabinet drawers, pick up the charger and place it inside the upper drawer. First, pull both drawers completely open so the robot has enough access to the cabinet. Then identify and grab the charger carefully. After that, move the charger toward the upper drawer, not the lower one. Finally, place the charger inside the drawer and complete the task. 🔌 What makes this interesting is that the robot isn’t just moving an object from A to B. It has to understand the environment, drawer positions, object location and the final target before completing the action. This is actually similar to something we do every day opening a drawer, grabbing a charger and putting it away without even thinking about the steps. For a robot, these small actions require learning how different objects interact and how movements need to change depending on the environment. I also like that this task involves multiple actions in sequence, rather than one simple movement. That kind of sequential interaction can be important for robots operating in homes, offices and other real world environments. For me, this is where Axis Robotics becomes interesting, turning everyday human actions into structured robotic training data. Simple household task → complex robotic learning.

SufianXFN

57,551 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

We’re excited to launch Instance – a success detector for robot rollouts! Describe your task and drop in a dataset, and it judges success/fail on each rollout with detailed subtask captions– it’s more accurate than Claude Opus 4.8, at a fraction of the latency. This is just the first step toward our larger goal: an autonomous evaluation rig for robot learning. Today, evaluating a robot policy means humans have to watch the robot roll out, mark success, and reset the scene– we're automating that, starting with the success judge.
1:12

We’re excited to launch Instance – a success detector for robot rollouts! Describe your task and drop in a dataset, and it judges success/fail on each rollout with detailed subtask captions– it’s more accurate than Claude Opus 4.8, at a fraction of the latency. This is just the first step toward our larger goal: an autonomous evaluation rig for robot learning. Today, evaluating a robot policy means humans have to watch the robot roll out, mark success, and reset the scene– we're automating that, starting with the success judge.

Lucy Cai

74,747 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

a robot can recognize every object in a room and still not know how to open a single drawer knowing there's a cabinet is scene understanding. knowing which handle to grab, which direction to pull, and that it's a drawer not a door is affordance understanding almost no dataset has it in 3D SceneFun3D: 14,800+ functional elements across 710 laser-scanned indoor scenes. every handle, knob, button, and switch labeled with its affordance, motion axis, motion type, and a natural language task description each scene's 3D point cloud with its iPad video recordings in fiftyone. the affordance annotations live in 3D and project into the video frames check it out here
0:30

a robot can recognize every object in a room and still not know how to open a single drawer knowing there's a cabinet is scene understanding. knowing which handle to grab, which direction to pull, and that it's a drawer not a door is affordance understanding almost no dataset has it in 3D SceneFun3D: 14,800+ functional elements across 710 laser-scanned indoor scenes. every handle, knob, button, and switch labeled with its affordance, motion axis, motion type, and a natural language task description each scene's 3D point cloud with its iPad video recordings in fiftyone. the affordance annotations live in 3D and project into the video frames check it out here

harpreet

18,800 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Robot policies must be both reliable and highly capable to be useful; the best way to achieve this level of performance is with reinforcement learning. However, for reinforcement learning you are usually stuck between two difficult options: reinforcement in the real world is often risky and expensive, while reinforcement learning in a traditional simulator takes a lot of engineering work and has a persistent sim-to-real gap. What if instead you could train your robot purely in a world model? RISE by Jiazhi Yang et al. uses a compositional world model to predict the future and evaluate progress. This allows for a self-improving pipeline, which learns a world model from real data and then learns how the robot should perform different tasks. This pipeline results in a data-driven way to improve policy performance from real data but without real-world reinforcement learning. Watch Episode #86 of RoboPapers, with Chris Paxton and Jiafei Duan, to learn more!
53:45

Robot policies must be both reliable and highly capable to be useful; the best way to achieve this level of performance is with reinforcement learning. However, for reinforcement learning you are usually stuck between two difficult options: reinforcement in the real world is often risky and expensive, while reinforcement learning in a traditional simulator takes a lot of engineering work and has a persistent sim-to-real gap. What if instead you could train your robot purely in a world model? RISE by Jiazhi Yang et al. uses a compositional world model to predict the future and evaluate progress. This allows for a self-improving pipeline, which learns a world model from real data and then learns how the robot should perform different tasks. This pipeline results in a data-driven way to improve policy performance from real data but without real-world reinforcement learning. Watch Episode #86 of RoboPapers, with Chris Paxton and Jiafei Duan, to learn more!

RoboPapers

38,867 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

World Labs' Dr. Fei-Fei Li on why the 3D world and spatial intelligence are fundamentally different from language models: "Language is fundamentally a purely generated signal. There's no language out there. You don't go out in the nature and there's words written in the sky for you." "Whatever data you feed in, you pretty much can just somehow regurgitate with enough generalizability the same data out, and that's language to language." "But the 3D world is not. There is a 3D world out there that follows laws of physics, that has its own structures due to materials and many other things. And to fundamentally back that information out and be able to represent it and be able to generate it is just fundamentally quite a different problem." "We will be borrowing similar ideas or useful ideas from language and LLMs, but this is fundamentally philosophically, to me, a different problem." Fei-Fei Li
1:03

World Labs' Dr. Fei-Fei Li on why the 3D world and spatial intelligence are fundamentally different from language models: "Language is fundamentally a purely generated signal. There's no language out there. You don't go out in the nature and there's words written in the sky for you." "Whatever data you feed in, you pretty much can just somehow regurgitate with enough generalizability the same data out, and that's language to language." "But the 3D world is not. There is a 3D world out there that follows laws of physics, that has its own structures due to materials and many other things. And to fundamentally back that information out and be able to represent it and be able to generate it is just fundamentally quite a different problem." "We will be borrowing similar ideas or useful ideas from language and LLMs, but this is fundamentally philosophically, to me, a different problem." Fei-Fei Li

a16z

53,507 просмотров • 14 дней назад

Foundation models are enough to solve robotics! Unfortunately, this is not true. We keep hearing that Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models struggle because of the gap between static training and the dynamic real world. A German startup (Sereact) just released a solution that bridges this gap perfectly. They are introducing a new paradigm called Interactive RL Policy Patching. It's a distributed framework that allows robots to self-learn from human corrections without needing full retraining. When a robot fails, a human operator provides a brief "patch" or demonstration. The system then uses online off-policy reinforcement learning to update the behavior instantly. This is powered by a massive foundation model trained on hundreds of millions of interactions from over 100 deployed robot stations. The best part is the distributed parameter synchronization... When one robot learns a fix, the update is published fleet-wide... meaning the entire swarm gets smarter from a single human intervention. They are already proving this on complex manipulation tasks like shoe unboxing and screw sorting, drastically reducing the data needed to handle edge cases. Real-world environments are unforgiving, and I love seeing systems that can actually adapt on the fly! 📍 More info:
0:38

Foundation models are enough to solve robotics! Unfortunately, this is not true. We keep hearing that Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models struggle because of the gap between static training and the dynamic real world. A German startup (Sereact) just released a solution that bridges this gap perfectly. They are introducing a new paradigm called Interactive RL Policy Patching. It's a distributed framework that allows robots to self-learn from human corrections without needing full retraining. When a robot fails, a human operator provides a brief "patch" or demonstration. The system then uses online off-policy reinforcement learning to update the behavior instantly. This is powered by a massive foundation model trained on hundreds of millions of interactions from over 100 deployed robot stations. The best part is the distributed parameter synchronization... When one robot learns a fix, the update is published fleet-wide... meaning the entire swarm gets smarter from a single human intervention. They are already proving this on complex manipulation tasks like shoe unboxing and screw sorting, drastically reducing the data needed to handle edge cases. Real-world environments are unforgiving, and I love seeing systems that can actually adapt on the fly! 📍 More info:

Ilir Aliu

18,210 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Open-source robot arm meets hand tracking [📍GitHub below] It is designed with an industrial mindset but built as a 3D-printed desktop system. PAROL6 paired with a LEAP Motion controller is a nice example of how accessible robot teleoperation has become. • Hand motion is streamed to the robot at 100 Hz via UDP • A pneumatic gripper is controlled by simple fist open and close gestures • The entire robot stack is open source, from mechanics to control software Combine that with low-latency hand tracking and you get a very practical platform for learning manipulation, teleoperation, and human-robot interfaces. This kind of setup is great for experimentation, teleop, data collection, and teaching robots by demonstration All without proprietary hardware or locked software. Credit to SourceRobotics 📍Code: —— Weekly robotics and AI insights. Subscribe free:
0:35

Open-source robot arm meets hand tracking [📍GitHub below] It is designed with an industrial mindset but built as a 3D-printed desktop system. PAROL6 paired with a LEAP Motion controller is a nice example of how accessible robot teleoperation has become. • Hand motion is streamed to the robot at 100 Hz via UDP • A pneumatic gripper is controlled by simple fist open and close gestures • The entire robot stack is open source, from mechanics to control software Combine that with low-latency hand tracking and you get a very practical platform for learning manipulation, teleoperation, and human-robot interfaces. This kind of setup is great for experimentation, teleop, data collection, and teaching robots by demonstration All without proprietary hardware or locked software. Credit to SourceRobotics 📍Code: —— Weekly robotics and AI insights. Subscribe free:

Ilir Aliu

32,823 просмотров • 23 дней назад

Dr. Fei-Fei Li just called out the biggest blind spot in the entire AI industry. We have been building half of human intelligence. And calling it the finish line. Li: “If you look at human intelligence, it pretty much boils down to two buckets.” The first bucket is language. Symbolic reasoning. Communication. The ability to think in words and abstractions. That’s what every major AI lab has spent the last decade building. The second bucket is the one the industry has almost entirely ignored. Li: “We call that in AI spatial intelligence.” How humans and animals perceive, navigate, and interact with the three-dimensional physical world. How we reach for objects. How we move through space. How we build and manipulate physical reality. From painting masterpieces to constructing the pyramids, non-verbal spatial intelligence is what actually shapes the world. Language describes reality. Spatial intelligence acts on it. And the gap between those two things is the gap between a chatbot and a robot. Li: “When this technology is ready, the robotic revolution is gonna start. We’re already seeing that trend.” Every robot is a moving agent. Every moving agent requires spatial intelligence to function in the real world. The humanoid robots being deployed in factories right now are hitting the ceiling of what language models alone can power. Spatial intelligence is the unlock. But Li didn’t stop at robotics. Li: “From a geopolitics point of view, this is part of the technology that goes straight into weapons.” Autonomous drone swarms. Battlefield navigation. Physical target acquisition without human oversight. Every military application of AI that operates in the real world runs on spatial intelligence. The nation that masters the transition from static text to dynamic three-dimensional perception doesn’t just win the software race. It commands the physical battlefield. The AI arms race just broke out of the data center. It’s operating in three dimensions now.
3:08

Dr. Fei-Fei Li just called out the biggest blind spot in the entire AI industry. We have been building half of human intelligence. And calling it the finish line. Li: “If you look at human intelligence, it pretty much boils down to two buckets.” The first bucket is language. Symbolic reasoning. Communication. The ability to think in words and abstractions. That’s what every major AI lab has spent the last decade building. The second bucket is the one the industry has almost entirely ignored. Li: “We call that in AI spatial intelligence.” How humans and animals perceive, navigate, and interact with the three-dimensional physical world. How we reach for objects. How we move through space. How we build and manipulate physical reality. From painting masterpieces to constructing the pyramids, non-verbal spatial intelligence is what actually shapes the world. Language describes reality. Spatial intelligence acts on it. And the gap between those two things is the gap between a chatbot and a robot. Li: “When this technology is ready, the robotic revolution is gonna start. We’re already seeing that trend.” Every robot is a moving agent. Every moving agent requires spatial intelligence to function in the real world. The humanoid robots being deployed in factories right now are hitting the ceiling of what language models alone can power. Spatial intelligence is the unlock. But Li didn’t stop at robotics. Li: “From a geopolitics point of view, this is part of the technology that goes straight into weapons.” Autonomous drone swarms. Battlefield navigation. Physical target acquisition without human oversight. Every military application of AI that operates in the real world runs on spatial intelligence. The nation that masters the transition from static text to dynamic three-dimensional perception doesn’t just win the software race. It commands the physical battlefield. The AI arms race just broke out of the data center. It’s operating in three dimensions now.

Dustin

122,884 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Rockford, Illinois nurse showing that the blood shortage is so bad they only have half of a drawer left of O-Negative blood (universal donor) O-Negative is used very commonly in hospitals. They only have a few bags left “So to put into perspective how high the need for blood is right now, take a look at our drawers here. This is where we store our O negative blood, which is the universal blood donor. This whole drawer is empty and only have this much O-negative in our other drawer. So O-negative is used really commonly in the hospitals and we really need these to be stocked. This just goes to show you how high the need really is right now.”
0:25

Rockford, Illinois nurse showing that the blood shortage is so bad they only have half of a drawer left of O-Negative blood (universal donor) O-Negative is used very commonly in hospitals. They only have a few bags left “So to put into perspective how high the need for blood is right now, take a look at our drawers here. This is where we store our O negative blood, which is the universal blood donor. This whole drawer is empty and only have this much O-negative in our other drawer. So O-negative is used really commonly in the hospitals and we really need these to be stocked. This just goes to show you how high the need really is right now.”

Wall Street Apes

443,859 просмотров • 1 год назад

Former Meta Chief AI Scientist Yann LeCun on the three paradigms of machine learning — and why the third is what made ChatGPT possible: Here's each one, and where it breaks. First, supervised learning. You tell the machine the answer. "You show it a picture, let's say of a table, and you tell it this is a table. So it's supervised because you tell it what the correct answer is." Get it wrong, and the machine rewrites itself: "The system computes its output, and if it says something else than table, then it's going to adjust its parameters, its internal structure, so that the output it produces gets closer to the output you want." Repeat at scale and something more than memorisation appears: "Eventually the system will find a way to recognize every image you trained it on, but also images it's never seen that are similar to the one you train it on. This is called a generalization ability." The limit: a human has to supply every single answer. That doesn't scale to the size of the internet. Second, reinforcement learning. You don't give the answer, only a verdict. "You don't tell the system what the correct answer is. You only tell it whether the answer it produced was good or bad." Learning to ride a bike, essentially: "You try to ride a bike and you don't know how to ride the bike and after a while you fall. So you know you did something bad and so you change your strategy a little bit. And eventually you learn how to ride a bike." For years the field assumed this was the closest thing to how animals actually learn. Yann LeCun's verdict: "Now it turns out reinforcement learning is extremely inefficient." It dominates wherever failure is free: "It works really well if you want to train a system to play chess or play go or poker, because you can have the system play millions and millions of games against itself and basically fine-tune itself. But it doesn't really work in the real world." The limit, in one image: "If you want to train a car to drive itself, you're not going to do it with reinforcement learning. It's going to crash thousands of times." On robotics he's careful rather than dismissive: "Reinforcement learning can be part of the solution, but it's not the complete answer. It's not sufficient." Third, self-supervised learning. You tell the machine nothing at all. "And this is what has enabled the recent progress in natural language understanding and chatbots." The strange part is that you stop asking for a task: "You don't train the system to accomplish any particular task. You just train it to basically capture the structure..." The method is deliberate sabotage: "You take a piece of text, you corrupt it in some way, by for example removing some words, and then you train a big neural net to predict the words that are missing." And one narrow version of that trick runs every chatbot on Earth: "A special case of this is that you take a piece of text and the last word in that text is not visible, and so you train the system to predict the last word in that text — and this is the way large language models are trained on." So why did the third one win? Supervised learning needs a human. Reinforcement learning needs a crash. Self-supervised learning needs neither — because the missing word and the correct answer are the same thing. The data grades itself.
2:58

Former Meta Chief AI Scientist Yann LeCun on the three paradigms of machine learning — and why the third is what made ChatGPT possible: Here's each one, and where it breaks. First, supervised learning. You tell the machine the answer. "You show it a picture, let's say of a table, and you tell it this is a table. So it's supervised because you tell it what the correct answer is." Get it wrong, and the machine rewrites itself: "The system computes its output, and if it says something else than table, then it's going to adjust its parameters, its internal structure, so that the output it produces gets closer to the output you want." Repeat at scale and something more than memorisation appears: "Eventually the system will find a way to recognize every image you trained it on, but also images it's never seen that are similar to the one you train it on. This is called a generalization ability." The limit: a human has to supply every single answer. That doesn't scale to the size of the internet. Second, reinforcement learning. You don't give the answer, only a verdict. "You don't tell the system what the correct answer is. You only tell it whether the answer it produced was good or bad." Learning to ride a bike, essentially: "You try to ride a bike and you don't know how to ride the bike and after a while you fall. So you know you did something bad and so you change your strategy a little bit. And eventually you learn how to ride a bike." For years the field assumed this was the closest thing to how animals actually learn. Yann LeCun's verdict: "Now it turns out reinforcement learning is extremely inefficient." It dominates wherever failure is free: "It works really well if you want to train a system to play chess or play go or poker, because you can have the system play millions and millions of games against itself and basically fine-tune itself. But it doesn't really work in the real world." The limit, in one image: "If you want to train a car to drive itself, you're not going to do it with reinforcement learning. It's going to crash thousands of times." On robotics he's careful rather than dismissive: "Reinforcement learning can be part of the solution, but it's not the complete answer. It's not sufficient." Third, self-supervised learning. You tell the machine nothing at all. "And this is what has enabled the recent progress in natural language understanding and chatbots." The strange part is that you stop asking for a task: "You don't train the system to accomplish any particular task. You just train it to basically capture the structure..." The method is deliberate sabotage: "You take a piece of text, you corrupt it in some way, by for example removing some words, and then you train a big neural net to predict the words that are missing." And one narrow version of that trick runs every chatbot on Earth: "A special case of this is that you take a piece of text and the last word in that text is not visible, and so you train the system to predict the last word in that text — and this is the way large language models are trained on." So why did the third one win? Supervised learning needs a human. Reinforcement learning needs a crash. Self-supervised learning needs neither — because the missing word and the correct answer are the same thing. The data grades itself.

Big Brain AI

49,293 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

"A parcel with snacks has been delivered for Flexion. Retrieve it using the stairs and come up using the elevator. Then unpack it and place the items into the empty drawer on the shelf in the snack area." One instruction. No human operator. Everything that follows is autonomous. Today we're introducing Reflect v1.0, our robotics intelligence platform for long-horizon work. From a single natural-language command, the robot understands the task, navigates a multi-floor building, calls elevators, handles doors, uses tools to unpack a box, and puts the items away. The biggest shift in v1.0 is that we use reinforcement learning across every layer, from low-level control to high-level reasoning. Long-horizon autonomy is unforgiving. The robot must recover on its own when things don't go to plan because in the real world, they never do. Combining reasoning, perception, physical execution and runtime robustness into a single mission-capable system is the foundation required to solve humanoid autonomy. Our team is just getting started. #HumanoidRobots #Flexion
4:17

"A parcel with snacks has been delivered for Flexion. Retrieve it using the stairs and come up using the elevator. Then unpack it and place the items into the empty drawer on the shelf in the snack area." One instruction. No human operator. Everything that follows is autonomous. Today we're introducing Reflect v1.0, our robotics intelligence platform for long-horizon work. From a single natural-language command, the robot understands the task, navigates a multi-floor building, calls elevators, handles doors, uses tools to unpack a box, and puts the items away. The biggest shift in v1.0 is that we use reinforcement learning across every layer, from low-level control to high-level reasoning. Long-horizon autonomy is unforgiving. The robot must recover on its own when things don't go to plan because in the real world, they never do. Combining reasoning, perception, physical execution and runtime robustness into a single mission-capable system is the foundation required to solve humanoid autonomy. Our team is just getting started. #HumanoidRobots #Flexion

Flexion

143,710 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

In order for robots to be deployed in the real world, performing tasks of real value, they must be reliable. Unfortunately, even more, most robotic demos work maybe 70-80% of the time at best. The way to get better reliability is to do real-world reinforcement learning: having the robot teach itself how to perform the task up to a high level of success. The key to doing this is to start with a core of expert human data, use that to train a policy then iteratively improve it, until finally finishing with on-policy reinforcement learning. Kun Lei talks through a unified framework for imitation and reinforcement learning based on PPO, which enables this improvement process. In this episode, Kun Lei explains the theory behind his reinforcement learning method and how it allowed his robot to run in a shopping mall juicing oranges for seven hours at a time, among experiments on a wide variety of tasks and embodiments. Watch episode 58 of RoboPapers now, hosted by Michael Cho - Rbt/Acc and Chris Paxton!
1:11:51

In order for robots to be deployed in the real world, performing tasks of real value, they must be reliable. Unfortunately, even more, most robotic demos work maybe 70-80% of the time at best. The way to get better reliability is to do real-world reinforcement learning: having the robot teach itself how to perform the task up to a high level of success. The key to doing this is to start with a core of expert human data, use that to train a policy then iteratively improve it, until finally finishing with on-policy reinforcement learning. Kun Lei talks through a unified framework for imitation and reinforcement learning based on PPO, which enables this improvement process. In this episode, Kun Lei explains the theory behind his reinforcement learning method and how it allowed his robot to run in a shopping mall juicing oranges for seven hours at a time, among experiments on a wide variety of tasks and embodiments. Watch episode 58 of RoboPapers now, hosted by Michael Cho - Rbt/Acc and Chris Paxton!

RoboPapers

18,813 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Specifying reward functions for robots is one of the hardest things about reinforcement learning. Robot rewards often need to be very detailed; metrics like progress can be ill-defined and hard to estimate. This leads to most robot learning defaulting to sparse rewards or simple preference learning. But naive preference learning (having human annotators choose one trajectory over another) is an easy solution, but obscures a lot of the signal in complex tasks and can make learning a lot less efficient. Marcel Torné, Anubha Mahajan, and Abhijnya Bhat join us to talk about their solution: freeform preference learning, which lets annotators define natural-language axes to compare trajectories over. This improves real-world performance on long-horizon manipulation tasks over sparse rewards and simple binary preference learning. Watch Epsiode 103 of RoboPapers, with Michael Cho - Rbt/Acc and Jiafei Duan, today to learn more!
47:57

Specifying reward functions for robots is one of the hardest things about reinforcement learning. Robot rewards often need to be very detailed; metrics like progress can be ill-defined and hard to estimate. This leads to most robot learning defaulting to sparse rewards or simple preference learning. But naive preference learning (having human annotators choose one trajectory over another) is an easy solution, but obscures a lot of the signal in complex tasks and can make learning a lot less efficient. Marcel Torné, Anubha Mahajan, and Abhijnya Bhat join us to talk about their solution: freeform preference learning, which lets annotators define natural-language axes to compare trajectories over. This improves real-world performance on long-horizon manipulation tasks over sparse rewards and simple binary preference learning. Watch Epsiode 103 of RoboPapers, with Michael Cho - Rbt/Acc and Jiafei Duan, today to learn more!

RoboPapers

17,501 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

15–30 minutes of real-world robot data. That's now enough to go from sim-to-real failure to working robot. Let’s see… You train a robot in simulation. You deploy it in the real world. It fails. The physics don't match. So you try to fine-tune it with real data, but… you never have enough real data, and the fine-tuning breaks everything the simulation taught it. SimDist fixes this with one key decision: don't transfer the policy. Transfer the world model. Keep the reward and value knowledge from simulation frozen. Only update the part that's actually wrong, how the robot predicts physics. Now the robot doesn't have to relearn the entire task in the real world. It already knows what success looks like. It just needs to correct its understanding of how the real world moves. The part that makes this work: they also trained on failures and recoveries; not just perfect demonstrations. Without that, the planner finds the gaps and exploits them. With it, the robot can tell a good future from a bad one. That's all it needs. Results on peg insertion, table leg assembly, locomotion on slippery and uneven surfaces. Tasks that require precision, force, and quick reaction. Thanks for sharing, Tyler Westenbroek ([Tyler Westenbroek]. Interactive visualization + paper: ——- Weekly robotics and AI insights. Subscribe free:
0:41

15–30 minutes of real-world robot data. That's now enough to go from sim-to-real failure to working robot. Let’s see… You train a robot in simulation. You deploy it in the real world. It fails. The physics don't match. So you try to fine-tune it with real data, but… you never have enough real data, and the fine-tuning breaks everything the simulation taught it. SimDist fixes this with one key decision: don't transfer the policy. Transfer the world model. Keep the reward and value knowledge from simulation frozen. Only update the part that's actually wrong, how the robot predicts physics. Now the robot doesn't have to relearn the entire task in the real world. It already knows what success looks like. It just needs to correct its understanding of how the real world moves. The part that makes this work: they also trained on failures and recoveries; not just perfect demonstrations. Without that, the planner finds the gaps and exploits them. With it, the robot can tell a good future from a bad one. That's all it needs. Results on peg insertion, table leg assembly, locomotion on slippery and uneven surfaces. Tasks that require precision, force, and quick reaction. Thanks for sharing, Tyler Westenbroek ([Tyler Westenbroek]. Interactive visualization + paper: ——- Weekly robotics and AI insights. Subscribe free:

Ilir Aliu

14,222 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The coolest part of Microduck might not be the robot. It's how it learns to move. This repo shows the full reinforcement learning pipeline behind Microduck. The robot learns in simulation using MuJoCo, PPO and GPU-based training, then the trained policy is exported to ONNX and deployed on the real robot. But the real challenge is sim-to-real. The simulation models things like actuator behavior, battery voltage, command delays, friction and even gear backlash. That helps make the learned policy work when it moves from simulation to the physical robot. The repo includes policies for walking, fall recovery, sitting, standing, kicking, ground picking and even roller skating. Train in simulation. Test the behavior. Export the policy. Run it on a real robot.
1:01

The coolest part of Microduck might not be the robot. It's how it learns to move. This repo shows the full reinforcement learning pipeline behind Microduck. The robot learns in simulation using MuJoCo, PPO and GPU-based training, then the trained policy is exported to ONNX and deployed on the real robot. But the real challenge is sim-to-real. The simulation models things like actuator behavior, battery voltage, command delays, friction and even gear backlash. That helps make the learned policy work when it moves from simulation to the physical robot. The repo includes policies for walking, fall recovery, sitting, standing, kicking, ground picking and even roller skating. Train in simulation. Test the behavior. Export the policy. Run it on a real robot.

Praveen Kumar Verma

138,017 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Just a little taste of the Robohacks hackathon happening now at Y Combinator in San Francisco. This is only two of the teams. The first is a team building a robot for an AirBnb on Mars. The second built a system that 3D prints new tools for the robot to do new work on Mars. Both demonstrate why I love builders so much. Dreaming of a new world and learning together how to build for a new robot none of them have used before.
14:14

Just a little taste of the Robohacks hackathon happening now at Y Combinator in San Francisco. This is only two of the teams. The first is a team building a robot for an AirBnb on Mars. The second built a system that 3D prints new tools for the robot to do new work on Mars. Both demonstrate why I love builders so much. Dreaming of a new world and learning together how to build for a new robot none of them have used before.

Robert Scoble

14,399 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

A robot performing a chemistry experiment might not sound that surprising. What’s interesting about this demo is how the robot was trained. Chinese embodied AI startup X Square Robot's TwinDEX uses a wearable three-finger end-effector to collect demonstrations from a human, rather than requiring the robot to be teleoperated during data collection. The resulting policy handles a 20+ step chemistry workflow: opening reagent bottles, scooping material, operating a pipette, transferring liquids, handling a glass rod, pouring, and coordinating both hands throughout the process. These are very different from simple pick-and-place tasks. There are continuous contacts, tool use, changing grasps, precise positioning, force control, and long-horizon state transitions. The reported experiments used robot-free demonstrations only, with zero on-robot teleoperation data for training. The bigger idea here is that if the data-collection hardware and deployment hardware are designed to be sufficiently consistent, robot-free demonstrations can still retain the information needed for real dexterous manipulation.
3:17

A robot performing a chemistry experiment might not sound that surprising. What’s interesting about this demo is how the robot was trained. Chinese embodied AI startup X Square Robot's TwinDEX uses a wearable three-finger end-effector to collect demonstrations from a human, rather than requiring the robot to be teleoperated during data collection. The resulting policy handles a 20+ step chemistry workflow: opening reagent bottles, scooping material, operating a pipette, transferring liquids, handling a glass rod, pouring, and coordinating both hands throughout the process. These are very different from simple pick-and-place tasks. There are continuous contacts, tool use, changing grasps, precise positioning, force control, and long-horizon state transitions. The reported experiments used robot-free demonstrations only, with zero on-robot teleoperation data for training. The bigger idea here is that if the data-collection hardware and deployment hardware are designed to be sufficiently consistent, robot-free demonstrations can still retain the information needed for real dexterous manipulation.

Sharon Riley

18,036 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Let's reverse engineer Disney's adorable, lifelike robot! I couldn't find a whitepaper, but this is how I think it's trained: 1. The emotional behaviors are curated by Disney animation artists, keyframe by keyframe. But it cannot be "rendered" directly on the robot because it doesn't take into account the complex real-world physics. 2. Reinforcement learning (RL) is a great tool for training low-level robot controllers. RL needs a reward function to optimize, and it's typically a task reward (e.g. walk in a straight line as fast as possible). The problem is that RL doesn't know what counts as "natural behavior", and often produces weird-looking body postures that somehow still maximize the reward. This is a human alignment problem just like ChatGPT. 3. Enters Adversarial Motion Prior (AMP): a technique that learns the human preference by training a classifier on what we consider "emotional & cute". In GAN literature, this is called a discriminator. Disney artists are good at creating such a dataset. You can then add AMP as an auxiliary reward in simulation to nudge the robot towards desired behaviors. AMP was developed by Peng et al. 2021 and Escontrela et al. 2022. 4. Add lots of data augmentation to make the controller robust to physical disturbances. In RL, it's called "domain randomization". This is a very powerful technique that bridges the gap between simulator and reality. Previously, OpenAI used domain randomization to train a 5-finger robot hand to manipulate a Rubik's Cube: IEEE news article gave hints about the pipeline: Finally, praying for world peace 🙏. I hope robotics like this will bring more joy to the world.
0:58

Let's reverse engineer Disney's adorable, lifelike robot! I couldn't find a whitepaper, but this is how I think it's trained: 1. The emotional behaviors are curated by Disney animation artists, keyframe by keyframe. But it cannot be "rendered" directly on the robot because it doesn't take into account the complex real-world physics. 2. Reinforcement learning (RL) is a great tool for training low-level robot controllers. RL needs a reward function to optimize, and it's typically a task reward (e.g. walk in a straight line as fast as possible). The problem is that RL doesn't know what counts as "natural behavior", and often produces weird-looking body postures that somehow still maximize the reward. This is a human alignment problem just like ChatGPT. 3. Enters Adversarial Motion Prior (AMP): a technique that learns the human preference by training a classifier on what we consider "emotional & cute". In GAN literature, this is called a discriminator. Disney artists are good at creating such a dataset. You can then add AMP as an auxiliary reward in simulation to nudge the robot towards desired behaviors. AMP was developed by Peng et al. 2021 and Escontrela et al. 2022. 4. Add lots of data augmentation to make the controller robust to physical disturbances. In RL, it's called "domain randomization". This is a very powerful technique that bridges the gap between simulator and reality. Previously, OpenAI used domain randomization to train a 5-finger robot hand to manipulate a Rubik's Cube: IEEE news article gave hints about the pipeline: Finally, praying for world peace 🙏. I hope robotics like this will bring more joy to the world.

Jim Fan

314,807 просмотров • 3 лет назад

I made Physical AutoResearch sound simple (conceptually), but it took a village to pull off and lots of design thinking into the robot /loopcraft. The hardest part is everything we need to setup *before* pressing Enter. Here's a behind-the-scene tour: 1. Safety harness Letting 8 robots run unattended overnight means safety has to be more than a hint in the system prompt. ENPIRE hardwires it in 2 layers: (1) hard kinematic limit that trips an immediate task failure and auto-resets as soon as a robot leaves its safety envelope, and (2) a torque-limited compliant gripper so a bad contact or misaligned insertion ends in a safe stall, instead of crushing the robot or the object at hand. We make safety more conservative than usual so humans can sleep tight. In reality, we still need a few human operators to watch over the "robots of loving grace". 2. Definition of /done An agent that can edit its own reward will game it for sure. ENPIRE fixes the goalposts before the fleet can move them. Here's the recipe: Collect a few minutes of success & failure demos -> Ask agent to write code using computer vision tools to classify success and measure against groundtruth -> Agent hill-climbs on classifier until reliably good -> This classifier becomes the real-time reward function that directly computes on sensor streams -> *Freeze* the reward function before AutoResearch. It's sacred, enshrined in a Gym env that no one can touch. 3. System telemetry design Robot-seconds is by far the scarcest resource, followed by GPU-seconds, and finally tokens. We instrument all three and surface them to ENPIRE for live resource awareness rather than letting it hill-climb in a vacuum. We define: - Mean Robot Utilization ("MRU"): the fraction of wall-clock time when the robot is actively executing an experiment. Otherwise the hardware is sitting idle and waiting for the next code commit. - Mean Token Utilization ("MTU"): tokens consumed per minute, our proxy for how hard the agent is actually thinking. A low MTU means the agent is stalled, waiting on a robot rollout to finish instead of doing research. - GPU utilization: fraction of wall-clock time when GPU is active. ... and evaluate on two budget-to-outcome metrics: 1. Tokens-to-Success: token budget the fleet burns to complete /goal. 2. Time-to-Success: wall-clock time to /goal
0:42

I made Physical AutoResearch sound simple (conceptually), but it took a village to pull off and lots of design thinking into the robot /loopcraft. The hardest part is everything we need to setup *before* pressing Enter. Here's a behind-the-scene tour: 1. Safety harness Letting 8 robots run unattended overnight means safety has to be more than a hint in the system prompt. ENPIRE hardwires it in 2 layers: (1) hard kinematic limit that trips an immediate task failure and auto-resets as soon as a robot leaves its safety envelope, and (2) a torque-limited compliant gripper so a bad contact or misaligned insertion ends in a safe stall, instead of crushing the robot or the object at hand. We make safety more conservative than usual so humans can sleep tight. In reality, we still need a few human operators to watch over the "robots of loving grace". 2. Definition of /done An agent that can edit its own reward will game it for sure. ENPIRE fixes the goalposts before the fleet can move them. Here's the recipe: Collect a few minutes of success & failure demos -> Ask agent to write code using computer vision tools to classify success and measure against groundtruth -> Agent hill-climbs on classifier until reliably good -> This classifier becomes the real-time reward function that directly computes on sensor streams -> *Freeze* the reward function before AutoResearch. It's sacred, enshrined in a Gym env that no one can touch. 3. System telemetry design Robot-seconds is by far the scarcest resource, followed by GPU-seconds, and finally tokens. We instrument all three and surface them to ENPIRE for live resource awareness rather than letting it hill-climb in a vacuum. We define: - Mean Robot Utilization ("MRU"): the fraction of wall-clock time when the robot is actively executing an experiment. Otherwise the hardware is sitting idle and waiting for the next code commit. - Mean Token Utilization ("MTU"): tokens consumed per minute, our proxy for how hard the agent is actually thinking. A low MTU means the agent is stalled, waiting on a robot rollout to finish instead of doing research. - GPU utilization: fraction of wall-clock time when GPU is active. ... and evaluate on two budget-to-outcome metrics: 1. Tokens-to-Success: token budget the fleet burns to complete /goal. 2. Time-to-Success: wall-clock time to /goal

Jim Fan

109,954 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

These guys trained a robot with water bottles, and the robot learned to pick up other objects it had never practiced on. They did this using reinforcement learning: 1. The robot had to pick a bottle out of a messy tote 2. Then it had to hand the bottle to a person 3. Only water bottles. Nothing else. After they finished training, they tested the robot on different objects: • On bottles, the success went from 80% to 98% • On snack cans, the robot's throughput rose 40% • On soft bags, the robot's performance improved by 13% even though they're deformable and much harder to handle than rigid objects. Snack cans and soft bags have different shapes and weights, and the robot was never trained on them. This was just one of three use cases they tested. Every hour we spend teaching a robot costs a ton of money. If they only get better at handling the one object they practice on, reinforcement learning will never be worth doing. But if the gains carry over, we could focus on teaching the hardest possible tasks and let the robot apply that knowledge elsewhere. Here is the full write-up by Humanoid on the infrastructure they used and what they learned: #ad
1:40

These guys trained a robot with water bottles, and the robot learned to pick up other objects it had never practiced on. They did this using reinforcement learning: 1. The robot had to pick a bottle out of a messy tote 2. Then it had to hand the bottle to a person 3. Only water bottles. Nothing else. After they finished training, they tested the robot on different objects: • On bottles, the success went from 80% to 98% • On snack cans, the robot's throughput rose 40% • On soft bags, the robot's performance improved by 13% even though they're deformable and much harder to handle than rigid objects. Snack cans and soft bags have different shapes and weights, and the robot was never trained on them. This was just one of three use cases they tested. Every hour we spend teaching a robot costs a ton of money. If they only get better at handling the one object they practice on, reinforcement learning will never be worth doing. But if the gains carry over, we could focus on teaching the hardest possible tasks and let the robot apply that knowledge elsewhere. Here is the full write-up by Humanoid on the infrastructure they used and what they learned: #ad

Santiago

13,952 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад