3
$\begingroup$

I was thinking of one similiar to the system from Patlabor or the original Moble Suit Gundam: an onboard AI which takes in inputs from a control panel/voice commands an interprets the best way to fulfill that order.

It seems fly-by-wire is what I was looking for. And at the moment, the most plausable.

Would making such a system via optical computing be advantageous?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just how big is that robot? $\endgroup$ – Mephistopheles Jan 17 at 7:15
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Please don't assume that anyone else on the site is as familiar with Palatbore or knows what "Moble" means, you need to be more descriptive in asking your question so that everybody knows what you are talking about. $\endgroup$ – BLT-Bub Jan 17 at 7:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Are you certain that you understand what "most reliable" means? What you have described, as far as I understand, seems to be a control system which is very usable, highly efficient and versatile, but with poor reliability due to the absence of redundancy. (You are asking a question about engineering. In engineering, the word "reliable" has a well-defined meaning.) $\endgroup$ – AlexP Jan 17 at 8:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your edit is good insofar as you've included links to your references, however you need to include a complete description within the body of the question - external links get broken and we intend this to be a long-term archive of questions and answers. $\endgroup$ – BLT-Bub Jan 18 at 8:05
  • $\begingroup$ Can you get specific about the specific requirements of this system in the question itself? Specific answers are really hard to give without specific questions being asked. $\endgroup$ – Zxyrra Jan 18 at 23:52
5
$\begingroup$

There already exists such a system. It is called Fly-by-wire. Many modern military planes are totaly unstable (at least at low speeds) and cannot be controled by human directly. So pilot is just telling plain computer "I want to turn up with 2,5g" (or "I want to roll with the speed 25 degrees per second") using flystick movements and computer perfomes quite a complex procedure to accomplish this demands.

Gaint mechs require more complex computers for sure. But it is doable even on our curent tech level. Especialy now when we have such a progress with neronetworks (OpenAI, car autopilots, Boston Dynamics "robots" and etc.). It is just completly unpractical.

For how it could be implemented you can check videogames on BattleTech vers (Mechwarrior series), or some other robot battles simulators.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This sounds about right. $\endgroup$ – Jacob Blaustein Jan 18 at 6:53
4
$\begingroup$

If you have an AI interpreting voice commands, why not just have the AI control it? An AI will be exponentially faster than a human and less prone to error.

But if you insist on having a human ultimately run it, voice commands are terrible, it’s slow and prone to errors. Stop for a moment and consider how absolutely buggy Alexa or Siri can be, or how much the human voice can be affected by stress or injury, or the fact that combat can get really, really loud.

It would also be better to not be inside the robot at all, and to control it from a mouse and keyboard 5,000 miles away in an office, if we can do it with predator drones now why not with giant mechs?

But if you insist on being inside the bot, than a much better alternative would be a neurolink, as it would be much faster. But if you refuse a neurolink for safety reasons than honestly a damn gaming controller would be your best bet, it’d be really easy to train with and it’d be really straightforward

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "An AI will be exponentially faster than a human and less prone to error." ahem, there are at least three plane crashes attributed to AI control system failures. "Less prone to errors" may just mean "when it does make an error, it will be exceedingly determined it's right until the bitter end" and the errors will be much more catastrophic. Without a substantial breakthrough in AI control systems, I wouldn't go inside a giant metal coffin no matter how much I was paid and how cool being in a robot would be. $\endgroup$ – VLAZ Jan 17 at 9:05
  • $\begingroup$ Worth noting that ‘move forward’ is a task orders of magnitude simpler than ‘invade the compound, find the prisoners, and extract them with minimal civilian casualties.’ We can reasonably expect an AI built for moving a giant robot to comfortably achieve the former but have no clue whatsoever about the latter. $\endgroup$ – Joe Bloggs Jan 17 at 12:19
1
$\begingroup$

Something like "Pacific Rim" robots.

In the movie Pacific Rim, giant robots are controlled by 2 pilots, each controlling one brain hemisphere, or something like that, and using their own limbs to move limbs of the robot, but it can be simplified.

One humanoid-shaped robot has a single pilot, (either inside the robot or remotely controlling it), and the robot simply mimics all the moves done by the pilot. If the pilot raises his left arm, the robot does the same, he runs or punches or crouches, the robot mimics the movements. Mimicking the minute movements are not required like twitching your toes or ears or whatever, You get the idea!!

To perform such a feat, the pilot is placed inside a gyro-stabilized, hologram room, in which the surroundings of the robot are pictured in-scale with the pilot, giving an illusion that the monster standing in-front of the monster is present with the pilot and the truck parked on the road is nothing more than a toy at his feet. Of-course when the pilot moves he actually stays stationary at the center of the room, otherwise he will be bumping into the walls.

Yes, He will have to do a lot of practice to keep his humanly movements in sync with the giant robot, but it is worth it and sounds cool.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Cyborg animal.

In the Battlestar Galactica reboot, the raider ships were a mix of biological and mechanical parts.

https://en.battlestarwikiclone.org/wiki/Cylon_Spacecraft_(RDM)

"It's not really a thing, y'know? It's probably a Cylon itself. More of an animal, maybe, than the human models. Maybe they genetically design it to perform a task. To be a fighter. [You] can't treat it like a thing and expect it to respond. [You] have to treat it like... a pet. At least that's my guess."

Your giant robots are similar. They have wetware; an organic brain and some other bits. Maybe the brain was purpose grown. Maybe it was the brain of an animal once and now resides in the robot. The brain perceives the robot as its body. If it is an animal brain it is a trained animal. If it is a human brain, perhaps that human was badly injured and the giant robot is his new body.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.