This is a great example of an extremely clear explanation of what's possible in robotics today for the everyday viewer. She's a wonderful, gifted teacher and should make more videos like this on a variety of scientific topics.
Honestly i think that she seems not very bright...she got several things wrong...and several things are extremely plausible in the future where most of the movies where from...
It's amazing how she finds something unique, scientific and interesting to talk about for each scene - like the cuteness factor for R2-D2 and versatility for the interstellar robot. I'd rate the intelligence of this episode a 10/10.
I love how she says we don't have the technology "yet" this is a big distinction, because it shows that we know we can do it we're just not technologically advanced enough now to pull these off, but we will one day.
whos to say that "one day" isnt at a certain point where natural resource depletion reaches such a level that technological progress cannot be made anymore due to of lack of resources
What does that mean? We're not technologically advanced enough? Is it like if you have the first invention of a tv in 1921 but you haven't developed the parts small enough or fast enough for the flat screens we use in 2022?
To Asimov’s credit, the issue of the First Law being in conflict when saving one person means harming another is the basis for a few of his stories - he came up with them because it was interesting to look at where they broke down. Of course the harder part is a robot even knowing when something it does would hurt a human. Right now they can barely identify a human being at all.
And also to showcase how probabilities between survivors come into play. In the I Robot movie, they even added a pretty good scene explaining this concept when Will Smith emotionally xplained to the doctor how the android who saved him instead of the little girl did it based on logic and survival probability instead of choosing between an adult and a child, which to an android wouldn't make sense
You should look into the complexity of the human brain vs AI. We'll never get to the point of simulating a human thought process for a thousand + years probably WAY longer. The human brain is INSANELY powerful (yet I still trip up the stairs sometimes. >.>)
14:20 I think one of Asimov's novels had a robot practically commit suicide because of conflicting orders that would both "harm" a human in one way or another (IIRC it was different people ordering the robot to either keep or reveal some secret). In another novel, there was a theme about robots harming the entire _humanity_ as a whole without causing harm to any _individual_ human per se.
@@o.sunsfamily Sounds a bit like Robots and Empire. It is more a collection of short stories and as I recall two of them had robots wiping out humans without technically killing a human. One where through inaction a robot allowed the human race to die because the first law prevented it from harming the human causing the death of the human race. The other because the people on the planet where the robot was reprogrammed the robot to only consider people of that planet as humans, so when other humans visited the planet it could freely kill them without violating the 3 laws.
The loophole of the laws of robotics, if out of their control a scenario is created in which a decision between humans must be made, the first law sort of completely fails, forcing the robot to violate the law
@@o.sunsfamily All of them, essentially. In fact, almost all of the advancements in positronic brains (the robot 'brains' that let them 'think') in the books are basically improving their ability to distinguish how to apply the Three Laws. In Caves of Steel, there is a robot that doesn't commit suicide but succumbs to permanent positronic brain death because of conflicts in the Three Laws. Not quite the same, though.
I’ve never been one to idolise people, but I could make an exception for her. As a retired IT service technician who spends his days tinkering with electronics and “mechatronics”, I admire her a great deal!
The only issue stopping people from building an iron man suit is the power source, Tony's Arc reactor is a miniature nuclear power plant with the power to light a whole city.
@chris smith Money won't be a problem if this armor could be weaponize, any nations would be interested to fund it. US fund billions of US dollar for exoskeleton research, if someone could built it and powered it, the US government would surely want one.
Eh, I think you could get a pretty powerful exoskeleton if you had a gasoline power source. The real problem is the heat and materials. I don't have lots confidence that you could keep a system cool, at Stark's scale. Needs to be a bit bigger. On top of that, you need some pretty expensive and lightweight ceramics. If using gasoline, you also need a mask to manage fumes... I also think that the flight system would always have to be a separate apparatus/module. And, it'd probably need to be drone pack, instead of a jetpack. But yeah, you could definitely make a system that can accomplish most of Stark's functions. You'd just need a good team, with good funding.
@@chem7553 generally any attempt to create a real life exoskeleton involve using pnuematics to drive the motion, this generally involves either a gas canister or a air compressor Any petrol powered exoskeleton would require both a compressor and engine, and even using a 1 cylinder 2 stroke would add a lot of weight Exoskeletons are pretty simple to make crudely, but theres reason why she made the point that humans being in contact with robots is dangerous. A poorly calibrated exoskeleton would snap spines, have limited movement, and would be extremely expensive
There are at least 1 other major issue: The repulsors, which generate huge amounts of thrust using just energy. In the real world, thrust is generated by accelerating mass in the opposite direction, which can be surrounding air/liquid or an onboard propellant. The repulsors don't require any propellant, and they are much too small to capture enough surrounding air, etc to produce that much thrust.
Only three movie clips in and I love this expert. So much better than the ones who don't enjoy movies for reasons related to their profession. She's simply explaining what exists and what's to come in the future and never fully bashes the movie because she understands it's for entertainment
Regarding the 3 laws... The probabilities between survivors come into play. In the I Robot movie, they even added a pretty good scene explaining this concept when Will Smith emotionally xplained to the doctor how the android who saved him instead of the little girl did it based on logic and survival probability instead of choosing between an adult and a child, which to an android wouldn't make sense since it's mainly emotional. So did the android violate the First Law because he couldn't save both, or did he not because he did save at least one? Food for thought
outside of the absolute laws there is chaos, infinite ways to organize priority the most probable to be selected is to have the robot by default just freeze or shut down second most probable default is the robot finds a task based on its standard order on how it selects tasks like "if two tasks, select more important, select fastest,..." the third is the lazy solution probably in the first robots where if challenged with a difficult multiple choice question and it exceeds a limit, it picks randomly
I would say the robot chose logically and pragmatically. The fully developed adult is practically more useful than a child is. The adult is stronger more able to survive. By that logic the Robot saved the only person it could save. It is only one robot, so it followed the laws based on its own singular abilities
The sheer expertise all across the field is simply wonderful to witness. And complexly wonderful. It's wonderful. I love academics being enthusiastic about the many and varied applications of their field, particularly in fields wherein such wildly disparate themes such as "cuteness" and "actuation" are vital components.
I agree with her scores because she explains why she gave the score number for each movie! I think the title/ description was : how realistic movies are. Ayana is rating on how realistic they are
@@joshchen8679 there is this problem i see with the viewers of cinema that they criticize them as being realistic. well that's so wrong. realism is in documentaries. we shall think of logic and reasonable incidents on cinema. like yes no person turns into a mutant fast creature by bitten by a spider but lets given that genetics change a little then that's a logic
I would enjoy watching her look at Ghost in the shell, with all it's philosophical looks into the psyche of an ai and the acquisition of a soul or "ghost" through the ability to actively learn and begin to ponder the meaning of existence.
When the Otto Octavius clip from Spiderman played, and she mentioned, "The technology was possible, not on the order of humans but small animals", and the clip of the mouse showed, I spaced out for a bit and started imagining a cyborg mouse origin story. I imagined they gave a mouse some form of advanced robotic appendages and then it escapes the lab to someone's house. The homeowner discovers their house is rodent infested and tries to catch it, but gets shocked to see a robot-abled mouse thwarting all their efforts. Maybe they try a mouse trap and come back to the trap completely wrecked and in pieces.
With enough funding & R&D it could probably be done today it's just only really nation states or like Elon Musk could fund such a thing. However we absolutely know DARPA has been extremely interested in developing armored exoskeletons suits for the military for quite some time now.
Terrific reviews and reviewer! I would love to see her review WALL-E -- what's fantastical about it and what's in the realm of possible. (I suppose i shouldn't be lazy and search RUclips, there must be a review of WALL-E like this.)
Great video in the series. I enjoy hearing about robotics because there's so much potential there. I'd love to see you bring in Chris Atkeson (the guy who helped design the Baymax robot).
Well she was judging pieces, not the whole idea. The parts of Iron Man that were shown can and do exist in some way. We just can't build superheroes yet. Based off that logic I feel like she could have given Baymax and Minority Report higher ratings though. lol
The sections that show Boston Dynamics stuff hits a little different once you see the, previously cute and dog-like, robot walker with an automated weapon attached to it
As for the last clip I think there is a misunderstanding. The point was, that it was a sort of reverse Turing test. It was not if he could not tell if she was a robot or not, but if knowing that she is a robot, would he treat her as one or not.
She is, hands down, someone that I would want to spend an entire day with - just asking her question after question, soaking up all of her wisdom, beauty, and poise. You can tell that she is extremely brilliant and beautiful, but isn’t condescending or arrogant about it. I’m sure there aren’t many women in this particular industry, especially women of color - so I can only imagine the amount of obstacles she has had to face. I’m proud of her. Truly! 🥹💕
absolutely loved listening to Ayanna, the way she had something to say about each clip even when the robotics/AI shown was unrealistic. She has such an engaging way of explaining things. I'd love to pick her brain, or someone like her, on the philosophical and ethical side of some of those films, like iRobot and Ex Machina, because although the technology is so far into the realms of science fiction, the real core of the films and their message is in the philosophical thought experiments rather than their realism. She touched on it a little with iRobot, with the self-driving cars, and the turing test.
Hmm this video was so sweet for me. I'm learning to be a technician majored in automatizating and probably I will an enginier. And my profession is really close to robotics, almost the same, and it was really fun to see how real my favourite Sci-Fi (such as I Robot, or STAR WARS) are. To be honest I'm a bit suprised by that the laws of Asimov....but kinda logical. Thanks for the video.
It's good that the Iron Man suit tech is identified for what the future for augmentations can become, not just that it is fantastical. People may brush it off, saying that such exoskeletons can work better as drones, but the biggest draw to have an exoskeleton over an actual person is in medical field, where disabilities could be mitigated for people with disabilities.
The US military is testing exoskeleton suits similar to iron man's suit, but are limited by the power supply. Once we solve this, future militaries might field exoskeleton soldiers like we see in Halo or that one Tom Cruise film (I can't remember the name).
@@alex_spartan1805 That movie is "Edge of Tomorrow", released in 2014. And I do agree that the military would find use in exoskeletons. I mean, if you look at the lore, most of the Armor components in Halo can be done with present day technology, except for the power source. However, I do still believe that a non weaponized, watered down version of the exoskeleton would do wonders in the medical field, especially for people with disabilities. No matter what leaps the infrastructure has made, the world is not a kind place for disabled people to live their day-to-day tasks. Such an exoskeleton would make it possible for disabled people to move their limbs via cybernetic connections, making them able to perform their day to day tasks.
There's an actual Load-Bearing exoskeleton made from a company in Canada. Mawashi UPRISE. No batteries, made of titanium, and was put on trails in Sigapore France and Canada. They claim 50-80% load transfer capacity to the ground under static and dynamic conditions. That's huge, being able to carry your equipment almost without feeling it means more flexibility and endurance.
I love how they use a scene from T2 that was in the extended cut of the film released in 94 lol. I think the extended edition with the smile & more T1000 glitches in the steel mill is a much better version. Closes a lot of holes that were in the original, like what Dyson drops on the detonator when he dies, in the original it's just something he's holding where as in the extended cut you discover it's the prototype Neutral Net Processor he smashed.
@@ihavegymnastics Yea, in 1994 they released a Directors Cut that had a lot of extra scenes, tho not all of the unused footage. This was one of em. It's pretty much John & Sarah turning on the learning chip instead of it already being on like in the original. The Skynet Edition Blu-ray it has both versions, theatrical and extended.
@@johnbrennan8611 It was a good scene because once they have the chip out, Sarah wants to destroy it, and John has to convince her to trust him and turn the Terminator back on. It's a turning point where she begins to realize John isn't just her son, but can actually become the leader he was destined to be.
@@albertmartinez2539 No doubt. It absolutely shows that she realizes if he's to have the confidence to lead the human race she has to believe in him & his ideas, even at such a young age.
Asimov actually extensively explores the issues with his rules in his novels and short stories. It's actually kind of the whole point - he established the rules and his stories are often kind of detective stories to figure out what went wrong and why. I'm a bit disappointed that she mostly judged or commented based on what is currently possible and not what could be possible down the line. Yes, solar power now is not efficient enough - doesn't mean that it can't be. No, a parkour robot doesn't have enough battery to run for a long time - doesn't mean we won't develop better batteries. The list goes on. I mean, most of these are quite obviously sci-fi...
@@visceraeyes525 because the robot is a tool that serves to provide assistance. The human is the one making the decisions. All robots above a certain level of sophistication are superhuman in their specialty by the way. That's why we use them.
The reason she is there is to judge how real the things shown are so why should she even care about what might be possible? Its like saying that timetravel is real just cause maybe it will be in 50000000 years.
I really liked the video👌👌👌. I do still think that we just lack creativity when it comes to some of our technological advances but at tge same time we could be also facing the challenge of just not having/developing the kind of materials or components that could make some of these robotic designs. Funding is also one issue that we cant ignore.
For a robotics engineering student with some experience with robotics in general it wasn't surprising to hear that almost all the cool robots, AIs, gadgets, etc. from these movies already exist in real life, on a certain level. The technology behind all the parts of said robots are developed enough for our current needs. It's when you try to combine them all together into an ironman suit or an autobot that you realize how clunky, unreliable, impractical and expensive the real life implementation would be. Like imagine a suit from metal that grants you protection from bullets, lets you fly, shoot rockets and whatnot, has an integrated AI and all the little unfolding parts while also being capable of working for hours and not weighting like a car and not being a 10cm thick layer of metal covering your body aaand not costing a gazillion dollars. It's kinda sad that I got involved into engineering and robotics because I wanted to build sentry guns like the engineer from team fortress 2 only to realize that I will probably never work on most of these fancy "fictional" gadgets in the lifetime.
"Ex Machina" is such a great movie. It explores that potential situation of self aware AI and what it would do. Reminds me of story wtitten by Lem, about scientist who created robots which influenced their creator and used him to communicate and later run away. Both movie and a story are worth checking. I even saw couple of movie reviewers having "Ex Machina" in their top 3 for year when it was released.
I try to address and identify my own inherent biases, but in this situation (and because I'm primarily listening to this video, not watching it), her upward inflection 'valley girl' way of speaking immediately makes me dismiss anything she says. Of course, that doesn't make her wrong, but I do feel it does hurt her intentions. If you're an academic, especially in a public-facing position, you should be able to speak academically (and not like a 14 year old girl from California).
@@basilfoxworth7089 "I try to address and identify my own inherent biases, but in this situation, I've decided to be incredibly biased." She talks fine. She can communicate her points clearly and effectively. So long as those things are true, why does anything else about her voice matter? It's one thing if you just found her annoying, but come on.
This was incredible. You can see when you bring someone like her, who is habitual to teach, other guests would just rate, she use all the scenes to teach something about Robotics.
I don't know if she's being objective or biased, my operative system cannot comprehend that Edit: btw, where's Robocop? Where's Chappie? Where's Upgrade?
I would like to hear her comments or any expert's comments on technology from various animes. Like the ai tanks from Ghost in the Shell or mobile suits from mobile suite gundam or any piloted giant robots or any futuristic sci-fi anime series like the Macross series.
I enjoyed the video. I'd love that you have included the fantastic robot AIMEE from the red planet. Edit: there's also a series in Netflix, better than us
About Collaborative Robotics There are Tom Scott Video where he tell us there are a store house who incorporated thousand of robots to store, move and handle stuff needed in supermarkets. its fascinating because there are several kinds of different robots
The problem with robotics in movies is not the possibility in terms of mechanics. It's always the fact that they use some fictional power source that doesn't exist and probably would never exist. The idea of having a fusion core as small as an apple is real sci-fi, that's what makes Iron man possible.
@@SFgamer there are limits on how much energy you can store in a set amount of space. Technology can't overcome physics limitations. How do you think you can extract the Megajoules a thing like an arc reactor produces without killing the operator that has it on his chest? Be real.
Interesting about Interstellar getting a low rating for robots, when it has a "stellar" rating for astrophysics. It seems like Interstellar put in all the realism work at a cosmic and planetary scale, but not so much when actually setting foot on the planets themselves. Though I like to think that CASE and TARS are designed the way they are to make a reference to the black monoliths of 2001, and McConaughey's distrust of them is a reference to David and HAL (with a twist).
We have the technology to create a suit similar to iron man, but there some limiting factors. For example, a more powerful power supply that provides unlimited power for an extended amount of time. I am not 100% sure, but the current technology (battery cells) provide like 2 hours of power before needing a recharge.
I always thought the laws of robotics were 'Crush, Kill, Destroy' and 'Death to the Fleshy Ones'. Open to correction... :) Also, as someone who has done a lot of 3D engineering/design in the Day Job the idea of being able to control the 3D environment by basically waving your arms around as shown in Iron Man fills me with dread. As a method to inspect and interact with the finished 3D for presentation and education? yes. As a method of working solid on the design for hours on end? NO! Trust me, I go to great lengths to make sure I can work by only moving my fingers.
I could have thought something like Synthetics from Alien universe or Replicants from Blade Runner, especially the Voight-Kampff Test probably having some inspiration from the Turin Test, not be included.
I don't understand the ratings systems on these things. The experts spend half the time saying "yes it's possible, there's been advancements" but then rate it a 3/10
I guess the closer to it being theoretical the lower the rating will be. Unless it's modified to a point they can use it very well and it's sort of accurate from the movie than it'll probably be a higher rating. I might be wrong, but that's my guess
They aren't rating the possibility, they are rating how accurate the technology is to what we have today. But of course they aren't just gonna say "it's not" or " it is", they are gonna explain how what is shown would work and what things we have today may make that possible or else these videos would be 3 minutes each. The possibility doesn't necessarily boost the rating, and obviously every single expert isn't gonna rate stuff the same way.
I want to say she's rating based on whether it's feasible/practical and the individual technologies seen. Baymax was rated a 2/10 because it's unrealistic and unnecessary, but as she said soft robots do exist as a concept. Transformers is a 5/10 because while things like it do exist, existing to that scale is currently unrealistic and unnecessary. Iron man is an 8/10 because the technology does exist, is used today in the medical field, and is likely to reach the level of iron man in the foreseeable future.
I appreciate the effort to downplay the possibilities of Black Mirror's Metalhead. The commentary was a lot more frightening than the rating would have you believe.
I can't believe they didn't do Despicable Me. "What are these?" "A dozen Boogie Robots! BOOGIE!!" "I...I said Cookie...Cookie Robots...Why....Why are you so old?"
To be able for these to function you need a voice recogntion software that computer might undestand... Just like a Desktop computer that type on its own by the use of voice... The more the computer understands the binary you could use it on a microprocessor....
So for the R2-D2 2021 the last Anime Con in louisiana there was a engineer that actually had a remote controlled R2-D2 that moved and worked just like him even with the sounds. Now the dancing i don't think he did that lol. But everything else the head movement the gliding on the floor the look at you and make a sound. it was all perfect. I had to give the man a 9.5 and that was only cause it wasn't moving on its own lol.
I had to conduct a Turing Test for a psychology course in college. I am pretty brutal in my questions. Ask a computer if it is alive and it will answer with what it has been programmed to say. Ask a computer "why" it is alive, and it answers the best it can with inadequate information. Keep making up such questions, and the computer would never be able to catch up unless it were truly self-aware. In my case, the computer simply reiterated, "Yes, I am alive," and could not formulate any reasoning as to why it was alive. Computers also suffer a limitation in their ability to utilize information in an intuitive manner. Some can almost get there, but most fail rather consistently.
This lady is messing with my inner child lol. However I appreciate her intellect and logic. I love how she confirms the existence of parts of fictional robots but not in their entirety.
For further investigation of the integration and exploration of AIs (not just robots, but all intelligences with an artificial origin) I recommend the webcomic "Freefall," by Mark Stanley. It's cute and funny and harmless...right up until you realize that it's written and drawn by an engineer who stays pretty close to the cutting edge of the field, and the jokes deal with subjects of real interest and sometimes concern in our era, and the not-too-distant future, when we finally start making this speculative stuff into hard reality.
I would have loved if Ayanna x Insider touched on the Nanobots from Big Hero 6 some. Especially since she does mention Nanobots, and also Big Hero 6... just not at the same time -.-
Super sad about the Big Hero 6 review. The most interesting part of the whole movie were the micro-bots, and things like that both exist, and are likely the future of robotics in a big way.
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #73 ГОРОДСКИЕ ВЛАСТИ [Все люди] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X2AifDDZfZI/mqdefault.jpg)
"The more versatile you are the more likely you'll have failures" That hit me and it hurt.
Underrated comment
You're a robot (or partially)??? 😮
This is a great example of an extremely clear explanation of what's possible in robotics today for the everyday viewer. She's a wonderful, gifted teacher and should make more videos like this on a variety of scientific topics.
What I'm hearing from you is that I am mere years away from being Doc Ock.
Honestly i think that she seems not very bright...she got several things wrong...and several things are extremely plausible in the future where most of the movies where from...
I've watched a lot of this series and she's the best subject matter expert and presenter so far.
And always bringing up examples which goes to show how often people ask her these kind of questions, haha.
@@kaptenkrok8123 if shes not very bright, how is it that she makes robots?
It's amazing how she finds something unique, scientific and interesting to talk about for each scene - like the cuteness factor for R2-D2 and versatility for the interstellar robot. I'd rate the intelligence of this episode a 10/10.
I love how she says we don't have the technology "yet" this is a big distinction, because it shows that we know we can do it we're just not technologically advanced enough now to pull these off, but we will one day.
whos to say that "one day" isnt at a certain point where natural resource depletion reaches such a level that technological progress cannot be made anymore due to of lack of resources
What does that mean? We're not technologically advanced enough? Is it like if you have the first invention of a tv in 1921 but you haven't developed the parts small enough or fast enough for the flat screens we use in 2022?
She's on hopium
@@suezcontours6653 It means that in theory, we could. Practically, we can't. Yet.
Of course, people lie.
To Asimov’s credit, the issue of the First Law being in conflict when saving one person means harming another is the basis for a few of his stories - he came up with them because it was interesting to look at where they broke down.
Of course the harder part is a robot even knowing when something it does would hurt a human. Right now they can barely identify a human being at all.
"Hello human, high five!"
*crack*
"Damn robot, you broke my arm!!!"
"Apologies human, allow me to fix that."
*crack*
"ROBOTIC BASTARD!!!"
And also to showcase how probabilities between survivors come into play. In the I Robot movie, they even added a pretty good scene explaining this concept when Will Smith emotionally xplained to the doctor how the android who saved him instead of the little girl did it based on logic and survival probability instead of choosing between an adult and a child, which to an android wouldn't make sense
Everyone always talks about the Foundation series but overlook the Robot series. A mistake, imo.
You should look into the complexity of the human brain vs AI. We'll never get to the point of simulating a human thought process for a thousand + years probably WAY longer. The human brain is INSANELY powerful (yet I still trip up the stairs sometimes. >.>)
@@buttnugget2900 How do u calculate complexity?
The way she smiles while watching the star wars bit is so heartwarming :)
In asimov’s defense, a lot of his stories are about how the three laws work in reality and their complexity.
Also there is a zeroth law which could solve this lady's dilemma about self driving cars.
@@haticealbayrak2387 how does zeroth law solve the dilemma?
You mean, how they don't work.
@@momom6197 in a lot of cases, kind of, that's what's interesting
14:20 I think one of Asimov's novels had a robot practically commit suicide because of conflicting orders that would both "harm" a human in one way or another (IIRC it was different people ordering the robot to either keep or reveal some secret). In another novel, there was a theme about robots harming the entire _humanity_ as a whole without causing harm to any _individual_ human per se.
Interesting, do you perchance remember the title of the latter?
@@o.sunsfamily Sounds a bit like Robots and Empire. It is more a collection of short stories and as I recall two of them had robots wiping out humans without technically killing a human.
One where through inaction a robot allowed the human race to die because the first law prevented it from harming the human causing the death of the human race.
The other because the people on the planet where the robot was reprogrammed the robot to only consider people of that planet as humans, so when other humans visited the planet it could freely kill them without violating the 3 laws.
The loophole of the laws of robotics, if out of their control a scenario is created in which a decision between humans must be made, the first law sort of completely fails, forcing the robot to violate the law
@@o.sunsfamily All of them, essentially. In fact, almost all of the advancements in positronic brains (the robot 'brains' that let them 'think') in the books are basically improving their ability to distinguish how to apply the Three Laws.
In Caves of Steel, there is a robot that doesn't commit suicide but succumbs to permanent positronic brain death because of conflicts in the Three Laws. Not quite the same, though.
You made me wanna read Asimov
I’ve never been one to idolise people, but I could make an exception for her.
As a retired IT service technician who spends his days tinkering with electronics and “mechatronics”, I admire her a great deal!
The only issue stopping people from building an iron man suit is the power source, Tony's Arc reactor is a miniature nuclear power plant with the power to light a whole city.
And money
@chris smith Money won't be a problem if this armor could be weaponize, any nations would be interested to fund it. US fund billions of US dollar for exoskeleton research, if someone could built it and powered it, the US government would surely want one.
Eh, I think you could get a pretty powerful exoskeleton if you had a gasoline power source. The real problem is the heat and materials. I don't have lots confidence that you could keep a system cool, at Stark's scale. Needs to be a bit bigger. On top of that, you need some pretty expensive and lightweight ceramics.
If using gasoline, you also need a mask to manage fumes...
I also think that the flight system would always have to be a separate apparatus/module. And, it'd probably need to be drone pack, instead of a jetpack.
But yeah, you could definitely make a system that can accomplish most of Stark's functions. You'd just need a good team, with good funding.
@@chem7553 generally any attempt to create a real life exoskeleton involve using pnuematics to drive the motion, this generally involves either a gas canister or a air compressor
Any petrol powered exoskeleton would require both a compressor and engine, and even using a 1 cylinder 2 stroke would add a lot of weight
Exoskeletons are pretty simple to make crudely, but theres reason why she made the point that humans being in contact with robots is dangerous.
A poorly calibrated exoskeleton would snap spines, have limited movement, and would be extremely expensive
There are at least 1 other major issue: The repulsors, which generate huge amounts of thrust using just energy. In the real world, thrust is generated by accelerating mass in the opposite direction, which can be surrounding air/liquid or an onboard propellant. The repulsors don't require any propellant, and they are much too small to capture enough surrounding air, etc to produce that much thrust.
Both Spider-Man 2 and Iron Man are some of my favorite superhero movies be of how real the science is it nice to know experts agree as well
Only three movie clips in and I love this expert. So much better than the ones who don't enjoy movies for reasons related to their profession. She's simply explaining what exists and what's to come in the future and never fully bashes the movie because she understands it's for entertainment
Ayanna is really interesting, please bring her back.
And find a way to pair her with ditch guy, because we always need more ditch guy.
me? 🥺
I agree. This topic in general is very interesting, and she explains it all very well
Need 2 pay double for coming back.
I agree i loved her explanation in her field well done
Regarding the 3 laws... The probabilities between survivors come into play. In the I Robot movie, they even added a pretty good scene explaining this concept when Will Smith emotionally xplained to the doctor how the android who saved him instead of the little girl did it based on logic and survival probability instead of choosing between an adult and a child, which to an android wouldn't make sense since it's mainly emotional. So did the android violate the First Law because he couldn't save both, or did he not because he did save at least one? Food for thought
outside of the absolute laws there is chaos, infinite ways to organize priority
the most probable to be selected is to have the robot by default just freeze or shut down
second most probable default is the robot finds a task based on its standard order on how it selects tasks like "if two tasks, select more important, select fastest,..."
the third is the lazy solution probably in the first robots where if challenged with a difficult multiple choice question and it exceeds a limit, it picks randomly
I would say the robot chose logically and pragmatically. The fully developed adult is practically more useful than a child is. The adult is stronger more able to survive. By that logic the Robot saved the only person it could save. It is only one robot, so it followed the laws based on its own singular abilities
The sheer expertise all across the field is simply wonderful to witness. And complexly wonderful. It's wonderful. I love academics being enthusiastic about the many and varied applications of their field, particularly in fields wherein such wildly disparate themes such as "cuteness" and "actuation" are vital components.
She isn't just smart, but very down to earth and relatable. Probably a very good teach her. But man, she gave some low scores lol
I agree with her scores because she explains why she gave the score number for each movie! I think the title/ description was : how realistic movies are. Ayana is rating on how realistic they are
@@joshchen8679 there is this problem i see with the viewers of cinema that they criticize them as being realistic. well that's so wrong. realism is in documentaries. we shall think of logic and reasonable incidents on cinema. like yes no person turns into a mutant fast creature by bitten by a spider but lets given that genetics change a little then that's a logic
@@MobinAziziFakhr The robotics kid, not the whole movie plot lmfao
I would enjoy watching her look at Ghost in the shell, with all it's philosophical looks into the psyche of an ai and the acquisition of a soul or "ghost" through the ability to actively learn and begin to ponder the meaning of existence.
She knows her stuff and I like how she explains everything in simple turms
She's the Dean of Engineering at her university, of course she's an expert.
At least correct your spelling, in simple "turms."
I've never seen someone so happy while giving a 1/10 before 😄
With which one? There were a few 1s/ 2s
When the Otto Octavius clip from Spiderman played, and she mentioned, "The technology was possible, not on the order of humans but small animals", and the clip of the mouse showed, I spaced out for a bit and started imagining a cyborg mouse origin story. I imagined they gave a mouse some form of advanced robotic appendages and then it escapes the lab to someone's house. The homeowner discovers their house is rodent infested and tries to catch it, but gets shocked to see a robot-abled mouse thwarting all their efforts. Maybe they try a mouse trap and come back to the trap completely wrecked and in pieces.
at what point will the Rodent Avengers assemble in this fever dream??!
Check out We3 by Grant Morrison
Dr. Ratto Octavius
Absolutely love these videos❤
So, 3-4 years for an Ironman suit? That's the world I live in?
That's freaking awesome.
Eh they'll probably use it as a killing machine in Wars rather than using the same kinda technology for much more humanitarian needs
Also mjolnir armor as well minus the personal shielding.
With enough funding & R&D it could probably be done today it's just only really nation states or like Elon Musk could fund such a thing. However we absolutely know DARPA has been extremely interested in developing armored exoskeletons suits for the military for quite some time now.
Just hope that in 10 more years, there wouldn't be a "Thanos" showing up xD
Thank for catching that I was searching the comments
Well the explanation were super detailed and easy to understand a the same time. She is a good teacher.
Terrific reviews and reviewer!
I would love to see her review WALL-E -- what's fantastical about it and what's in the realm of possible. (I suppose i shouldn't be lazy and search RUclips, there must be a review of WALL-E like this.)
Great video in the series. I enjoy hearing about robotics because there's so much potential there. I'd love to see you bring in Chris Atkeson (the guy who helped design the Baymax robot).
Lol! She started with 8/10 but quickly changed her mind with all the others… and at the end she basically confessed being an IronMan fan 😄
Low rating in this case doesn't mean it's bad, it's just far from reality.
Well she was judging pieces, not the whole idea. The parts of Iron Man that were shown can and do exist in some way. We just can't build superheroes yet. Based off that logic I feel like she could have given Baymax and Minority Report higher ratings though. lol
@CYB3R2K30 building an exo suit is easier than a walking talking sentient robot.
It would be cool to see her react to robots in video games like Metal Gear.
Titanfall 2 and maybe cyberpunk
Lady Angela...
Ooh i'm early! Awesome video :)
The sections that show Boston Dynamics stuff hits a little different once you see the, previously cute and dog-like, robot walker with an automated weapon attached to it
As for the last clip I think there is a misunderstanding. The point was, that it was a sort of reverse Turing test. It was not if he could not tell if she was a robot or not, but if knowing that she is a robot, would he treat her as one or not.
She is, hands down, someone that I would want to spend an entire day with - just asking her question after question, soaking up all of her wisdom, beauty, and poise. You can tell that she is extremely brilliant and beautiful, but isn’t condescending or arrogant about it. I’m sure there aren’t many women in this particular industry, especially women of color - so I can only imagine the amount of obstacles she has had to face. I’m proud of her. Truly! 🥹💕
absolutely loved listening to Ayanna, the way she had something to say about each clip even when the robotics/AI shown was unrealistic. She has such an engaging way of explaining things. I'd love to pick her brain, or someone like her, on the philosophical and ethical side of some of those films, like iRobot and Ex Machina, because although the technology is so far into the realms of science fiction, the real core of the films and their message is in the philosophical thought experiments rather than their realism. She touched on it a little with iRobot, with the self-driving cars, and the turing test.
Hmm this video was so sweet for me. I'm learning to be a technician majored in automatizating and probably I will an enginier. And my profession is really close to robotics, almost the same, and it was really fun to see how real my favourite Sci-Fi (such as I Robot, or STAR WARS) are. To be honest I'm a bit suprised by that the laws of Asimov....but kinda logical. Thanks for the video.
It's good that the Iron Man suit tech is identified for what the future for augmentations can become, not just that it is fantastical. People may brush it off, saying that such exoskeletons can work better as drones, but the biggest draw to have an exoskeleton over an actual person is in medical field, where disabilities could be mitigated for people with disabilities.
The US military is testing exoskeleton suits similar to iron man's suit, but are limited by the power supply. Once we solve this, future militaries might field exoskeleton soldiers like we see in Halo or that one Tom Cruise film (I can't remember the name).
@@alex_spartan1805 That movie is "Edge of Tomorrow", released in 2014. And I do agree that the military would find use in exoskeletons. I mean, if you look at the lore, most of the Armor components in Halo can be done with present day technology, except for the power source.
However, I do still believe that a non weaponized, watered down version of the exoskeleton would do wonders in the medical field, especially for people with disabilities. No matter what leaps the infrastructure has made, the world is not a kind place for disabled people to live their day-to-day tasks. Such an exoskeleton would make it possible for disabled people to move their limbs via cybernetic connections, making them able to perform their day to day tasks.
@@prabhatsourya3883 I agreed exosuits can help definitely help everyone on a positive way. And thanks for the movie title!
There's an actual Load-Bearing exoskeleton made from a company in Canada. Mawashi UPRISE. No batteries, made of titanium, and was put on trails in Sigapore France and Canada. They claim 50-80% load transfer capacity to the ground under static and dynamic conditions. That's huge, being able to carry your equipment almost without feeling it means more flexibility and endurance.
Well, in Iron Man 2, Tony does call it a medical prosthesis lol
I’d love to see her react and rate cybernetics in TV games like Cyberpunk
I wanna see her react to Glados from Portal 2
I love how they use a scene from T2 that was in the extended cut of the film released in 94 lol. I think the extended edition with the smile & more T1000 glitches in the steel mill is a much better version. Closes a lot of holes that were in the original, like what Dyson drops on the detonator when he dies, in the original it's just something he's holding where as in the extended cut you discover it's the prototype Neutral Net Processor he smashed.
Huh. Glad that you mentioned that: I was watching and thinking, "I don't recall that scene from T2".
@@ihavegymnastics Yea, in 1994 they released a Directors Cut that had a lot of extra scenes, tho not all of the unused footage. This was one of em. It's pretty much John & Sarah turning on the learning chip instead of it already being on like in the original. The Skynet Edition Blu-ray it has both versions, theatrical and extended.
@@johnbrennan8611 It was a good scene because once they have the chip out, Sarah wants to destroy it, and John has to convince her to trust him and turn the Terminator back on. It's a turning point where she begins to realize John isn't just her son, but can actually become the leader he was destined to be.
@@albertmartinez2539 No doubt. It absolutely shows that she realizes if he's to have the confidence to lead the human race she has to believe in him & his ideas, even at such a young age.
1:16 "I'd say most countries: 5-10 years, Hammer Industries: 20."
4:19 the nostalgia! Amazing movie with legendary soundtrack
this was very good. I'm glad I robot was in this list. she sympathized cinema and logic of science very well
Great video she was very insightful 😊👍
Love how she starts grinning like a child when C-3PO shows up. I bet that was the movie that turned her on to robotics as a kid.
Asimov actually extensively explores the issues with his rules in his novels and short stories.
It's actually kind of the whole point - he established the rules and his stories are often kind of detective stories to figure out what went wrong and why.
I'm a bit disappointed that she mostly judged or commented based on what is currently possible and not what could be possible down the line.
Yes, solar power now is not efficient enough - doesn't mean that it can't be.
No, a parkour robot doesn't have enough battery to run for a long time - doesn't mean we won't develop better batteries.
The list goes on.
I mean, most of these are quite obviously sci-fi...
@sam deon yes, that's the point of sci-fi.
Take existing concepts and imagine future progression.
Yup, she gave interstellar 1/10 because "the interactions of body and water didn't correlate"
@@renasouza8261 why even send humans to space when the robot is super human?
@@visceraeyes525 because the robot is a tool that serves to provide assistance. The human is the one making the decisions.
All robots above a certain level of sophistication are superhuman in their specialty by the way. That's why we use them.
The reason she is there is to judge how real the things shown are so why should she even care about what might be possible? Its like saying that timetravel is real just cause maybe it will be in 50000000 years.
I really liked the video👌👌👌. I do still think that we just lack creativity when it comes to some of our technological advances but at tge same time we could be also facing the challenge of just not having/developing the kind of materials or components that could make some of these robotic designs. Funding is also one issue that we cant ignore.
I could imagine in the next couple of decades someone could possibly make a real world Iron Man suit.
For a robotics engineering student with some experience with robotics in general it wasn't surprising to hear that almost all the cool robots, AIs, gadgets, etc. from these movies already exist in real life, on a certain level.
The technology behind all the parts of said robots are developed enough for our current needs. It's when you try to combine them all together into an ironman suit or an autobot that you realize how clunky, unreliable, impractical and expensive the real life implementation would be. Like imagine a suit from metal that grants you protection from bullets, lets you fly, shoot rockets and whatnot, has an integrated AI and all the little unfolding parts while also being capable of working for hours and not weighting like a car and not being a 10cm thick layer of metal covering your body aaand not costing a gazillion dollars.
It's kinda sad that I got involved into engineering and robotics because I wanted to build sentry guns like the engineer from team fortress 2 only to realize that I will probably never work on most of these fancy "fictional" gadgets in the lifetime.
"Ex Machina" is such a great movie. It explores that potential situation of self aware AI and what it would do. Reminds me of story wtitten by Lem, about scientist who created robots which influenced their creator and used him to communicate and later run away. Both movie and a story are worth checking. I even saw couple of movie reviewers having "Ex Machina" in their top 3 for year when it was released.
It's the best out of the movies shown here.
She’s so intelligent. I’d love to learn from her about this stuff
How does one get into robotics?
I try to address and identify my own inherent biases, but in this situation (and because I'm primarily listening to this video, not watching it), her upward inflection 'valley girl' way of speaking immediately makes me dismiss anything she says.
Of course, that doesn't make her wrong, but I do feel it does hurt her intentions. If you're an academic, especially in a public-facing position, you should be able to speak academically (and not like a 14 year old girl from California).
@@basilfoxworth7089 Maybe she was trying to be hip to the crowd? Relatable?
@@basilfoxworth7089 "I try to address and identify my own inherent biases, but in this situation, I've decided to be incredibly biased."
She talks fine. She can communicate her points clearly and effectively. So long as those things are true, why does anything else about her voice matter? It's one thing if you just found her annoying, but come on.
@@basilfoxworth7089 you sound fun 🙄
I always wanted to know how Doc Ock's Arms are charged
Props to this Queen she did a great job breaking everything down! 🙌🏾💪🏾
This was incredible. You can see when you bring someone like her, who is habitual to teach, other guests would just rate, she use all the scenes to teach something about Robotics.
I don't know if she's being objective or biased, my operative system cannot comprehend that
Edit: btw, where's Robocop? Where's Chappie? Where's Upgrade?
Maybe she have little time to do the interview.
I'm just happy to see a sister in a field that isn't common to sisters! I love her and this!! 🥰
Cold fusion or other similar reaction is the key to building technologically advanced robots like these.
I hope I get to see it one day.
Man, this person has a different level of understanding!
I would like to hear her comments or any expert's comments on technology from various animes. Like the ai tanks from Ghost in the Shell or mobile suits from mobile suite gundam or any piloted giant robots or any futuristic sci-fi anime series like the Macross series.
My favourite robot characters in movies, Bishop from Aliens, Andrew from Bicentennial Man and Jeff & Dewey in Finch.
I hope to see Robocop and Gundam stuff, but this is still a good video with a good expert who explains clearly and consicely
She is great! 🤖
She is such a bright mind. Cool video.
Am I the only one who is disappointed that there were no clips from Love, Death & Robots in here? Would love to see reaction to Three Robots episodes!
I enjoyed the video. I'd love that you have included the fantastic robot AIMEE from the red planet.
Edit: there's also a series in Netflix, better than us
About Collaborative Robotics
There are Tom Scott Video where he tell us there are a store house who incorporated thousand of robots to store, move and handle stuff needed in supermarkets. its fascinating because there are several kinds of different robots
The problem with robotics in movies is not the possibility in terms of mechanics. It's always the fact that they use some fictional power source that doesn't exist and probably would never exist. The idea of having a fusion core as small as an apple is real sci-fi, that's what makes Iron man possible.
"probably would never exist"
Technology is advancing everyday.
@@SFgamer there are limits on how much energy you can store in a set amount of space. Technology can't overcome physics limitations. How do you think you can extract the Megajoules a thing like an arc reactor produces without killing the operator that has it on his chest? Be real.
How can someone miss the point this hard?!
@@antoniousai1989 With a resistor 😂
@@antoniousai1989 The thing is, is those limits change with further understanding and discoveries.
Be real.
Interesting about Interstellar getting a low rating for robots, when it has a "stellar" rating for astrophysics. It seems like Interstellar put in all the realism work at a cosmic and planetary scale, but not so much when actually setting foot on the planets themselves.
Though I like to think that CASE and TARS are designed the way they are to make a reference to the black monoliths of 2001, and McConaughey's distrust of them is a reference to David and HAL (with a twist).
We have the technology to create a suit similar to iron man, but there some limiting factors. For example, a more powerful power supply that provides unlimited power for an extended amount of time. I am not 100% sure, but the current technology (battery cells) provide like 2 hours of power before needing a recharge.
I always thought the laws of robotics were 'Crush, Kill, Destroy' and 'Death to the Fleshy Ones'. Open to correction... :)
Also, as someone who has done a lot of 3D engineering/design in the Day Job the idea of being able to control the 3D environment by basically waving your arms around as shown in Iron Man fills me with dread.
As a method to inspect and interact with the finished 3D for presentation and education? yes.
As a method of working solid on the design for hours on end? NO!
Trust me, I go to great lengths to make sure I can work by only moving my fingers.
I could have thought something like Synthetics from Alien universe or Replicants from Blade Runner, especially the Voight-Kampff Test probably having some inspiration from the Turin Test, not be included.
Cool! Thanks!
What a pleasant and intelligent human being 😁👍
Why remove the decimals from her rating? Why did the editor have to round off? Why? Why? Why?
I don't understand the ratings systems on these things. The experts spend half the time saying "yes it's possible, there's been advancements" but then rate it a 3/10
I guess the closer to it being theoretical the lower the rating will be. Unless it's modified to a point they can use it very well and it's sort of accurate from the movie than it'll probably be a higher rating. I might be wrong, but that's my guess
They aren't rating the possibility, they are rating how accurate the technology is to what we have today. But of course they aren't just gonna say "it's not" or " it is", they are gonna explain how what is shown would work and what things we have today may make that possible or else these videos would be 3 minutes each. The possibility doesn't necessarily boost the rating, and obviously every single expert isn't gonna rate stuff the same way.
I want to say she's rating based on whether it's feasible/practical and the individual technologies seen.
Baymax was rated a 2/10 because it's unrealistic and unnecessary, but as she said soft robots do exist as a concept.
Transformers is a 5/10 because while things like it do exist, existing to that scale is currently unrealistic and unnecessary.
Iron man is an 8/10 because the technology does exist, is used today in the medical field, and is likely to reach the level of iron man in the foreseeable future.
Psst, the ratings are just a means to engage the audience, they don't really matter.
No rocket science jesus maybe get an education before u use RUclips 👍🤣🤣
I appreciate the effort to downplay the possibilities of Black Mirror's Metalhead. The commentary was a lot more frightening than the rating would have you believe.
I love to see a black intelligent woman with science. And I’m surprised Iron man turned out to be the most realistic
I can't believe they didn't do Despicable Me.
"What are these?" "A dozen Boogie Robots! BOOGIE!!" "I...I said Cookie...Cookie Robots...Why....Why are you so old?"
To be able for these to function you need a voice recogntion software that computer might undestand... Just like a Desktop computer that type on its own by the use of voice... The more the computer understands the binary you could use it on a microprocessor....
I really enjoyed this video
*shows a robot form the future*
"This is totally unrealistic, our technology is not there yet"
Lmao ha
The name is "How real is?"
will be watching interstellar & ex machina npw, both fantastic movies.
So for the R2-D2 2021 the last Anime Con in louisiana there was a engineer that actually had a remote controlled R2-D2 that moved and worked just like him even with the sounds. Now the dancing i don't think he did that lol. But everything else the head movement the gliding on the floor the look at you and make a sound. it was all perfect. I had to give the man a 9.5 and that was only cause it wasn't moving on its own lol.
5:13 They do… come from space and are aliens.
I had to conduct a Turing Test for a psychology course in college. I am pretty brutal in my questions. Ask a computer if it is alive and it will answer with what it has been programmed to say. Ask a computer "why" it is alive, and it answers the best it can with inadequate information. Keep making up such questions, and the computer would never be able to catch up unless it were truly self-aware. In my case, the computer simply reiterated, "Yes, I am alive," and could not formulate any reasoning as to why it was alive. Computers also suffer a limitation in their ability to utilize information in an intuitive manner. Some can almost get there, but most fail rather consistently.
I would have enjoyed seeing you rate Commander Data
This one deserves an update.
She should watch the videos on the robotics expert that was involved in the big hero 6 movie. He had a friendly persona.
What about Borg nanoprobes (from Star Trek)? How close are we to such technology?
This lady is messing with my inner child lol. However I appreciate her intellect and logic. I love how she confirms the existence of parts of fictional robots but not in their entirety.
I f**king love this videos. More please.
For further investigation of the integration and exploration of AIs (not just robots, but all intelligences with an artificial origin) I recommend the webcomic "Freefall," by Mark Stanley. It's cute and funny and harmless...right up until you realize that it's written and drawn by an engineer who stays pretty close to the cutting edge of the field, and the jokes deal with subjects of real interest and sometimes concern in our era, and the not-too-distant future, when we finally start making this speculative stuff into hard reality.
I would love to see Ms. Howard be brought back for another video and react to androids in media like Detroit: Become Human and Blade Runner
16:05 Randall Munroe of xkcd comics posited an extra credit assignment to the Turing test: to convince the interrogator that _they_ are in fact an AI.
I would have loved if Ayanna x Insider touched on the Nanobots from Big Hero 6 some. Especially since she does mention Nanobots, and also Big Hero 6... just not at the same time -.-
"Another 3 or 4 year's, it would probably be a 10"
Guy's prepare for the first contact
they should have shown her the movie Short Circuit that was big in the mid-80s,early 90s
I would've killed to have this lady as one of my professors.
Ex Machina is one of my favorite movies
Super sad about the Big Hero 6 review. The most interesting part of the whole movie were the micro-bots, and things like that both exist, and are likely the future of robotics in a big way.
She's interesting to listen to, she shares fact and unfactual science in each scene
I won't sit through two entire adverts just to watch this.
the most advanced robot is already here and has been for thousands of years and we continue to be more advanced as time goes on
5:38 Isn't understanding and properly responding to human communication one of the toughest challenges in robotics and AI?