Rodney Brooks, Founder of iRobot and Heartland Robotics, To Retire From MIT

6/28/10Follow @gthuang

(Page 2 of 2)

objects using touch and vision—and can interact safely with people using compliant joints and movements—smart helper robots for the workforce may not be all that far off.

Reflecting on Brooks’s career to date—and understanding that he has been fiercely entrepreneurial throughout his years at MIT—I asked him about his continuing transition from the academic world to company life.

“Academic work is different from work in industry,” Brooks says. “In academia it is about developing new ideas and measuring their potential. In industry it is about making something that provides actual value to customers. The two are not always the same thing. And certainly the metrics of success are very different.”

For Heartland Robotics, success will mean putting a new generation of robots into the hands of manual workers, and empowering them in a similar way to how PCs revolutionized the information workplace. To help lead the charge, the company recently signed on a new CEO, Scott Eckert, formerly of Dell and Motion Computing. Brooks remains Heartland’s founder, chairman, and chief technology officer.

One last bit of perspective: In his keynote talk at the XSITE conference earlier this month, Brooks gave an example of exponential progress in robotics over the past 30 years. At the Stanford AI Lab, he said, a mobile robot he worked on back in 1979 took six hours to navigate a particular course 20 meters across a room. Fast forward to this decade, and Stanford’s autonomous robot car, Stanley (led by Sebastian Thrun), won the DARPA Grand Challenge for road-racing by navigating a 200-kilometer outdoor course in about the same amount of time—a little more than six hours.

That is the kind of progress in artificial intelligence and real-world interactions that Brooks is banking on here. And if all goes well, we could be looking at new labor markets and workplaces filled with robots in another decade or two.

Gregory T. Huang is Xconomy's Deputy Editor, National IT Editor, and the Editor of Xconomy Boston. You can e-mail him at gthuang@xconomy.com or call him at 617-252-7323. Follow @gthuang

Single Page Currently on Page: 1 2 previous page

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

  • http://www.pdfernhout.net Paul D. Fernhout

    I spent a year hanging out in Hans Moravec’s and Red Whittaker’s robot labs at CMU around 1985, and then spent a year managing the Princeton Robotics lab. I’ve been thinking about the socio-economic implications of advancing automation on-and-off for a long time. Here is my current thinking on how these robots like Rodney Brooks is making can be a boon to humanity instead of a bane:
    “Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective on 21st century economics”
    http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

    Essentially, the way forward includes a mix of a basic income (Social Security for all), a gift economy (like Debian GNU/Linux), democratic resource-based planning (with taxes, subsidies, and public works programs), and/or stronger local communities with greater self-sufficiency (like with RepRap and organic gardening robots). We have aspects of all those now, but we need to do better.

    Otherwise, our current economic system, based on a scarcity paradigm, will ironically use the tools of abundance in harmful ways — to fight over perceived scarcity rather than produce abundance directly with them. For example, right now military robots are ironically being built to enforce a social order based around making people work like robots, rather than just building robots to do the work instead. For a similar long-standing irony, we have built nuclear missiles to fight over oil lands, rather than just using the same technology to build clean energy systems (renewable and/or nuclear) for endless power and self-replicating space habitats for endless land.

    So, while I applaud what Rodeny Brooks is doing, I believe we need broader socio-economic changes to get the most out of what he and many other technologists are doing and otherwise avoid economic disaster. For example the US GDP grew 40% in the past decade with no net increase in jobs, and that’s before Heartland Robotics is selling products intended to replace people or, at least, allow fewer people to produce a lot more, which is what “productivity increases” means.

    Advanced robotics exposes at least three flawed assumptions in mainstream macroeconomics:
    * that demand for stuff and services is effectively unlimited;
    * that wealth from efficiency improvements will be evenly distributed; and
    * that most human labor will always have value.
    Without these assumptions, mainstream macroeconomic equations blow up with divide-by-zero errors. Robotics deployed within a low-tax capitalist framework invalidates all three of these assumptions in various ways. The result would be widespread suffering by most people in that society (see Marshall Brain’s novel Manna for an example of that) — unless we accept these implications and rethink several fundamental assumptions (including schooling and paid jobs) related to how our society would work if it is based around an abundance paradigm instead of the current scarcity paradigm.

  • Pingback: Upcoming Geek Fun: Alone Together and the Implications of IBM’s Watson