text
Always important to remember that a lot of these robots are “faking” the humanlike motions – its a property of how they’re trained not an inherent property of the hardware. They’re actually capable of way weirder stuff and way faster motions.
Always important to remember that a lot of these robots are “faking” the humanlike motions – its a property of how they’re trained not an inherent property of the hardware. They’re actually capable of way weirder stuff and way faster motions.
Looking through the original poster’s feed and he seems really dead set on giving this animated organic looking eyes and a movable face? Or at least like a human mask of some kind???
( Very niche rant about design principles that probably has nothing to do with the guy or subject he’s posting about because I only spent like 5min looking into this):
spoiler
Like, my guy, and all the other really hyperfixated super-anthro robot people, check this out:
<_> | : 3 | 0_0 | : p |
We got it already. Figured this out decades ago. Those little robot cat waiters they got at restaurants here and there just do that and it’s perfect.
Boggles me still how someone can be smart enough for an engineering degree and still not know how to transfer goal-based design into aesthetics. Robots look better by making them look good as robots, not by making them look good as people. Then they just look cheap and fake.
If they ever make a robo butler (or whatever) that becomes commercially successful it’s not going to have a human face, it’s just going to be a screen with ASCII animations or something similar.
It’s a robot. Stop wasting ting time fighting the grain and work with its strengths. Holy moly.
Perfect. Wonderful. Gorgeous. Relatable. Emotive. Clear. A+. What a little guy!
its from love death robots, but i think emoticon design was shown fairly convicingly in several sci fi properties (fucking wall-e including) as capable of showing emotions and not going into weird shit of 50 muscle groups to achieve uncanny valley effect slightly better.