Okay, so I guess I have to have a opening, so I am going to ask, I want you to present
a few Pythra, a framework for a couple of different controls.
So, if we think of robots nowadays, it's really something like this, like the Industrial Robots
in the whole sort of environment, something like that.
It's if you're ready to bring somebody with a very realistic way.
What you really don't have is something like this.
Complex manipulation of what's that actually work in household environments,
like complex dynamic environments, but a lot of variables with our stuff.
Why is that?
What are the problems that we have with getting robots into household environments?
First point, humans.
Humans.
Very annoying factor.
They are everywhere there, but walking around, they are predictable.
We have to work with them somehow.
We don't have to work them complicated.
And then you mix things and contrast by example to industrial robotics.
Any objects we don't have, it's called a state.
Very by a little bit, you might show the centimeters.
If you try to grab something that might already be much.
The robots have to dynamically react to else.
So if something, the robot wants to grab something and talk with someone,
it has to react to that.
Find a strategy to correct that and so on.
On the same topic, robots have to re-planned.
So if they want to add an indication, they want to grab something and then it is not there.
They have to find a strategy to mitigate that and to find it in another place.
They would stay our guard to adapt the whole thing.
And that is not an exhaustive.
It's amazing not all sorts of, I don't know.
So what are we going to do?
Basically, robots have to be more intelligent than AI.
So the robots have to understand what they are doing,
not just in the way that they are knowing what movements they are doing,
but they need to know the actual semantics,
like the movements I'm doing right now to pick up something
or I'm doing this motion to get to another position to do something there.
So the robot actually knows what he is doing in the bigger context of the task he is trying to achieve.
And robots need to reason about what they try to achieve and how to prove and how to mitigate else.
So for example, if the robot is tasked in the kitchen,
we're preparing back the breakfast.
And the robot knows, okay, he needs to set up the breakfast, breakfast,
we're zeroed, milk, a bowl and a spoon, classic breakfast.
But robot does not know where to get to work.
So he needs more information on how to get to work.
We are doing a quick, easy spot.
What does behavioral tradition tackle with problems?
Micro-basically provides syntax to the native use grant actions
objects and applications that are done,
resolved during run time.
So basically you can symbolically describe the location.
For example, an occasional robot for staff to pick up something,
they'll start resolved.
And they exactly know where the robot tries to find the location.
So that in the current context of the robot, it takes all the information
to pass, compiles that, and then finds the solution that is fitting for the solution.
Yes, the approach is, basically, of the modern.
And the next thing is micro has an internal use statement,
and basically takes them all sense of relevance, knowledge,
but development of our objects, of sensors,
and integrate all that to try to get an internal simulation
that is as closely as to do real representation of the word as possible.
And then we can read it on death, because in the next,
we will read it on the center of our planet, all about that.
And then last new Python lesson, or I'm going to basically
take all the execution of you.
Then put it in a database, and then you will learn from the fastest push.
And put it in your time.
So yeah, so this is your computer, if you want to check it out.
And then, thank you.