Chatbot Episode 1: Making Boston Dynamics’ Robots Dance

Evan Ackerman: I’m Evan Ackerman, and welcome to ChatBot, a robotics podcast from IEEE Spectrum. On this episode of ChatBot, we’ll be speaking with Monica Thomas and Amy LaViers about robots and dance. Monica Thomas is a dancer and choreographer. Monica has labored with Boston Dynamics to choreograph a few of their robotic movies by which Atlas, Spot, and even Deal with dance to songs like Do You Love Me? The “Do You Love Me?” Video has been considered 37 million occasions. And in case you haven’t seen it but, it’s fairly superb to see how these robots can transfer. Amy LaViers is the director of the Robotics, Automation, and Dance Lab, or RAD lab, which she based in 2015 as a professor in Mechanical Science and Engineering on the College of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The RAD Lab is a collective for artwork making, commercialization, training, outreach, and analysis on the intersection of dance and robotics. And Amy’s work explores the artistic relationships between machines and people, as expressed by way of motion. So Monica, are you able to simply inform me– I believe individuals within the robotics area might not know who you might be or why you’re on the podcast at this level, so are you able to simply describe the way you initially obtained concerned in Boston Dynamics?

Monica Thomas: Yeah. So I obtained concerned actually casually. I do know individuals who work at Boston Dynamics and Marc Raibert, their founder and head. They’d been engaged on Spot, and so they added the arm to Spot. And Marc was type of like, “I type of suppose this might dance.” They usually have been like, “Do you suppose this might dance?” And I used to be like, “It may undoubtedly dance. That undoubtedly may do numerous dancing.” And so we simply began attempting to determine, can it transfer in a means that looks like dance to individuals watching it? And the very first thing we made was Uptown Spot. And it was actually simply determining strikes that the robotic does type of already naturally. And that’s once they began growing, I believe, Choreographer, their instrument. However by way of my pondering, it was simply I used to be watching what the robotic did as its regular patterns, like going up, taking place, strolling this place, totally different steps, totally different gates, what’s fascinating to me, what appears to be like lovely to me, what appears to be like humorous to me, after which imagining what else we may very well be doing, contemplating the angles of the joints. After which it simply grew from there. And so as soon as that one was out, Marc was like, “What about the remainder of the robots? Might they dance? Possibly we may do a dance with the entire robots.” And I used to be like, “We may undoubtedly do a dance with the entire robots. Any form can dance.” In order that’s after we began engaged on what become Do You Love Me? I didn’t actually notice what an enormous deal it was till it got here out and it went viral. And I used to be like, “Oh—” are we allowed to swear, or—?

LaViers: That could be a nice query that if I may summarize what my life is like, it’s me on a pc going like this, attempting to determine the phrases to reply that succinctly. However a technique I would ask it, earlier after we have been speaking, you talked about this concept of useful habits versus expressive habits, which comes up so much after we begin pondering on this area. And I believe one factor that happens– and my coaching and background in Laban Motion Evaluation actually emphasizes this duality between operate and expression versus the both/or. It’s type of just like the mind-body cut up, the concept that these items are one built-in unit. Perform and expression are an built-in unit. And one thing that’s useful is admittedly expressive. One thing that’s expressive is admittedly useful.

Ackerman: It undoubtedly solutions the query. And it appears to be like like Monica is resonating with you somewhat bit, so I’m simply going to get out of the way in which right here. Amy, do you wish to simply begin this dialog with Monica?

LaViers: Certain. Certain. Monica has already answered, actually, my first query, so I’m already having to shuffle somewhat bit. However I’m going to rephrase. My first query was, can robots dance? And I really like how emphatically and superbly you answered that with, “Any form can dance.” I believe that’s so lovely. That was an ideal reply, and I believe it brings up— you’ll be able to debate, is that this dance, or is that this not? However there’s additionally a means to take a look at any motion by way of the lens of dance, and that features manufacturing facility robots that no person ever sees.

Thomas: It’s thrilling. I imply, it’s a very nice method to stroll by way of the world, so I truly advocate it for everybody, identical to taking a time and seeing the motion round you as dance. I don’t know if it’s permitting it to be intentional or simply to be particular, significant, one thing.

LaViers: That’s a extremely large problem, notably for an autonomous system. And for any shifting system, I believe that’s onerous, synthetic or not. I imply it’s onerous for me. My household’s coming into city this weekend. I’m like, “How do I act in order that they know I really like them?” Proper? That’s dramaticized model of actual life, proper, is, how do I be welcoming to my friends? And that’ll be, how do I transfer?

Thomas: What you’re saying is a reminder of, one of many issues that I actually get pleasure from watching robots transfer is that I’m allowed to challenge as a lot as I wish to on them with out taking away one thing from them. If you challenge an excessive amount of on individuals, you lose the particular person, and that’s probably not truthful. However once you’re projecting on objects, issues which can be objects however that we personify— or not even personify, that we anthropomorphize or no matter, it’s only a projection of us. Nevertheless it’s acceptable. So good for it to be acceptable, a spot the place you get to do this.

LaViers: Nicely, okay. Then can I ask my fourth query regardless that it’s not my flip? As a result of that’s simply too good to what it’s, which is simply, what did you study your self working with these robots?

Thomas: Nicely, I discovered how a lot I really like visually watching motion. I’ve at all times watched, however I don’t suppose it was as clear to me how a lot I like motion. The work that I made was actually about context. It was about what’s taking place in society, what’s taking place in me as an individual. However I by no means obtained into that faculty of dance that basically spends time simply actually taking note of motion or letting motion develop or discover, exploring motion. That wasn’t what I used to be doing. And with robots, I used to be like, “Oh, however yeah, I get it higher now. I see it extra now.” A lot in life proper now, for me, will not be contained, and it doesn’t have solutions. And translating motion throughout species from my physique to a robotic, that does have solutions. It has a number of solutions. It’s not like there’s a sure and a no, however you’ll be able to reply a query. And it’s so good to reply questions typically. I sat with this factor, and right here’s one thing I really feel like is an appropriate answer. Wow. That’s a rarity in life. So I really like that about working with robots. I imply, additionally, they’re cool, I believe. And additionally it is— they’re simply cool. I imply, that’s true too. It’s additionally fascinating. I suppose the very last thing that I actually cherished—and I didn’t have a lot alternative to do that or as a lot as you’d anticipate due to COVID—is being in area with robots. It’s actually fascinating, identical to being in area with something that’s totally different than your norm is notable. Being in area with an animal that you simply’re not used to being with is notable. And there’s simply one thing actually cool about being with one thing very totally different. And for me, robots are very totally different and never acclimatized.

Ackerman: Okay. Monica, you wish to ask a query or two?

Thomas: Yeah. I do. The order of my questions is ruined additionally. I used to be serious about the RAD Lab, and I used to be questioning if there are guiding ideas that you simply really feel are actually vital in that interdisciplinary work that you simply’re doing, and likewise any classes possibly from the opposite aspect which can be value sharing.

LaViers: The same old means I describe it and describe my work extra broadly is, I believe there are numerous roboticists that rent dancers, and so they make robots and people dancers assist them. And there are numerous dancers that they rent engineers, and people engineers construct one thing for them that they use within their work. And what I’m considering, within the little litmus check or problem I paint for myself and my collaborators is we wish to be proper in between these two issues, proper, the place we’re making one thing. To start with, we’re treating one another as friends, as technical friends, as inventive friends, as— if the robotic strikes on stage, I imply, that’s choreography. If the choreographer asks for the robotic to maneuver in a sure means, that’s robotics. That’s the inflection level we wish to be at. And so which means, for instance, by way of crediting the work, we attempt to credit score the artistic contributions. And never identical to, “Oh, effectively, you probably did 10 % of the artistic contributions.” We actually attempt to deal with one another as co-artistic collaborators and co-technical builders. And so artists are on our papers, and engineers are in our packages, to place it in that means. And likewise, that adjustments the questions we wish to ask. We wish to make one thing that pushes robotics only a inch additional, a millimeter additional. And we wish to do one thing that pushes dance simply an inch additional, a millimeter additional. We might like it if individuals would ask us, “Is that this dance?” We get, “Is that this robotics?” Quite a bit. In order that makes me really feel like we should be doing one thing fascinating in robotics.

And once in a while, I believe we do one thing fascinating for dance too, and positively, lots of my collaborators do. And that inflection level, that’s simply the place I believe is fascinating. And I believe that’s the place— that’s the room I stumbled into, is the place we’re asking these questions versus simply growing a robotic and hiring somebody to assist us do this. I imply, it may be onerous in that setting that folks really feel like their experience is being given to the opposite aspect. After which, the place am I an skilled? And we’ve heard editors at publication venues say, “Nicely, this dancer can’t be a co-author,” and we’ve had venues the place we’re engaged on this system and folks say, “Nicely, no, this engineer isn’t a performer,” however I’m like, “However he’s queuing the robotic, and if he messes up, then all of us mess up.” I imply, that’s vulnerability too. So we’ve got these conversations which can be actually sensitive and somewhat delicate and somewhat— and so how do you create that area the place individuals do you’re feeling protected and comfy and valued and attributed for his or her work and that they’ll make a observe report and do that once more in one other challenge, in one other context and— so, I don’t know, if I’ve discovered something, I imply, I’ve discovered that you simply simply have to actually speak about attribution on a regular basis. I deliver it up each time, after which I deliver it up earlier than we even take into consideration writing a paper. After which I deliver it up after we make the draft. And very first thing I put within the draft is everyone’s title within the order it’s going to look, with the affiliations and with the—subscripts on that don’t get added on the final minute. And when the editor of a really well-known robotics venue says, “This particular person can’t be a co-author,” that particular person doesn’t get taken off as a co-author; that particular person is a co-author, and we work out one other method to make it work. And so I believe that’s studying, or that’s only a wrestle anyway.

Ackerman: Monica, I’m curious if once you noticed the Boston Dynamics movies go viral, did you’re feeling like there was far more of a give attention to the robots and the mechanical capabilities than there was on the choreography and the dance? And if that’s the case, how did that make you’re feeling?

Thomas: Yeah. So sure. Proper. When dances I’ve made have been reviewed, which I’ve at all times actually appreciated, it has been concerning the dance. It’s been concerning the choreography. And really, type of going means again to what we have been speaking a couple of couple issues in the past, numerous the critiques that you simply get round this are about individuals, their reactions, proper? As a result of, once more, we will challenge a lot onto robots. So I discovered so much about individuals, how individuals take into consideration robots. There’s numerous actually overt themes, after which there’s particular person nuance. However yeah, it wasn’t actually concerning the dance, and it was in the course of the pandemic too. So there’s actually excessive isolation. I had no concept how individuals who cared about dance considered it for a very long time. After which each infrequently, I get one particular person right here or one particular person there say one thing. So it’s a completely bizarre expertise. Sure.

The best way that I took details about the dance was type of taking note of the affective expertise, the emotional expertise that folks had watching this. The dance was— nothing in that dance was— we use the buildings of the traditions of dance in it for intentional purpose. I selected that as a result of I wasn’t attempting to alarm individuals or present individuals ways in which robots transfer that absolutely hit some previous a part of our mind that makes us completely panicked. That wasn’t my curiosity or the aim of that work. And truthfully, sooner or later, it’d be actually fascinating to discover what the robots can simply do versus what I, as a human, really feel snug seeing them do. However the emotional response that folks obtained advised me a narrative about what the dance was doing in a backward– additionally, what the music’s doing as a result of—let’s be actual—that music does— proper? We stacked the deck.

LaViers: Yeah. And now that brings— I really feel like that serves up two of my questions, and I would allow you to decide which one possibly we go to. I imply, one among my questions, I wrote down a few of my favourite moments from the choreography that I believed we may talk about. One other query—and possibly we will do each of those in serie—is somewhat bit about— I’ll blush even simply saying it, and I’m so glad that the individuals can’t see the blushing. But in addition, there’s been a lot nodding, and I’m noticing that that received’t be within the audio recording. We’re nodding alongside to one another a lot. However the different aspect—and you may simply nod in a means that provides me your—the opposite query that comes up for that’s, yeah, what’s the financial piece of this, and the place are the facility dynamics inside this? And the way do you’re feeling about how that sits now as that video continues to simply make its rounds on the web and set up worth for Boston Dynamics?

Thomas: I’d love to start out with the primary query. And the second is tremendous vital, and possibly one other day for that one.

Ackerman: Okay. That’s truthful. That’s truthful.

LaViers: Yep. I like that. I like that. So the primary query, so my favourite moments of the piece that you simply choreographed to Do You Love Me? For the Boston Dynamics robots, the swinging arms originally, the place you don’t totally know the place that is going. It appears to be like so informal and so, dare I say it, pure, though it’s fully synthetic, proper? And the proximal rotation of the legs, I really feel prefer it’s a genius means of getting round no backbone. However you actually make use of issues that appear like hip joints or shoulder joints as a means of, to me, accessing a great wriggle or a great juicy second, after which the Spot area maintain, I name it, the place the top of the Spot is holding in place after which the robotic wiggles round that, dances round that. After which the second once you see all 4 full—these distinct our bodies, and it appears to be like like they’re dancing collectively. And we touched on that earlier—any form can dance—however making all of them dance collectively I believed was actually good and efficient within the work. So it’s a type of moments, tremendous fascinating, or you’ve got a joke about, I believed we may speak about it additional.

Thomas: I’ve a joke concerning the hip joints. So the preliminary— effectively, not the preliminary, however once they do the mashed potato, that was the primary dance transfer that we began engaged on, on Atlas. And for people who don’t know, the mashed potato is type of the toes are going out and in; the knees are going out and in. So we bumped into a few issues, which—and the twist. I suppose it’s a combo. Each of them such as you to roll your toes on the bottom like rub, and that friction was not good for the robots. So after we first began actually shifting into the twist, which has this torso twisting— the legs are twisting. The foot ought to be twisting on the ground. The foot will not be twisting on the ground, and the legs have been so turned out that the form of the pelvic area appeared like a over-full diaper. So, I imply, it was wiggling, however it made the robotic look younger. It made the robotic appear like it was in a diaper that wanted to be modified. It didn’t appear like a twist that anyone would wish to do close to anyone else. And it was actually superb how— I imply, it was simply hilarious to see it. And the engineers are available. They’re actually seeing the motion and attempting to determine what they want for the motion. And I used to be like, “Nicely, it appears to be like prefer it has a really full diaper.” They usually have been like, “Oh.” They knew it didn’t fairly look proper, however it was like—as a result of I believe they actually don’t challenge as a lot as I do, I’m very projective that’s one of many ways in which I’ve watched work, otherwise you’re pulling from the work that means, however that’s not what they have been . And so yeah, you then change the angles of the legs, how turned in it’s and no matter, and it resolved to a level, I believe, pretty efficiently. It doesn’t actually appear like a diaper anymore. However that wasn’t actually— and likewise to get that transfer proper took us over a month.

Ackerman: Wow.

LaViers: Wow.

Thomas: We obtained a lot quicker after that as a result of it was the primary, and we actually discovered. Nevertheless it took a month of programming, me coming in, naming particular methods of reshifting it earlier than we obtained a twist that felt pure if amended as a result of it’s not the identical means that–

LaViers: Yeah. Nicely, and it’s fascinating to consider the best way to get it to look the identical. You needed to change the way in which it did the motion, is what I heard you describing there, and I believe that’s so fascinating, proper? And simply how distinct the morphologies between our physique and any of those our bodies, even the very facile human-ish wanting Atlas, that there’s nonetheless numerous actually nuanced and fine-grained and human work-intensive labor to enter getting that to look the identical as what all of us consider because the twist or the mashed potato.

Thomas: Proper. Proper. And it does should be one thing that we will challenge these dances onto, or it doesn’t work, by way of this dance. It may work in one other one. Yeah.

LaViers: Proper. And also you introduced that up earlier, too, of attempting to work within some established types of dance versus making us all terrified by the unusual motion that may occur, which I believe is fascinating. And I hope at some point you get to do this dance too.

Thomas: Yeah. No, I completely wish to do this dance too.

Ackerman: Monica, do you’ve got one final query you wish to ask?

Thomas: I do. And that is— yeah. I wish to ask you, type of what does embodied or body-based intelligence provide in robotic engineering? So I really feel like, you, greater than anybody, can converse to that as a result of I don’t do this aspect.

LaViers: Nicely, I imply, I believe it might probably deliver a few issues. One, it might probably deliver— I imply, the primary second in my profession or life that that calls up for me is, I used to be watching one among my lab mates, after I was a doctoral scholar, give a speak about a quadruped robotic that he was engaged on, and he was describing the crawling technique just like the gate. And somebody mentioned— and I believe it was roughly like, “Transfer the middle of gravity contained in the polygon of help, after which decide up— the polygon of help shaped by three of the legs. After which decide up the fourth leg and transfer it. Set up a brand new polygon of help. Transfer the middle of mass into that polygon of help.” And it’s described with these figures. Possibly there’s a middle of gravity. It’s like a circle that’s like a checkerboard, and there’s a triangle, and there’s these legs. And somebody stands up and is like, “That is senseless like that. Why would you do this?” And I’m like, “Oh, oh, I do know, oh, as a result of that’s one of many methods you’ll be able to crawl.” I truly didn’t get down on the ground and do it as a result of I used to be not so outlandish at that time.

However in the present day, within the RAD lab, that will be, “Everybody on all fours, do this technique out.” Does it really feel like a good suggestion? Are there different concepts that we’d use to do that sample that may be value exploring right here as effectively? And so really rolling round on the ground and shifting your physique and pretending to be a quadruped, which— in my dance courses, it’s a quite common factor to observe crawling as a result of all of us neglect the best way to crawl. We wish to crawl with the cross-lateral sample and the homo-lateral sample, and we wish to maintain our butts down– or maintain the butts up, however we wish to have that optionality in order that we appear like we’re facile, pure crawlers. We practice that, proper? And so for a quadruped robotic speak and dialogue, I believe there’s a really literal means that an embodied exploration of the concept is a totally professional method to do analysis.

Ackerman: Yeah. I imply, Monica, that is what you have been saying, too, as you have been working with these engineers. Generally it seemed like they might inform that one thing wasn’t fairly proper, however they didn’t know the best way to describe it, and so they didn’t know the best way to repair it as a result of they didn’t have that language and expertise that each of you’ve got.

Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, precisely that.

Ackerman: Okay. Nicely, I simply wish to ask you every yet one more actually fast query earlier than we finish right here, which is that, what’s your favourite fictional robotic and why? I hope this isn’t too troublesome, particularly because you each work with actual robots, however. Amy, you wish to go first?

LaViers: I imply, I’m going to really feel like a celebration pooper. I don’t like all robots, actual or fictional. The fictional ones annoy me because– the fictional ones annoy me due to the disambiguation challenge and WALL-E and Eva are so cute. And I do love cute issues, however are these machines, or are these characters? And are we shedding sight of that? I imply, my favourite robotic to observe transfer, this one– I imply, I really like the Keepon dancing to Spoon. That’s one thing that in case you’re having an off day, you google Keepon dancing to Spoon— Keepon is one phrase, Ok-E-E-P-O-N, dancing to Spoon, and also you simply bop. It’s only a bop. I like it. It’s so easy and so pure and so proper.

Ackerman: It’s one among my favourite robots of all time, Monica. I don’t know in case you’ve seen this, however it’s two little yellow balls like this, and it simply goes up and down and rocks forwards and backwards. Nevertheless it does it so to music. It simply does it so effectively. It’s superb.

Thomas: I’ll undoubtedly be watching that [crosstalk].

Ackerman: Yeah. And I ought to have expanded the query, and now I’ll develop it as a result of Monica hasn’t answered but. Favourite robotic, actual or fictional?

Thomas: So I don’t know if it’s my favourite. This one breaks my coronary heart, and I’m at present having an empathy overdrive challenge as a normal drawback. However there’s a robotic set up – and I ought to know its title, however I don’t— the place the robotic reaches out, and it grabs the oil that they’ve created it to leak and pulls it in direction of its physique. And it’s been doing this for a number of years now, however it’s actually slowing down now. And I don’t suppose it even wants the oil. I don’t suppose it’s a robotic that makes use of oil. It simply thinks that it must maintain it shut. And it used to completely satisfied dance, and the oil has gotten so darkish and the purple rust shade of, oh, that is so morbid of blood, however it simply breaks my coronary heart. So I believe I really like that robotic and likewise wish to put it aside within the actually unhealthy means that we typically determine with issues that we shouldn’t be serious about that a lot.

Ackerman: And also you each gave superb solutions to that query.

LaViers: And the piece is Solar Yuan and Peng Yu’s Can’t Assist Myself.

Ackerman: That’s proper. Yeah.

LaViers: And it’s so lovely. I couldn’t keep in mind the artist’s title both, however—you’re proper—it’s so lovely.

Thomas: It’s lovely. The motion is gorgeous. It’s superbly thought of as an artwork piece, and the robotic is beautiful and heartbreaking.

Ackerman: Yeah. These solutions have been so surprising, and I really like that. So thanks each, and thanks for being on this podcast. This was a tremendous dialog. We didn’t have almost sufficient time, so we’re going to have to return again to a lot.

LaViers: Thanks for having me.

Thomas: Thanks a lot for inviting me. [music]

Ackerman: We’ve been speaking with Monica Thomas and Amy LaViers about robots and dance. And thanks once more to our friends for becoming a member of us for ChatBot and IEEE Spectrum. I’m Evan Ackerman.