Making Boston Dynamics’ Robots Dance

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 during which Atlas, Spot, and even Handle dance to songs like Do You Love Me? The, “Do You Love Me?” Video has been viewed 37 million times. And for those who 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 via motion. So Monica, are you able to simply inform me– I feel individuals within the robotics area might not know who you’re or why you’re on the podcast at this level, so are you able to simply describe the way you initially bought concerned in Boston Dynamics?

Monica Thomas: Yeah. So I bought 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, they usually added the arm to Spot. And Marc was form of like, “I form of assume this might dance.” They usually had been like, “Do you assume this might dance?” And I used to be like, “It may positively dance. That positively may do a variety of dancing.” And so we simply began making an attempt to determine, can it transfer in a manner that seems 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 form of already naturally. And that’s once they began creating, I feel, Choreographer, their device. However when it comes to my considering, it was simply I used to be watching what the robotic did as its regular patterns, like going up, taking place, strolling this place, completely different steps, completely 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 could possibly 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? May they dance? Possibly we may do a dance with all the robots.” And I used to be like, “We may positively do a dance with all the robots. Any form can dance.” In order that’s after we began engaged on what changed into Do You Love Me? I didn’t actually notice what a giant 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 is a great question that if I could summarize what my life is like, it’s me on a computer going like this, trying to figure out the words to answer that succinctly. But one way I might ask it, earlier when we were talking, you mentioned this idea of functional behavior versus expressive behavior, which comes up a lot when we start thinking in this space. And I think one thing that happens– and my training and background in Laban Movement Analysis actually emphasizes this duality between perform and expression versus the both/or. It’s form of just like the mind-body break up, the concept that this stuff are one built-in unit. Operate and expression are an built-in unit. And one thing that’s practical is admittedly expressive. One thing that’s expressive is admittedly practical.

Ackerman: It positively solutions the query. And it appears to be like like Monica is resonating with you a bit bit, so I’m simply going to get out of the way in which right here. Amy, do you need 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 a bit bit. However I’m going to rephrase. My first query was, can robots dance? And I really like how emphatically and fantastically you answered that with, “Any form can dance.” I feel that’s so lovely. That was an excellent reply, and I feel it brings up— you possibly can debate, is that this dance, or is that this not? However there’s additionally a manner to have a look at any motion via the lens of dance, and that features manufacturing facility robots that no one ever sees.

Thomas: It’s thrilling. I imply, it’s a very nice strategy to stroll via the world, so I truly suggest 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 very large problem, notably for an autonomous system. And for any shifting system, I feel that’s laborious, synthetic or not. I imply it’s laborious 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 company? 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 need to on them with out taking away one thing from them. If you challenge an excessive amount of on individuals, you lose the individual, 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. But it surely’s acceptable. So good for it to be acceptable, a spot the place you get to do this.

LaViers: Properly, okay. Then can I ask my fourth query despite the fact that it’s not my flip? As a result of that’s simply too excellent to what it’s, which is simply, what did you find out about your self working with these robots?

Thomas: Properly, I realized how a lot I really like visually watching motion. I’ve at all times watched, however I don’t assume 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 bought into that college of dance that actually spends time simply actually being attentive to 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, isn’t 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 possibly can reply a query. And it’s so good to reply questions generally. I sat with this factor, and right here’s one thing I really feel like is a suitable resolution. Wow. That’s a rarity in life. So I really like that about working with robots. I imply, additionally, they’re cool, I feel. And additionally it is— they’re simply cool. I imply, that’s true too. It’s additionally fascinating. I assume the very last thing that I actually liked—and I didn’t have a lot alternative to do that or as a lot as you’d count on due to COVID—is being in house with robots. It’s actually fascinating, identical to being in house with something that’s completely different than your norm is notable. Being in house with an animal that you just’re not used to being with is notable. And there’s simply one thing actually cool about being with one thing very completely different. And for me, robots are very completely different and never acclimatized.

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

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

LaViers: The same old manner I describe it and describe my work extra broadly is, I feel there are a variety of roboticists that rent dancers, they usually make robots and people dancers assist them. And there are a variety of dancers that they rent engineers, and people engineers construct one thing for them that they use within their work. And what I’m fascinated about, within the little litmus check or problem I paint for myself and my collaborators is we need to be proper in between these two issues, proper, the place we’re making one thing. Initially, we’re treating one another as friends, as technical friends, as creative 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 manner, that’s robotics. That’s the inflection level we need to be at. And so which means, for instance, when it comes to 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 manner. And likewise, that adjustments the questions we need to ask. We need to make one thing that pushes robotics only a inch additional, a millimeter additional. And we need 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?” Rather a lot. In order that makes me really feel like we have to be doing one thing fascinating in robotics.

And every so often, I feel we do one thing fascinating for dance too, and definitely, lots of my collaborators do. And that inflection level, that’s simply the place I feel is fascinating. And I feel that’s the place— that’s the room I stumbled into, is the place we’re asking these questions versus simply creating a robotic and hiring somebody to assist us do this. I imply, it may be laborious in that surroundings that individuals really feel like their experience is being given to the opposite facet. After which, the place am I an knowledgeable? And we’ve heard editors at publication venues say, “Properly, this dancer can’t be a co-author,” and we’ve had venues the place we’re engaged on this system and folks say, “Properly, 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 have now these conversations which can be actually sensitive and a bit delicate and a bit— and so how do you create that house 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 monitor file and do that once more in one other challenge, in one other context and— so, I don’t know, if I’ve realized something, I imply, I’ve realized that you just simply have to actually speak about attribution on a regular basis. I carry it up each time, after which I carry it up earlier than we even take into consideration writing a paper. After which I carry it up after we make the draft. And very first thing I put within the draft is everyone’s identify 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 individual can’t be a co-author,” that individual doesn’t get taken off as a co-author; that individual is a co-author, and we work out one other strategy to make it work. And so I feel 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 deal with 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 in regards to the dance. It’s been in regards to the choreography. And really, form of going manner again to what we had been speaking a couple of couple issues in the past, a variety of the opinions that you just get round this are about individuals, their reactions, proper? As a result of, once more, we will challenge a lot onto robots. So I realized so much about individuals, how individuals take into consideration robots. There’s a variety of actually overt themes, after which there’s particular person nuance. However yeah, it wasn’t actually in regards to the dance, and it was in the midst 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 now and again, I get one individual right here or one individual there say one thing. So it’s a completely bizarre expertise. Sure.

The way in which that I took details about the dance was form of being attentive to the affective expertise, the emotional expertise that individuals 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 making an attempt to alarm individuals or present individuals ways in which robots transfer that absolutely hit some outdated a part of our mind that makes us completely panicked. That wasn’t my curiosity or the purpose of that work. And actually, sooner or later, it’d be actually fascinating to discover what the robots can simply do versus what I, as a human, really feel comfy seeing them do. However the emotional response that individuals bought informed 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 choose which one possibly we go to. I imply, considered one of 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 a bit bit about— I’ll blush even simply saying it, and I’m so glad that the individuals can’t see the blushing. But additionally, there’s been a lot nodding, and I’m noticing that that gained’t be within the audio recording. We’re nodding alongside to one another a lot. However the different facet—and you’ll simply nod in a manner 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 ability dynamics inside this? And the way do you’re feeling about how that sits now as that video continues to only 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 necessary, 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 choreographed to Do You Love Me? For the Boston Dynamics robots, the swinging arms firstly, 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 utterly synthetic, proper? And the proximal rotation of the legs, I really feel prefer it’s a genius manner of getting round no backbone. However you actually make use of issues that appear like hip joints or shoulder joints as a manner of, to me, accessing a superb wriggle or a superb juicy second, after which the Spot house 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 kind of moments, tremendous fascinating, or you may have a comic story about, I believed we may speak about it additional.

Thomas: I’ve a comic story in regards to 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 folk who don’t know, the mashed potato is form of the ft are going out and in; the knees are going out and in. So we bumped into a few issues, which—and the twist. I assume it’s a combo. Each of them such as you to roll your ft on the bottom like rub, and that friction was not good for the robots. So when we first started really moving into the twist, which has this torso twisting— the legs are twisting. The foot needs to be twisting on the ground. The foot isn’t twisting on the ground, and the legs had 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 need 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 in. They’re actually seeing the motion and making an attempt to determine what they want for the motion. And I used to be like, “Properly, it appears to be like prefer it has a really full diaper.” They usually had been like, “Oh.” They knew it didn’t fairly look proper, however it was like—as a result of I feel 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 manner, however that’s not what they had been taking a look at. And so yeah, then you definately change the angles of the legs, how turned in it’s and no matter, and it resolved to a level, I feel, 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 bought a lot quicker after that as a result of it was the primary, and we actually realized. But it surely took a month of programming, me coming in, naming particular methods of reshifting it earlier than we bought a twist that felt pure if amended as a result of it’s not the identical manner that–

LaViers: Yeah. Properly, and it’s fascinating to consider how one can 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 feel 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 trying Atlas, that there’s nonetheless a variety of 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, when it comes to this dance. It may work in one other one. Yeah.

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

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

Ackerman: Monica, do you may have one final query you need to ask?

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

LaViers: Properly, I imply, I feel it could actually carry a few issues. One, it could actually carry— I imply, the primary second in my profession or life that that calls up for me is, I used to be watching considered one of my lab mates, once I was a doctoral pupil, 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 stated— and I feel it was roughly like, “Transfer the middle of gravity contained in the polygon of help, after which choose up— the polygon of help shaped by three of the legs. After which choose 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 unnecessary 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 possibly can 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 at this time, within the RAD lab, that may be, “Everybody on all fours, do that technique out.” Does it really feel like a good suggestion? Are there different concepts that we’d use to do that sample that could 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 apply crawling as a result of all of us neglect how one can crawl. We need to crawl with the cross-lateral sample and the homo-lateral sample, and we need to hold our butts down– or hold the butts up, however we need to have that optionality in order that we appear like we’re facile, pure crawlers. We prepare that, proper? And so for a quadruped robotic speak and dialogue, I feel there’s a really literal manner that an embodied exploration of the concept is a totally professional strategy to do analysis.

Ackerman: Yeah. I imply, Monica, that is what you had been saying, too, as you had been working with these engineers. Generally it gave the impression of they may inform that one thing wasn’t fairly proper, however they didn’t know how one can describe it, they usually didn’t know how one can repair it as a result of they didn’t have that language and expertise that each of you may have.

Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, precisely that.

Ackerman: Okay. Properly, I simply need to ask you every yet another 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 need to go first?

LaViers: I imply, I’m going to really feel like a celebration pooper. I don’t like several robots, actual or fictional. The fictional ones annoy me because– the fictional ones annoy me due to the disambiguation subject 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 dropping 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 for those who’re having an off day, you google Keepon dancing to Spoon— Keepon is one phrase, Okay-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 considered one of my favourite robots of all time, Monica. I don’t know for those who’ve seen this, however it’s two little yellow balls like this, and it simply goes up and down and rocks backwards and forwards. But it surely does it so to music. It simply does it so effectively. It’s superb.

Thomas: I’ll positively 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 presently having an empathy overdrive subject as a normal drawback. However there’s a robotic set up – and I ought to know its identify, however I don’t— where the robot reaches out, and it grabs the oil that they’ve created it to leak and pulls it towards its body. And it’s been doing this for a number of years now, however it’s actually slowing down now. And I don’t assume it even wants the oil. I don’t assume it’s a robotic that makes use of oil. It simply thinks that it must hold it shut. And it used to glad dance, and the oil has gotten so darkish and the crimson rust colour of, oh, that is so morbid of blood, however it simply breaks my coronary heart. So I feel I really like that robotic and likewise need to put it aside within the actually unhealthy manner that we generally determine with issues that we shouldn’t be fascinated by that a lot.

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

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

Ackerman: That’s proper. Yeah.

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

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

Ackerman: Yeah. These solutions had been so sudden, and I really like that. So thanks each, and thanks for being on this podcast. This was an incredible dialog. We didn’t have practically 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 company for becoming a member of us for ChatBot and IEEE Spectrum. I’m Evan Ackerman.