UC Berkeley Uses Artificial Intelligence and 3D Printing to Collapse the Cost of Robotics
Follow Sam on Twitter @skorusARK
This week UC Berkeley released a paper suggesting it could produce a two armed collaborative robot for just $5,000, a dramatic drop from the $25,000 price point of Baxter, the cobot that Rethink Robotics introduced in 2012. If Berkeley is able to scale its robot successfully, then the cost of industrial robots has been dropping at an annual rate of 20% per year. ARK’s previous forecast was that industrial robot costs would decline to roughly $11,000 by 2025, boosting their sales at a 31% compound annual growth rate from 380,000 units in 2017 to 3.4 million units. UC Berkeley’s work suggests that ARK may need to be more aggressive in modeling the cost trajectory of industrial robots.
Among the potential reasons for the accelerated decline in industrial robot costs are 3D printing and artificial intelligence (AI), the latter perhaps more important. Prototyping with 3D printing and AI has enabled design iterations at a rapid pace, but AI’s impact on motion control probably has been more responsible for the dramatic decline in costs. Most robots are “over manufactured” for their actual use cases, for good reason: traditional programming is inflexible, placing more constraints on and adding more requirements to the manufacturing process. Incorporating AI into motion control, manufacturers can build robots with fewer sensors and unnecessary capabilities (like weight lifting), optimizing their functionality.
This cost decline is comparable to that in computing during the shift from mainframes to PCs, which led to the democratization of computing. Few people are anticipating the unit growth in and proliferation of robots likely to take place during the next five to ten years.
Humans Are More Conservative With Their Use of Autopilot, As Tesla Doubles Down on Autonomy
Follow Tasha on Twitter @TashaARK
MIT recently published a paper showing that, contrary to popular belief, drivers are vigilant and cautious when using Autopilot, which is important because Tesla is approaching autonomy incrementally, layering on features and keeping the driver in the loop until it completes and validates its feature set. In contrast, Waymo and others intend to solve for full autonomy before commercializing. One criticism of Tesla’s approach is that drivers will become complacent and take their eyes off of the road, increasing the risk of accidents. The MIT paper, however, shows that 90% of the time drivers anticipate tricky situations, disengaging Autopilot and taking back control of the car.
Autopilot’s limited use cases today probably are preventing careless driving behavior, but more advanced levels of autonomy could cause complacency. For that reason, Tesla could delay the introduction of advanced features so that drivers will stay alert.
This week Lex Fridman, one of the MIT authors who teaches a course in Deep Learning for Self-Driving Cars, interviewed Elon Musk on his podcast. Musk stated confidently that driver vigilance will become a moot point as soon as vehicles are fully autonomous and need no input from the driver. In another vote of confidence this week, Tesla announced that customers will be able to lease Model 3 but will not be able to purchase them at the end of the lease because cars coming off lease will seed Tesla’s autonomous ride hailing network. According to ARK’s estimates, autonomous Model 3s will become valuable assets, generating roughly $10,000 in cash flow per year.