Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
i think self-assembly is a great idea and an exciting research. i can see it playing an important role in the future. but I have to admit he's not delivering the idea very good to the public
somebody give this guy and his team a load of money so they can show up for a future TED talk with more enthusiasm at their better results, 'cuz they've definately got the right ideas working for them, just seemingly not enough funding and joy with it :s
Wasn't as exciting as I thought it would be. Mostly tech that would be in the realm of modern artists for several generations until someone finds a way to make them do something practical.
Great concept and point about biological effiencies and programming. Wow, so may haters just because you think he's boring, thats pretty indicative of irrational people who will never even try, let alone suceed.
Wow, who shined a light in the MITs basement, the projects that come out are not the most impressive ones. Why do they build these things?? The theory about how they can reconfigure themselves is cool, but these self assembly robots aways look kinda stupid with current technology, there is no point building them until some one comes up with a really innovative design
I must say, quite a huge gap between what he showed now, and what he envisions for the future. What's the timeframe before we have self-assembling houses? He says "soon". What does that mean, a few hours, a few millennia? LOL
TED talks are normally very good at putting complex ideas across simply. This, on that score, was a massive fail. What the hell was that 1,1=0 and 0,0=1 all about? It was meaningless to me.
It's describing a NAND (not-and) logic gate. In logic, 1 represents "true" and 0 represents "false."
The AND function gives 1 only when the inputs are both 1, and zero otherwise (i.e. [p AND q] is true only when both p and q are true). The NOT function returns the opposite of the value that was put in (i.e. if p is true, NOT p is false and vice versa).
The NAND gate is the combination of these: NOT [p AND q]. It returns a zero when p and q are both true, and 1 in all other cases.
@bodnotbod It's mathematical and computing logic: Have two inputs and one output of true or false (0 or 1). If they are the same, the output is the same. NAND does the opposite. If inputs are both false (0,0), output says true (1) and vice versa. Its A-level or college level maths.
@bodnotbod It's simple NAND gate logic, you can't make that any simpler than reading a few sentences on wikipedia about nand gates. Seriously. TED talks do try to make innovation accessible for the masses but it requires requires some effort on the users to try and understand exactly what our future holds. Do you really expect everything to be handed to you on a silver platter?
If those chains at the end were embedded in the main support structure of a building and were pre-programmed with the proper shape of the building, then it would be greatly earthquake-proof. The ground movement jostling the building would just cause it maintain its form correctly. Otherwise, this technology is more expensive to put into each brick than it is to simply pay a working crew to put in the bricks with their own minds and associated hands.
But that self assembly works under restricted conditions. Liquid water f.e. It should be researched what conditions are fundamental to the concept. If you are going to grow something you will always have residue of that process in the structure.
@NoShit12 And we are supposed to listen to someone who can neither spell, make sense, nor construct grammatically-correct sentences? I think I'll continue to listen to the engineers, thanks.
@NoShit12 Self building and self repairing structures will work.. but this guy doesn't know how,, He's fumbling with the ideas.
We need the self repair for a space elevator.
self repairing carbon nanotubes should be a key target. I think the correct thinking will come out of quantum biology(very new and still struggling). It is however the only way to explain how cells do what they do.
a) a wave propagated down the nanotube that will add binding energy only at a break by shifting electron distribution to promote re bonding.
b) a promoter inside the tube held in a closed inactive state by electrostatic forces.. a fracture would break the electrical field letting it activate and provide bonding energy.
The examples he starts with are completely nonsensical; DNA consists of millions of parts, but only 4 different parts. Same thing for proteins. Also, the parts of a spaceshuttle are not moving by brownian motion and experience more inertia, which might contribute to it's building time, just a guess.
@cjswebsite it wouldnt need constant power and hacking is not a reason to abandon the future. The benefits (not of this, but of the fact computers are moving toward being in EVERYTHING) far out weigh the risks. A future inwhich everything is computational allows for exponentially more effective everything. Similar to how computers always get better, making "dumb" things "smart" allows for alot of increase in capability.
@ataraxic89 yea I just think its unrealistic at the moment plus do we really need shit that builds its self? it seems good for the creator but do we really need a lack of jobs? Of course you could say with change comes new opertunitys for differant jobs but the way the economy is set up theres 99% of the people working for 1%.
@cjswebsite At the moment... technology requires the early research. The stuff we have now started as this crap. We have to let it develop from its early stages. Besides, this and other technologies will allow for a work-less world within 100 years. Economy and everything will be different.
They don't self assemble (they are already assembled). They don"t self replicate. (in the end there is still only one apparatus). All they do is self configure (nothing new). This is a waste of research money. This will never lead to a skyscraper that builds itself. Try again.
@jacobreinvented also they don't realize they cannot fool all people, computers will never think for themselves ever and it's not only math probable also they are build on wrong assumtions about life.
@jcliveron Computers, the biological ones do think for themselves, have nothing to do with this discussion. "Its only math probable" is meaningless and incoherent. There are no such things as "assumtions" (sic), and the assumptions of the researchers have nothing to do with life or life sciences. F-
@jacobreinvented yeah. but I guess it at least is one of the first steps for self-assembly matters. I believe it is the fact that so many generations have been dreaming about doing computation on a physical level, in spite of the great success we had in programming with a machine. I can see this type of research very promising in the future
Well programmable metals have been around from 70ties, hence this is nothing new, just a bit more advanced by adding actual computation in them. I think we won't see any of this technology put to use for decades so it was a nice talk but that is all it was.
The talk was simple it was about using standard material wich can relay and compute information to lower complexity of buildings, the example with the chain was a clear demonstration of this. Actually it was more of a "core" technology than an engineered application, that's what disturbed people i think.
I won't disagree that a lot of the previous comments are rather ignorant, but this concept definitely needs a better speaker and more elaboration on the referenced "potential." The robots were very limited compared to other similarly-functioning models, and the biased chains seem to be far too simple and unoriginal. Even the idea of "logic matter" is pretty useless when you consider that you would have to essentially add computation to building materials, a very impractical solution.
Can anyone give a "talk" now on TED??? watching this presentation makes me wonder whether TED does any vetting on novel ideas to actually qualify for a presentation.
There have been many forecasts and scientific promises of inventions - but it just doesn't happen, people - mainly grass roots - like things the way they are. The world is very hard to change.
Either the title is horribly wrong, or his idea is, or maybe he even lacks the skill to explain it.
Basicly, we already have robots that build mechanical/steel ect parts, we can already have robots that can build/duplicate themself in a assembly line.
Eitherway, his idea is just plain stupid. Having a huge building (skyscrapper) made out of small individual macrobots or w/e would require huge amount of energy, especially if u consider a backup system, and it wouldnt be even strong enough.
@TheSydrek His idea isn't stupid, it's very innovative and he is thinking outside the box, what do skyscrapers have to be immobile why not make them living organism inside the city ,great talk but I have to agree bad delivery.
While it's clear it's going to be a while before this is useful, the talk did little to inspire any enthusiasm - I feel like there are exciting implications here but without a presentation to match.
This could be possible...but maybe in a couple of hundreds of years, because..how the hell are you going to program water and cement and glass to assembly itself into a building? For creating machines it is more probable, but for buildings...nah, I don't think so.
@Zuriki09@tvmworld wow... I mean I wasn't especially thrilled by his talk but I don't recall him talking anything about robots making robots or self-replication. I can think of hundreds if not thousands of uses for self-assembling structures or self-repairing materials.
The trouble with most of the comments is their lack of ability to look into the future. They just throw fledgeling self-replication concepts out w/o any sense of early discovery that is necessary for all good ideas to grow. I don't usually see such nearsightedness in the TED universe.
I can't see this technology in it's current form being applicable to anything useful. In fact, I don't see self replication being very useful in manufacturing at all. You build something that builds itself, and you end up with a lot of machines building machines to build more of themselves. Never produces anything of use.
Sorry, but current methods of manufacturing will remain far more useful and efficient for as long as I will live (another 60 years I should expect).
@Zuriki09 we gotta look deeper like having machine build buidings for us and other things. many of the things people discovered wasnt applicable untill later. who knows if it really does have any use. its something like paper clip. who knew we needed a bent piece of wire to clip things. its just a concept hes researching.
The problems is that proteins take their complex shape through basic laws of chemistry. With these, someone still has to build the pieces. Also, for structural applications, these will have less strength to weight than purpose-designed structural parts.
To be truly self-replicating, the robot needs to be able to harvest the raw materials and create a copy of itself. I did not see evidence that he has gotten us closer to that part of the goal. There is RepRap (sp?) but you still need to buy many of the parts and then assemble the new one yourself. That last bit is the only part that he seems to be working on.
I can't believe MIT people are trying to make this now. it's obvious that this research has no real valubale applications in actual mechanical construction at this time. they should have taken the concept to a different platform, just kept it on a software level, or waited about 20 years so they could actualy make something on a decent scale using nano tech for example.
Hello!!!!! TEDtalksDirector ...are you there?!? ...I've seen all kinds of appeals that address the excessive volume of your intros and outros ...some polite and intelligent that definitely fit into the 'ideas worth spreading' concept
Sadly this talk is very depressing and i hope not much people see it , because they could think that is is as far as we are right now in self-assembly.
Worst examples ever, some few concepts but no great demonstration.
We will create cyborgs and cyborgs will create robots. Then robots will kill stupid human and will use the smart's people minds for super computers. There you go.
@faunos51 Remember: it will be the 'stupid' people who will build and program something that ridiculous. Don't blame the machine, blame the people behind it.
I'm thinking of an episode of Star Trek: TNG where the Borg ship repaired itself after being hit by the photon torpedoes. We can become one with our buildings.
It seems to me that this kind of technology would be useful for unmanned vehicles we send to explore other planets. They wouldn't get stuck because they could just reconfigure themselves into the right shape to get around anything that got in their way.
So, this tech will allow me to shake a bunch of ingredients and my dinner is assembled? or can I go back to shaking a woman and achieving the same result?
This will certainly make defense way better. Repairing will be innovate, and so will creating. It also leads into a neat avenue of more uses for robotics, in order to have it do what you wish. He described it has being individual parts that are working together. They do their own deed, and it leads to a final result. This will make types of manipulation of these systems more difficult, which seems a definite benefit as compared to something more centralized. If I am ascertaining this correctly
It took nature about a billion years to even get decent self-replication, not to mention the following three billion to get to self-augmentation. We may have the benefit of having an example to work from but I will predict that it is going to take decades before even the first garden-shed builds itself. Nonetheless these scientists and engineers must do this.
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
i think self-assembly is a great idea and an exciting research. i can see it playing an important role in the future. but I have to admit he's not delivering the idea very good to the public
bamboopoem1989 4 months ago
somebody give this guy and his team a load of money so they can show up for a future TED talk with more enthusiasm at their better results, 'cuz they've definately got the right ideas working for them, just seemingly not enough funding and joy with it :s
GronTheMighty 5 months ago
0:15 start of talk.
stgnnn 5 months ago
This is was an interesting concept at the top, but.....really unimpressive display. I'm sure I could build one of those, and I'm not an engineer.
SeethingGreen 5 months ago
@SeethingGreen no, you can't... how does everyone underestimate the complexity of everything?
sqbsbear 3 months ago
@sqbsbear I appreciate your respect for engineering, but you underestimate my intellect. I certainly could.
SeethingGreen 3 months ago
@SeethingGreen as an engineer, I challenge that!
sqbsbear 3 months ago
@sqbsbear Excellent. Bring it on. I can absolutely engineer something nearly useless and unimpressive. What have you created?
SeethingGreen 3 months ago
@SeethingGreen the most random youtube conversation but, I bet my creations are more useless than yours :D
sqbsbear 3 months ago
Wasn't as exciting as I thought it would be. Mostly tech that would be in the realm of modern artists for several generations until someone finds a way to make them do something practical.
squidb8 5 months ago
Great concept and point about biological effiencies and programming. Wow, so may haters just because you think he's boring, thats pretty indicative of irrational people who will never even try, let alone suceed.
nzcarnage 5 months ago 6
This is my usual request for TED HD!
Thimmet 5 months ago
transformers, robots in disguise!
ArabellaStrobel 5 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Dear TED folk: Giving tech leads the chance to talk to a crowd is nice, but ineffective. This guy here is mostly wasting our time.
DukeDoom111 5 months ago
Wow, who shined a light in the MITs basement, the projects that come out are not the most impressive ones. Why do they build these things?? The theory about how they can reconfigure themselves is cool, but these self assembly robots aways look kinda stupid with current technology, there is no point building them until some one comes up with a really innovative design
JohnnyKidder 5 months ago
Kind of lame
Sombusiness 5 months ago
Everyone complains about the intro volume... it's not that loud, and it's somewhat louder volume is to drive home the EPICNESS THAT IS TEDTALKS!!! <3
AristotlEYE 5 months ago
What did he make?!?!
Pandapwnegee 5 months ago in playlist Videos from TEDtalksDirector
Are people just to retarded to lower their volume?
I wonder what they would do if they heard the old THX intros in VHS movies.
apocaRUFF 5 months ago
his joke about hes team was an awkward moment.
notreveh 5 months ago
Jesus,worst talker ever. He's so nervous.
luticia 5 months ago
This was kinda lame. I was expecting something that actually attempted to make itself, kind of like the RepRap
lambedan 6 months ago
Thank you, TEDtalks...we are all deaf now, thanks to your blastingly loud intro!
eluap 6 months ago
I must say, quite a huge gap between what he showed now, and what he envisions for the future. What's the timeframe before we have self-assembling houses? He says "soon". What does that mean, a few hours, a few millennia? LOL
a575981735977018 6 months ago
WAY OVER MY EAD
tehcexymeowmix 6 months ago
TED VIDEO INTRO TOO LOUD!!!!!!
JaySmith91 6 months ago 15
@JaySmith91
Come again?
Thymonico 2 weeks ago
TED talks are normally very good at putting complex ideas across simply. This, on that score, was a massive fail. What the hell was that 1,1=0 and 0,0=1 all about? It was meaningless to me.
bodnotbod 6 months ago 2
@bodnotbod
It's describing a NAND (not-and) logic gate. In logic, 1 represents "true" and 0 represents "false."
The AND function gives 1 only when the inputs are both 1, and zero otherwise (i.e. [p AND q] is true only when both p and q are true). The NOT function returns the opposite of the value that was put in (i.e. if p is true, NOT p is false and vice versa).
The NAND gate is the combination of these: NOT [p AND q]. It returns a zero when p and q are both true, and 1 in all other cases.
MrTanookiMario 6 months ago
@MrTanookiMario Gosh. Thanks for explaining it to me. I didn't expect anyone to do that ;O)
Cheers.
bodnotbod 6 months ago
@bodnotbod It's mathematical and computing logic: Have two inputs and one output of true or false (0 or 1). If they are the same, the output is the same. NAND does the opposite. If inputs are both false (0,0), output says true (1) and vice versa. Its A-level or college level maths.
JaySmith91 6 months ago
@bodnotbod It's simple NAND gate logic, you can't make that any simpler than reading a few sentences on wikipedia about nand gates. Seriously. TED talks do try to make innovation accessible for the masses but it requires requires some effort on the users to try and understand exactly what our future holds. Do you really expect everything to be handed to you on a silver platter?
sqbsbear 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yay! Now we can build more buildings! We don't have nearly enough!
BiowareNut 6 months ago
If those chains at the end were embedded in the main support structure of a building and were pre-programmed with the proper shape of the building, then it would be greatly earthquake-proof. The ground movement jostling the building would just cause it maintain its form correctly. Otherwise, this technology is more expensive to put into each brick than it is to simply pay a working crew to put in the bricks with their own minds and associated hands.
toyz1784 6 months ago
But that self assembly works under restricted conditions. Liquid water f.e. It should be researched what conditions are fundamental to the concept. If you are going to grow something you will always have residue of that process in the structure.
0MoTheG 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck it, we are doing it LIVE!
prabhatpalpal 6 months ago
That was just waffle.
UncleKennybobs 6 months ago
@NoShit12 And we are supposed to listen to someone who can neither spell, make sense, nor construct grammatically-correct sentences? I think I'll continue to listen to the engineers, thanks.
ahdkaw 6 months ago
Nice --> There is too much we have to learn
PalAhed 6 months ago
This idea is a waste of man hours and money, this will not success....
just work at some software company and that's it..
waste of engineers / sceincetis.
NoShit12 6 months ago
@NoShit12 Self building and self repairing structures will work.. but this guy doesn't know how,, He's fumbling with the ideas.
We need the self repair for a space elevator.
self repairing carbon nanotubes should be a key target. I think the correct thinking will come out of quantum biology(very new and still struggling). It is however the only way to explain how cells do what they do.
abram730 6 months ago
@abram730 What type of algorithm can be made for self repairing ? it has to be a logical random procedure...
NoShit12 6 months ago
@NoShit12
a) a wave propagated down the nanotube that will add binding energy only at a break by shifting electron distribution to promote re bonding.
b) a promoter inside the tube held in a closed inactive state by electrostatic forces.. a fracture would break the electrical field letting it activate and provide bonding energy.
Kind of like this.. except with carbon nanotubes.
watch?v=hLTFiekwFy8
abram730 5 months ago
The examples he starts with are completely nonsensical; DNA consists of millions of parts, but only 4 different parts. Same thing for proteins. Also, the parts of a spaceshuttle are not moving by brownian motion and experience more inertia, which might contribute to it's building time, just a guess.
Waranoa 6 months ago
uh...what?
JassiusJay 6 months ago
It's interesting that he has to shake it first, vibrations you know, before it performs.
LazyOtaku 6 months ago
@LazyOtaku just like those lazy teenagers of mine.
justincase80634 6 months ago
imaginge if all or buildings and brink loose power or some one hacks it and the building collapses! whats a geniuse
cjswebsite 6 months ago
@cjswebsite it wouldnt need constant power and hacking is not a reason to abandon the future. The benefits (not of this, but of the fact computers are moving toward being in EVERYTHING) far out weigh the risks. A future inwhich everything is computational allows for exponentially more effective everything. Similar to how computers always get better, making "dumb" things "smart" allows for alot of increase in capability.
ataraxic89 6 months ago
@ataraxic89 yea I just think its unrealistic at the moment plus do we really need shit that builds its self? it seems good for the creator but do we really need a lack of jobs? Of course you could say with change comes new opertunitys for differant jobs but the way the economy is set up theres 99% of the people working for 1%.
cjswebsite 6 months ago
@cjswebsite At the moment... technology requires the early research. The stuff we have now started as this crap. We have to let it develop from its early stages. Besides, this and other technologies will allow for a work-less world within 100 years. Economy and everything will be different.
ataraxic89 6 months ago
@ataraxic89 ok i get what your saying, in the mean time these things might make a good toy to sell at hobby town.
cjswebsite 6 months ago
@cjswebsite lol thats true.
ataraxic89 6 months ago
They don't self assemble (they are already assembled). They don"t self replicate. (in the end there is still only one apparatus). All they do is self configure (nothing new). This is a waste of research money. This will never lead to a skyscraper that builds itself. Try again.
jacobreinvented 6 months ago 2
@jacobreinvented also they don't realize they cannot fool all people, computers will never think for themselves ever and it's not only math probable also they are build on wrong assumtions about life.
jcliveron 6 months ago
@jcliveron Computers, the biological ones do think for themselves, have nothing to do with this discussion. "Its only math probable" is meaningless and incoherent. There are no such things as "assumtions" (sic), and the assumptions of the researchers have nothing to do with life or life sciences. F-
jacobreinvented 6 months ago 2
@jacobreinvented yeah. but I guess it at least is one of the first steps for self-assembly matters. I believe it is the fact that so many generations have been dreaming about doing computation on a physical level, in spite of the great success we had in programming with a machine. I can see this type of research very promising in the future
bamboopoem1989 6 months ago
Well programmable metals have been around from 70ties, hence this is nothing new, just a bit more advanced by adding actual computation in them. I think we won't see any of this technology put to use for decades so it was a nice talk but that is all it was.
CapMurd 6 months ago
Casey Affleck?
davidmcdonald86 6 months ago
The talk was simple it was about using standard material wich can relay and compute information to lower complexity of buildings, the example with the chain was a clear demonstration of this. Actually it was more of a "core" technology than an engineered application, that's what disturbed people i think.
s0n0fsparda 6 months ago
Should we?
bugsz1 6 months ago
Ask the engineer from tf2.
Zalfazar 6 months ago
@Zalfazar lmfao....... oh man!
asdfgoogle 6 months ago
Not really self replication.
Alaron251 6 months ago
THIS NIGGA GOT ELBOW PATCHES, CHILL OUT- HE COOL
dozza06 6 months ago
this guy needs to get together with the TEDtalk chick who engineers viruses that manifest materials.
xjustamem0ryx 6 months ago
Interesting Topic, but bad presentation. Should it really take thousands of hours to build this robots.
KingWak 6 months ago
Great stuff.
JerryNo2006 6 months ago
This speaker spent A LOT of time in his bedroom as a kid...
MrDarkbloom 6 months ago
@MrDarkbloom Why do you thing so?
KingWak 6 months ago
@MrDarkbloom ...alone.
Zormac 6 months ago
Sci-fi isn't going to be sci-fi soon …
computerjero 6 months ago
I won't disagree that a lot of the previous comments are rather ignorant, but this concept definitely needs a better speaker and more elaboration on the referenced "potential." The robots were very limited compared to other similarly-functioning models, and the biased chains seem to be far too simple and unoriginal. Even the idea of "logic matter" is pretty useless when you consider that you would have to essentially add computation to building materials, a very impractical solution.
GeekProdigyGuy 6 months ago
They should rename it to "DUDE Talks".
file83 6 months ago
I'm not the wiser about this topic; need a better speaker
niriop 6 months ago
@niriop Perhaps ur just stupid.
shagster1970 6 months ago
@shagster1970 Perhaps you need a fucking book on spelling and grammar
niriop 6 months ago
@niriop No. Just watch the show and learn.
shagster1970 6 months ago
TED needs a TED talk to help them understand the relationship between quantity and quality.
drchaffee 6 months ago
Can anyone give a "talk" now on TED??? watching this presentation makes me wonder whether TED does any vetting on novel ideas to actually qualify for a presentation.
yetifootprints 6 months ago 2
There have been many forecasts and scientific promises of inventions - but it just doesn't happen, people - mainly grass roots - like things the way they are. The world is very hard to change.
austpom333 6 months ago
I think somebody had a few tokes on a blunt before giving his TED talk...
preacherZer0 6 months ago
Either the title is horribly wrong, or his idea is, or maybe he even lacks the skill to explain it.
Basicly, we already have robots that build mechanical/steel ect parts, we can already have robots that can build/duplicate themself in a assembly line.
Eitherway, his idea is just plain stupid. Having a huge building (skyscrapper) made out of small individual macrobots or w/e would require huge amount of energy, especially if u consider a backup system, and it wouldnt be even strong enough.
TheSydrek 6 months ago 2
@TheSydrek His idea isn't stupid, it's very innovative and he is thinking outside the box, what do skyscrapers have to be immobile why not make them living organism inside the city ,great talk but I have to agree bad delivery.
reda02812 5 months ago
stupid
TheMakMoon 6 months ago
I want my 6 minutes back, NOW
HeilNizar 6 months ago
see he didn't get a standing ovation
turoniable 6 months ago
Presenter sucked.
Imperiused 6 months ago
Bye Bye Jobs. Hello Unemployed people!
mycrickethighlights2 6 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
While it's clear it's going to be a while before this is useful, the talk did little to inspire any enthusiasm - I feel like there are exciting implications here but without a presentation to match.
Scotvenom 6 months ago 12
@Scotvenom Having a great idea doesn't always make you a great speaker. Some people are just boring.
markthe5hark8 5 months ago
@markthe5hark8 Exactly.
Scotvenom 5 months ago
Insane
hary2601 6 months ago
This
is stupid.
kebakent 6 months ago
@kebakent Actually, you are the one that is stupid.
sirachman 6 months ago
@sirachman That may very well be so, but so is his idea. Allegedly being stupid myself, I would know.
kebakent 6 months ago
This could be possible...but maybe in a couple of hundreds of years, because..how the hell are you going to program water and cement and glass to assembly itself into a building? For creating machines it is more probable, but for buildings...nah, I don't think so.
marrydruli 6 months ago
funny how I kinda knew no one are bothered to give a standing ovation at the end of the vid...
Valca000 6 months ago
le confused
ImDrizzt 6 months ago
I like the idea of self replicating robots, but nothing new was said in that speech.
noicoztegozetakjest 6 months ago 6
you see it as a student project, I see it as the end of the world SKYNET
jubjub987654321 6 months ago
@jubjub987654321 Where's the Unibomber when you need him?
roell29 6 months ago
I'd like to see a "self-building-house kit" :D
MCAMVP 6 months ago
Transformers basically. I like it.
heintron 6 months ago
Can we make a TED video that normalises the intro volume by itself?
AntiProtonBoy 6 months ago 198
@AntiProtonBoy AAAAwwwww :D YES!
Trinivalts 6 months ago
@AntiProtonBoy the intro is actually quite cool in 7.1
mrmishonka 6 months ago
aren't babies the answer? I dind't even watch this video and I thoguht of that !
SpicyHam 6 months ago
@SpicyHam What?! babies?
marrydruli 6 months ago
He could have been wee bit more enthusiastic.
miganders 6 months ago
!!!!!!!BEWARE! DON'T READ THE COMMENTS! YOUR I.Q. WILL DROP. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!!! >.>
ElectronicCalifornia 6 months ago 94
@ElectronicCalifornia Fuck it, I'm going in!
profilescythe 6 months ago
@ElectronicCalifornia thanks
sl2mmer 6 months ago
@ElectronicCalifornia haha i was thinking the same thing.
aresinnet 6 months ago
@Zuriki09 @tvmworld wow... I mean I wasn't especially thrilled by his talk but I don't recall him talking anything about robots making robots or self-replication. I can think of hundreds if not thousands of uses for self-assembling structures or self-repairing materials.
eddiemc7 6 months ago
The good talks are always so short. :(
invinciblemode 6 months ago
I remember when I got my first k'nex, I thought I could change the world too, alas I could not.
rhcpconor 6 months ago
The trouble with most of the comments is their lack of ability to look into the future. They just throw fledgeling self-replication concepts out w/o any sense of early discovery that is necessary for all good ideas to grow. I don't usually see such nearsightedness in the TED universe.
tvmworld 6 months ago
couldn't get a thing
ab001atg 6 months ago
I can't see this technology in it's current form being applicable to anything useful. In fact, I don't see self replication being very useful in manufacturing at all. You build something that builds itself, and you end up with a lot of machines building machines to build more of themselves. Never produces anything of use.
Sorry, but current methods of manufacturing will remain far more useful and efficient for as long as I will live (another 60 years I should expect).
Zuriki09 6 months ago
@Zuriki09 continue only worrying about when you will be alive and you will be of no value to the human race. Thanks for playing...
polevaultrockstr 6 months ago
@Zuriki09 we gotta look deeper like having machine build buidings for us and other things. many of the things people discovered wasnt applicable untill later. who knows if it really does have any use. its something like paper clip. who knew we needed a bent piece of wire to clip things. its just a concept hes researching.
llViperStrikerll 6 months ago
By far one of the most boring and useless TED TALKS ever. Sorry, I had to say it.
nicolasibarra84 6 months ago
this guy is shaking a tiny little thing
your talking about massive skyscraper sized blocks, good luck with that
solojam 6 months ago
good idea, but still a long way to go
jonleu 6 months ago
Why is the intro volume suddenly a problem? They have been using it for a while, but only recently it seems to have become a problem.
triforcelink 6 months ago
Comment removed
blurglide 6 months ago
So for that little chain if you build a house with that same idea if it shook during an earth quake it would just snap back in place?
93heylove 6 months ago
Nanobots! comeon read the singularity lol
Roenazarrek 6 months ago
The problems is that proteins take their complex shape through basic laws of chemistry. With these, someone still has to build the pieces. Also, for structural applications, these will have less strength to weight than purpose-designed structural parts.
blurglide 6 months ago
If you want a bit more info watch his TEDxBoston lecture, he goes into more depth without being 'longwinded'
jahrleriksen 6 months ago
Yeah, good luck with that
270Gmoney 6 months ago
Goodbye construction workers...
Sorry for your loss.
CrannyNoko 6 months ago
If building starts replicating themselves, you'll have some "natural selection" applied to buildings...that's kind of crazy
beatboxpeej 6 months ago
matrix?
rino03b 6 months ago
ANyone know where he got his blazer? I want one
NetSelect 6 months ago
@NetSelect lol
marrydruli 6 months ago
To be truly self-replicating, the robot needs to be able to harvest the raw materials and create a copy of itself. I did not see evidence that he has gotten us closer to that part of the goal. There is RepRap (sp?) but you still need to buy many of the parts and then assemble the new one yourself. That last bit is the only part that he seems to be working on.
NjC121 6 months ago
how do these things make themselves? they don't, this is just a robotic polymer
sonicase 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I find the lack of imagination in the comments disturbing. This is a just small step people!
dayati 6 months ago
I can't believe MIT people are trying to make this now. it's obvious that this research has no real valubale applications in actual mechanical construction at this time. they should have taken the concept to a different platform, just kept it on a software level, or waited about 20 years so they could actualy make something on a decent scale using nano tech for example.
stijnhaki 6 months ago
Anything positive to do with future is good
PoKerFaceN1 6 months ago
Transformers
TheSethIkrass 6 months ago
i think its cheaper to rebuild a skyscraper the old fashioned way 10 times than to build a self replicating repairing assembling one once.
maikeru01 6 months ago
Hello!!!!! TEDtalksDirector ...are you there?!? ...I've seen all kinds of appeals that address the excessive volume of your intros and outros ...some polite and intelligent that definitely fit into the 'ideas worth spreading' concept
Please acknowledge by turning down the volume
thank-you!
gaiagale 6 months ago 7
what a boring speaker. this guy should stick to blogging.
KiloSierraAlpha 6 months ago
Sadly this talk is very depressing and i hope not much people see it , because they could think that is is as far as we are right now in self-assembly.
Worst examples ever, some few concepts but no great demonstration.
DraskyVanderhoff 6 months ago
We will create cyborgs and cyborgs will create robots. Then robots will kill stupid human and will use the smart's people minds for super computers. There you go.
faunos51 6 months ago
@faunos51 Remember: it will be the 'stupid' people who will build and program something that ridiculous. Don't blame the machine, blame the people behind it.
S0up3rD0up3r 6 months ago
Lower the god damn intro!
lajakl 6 months ago 4
@lajakl And then ending, too! It's fucking deafening.
Jotto999 6 months ago
@lajakl *I mean, and the ending, too. I need an edit button.
Jotto999 6 months ago
I'm thinking of an episode of Star Trek: TNG where the Borg ship repaired itself after being hit by the photon torpedoes. We can become one with our buildings.
voyzovrezon 6 months ago
This guys name is almost skylab. like skylab from terminator.... Humanity is fucked
XxDollarBill 6 months ago
Please, please, please let this guy be in to..
The Zeitgeist movement!
pfmrokman 6 months ago
It seems to me that this kind of technology would be useful for unmanned vehicles we send to explore other planets. They wouldn't get stuck because they could just reconfigure themselves into the right shape to get around anything that got in their way.
YY4Me133 6 months ago
inb4 Portal 2
Blobthe15 6 months ago
So, this tech will allow me to shake a bunch of ingredients and my dinner is assembled? or can I go back to shaking a woman and achieving the same result?
xdopiex 6 months ago 2
I wonder if Skylar is working for Skynet and is friend's with John Connor?
deconvertedguy 6 months ago
Anyone else thinking of the Replicators from Stargate SG1?
TheLaughingOut 6 months ago
YOUR INTRO GOD DAMMIT!
itsmeameer 6 months ago
This will certainly make defense way better. Repairing will be innovate, and so will creating. It also leads into a neat avenue of more uses for robotics, in order to have it do what you wish. He described it has being individual parts that are working together. They do their own deed, and it leads to a final result. This will make types of manipulation of these systems more difficult, which seems a definite benefit as compared to something more centralized. If I am ascertaining this correctly
ACANOFSODA 6 months ago
... I can't help but think that this sort of tech will be apart of the Robot Apocalypse...
rayp526 6 months ago
that reminds me of this selfreplicating 3D printer.
ereignisfelder 6 months ago
I didn't get it at first...but now...is it? Ratcheting bicycle chains? OK, I still don't get it.
JeanKM1 6 months ago
Comment removed
Damnated6mil 6 months ago
This guy is so tired and bored only because he had to appear in a KFED music video before he did this TedTalk gig...
MartianStories 6 months ago
I know what each of his words meant but...
D5932 6 months ago
I'm not convinced.
asymmetrisch 6 months ago
It took nature about a billion years to even get decent self-replication, not to mention the following three billion to get to self-augmentation. We may have the benefit of having an example to work from but I will predict that it is going to take decades before even the first garden-shed builds itself. Nonetheless these scientists and engineers must do this.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
Nice ideas. Not delivered too well though.
bweazel 6 months ago