Science

In March 2010 I gave a talk at the MIT Sloan School of Management on RepRap and the democratization of Fabrication Technology and emergence of open hardware communities, entrepreneurial spin-offs, etc. Bre Pettis and Zach "Hoeken" Smith took the stage right after me and they really rocked with their Makerbot and Thingiverse story (due to form and substance)!

The Innovation Lab meeting was organized by Professor Eric von Hippel at MIT and author of Democratizing Innovation (available under Creative Commons license).

I finally took the time to upload the slides.


Source: OpenOffice

Feel free to ask questions or provide suggestions (other than about the formatting, which Slideshare messed up a little).

There are so many ways to get to a 3D model. Some are really great if you like programming. It is really powerful to use logic to generate objects, but not for all models. Those who are better with visual modalities will probably not like such a system much, and will like the following. Besides scanning software, modeling software is also rapidly improving in terms of usability.

There are already great pieces of software that can be used for 3D modeling of meshes.


It already shows how you can make 3D modeling accessible and still be very powerful. I would like to think about how we can achieve both with relatively simple means and do it better than in Minority Report.

Blender is another excellent product that's open source. Since version 2.5 the sculpting system has seen a major update. That it's powerful can be understood better by seeing in than by reading about it:


The problem is that the user interface is usually still in 2D and is not intuitive for beginners. A 3D interface would not only drastically reduce the learning curve for working in 3D, it would also be a lot more impressive and work much faster:


It should be possible to implement this with off the shelf parts and open source software (something interactively adjusting blender's perspective).

The wii remotes could provide useful for head and cursor (or finger) tracking. To get a "3D screen" you could use shutterglasses to generate a stereoscopic interface, or you could even more cheaply create a lower fidelity interface by just adjusting the perspective relative to head movements.


Download and print two LED clippy's on your RepRap, or if you don't have a 3D printer at home, make them yourself with some wire and Scotch Tape:


Or buy off-the-shelf LED glasses. Here you should probably still replace the LED's with IR LED's if you want proper contrast with the wii-mote setup.
You could create a custom HID device or USB joystick with an Arduino. Or just put an off-the-shelf 5 euro (including shipping) IR emitter around your wii-mote or webcam.

Years ago I blogged about creative wii interfaces. You don't need expensive equipment to make interesting interfaces 3D like Leonar3Do:


Now the great thing about what you see is that it's not THAT complicated!.

For those of us who have RepRaps or don't hesitate to tinker with hardware, we can make the system as elaborate as you wish, building data-gloves and such. A quick google gives you things like the ZerkinGlove, built in a day and using mostly parts from Sparkfun:


Many of the parts for such an interface could be 3D printed (to exactly fit your body, you should sculpt the second iteration with the system from the first iteration).

But I like the simplicity of a simple '3D mouse' with buttons that has three markers, since most of the solution would be in software and anyone can easily get it working with standard webcams/wii-motes and software they can download. It's easier to replicate such a setup. Another option would be to use a phone (android based) and connect it to you computer directly via bluetooth, or to your arduino prototype rig (via the amarino toolkit).

Zie dit YouTube filmpje. Behalve dat het een erg mooi promotiefilmpje is zit hier een duidelijke visie achter.

Bij FESTO is het interessant om te zien hoe zij omgaan met innovatie. Ze zien inspiratie uit de natuur (terecht) als waardevolle bron (ik ook in mijn bachelors thesis over biologically inspired evolution of artificial neural networks). Onze 'rigide' ontwikkeltechnieken een gedachten zijn wat dat betreft heel erg beperkt door 'best practices' en traditionele vormen van onderwijs. Veelal wordt instructionalisme toegepast (vertellen hoe het moet) in plaats van constructivisme (middelen geven om zelfstandig te ontdekken). Naast expermenterend leren is de bereidheid om kennis te delen een belangrijke voorwaarde om kennis te vergroten. In tegenstelling tot andere 'eindige' productiefactoren, zoals natuurlijke hulpbronnen, neemt kennis in waarde toe wanneer het gebruikt wordt (Nonaka en Takeuchi 1995, Overbeek 2008). Delen en experimenteren de speerpunten van DigiMaster, een project waarvan ik de systemen en het webdesign gemaakt heb.

Geen van de dingen uit de filmpjes zijn nieuw, al zijn ze erg netjes geimplementeerd:

• De iFab (filmpje hier, of onderaan deze post) is bijvoorbeeld geinspireerd door de RepRap (Open Source) en Fab@Home (Open Source), gecombineerd met een paar interessante eigen ideeen.
• De autonome robots zijn o.b.v. bekend ROV onderzoek en ook Open Source uitgevoerd door (beroemde) hobbyisten (Chris Anderson).
• Ook de modulair zelfreconfigurerende robots bestonden al wel (Cornell's Open Source Molecubes). De behuizingen en diverse onderdelen zijn overigens weer te 3D printen met de RepRap (of iFab).

Toch zijn het middelen om constuctivistisch te leren en hetgene daarmee geleerd is vervolgens productontwikkeling op een hoger niveau te tillen. Deze middelen komen, mede dankzij internet, open (source) development en 3D printing, steeds mee in de handen van de amateurs (Democratizing Innovation, zie von Hippel). Open Source is in mijn ogen een heel geschikte enabler voor kennis delen en vermeerderen (diffusion of knowledge) en ook om het te consolideren in toolchains (open source projecten) die toegankelijk zijn voor constructionist learning.

Interessant om te zien, vooral ook de iFab omdat zij daarnaast voor meer dan 20.000 producten de CAD modellen online hebben staan in diverse formaten. Ze nodigen hiermee hun klanten uit om te experimenteren met hun producten en ze te verbeteren (von Hippel).

Bronnen:

• Zykov, V., Chan, A., Lipson, H., (2007) Molecubes: An open-source modular robotics kit, Proceedings of IROS, 2007
  
• Hippel, E., von (2006). Democratizing innovation. Massechusets: MIT Press.
  
• von Hippel, E., (2007), Horizontal innovation networks—by and for users, Industrial and Corporate Change.

I read the Guardian article about "building an open source world", on which I have some comments about this.
In the article this remark is made:
"Open source hardware doesn't have the same power as software if only because the final product, as opposed to the designs, can't be replicated for no extra cost as software can."

I'm involved with the RepRap project (also in another Guardian article). I also built a 'machine that can make almost anything'. I'm now building 6 more machines in a group, and the project has already attracted a new group who want to start building.

While in essence the statement about non-free distribution of physical goods is true, we're working hard to mitigate that. We're working on making sure it can use garbage plastics (since we have an abundance of garbage) and it could in principle recycle its own products. The costs of the plastics that we can use are significantly lower than that of commercial 3D printers (about 20 times cheaper, just like the machine itself). There's also an opportunity for home-grown biodegradable plastics (plastics from starch). An interesting remark about this is:
"In a sense, hardware is becoming much more like software, up to the point where you actually fabricate an object," von Hippel says. "That's why you're starting to see open source techniques in hardware. Design is largely going to shift out from manufacturers to the communities."
Source: Eric von Hippel of MIT

Last year, I attended the Rapid Manufacturing and Mass customization conference. Frank T. Piller, considered the guru of Mass customization, said that manufacturing will start happening closer to the consumer, and that the demarcation between producer and consumer will become more blurred. Also, Terry Wohlers, consultant in Rapid Prototyping (also called 3D printing), used the example of an open source fabricator and highlighted the concept of neighborhood fabrication. Granted, he does have reservations for mass adoption.

In the near future where people have fabricators at or near their home (right now RepRap's diffusion is amazing) products would be distributed digitally and produced locally.

The network effects of the RepRap community and the installed base of RepRaps are compelling. I've documented some of the growth characteristics of the RepRap community on my blog here.

The community has also become more organized and shops have oriented themselves around the concept. Now, for the non-technical people, or those with little time, there is now a kit available for about 750 pounds with which you could build a RepRap (equivalent) in 2-3 days (my estimate).

And an interview with Eric von Hippel:

URL: von Hippel interview

They discuss fabricators reaching the home at some point in time. Von Hippel (in the video, here's another), whom I referred to in my earlier blog, is a did seminal work on the origin innovation.

Here's a Google TechTalk about Innovation. It's told in an amusing, motivating way. It's mostly about being restrictive, overprotective and being too prudent, you would risk ruining a technological revolution. Also, he brings forward the risk of business method patents.


Some remarks that struck me:

• Patent quality and use is very low (also brought forward by Chesbrough and others).


• Offensive use of patents (as opposed to defensive)


• A great empirical argument: "When you're extending copyright terms, don't extend the for dead people. It is unlikely you will spur innovation by doing so.". Can't argue against that!
  
• "Ninety-something percent of all western culture, produced in the last hundred years, is A is under copyrighted and B has no identifiable copyright owner which means that copyright is locking it up while providing absolutely no benefit."

When researching the distributed user-centered innovation process, I came across this lecture by Eric von Hippel (see below). Also, in my presentations I've quoted Eric von Hippel a couple of times. He researches how innovation driven is often driven by users and what the effects of that are. It is very applicable to what the emerging FabLabs and RepRap project are doing.

When extending the open source concept from software to 'hardware' (as in actual, physical things) von Hippel says the following:
"... In the case of open source software this is possible because innovations can be “produced” and distributed essentially for free on the web, software being an information rather than a physical product. In the case of the sports innovation example, however, equipment (but not technique) innovations are embodied in physical product that, to achieve general diffusion, must be produced and physically distributed. These activities generally involve significant economies of scale. The result, in the case of the windsurfing example and for physical products generally, is that, while innovation prototyping and field trial and refinement can be carried out by users and within user innovation networks, production and diffusion of the physical products incorporating those innovations will usually be carried out by manufacturing firms. ..."
Source: von Hippel, E., Horizontal innovation networks - by and for users, Industrial and Corporate Change Advance Access, published May 16, 2007, p. 22

In 2007, the RepRap project was not well known (an still isn't know to the average person) and had not produced many visible results. But right now (Q3 2008), there are more and more people printing 3D designs to actual physical objects and they are blogged more and more often adding to the publicity for RepRap. Also, thingiverse.com (a project initiated by RepRapper Zach Smith) allows 3D printable designs to be shared with the world, or downloaded for printing. Von Hippel acknowledges the trend of user being in control of designing and innovating objects and RP (3D print) service bureaus to offer manufacturing as a service. Along with that, RepRap now has the potential to really to reach every home that wants a 3D printer

"In a sense, hardware is becoming much more like software, up to the point where you actually fabricate an object," von Hippel says. "That's why you're starting to see open source techniques in hardware. Design is largely going to shift out from manufacturers to the communities."
Source: Eric von Hippel, MIT



In his talk I noticed a strong resemblance with C.K. Prahalad's when it comes to turning manufacturing on it's head. C.K. Prahalad, in his book "The new age of innovation", argues that companies should service users so that they can innovate the products. In this co-creation process, where much of the innovation comes from the customer, it becomes possible to tailor products to the needs of a market segments as small as a single individual, while utilizing a global pool of service providers.

Finally, I've finished the bachelors' thesis! The subject was "BIOLOGICALLY INSPIRED COMPUTING: The emergence of intelligence through evolving Artificial Neural Networks" and it was awarded an 8 out of 10. Well deserved if I may say so myself

It deals with the concept of intelligence, the biology that makes us intelligent and highlights and explains analogies that have served to develop artificial intelligence. Finally it concludes by discussing some conceptual discussions on the old questions "Can a machine be intelligent? If not, is it reserved to us humans only?"

PDF download here, more info: here

Watch this video, and notice the funny T-Shirt at 9.39s. If you don't get it, and you don't hate philosophical topics (I mean why this cat is alive...) just google for Schrödinger's Cat.

Chess and AI, man vs. machine

Source: Computer History Museum
Video: 2 hr 5 min 57 sec - Jun 22, 2004
URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1583888480148765375


In the early days of Artificial Intelligence, chess was a major focus because it was thought to be a route to understanding problem-solving abilities in general. It was a well defined game in which you could measure the quality of AI play.

A chess champion himself says: "First chess grandmasters came to AI matches to laugh. Secondly they came to watch, but finally they came to learn."

The prediction of a world-class AI chess player was wrong on timescale. But its a very hard prediction to make. Problem spaces are enormous, 'searching the entire maze' is impossible because of cpu power, time and memory constraints. So complete brute force is fruitless. Using pruning (alphabeta) allowed for much more efficient calculations and most algorithms use this technique to reduce the calculation work.
To achieve more, we can wait for processors to become faster, or find a way to use more knowledge. Investing in computer clusters is also an option (they speak of a dichotomy 'knowledge' vs. 'search'). I do believe that each can be improved separately, one doesn't inhibit the other so the 'versus' simply calls for one side to become dominant, not the other to be reduced or left as inferior.
Continue reading "Google Video: The history of Chess and AI, man vs. machine."