Robots! (Part 2)

 

[Part 2 of “Robots!” is the final installment of this short series.  As I acknowledged in Part 1, I decided to post this transcript while I was watching 60 Minutes last week.  When Bill Whitaker, the correspondent, referenced the earlier robotics report from 28 March 2021, I decided to post both transcripts.

[As I usually do with multi-part posts, I recommend reading the foregoing parts in order before jumping in in medias res.  In this case, the introduction to Part 1 contains a very brief run-down on robots and the origin of the word, itself.  (If you don’t already know how the word was coined, you might be surprised.)]

“BOSTON DYNAMICS’ AI-POWERED HUMANOID ROBOT
IS LEARNING TO WORK IN A FACTORY”
by Bill Whitaker and Marc Lieberman

[Four years and nine months after airing the report in Part 1 of this series, CBS’s, 60 Minutes ran the segment below on 4 January 2026 (this link includes the video of the segment).  It was a follow-up to the Anderson Cooper report, this time with Whitaker as correspondent, and the news magazine broadcast revisited Boston Dynamics.

[In December 2020, Hyundai Motor Group, the Korean auto-maker, made a deal to buy 80% of Boston Dynamics, and in June 2021, just after the earlier 60 Minutes report at the end of March, Hyundai completed the agreement and officially took control of BD.  It’s unknown even now what this change of hands means in terms of BD’s robotics work, though the auto-maker has launched a new division to create “walking cars” and other robots.]

Will AI-powered humanoid robots someday work alongside us?

Bill Whitaker: For decades, engineers have been trying to create robots that look and act human. Now, rapid advances in artificial intelligence are taking humanoids from the lab to the factory floor. As fears grow that AI will displace workers, a global race is underway to develop human-like robots able to do human jobs. Competitors include Tesla, startups backed by Amazon and Nvidia, and state-supported Chinese companies. Boston Dynamics is a frontrunner. The Massachusetts company, valued at more than a billion dollars, is hard at work on a humanoid it calls Atlas. South Korean carmaker Hyundai holds an 88% stake in the robot maker. We were invited to see the first real-world test of Atlas at Hyundai’s new factory near Savannah, Georgia. There, we got a glimpse of a humanoid future that’s coming faster than you might think.

Voice-over (Bill Whitaker): Hyundai’s sprawling auto plant is about as cutting-edge as it gets. More than 1,000 robots work alongside almost 1,500 humans, hoisting, stamping and welding in robotic unison. This may look like the factory of the future, but we found the future of the future in the parts warehouse, tucked away in the back corner, getting ready for work. 

Meet Atlas: A 5'9", 200[-]pound, AI-powered humanoid created by Boston Dynamics. The rise of the robots is science fiction no more.

[Atlas, which was featured in the 2021 60 Minutes report covered in Part 1 of this series, was created in 2013. Boston Dynamics released YouTube videos of Atlas at different stages of its development in 2013 (the video in this link seems to be broken), 2016, 2017, May 2018, October 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 (x 2), 16 April 2024, and 17 April 2024.]

Bill Whitaker: I have to say, every time I see it, I just can’t believe what my eyes are seeing. Is this the first time Atlas has been out of the lab?

Zack Jackowski: This is the first time Atlas has been out of the lab doing real work.

Voice-over: Zack Jackowski heads Atlas development. He has two mechanical engineering degrees from MIT and a mission to turn the robot into a productive worker on the factory floor. We watched as Atlas practiced sorting roof racks for the assembly line without human help.

Bill Whitaker: So he’s working autonomously.

Zack Jackowski: Correct

Bill Whitaker: You’re down here to see how Atlas works in the field, and you’ll be showing Atlas off to your bosses at Hyundai?

Zack Jackowski: Yeah.

Yeah, a little bit. I– and I– I think a lot of our roboticists would’ve thought that was pretty crazy five, six years ago. 

Voice-over: When 60 Minutes last visited Boston Dynamics in 2021 [this is the report from 2021, posted as Part 1], Atlas was a bulky, hydraulic robot that could run and jump. Back then, Atlas relied on algorithms written by engineers. When we dropped in again this past fall, we saw a new generation Atlas with a sleek, all-electric body and an AI brain, powered by Nvidia’s advanced microchips, making Atlas smart enough to pull off hard to believe feats autonomously. We saw Atlas skip and run with ease.

Bill Whitaker: Do you ever stop thinking, gee whiz?

Scott Kuindersma: I remain extremely excited about where we are in the history of robotics but we see that there’s so much more that we can do, as well.

Voice-over: Scott Kuindersma is head of robotics research, a job he proudly wears on his sleeve.

Bill Whitaker: You even have on a robot shirt.

Scott Kuindersma: Well, once I saw that this shirt existed, there was no way I wasn’t buying it.

Voice-over: He told us robots today have learned to master moves that until recently were considered a step too far for a machine.

Scott Kuindersma: And a lot of this has to do with how we’re going about programming these robots now, where it’s more about teaching, and demonstrations, and machine learning than manual programming.

Bill Whitaker: So this humanoid, this mechanical human, can actually learn?

Scott Kuindersma: Yes. And– and we found that that’s actually one of the most effective way[s] to program robots like that.

Voice-over: Atlas learns in different ways. In supervised learning, machine learning scientist Kevin Bergamin – wearing a virtual reality headset – takes direct control of the humanoid, guiding its hands and arms, move-by-move through each task until Atlas gets it.

Scott Kuindersma: And if that teleoperator can perform the task that we want the robot to do, and do it multiple times, that generates data that we can use to train the robot’s AI models to then later do that task autonomously.

Voice-over: Kuindersma used me to demonstrate another way Atlas learns.

Scott Kuindersma: That v– very stylish suit that you’re wearing is actually gonna capture all of your body motion to train Atlas to try to mimic exactly your motions. And so you’re about to become a 200-pound metal robot.

Voice-over: He asked me to pick an exercise. They captured the way I work as well.

Bill Whitaker: I am here at the AI Lab at Boston Dynamics. All of my movements, my walking, my d– arm gestures are being picked up by these sensors . . .

Voice-over: Then engineers put my data into their machine learning process. Atlas’ body is different from mine, so they had to teach it to match my movements virtually – more than 4,000 digital Atlases trained for six hours in simulation.

Scott Kuindersma: And they’re all trying to do jumping jacks, just like you. And as you can see, they’re just starting to learn, so they’re not very good at it.

Voice-over: The simulation, he told us, added challenges for the avatars, like slippery floors, inclines, or stiff joints, and then homed in on what works best.

Scott Kuindersma: And it can eventually get to a state where we have many copies of Atlas doing really good jumping jacks.

Voice-over: They uploaded this new skill into the AI system that controls every Atlas robot. Once one is trained, they’re all trained.

Scott Kuindersma: So that’s what you look like when you’re exercising.

Bill Whitaker: Uh-huh.

Voice-over: And what I look like doing my job.

Bill Whitaker: I am here at the AI Lab at Boston Dynamics. All of my movements, my walking, my d– arm gestures are being picked up by these sensors …

Bill Whitaker: This is mind-blowing.

Voice-over: Through the same processes, Atlas was taught to crawl, do cartwheels. It didn’t fare as well with the duck walk.

Scott Kuindersma: Oh, that was fun. And then this happens.

Bill Whitaker: And then this happens.

Scott Kuindersma: We love when things like this happen, actually. Because it’s often an opportunity to understand something we didn’t know about the system.

Bill Whitaker: What are some of the limitations you see now?

Scott Kuindersma: Well, I’d- I would say that most things that a person does in their daily lives, Atlas or– other humanoids can’t really do that yet. I think we’re start–

Bill Whitaker: Like- like what?

Scott Kuindersma: Well, just putting on clothes in the morning, or pouring your cup of coffee and walking around the house with it.

Bill Whitaker: That’s too difficult for– for Atlas?

Scott Kuindersma: Yeah, I think there are no humanoids that do that nearly as well as a person would do that. But I think the thing that’s really exciting now is we see a pathway to get there.

Voice-over: A pathway provided by AI. What stands out in this Atlas is its brain. Nvidia chips – the ones that helped launch the AI revolution with ChatGPT – process the flood of collected data, moving this humanoid robot closer to something like common sense.

Scott Kuindersma: So the analogy might be if I was teaching a child how to do free throws in basketball, if I allow them to just explore and come up with their own solutions, sometimes they can come up with a solution that I didn’t anticipate. And that’s true for these systems as well.

Voice-over: Atlas can see its surroundings and is figuring out how the physical world works.

Scott Kuindersma: So that some day you can put a robot like this in a factory and just explain to it what would– you would like it to do, and it has enough knowledge about how the world works that it has a good chance of doing it.

Robert Playter: There’s a lot of excitement in the industry right now about the potential of building robots that are smart enough to really become general purpose.

Voice-over: Robert Playter, the CEO of Boston Dynamics, spearheaded the company’s humanoid development. He’s been building toward this moment for more than 30 years. The cornerstone was this robotic dog, Spot, introduced almost a decade ago. Spots are trained in heat, cold and varied terrain, and roam the halls of Boston Dynamics.

Robert Playter: So we have some cameras– thermal sensors, acoustic sensors. An array of sensors on its back that lets it collect data about the health of a factory.

Voice-over: Spots carry out quality control checks at Hyundai, making sure the cars have the right parts. They conduct security and industrial inspections at hundreds of sites around the world. What began with Spot has evolved into Atlas.

Robert Playter: So this robot is capable of superhuman motion, and so it’s gonna be able to exceed what we can do.

Bill Whitaker: So you are creating a robot that is meant to exceed the capabilities of humans.

Robert Playter: Why not, right? We– we would like things that could be stronger than us or tolerate more heat than us or definitely go into a dangerous place where we shouldn’t be going. So you really want superhuman capabilities.

Bill Whitaker: To a lotta people that sounds scary. You don’t foresee– a world of Terminators [an allusion to the title character played by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1984’s science fiction film The Terminator (Orion Pictures) and its sequels]?

Robert Playter: Absolutely not. I think if you saw how hard we have to work to get the robots to just do some of the straightforward tasks we want them to do, that would dispel that– that worry about sentience and rogue robots.

Voice-over: We wondered if people might have more immediate concerns. We saw workers doing a job at the Hyundai plant that Atlas is being trained to perform.

Bill Whitaker: I guarantee you there are going to be people who will say, “I’m gonna lose my job to a robot.”

Robert Playter: Work does change. So the really repetitive, really back-breaking labor is really- is gonna end up being done by robots. But these robots are not so autonomous that they don’t need to be managed. They need to be built. They need to be trained. They need to be serviced.

Voice-over: Playter told us it could be several years before Atlas joins the Hyundai workforce fulltime. Goldman Sachs predicts the market for humanoids will reach $38 billion within the decade. Boston Dynamics and other U.S. robot makers are fighting to come out on top. But they’re not the only ones in the ring. Chinese companies are proving to be formidable challengers. They’re running to win.

Bill Whitaker: Are they outpacing us?

Robert Playter: The Chinese government has a mission to win the robotics race. Technically I believe we remain– in the lead. But there’s a real threat there that, simply through the scale of investment– we could fall behind.

Voice-over: To stay ahead, Hyundai made that big investment in Boston Dynamics.

Zack Jackowski: Four robots . . .

Voice-over: We were at the Georgia plant when Atlas engineer Zack Jackowski presented Atlas to Heung-soo Kim, Hyundai’s head of global strategy. He came all the way from South Korea to check in on the brave new world the carmaker is funding.

Bill Whitaker: What do you think of the progress that they’ve made with Atlas?

Heung-soo Kim: I think we are on track– about the development. Atlas, so far, it’s very successful. It’s a kind of– a start of great journey. Yeah.

Voice-over: The destination? That humanoid future we mentioned at the start – robots like us, working beside us, walking among us. It’s enough to make your head spin.

[Bill Whitaker is an award-winning journalist and 60 Minutes correspondent who has covered major news stories, domestically and across the globe, for more than four decades with CBS News.

[Marc Lieberman joined 60 Minutes in 2014.  Working with correspondent Bill Whitaker, he has produced more than 40 stories, including breaking news, newsmaker interviews, profiles, and in-depth investigations.  He started his career at CBS News in 1992.]

Robots! (Part 1)

 

[A robot—as if anyone today doesn’t already know—is a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command.  That’s the meaning in the world of sci-fi; in the real-life industrial world, it’s a machine built and programmed to carry out some complex task or group of tasks by physically moving. 

[Lately, these two definitions are coming closer and closer together (as you’ll read in the reports in this post and the second one coming up in Part 2).

[While a robot may be constructed to suggest human form without mimicking human appearance and behavior, like the arguably best-known anthropomorphic robot, C-3PO from Star Wars.  (3PO’s companion, R2-D2, is a non-humanoid robot, resembling a moving trash can.) 

[A robot that’s designed to look and act like a human being is called an android, sometimes a ’droid for short.  Probably the most famous ’droid is Lieutenant Commander Data from the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation (Paramount Television, 1987-94; syndicated) and the subsequent films.

[A being that’s part machine and part organic is a cyborg, a kind of hybrid of a human and a robot.  This, of course, is a largely fictional creature—at least for the present. 

[The word ‘robot’ was first used in Karel Čapek’s (Czech; 1890-1938) 1920 play R.U.R.  The abbreviation in the title stands for Rossum’s Universal Robots (in Czech, Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti.)  In Czech, robota means forced labor.  The word, itself, was coined by the playwright’s brother. Josef (1887-1945), a Czech artist best known as a painter, but who was also a noted writer and a poet, who suggested it to Karel.

[‘Android,’ for the curious reader, is an amalgam of the ancient Greek andros (ανδρος), ‘man’ or ‘human,’ and eidos (ειδος), ‘form,’ ‘image,’ ‘shape,’ ‘appearance,’ or ‘look.’  It dates back, surprisingly, to the 1700s.  ‘Cyborg,’ coined in 1960, is a portmanteau word made up of syllables taken from ‘cybernetic’ (of or relating to the study of communication and control in living organisms or machines [i.e., cybernetics]) and ‘organism.’

[Humans have been fascinated with the idea of artificial life forms for almost as long as we’ve been writing down our thoughts, dreams, and fears.  The earliest treatment of man-made creatures was in Homeric Greece.  Around 700 to 600 BCE, the idea of robots appears in the Iliad when the god of fire, Hephaestus, forged armor for Achilles with the help of “golden maidens” who could talk, move, and reason, and were taught by the gods to make things with their hands.

[The Bible, in the Book of Revelation (Chapter 13), commonly dated to about 95 CE, describes a man-made object that is supernaturalized to act as a living creature and is granted “breath,” thus becoming capable of speaking.

[In Jewish folklore, a golem is an animated humanoid creature created entirely from inanimate matter—most commonly clay or mud—and brought to life through mystical rituals.  Though the word appears in the Bible and in early Talmudic texts, the golem as an animated clay statue created to protect Jews was a largely Ashkenazi (Jews of Eastern and Central Europe) figure.

[Abba ben Joseph bar Ḥama (ca. 280-352 CE), a Babylonian rabbi who’s referred to in the Talmud by the name Rava, was believed to have once created a golem.  The best-known stories about golems date to the 16th and 17th centuries in Poland and Bohemia.

[There’s a long history of discoveries of artificial creatures, going back as far as Egyptian dancing dwarves from about 2000 BCE animated via a system of gut strings and rollers and Archytas of Tarentum’s (Greek; 435/410-360/350 BCE) wooden bird powered by a jet of steam or compressed air (ca. 400-350 BCE), often cited as the first documented scientific “robot.”

[Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) designed the first documented physical humanoid robot (ca. 1495), a knight in metal armor.  Reconstructions from his notebooks show a system of pulleys and gears that allowed it to sit, stand, and move its visor.

[In 1739, Jacques de Vaucanson (French; 1709-82) devised one of the most famous early functional automatons: a gilded copper bird that could flap its wings and simulate eating and digesting grain.

[Eric (1928), one of the first modern humanoid robots made of metal, was an aluminum suit of armor built by British engineer William Henry (W. H.) Richards (1868-1948).  He could move his arms and head and was controlled by remote or voice.  In 1939, Elektro, a seven-foot-tall robot with a steel skeleton covered in an aluminum skin, was built by engineers at the Westinghouse Electric Corporation and displayed at the New York World’s Fair.  It could walk, talk via a record player, and even “smoke” cigarettes.  Both Eric and Elektro were officially labeled “robots,” Čapek’s play having been produced around the world, popularizing the word.

[My own first memorable encounter with the notion of robots was probably the 1951 movie The Day the Earth Stood Still (Twentieth Century Fox) in which Michael Rennie’s intergalactic ambassador, Klaatu, has a powerful robot, the “Iron Man,” named Gort.  The film’s my favorite science fiction flick—for two reasons.  One, it’s a terrific movie—a good plot, well told and well acted (with one of our best actresses in Patricia Neal, plus a favorite of mine, Sam Jaffe)—and, two, it was set and filmed in Washington, D.C., the town where I was born (though I was only 4 when it was being made there).]

“BOSTON DYNAMICS: INSIDE THE WORKSHOP
WHERE ROBOTS OF THE FUTURE ARE BEING BUILT”
by Anderson Cooper 

[This report from the 60 Minutes episode of 28 March 2021 (CBS News) was on a rare look behind the curtain of the robotics labs of Boston Dynamics.  The segment bore the on-air headline, “The Next Generation of Robots.”  Over four-and-a-half years later, 60 Minutes revisited and updated this subject.  That report will follow on Monday, 12 January.

[There’s no full video of this broadcast on line except for subscribers to Paramount+; readers who are subscribers or who wish to become one can log on from the page with this report.  On YouTube, there’s a short excerpt from near the beginning that’s less than a minute long and a five-minute video of a “60 Minutes Overtime” segment.  (There’s a link to Paramount+ on this site as well.)]

Boston Dynamics is a cutting-edge robotics company that’s spent decades behind closed doors making robots that move in ways we’ve only seen in science fiction films. They occasionally release videos on YouTube of their life-like machines spinning, somersaulting or sprinting, which are greeted with fascination and fear. We’ve been trying, without any luck, to get into Boston Dynamics’ workshop for years, and a few weeks ago they finally agreed to let us in. After working out strict COVID protocols, we went to Massachusetts to see how they make robots do the unimaginable.

From the outside, Boston Dynamics headquarters looks pretty normal. Inside, however. it’s anything but. If Willy Wonka made robots, his workshop might look something like this. There are robots in corridors, offices and kennels. They trot and dance and whirl and the 200-or-so human roboticists, who build and often break them, barely bat an eye.

That is Atlas, the most human-looking robot they’ve ever made.

It’s nearly 5 feet tall, 175 pounds, and is programmed to run, leap and spin like an automated acrobat.

Marc Raibert, the founder and chairman of Boston Dynamics doesn’t like to play favorites, but definitely has a soft spot for Atlas.

Marc Raibert: So here’s a little bit of a jump.

Anderson Cooper: I mean, that’s incredible. (LAUGH)

Atlas isn’t doing all this on its own. Technician Bryan Hollingsworth is steering it with this remote control. But the robot’s software allows it to make other key decisions autonomously.

Marc Raibert: So really the robot is–

Anderson Cooper: That’s incredible–

Marc Raibert: You know, doing all its own balance, all its own control. Bryan’s just steering it, telling it what speed and direction. Its computers are– adjusting how the legs are placed and what forces it’s applying–

Marc Raibert: In order to keep it– balanced.

Atlas balances with the help of sensors, as well as a gyroscope and three on-board computers. It was definitely built to be pushed around.

Marc Raibert: Good, push it a little bit more. It’s just trying to keep its balance. Just like you will, if I push you. And you can push it in any direction, you can push it from the side. (LAUGH)

Making machines that can stay upright on their own and move through the world with the ease of an animal or human has been an obsession of Marc Raiberts’ for 40 years.

[On 10 November 2025, Russia’s first AI-powered humanoid robot, officially called AIDOL (occasionally, but unofficially, AIdol), failed a fundamental task during its official unveiling. (The robot’s name is pronounced exactly like the English word ‘idol.’) As the robot was led onto the stage in Moscow to the theme song from Rocky, it managed a small wave before losing its balance and falling face-first onto the stage floor. Vladimir Vitukhin, CEO of Artificial Intelligence Dynamic Organism Lab (note the initials), the developing tech company, attributed the failure to a calibration error in the robot’s balance algorithms or insufficient lighting affecting its sensors.

[For curious ROTters who read Russian, the standard form of the robot’s name used by Russian news agencies and tech journals is “Айдол” (also pronounced like ‘idol’), written with a capital А at the beginning and continuing in lowercase (note the ‘short I’/I kratkoye). “АЙДОЛ” (all upper case), while technically an equivalent to the all-caps romanization “AIDOL,” is rarely used in Russian text and mostly appears only in headlines, logos, or as a stylized design choice. (Because the specific capitalization of “AIdol,” used by some English-language publications, is intended to highlight the English abbreviation and colloquialism for “Artificial Intelligence” (AI), it has no Cyrillic equivalent.)

[The robot’s English name, AIDOL, is an acronym for the name of the company that created it, Artificial Intelligence Dynamic Organism Lab. The company’s name in Russian is Лаборатория Динамических Организмов с Искусственным Интеллектом (literally, ‘Laboratory of Dynamic Organisms with Artificial Intelligence’). The Russian term for ‘artificial intelligence’ is искусственный интеллект (‘iskusstvennyi intellekt’; искусство/‘iskusstvo’ is Russian for ‘art’).]

Anderson Cooper: The space of time you’ve been working in is nothing compared to the time it’s taken for animals and humans to develop.

Marc Raibert: Some people look at me and say, “Oh, Raibert, you’ve been stuck on this problem for 40 years.” Animals are amazingly good, and people, at– at what they do. You know, we’re so agile. We’re so versatile. We really haven’t achieved what humans can do yet. But I think– I think we can.

Raibert isn’t making it easy for himself, he’s given most of his robots legs.

Anderson Cooper: Why focus on, on legs? I would think wheels would be easier.

Marc Raibert: Yeah, wheels and tracks are great if you have a prepared surface like a road or even a dirt road. But people and animals can go anywhere on earth– using their legs. And, so, that, you know, that was the inspiration.

Some of the first contraptions he built in the early 1980s bounced around on what looked like pogo sticks. They appeared in this documentary when Raibert was a pioneering professor of robotics and computer science at Carnegie Mellon. He founded Boston Dynamics in 1992, and with CEO Robert Playter has been working for decades to perfect how robots move.

They developed this robot, called Big Dog, for the military as well as a larger pack mule that could carry 400 pounds on its back. Experimenting with speed, they got this cheetah-like robot to run nearly 30 miles an hour.

None of these made it out of the prototype phase. But they did lead to this. It’s called Spot. Boston Dynamics made it not knowing exactly how it would be used.

But the inspiration for it isn’t hard to figure out.

Hannah Rossi: So Spot is a[n] omni-directional robot. So I can go forwards and backwards.

Anderson Cooper: This is crazy. (LAUGH)

Robert Playter: This is the real benefit of legs. Legs give you that capability.

That’s Robert Playter, the CEO, and Hannah Rossi, a technician who works on Spot.

Hannah Rossi: I’m not doing anything special to let it walk over those rocks. There you go.

The controls are easier to use than you might expect.

Anderson Cooper: Does it have to come in, straight on?

Hannah Rossi: You don’t have to be perfect about it drive it close to wherever you want to go and the robot will do the rest.

Anderson Cooper: Wow. In some ways it’s like driving a very sophisticated remote[-]control car. What makes it different?

Robert Playter: Spot is really smart about its own locomotion. It deals with all the details about how to place my feet, what gait to use, how to manage my body so that all you have to tell it is the direction they go to.

And in some cases, you don’t even have to do that. When signaled, Spot can take itself off its charging station and go for a walk on its own – as long as it’s pre-programmed with the route.

It uses five 3D cameras to map its surroundings and avoid obstacles.

Atlas has a similar technology, while we were talking in front of Atlas, this is how it saw us. 

Marc Raibert: This is inside Atlas’s brain. And it shows its perception system. So, what looks like a flashlight is really the data that’s coming back from its cameras. And it– you see the white– rectangles, that means it’s identifying a place that it could step. And then once it identifies it, it attaches those footsteps to it, and it says, “Okay, I’m gonna try and step there.” And then it adjusts its mechanics so that it actually hits those places when it’s– running.

All of that happens in a matter of milliseconds.

Marc Raibert: And so it’s gonna use that vision to adjust itself as it goes running over these blocks.

Atlas cost tens of millions of dollars to develop, but it’s not for sale. It’s used purely for research and development.

But Spot is on the market. More than 400 are out in the world. They sell for about $75,000 a piece, accessories cost extra. Some [S]pots work at utility companies using mounted cameras to check on equipment. Others monitor construction sites and several police departments are trying them out to assist with investigations.

Anderson Cooper: Let’s talk about the– the fear factor, When you post a video of Atlas or Spot doing something, a ton of people are amazed by it and think it’s great. And there’s a lot of people who think this is terrifying.

Robert Playter: The rogue robot story is a powerful story. And it’s been told for 100 years. But it’s fiction. Robots don’t have agency. They don’t make up their own minds about what their tasks are. They operate within a narrow bound [sic] of their programming.

Anderson Cooper: It is easy to project human qualities onto these machines.

Robert Playter: I think people do attribute to our robots much more than they should. Because you know, they haven’t seen machines move like this before. And so they– they want to project intelligence and emotion onto that in ways that are fiction.

In other words, these robots still have a long way to go.

Anderson Cooper: I mean, it’s not C[-]3PO. It– it’s not– a thinking–

Marc Raibert: Yeah. So let me tell you–

Anderson Cooper: Okay.

Marc Raibert: About that. There’s a cognitive intelligence and an athletic intelligence. You know, cognitive intelligence is making plans, making decisions– reasoning, and things like that.

Anderson Cooper: It’s not doing that?

Marc Raibert: It’s mostly doing athletic intelligence–

Anderson Cooper: Okay–

Marc Raibert: Which is managing its body, its posture, its energetics. If you told it to travel in a circle in the room it can go through the sequence of steps. But if you ask it to– go find me a soda, it’s– it’s not doing anything like that.

Just picking an item off the floor can sometimes be a struggle for Spot. Enabling it to open a door has taken years of programming and practice and a human has to tell it where the hinges are. 

Kevin Blankespoor: Each time we add some new capability– and we feel like we’ve got it to a decent point, that’s when you push it to failure to figure out, you know, how good of a job you’ve really done.

Kevin Blankespoor is one of the lead engineers here, but at times, he prefers a very low-tech approach to testing robots.

Anderson Cooper: You’re pretty tough on robots.

Kevin Blankespoor: We think of that as– as just another way to push them out of the comfort zone.

Failure is a big part of the process. When trying something new, robots, like humans, don’t get it right every time. There might be dozens of crashes for every one success.

Anderson Cooper: How often do you break a robot? (LAUGH)

Marc Raibert: We break them all the time. I mean, it’s part of our culture. We have a motto, “Build it, break it, fix it.”

To do that, Boston Dynamics has recruited roboticists with diverse backgrounds – there’s plenty of Ph.D’s, but also bike builders, and race car mechanics. Bill Washburn is part of that pit crew.

Anderson Cooper: They all look pretty dinged up.

Bill Washburn: Yeah.

Anderson Cooper: How often do these need to get repaired?

Bill Washburn: The biggest– kinda failures for me are, like, the bottom part of the robot breaks off of the top part of the robot. (CHUCKLE) And it’s like–

Anderson Cooper: That seems like a big– big failure. (CHUCKLE)

Bill Washburn: And the hydraulic hoses are the only thing holding it together.

Recently, Raibert and his team decided to push their robots in a way they never had before.

Marc Raibert: We spent at least six months, maybe eight, just preparing for what we were gonna do. And then we started to get the technical teams working on the behavior.

The behavior was dancing. All their robots got in on the act. The movements were cutting edge, but the music and the Mashed Potato were definitely old[-]school.

Anderson Cooper: There are some people who see that and say, “That can’t be real.”

Marc Raibert: Nothing’s more gratifying than hearing that.

Anderson Cooper: What’s the point in proving that the robot can do the Mashed Potato [popular dance craze of 1962, made famous by James Brown]?

Marc Raibert: This process of, you know, doing new things with the robots lets you generate new tools, new approaches, new understanding of the problem– that takes you forward. But, man, isn’t it just fun?

Anderson Cooper: But, I mean, it’s– it costs a lotta money. It took 18 months of your time.

Marc Raibert: I think it was worth it. (LAUGHTER)

Whether it’ll be worth it to Boston Dynamics’ new owners is less clear.

The South Korean carmaker, Hyundai, has agreed to buy a majority stake for more than a billion dollars. It’ll be Boston Dynamics’ third owner in eight years. There’s pressure to turn their research into revenue.

And Boston Dynamics hopes this new robot will help. It’s called Stretch and it’s due to go on sale next year. This is the first time they’ve shown it publically [sic].

Kevin Blankespoor: Warehouses is really the next frontier for robotics.

Stretch may not be that exciting to look at, but it’s built with a definite purpose in mind.  It’s got a seven-foot arm and they say it can move 800 boxes an hour in a warehouse and work for up to 16 hours without a break. Unlike many industrial robots that sit in one place, stretch is designed to move around.

Kevin Blankespoor: You can drive it around with a joystick. And at times, that’s the easiest way to get it set up. But once it’s ready to go in a truck and unload it, you hit go and from there on it’s autonomous. And it’ll keep finding boxes and moving ’em until it’s all the way through.

Robert Playter: This generation of robots is gonna be different. They’re gonna work amongst us. They’re gonna work next to us– in ways where we help them but they also take some of the burden from us.

Anderson Cooper: The more robots are integrated into the workforce, the more jobs would be taken away.

Robert Playter: At the same time, you’re creating a new industry. We envision a job– we– we– we like to call the robot wrangler. He’ll launch and manage five to 10 robots at a time and sort of– keep them all working.

Anderson Cooper: Is there a robot you’ve always dreamt of making (LAUGH) that you haven’t been able to do yet?

Marc Raibert: A car with an active suspension essentially legs like w– like a roller[-]skating robot. And a robot like that, you know, could go anywhere on earth. That’s one thing that maybe we’ll do at some point. But, you know, really, the sky’s the limit. There’s– there’s all kinds of things we can and will do.

As with so many things Boston Dynamics does. It’s hard to imagine how that would work, but then again, who’d have thought a bunch of metal machines would one day show us all how to do the Mashed Potato.

[Anderson Cooper, anchor of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, has contributed to 60 Minutes since 2006.  His exceptional reporting on big news events has earned Cooper a reputation as one of television’s preeminent newsmen.

[I decided to post this report after I watched the one coming up next earlier this month.  I was attracted to the upcoming 60 Minutes segment just because it fascinated me, and I considered reposting it while I was watching.  As you’ll see, Bill Whitaker, the correspondent on Part 2, makes reference to this report—which I saw back in 2021 and was remembering it as I took in Whitaker’s report—so I decided to repost both reports.  As I said: just because the topic intrigued me.

[I hope ROTters will find this interesting, too, and will return on Monday, the 12th, foe the second part of this short series.]

Telescope Farm

 

[A "telescope farm” is an observatory in a remote location with dark, clear skies (“Dark Sky Places”; see below in the afterword to the second CBS News report) where amateur astronomers can house their own telescopes or rent access to existing ones.  Users control these telescopes remotely via the internet, often from the comfort of their homes, to capture high-quality astronomical images without dealing with local light pollution (see the last two articles posted below).

[Key characteristics of a telescope farm include:

•   Remote Operation: Astronomers can be located anywhere in the world and operate the equipment via an internet connection.

•   Dark Skies: The facilities are situated in locations with minimal light pollution, such as rural Texas or regional Australia, which allows for much clearer and more detailed observations than those possible in or near urban areas.

•   Automated Infrastructure: The sites feature automated systems, such as sheds whose roofs open and close in unison, to protect the equipment and facilitate remote, often scheduled, operation.

•   Accessibility: This business model makes high-quality astrophotography and research accessible to amateur stargazers and researchers who may not have the resources, location, or time to operate a personal observatory. 

[Companies like Starfront Observatories in Rockwood, Texas, in the U.S. and iTelescope in Coonabarabran, New South Wales, Australia, are examples of businesses that provide these services.] 

“LIGHT POLLUTION IS WASHING OUT THE NIGHT SKY.
A REMOTE TELESCOPE FARM HELPS STARGAZERS
BRING THE COSMOS TO THEIR SCREENS”
by David Schechter, Aparna Zalani, and Jojo Macaluso

[I was watching the evening news last Wednesday, 12 November, when I caught a report about a telescope farm in remote Central Texas.  The story fascinated me, even though I’m not an amateur astronomer.  I immediately downloaded the online report from the “Eye On America” segment of that evening’s CBS Evening News, and did a little additional ‘Net surfing, to make a potential post for future use on Rick On Theater.

[As it happens, I’m in the process of finishing another post that’s taking more time than I anticipated, so I decided to go ahead and post “Telescope Farm” now, just because I think it’s an interesting story.]

By day, a row of plain-looking sheds in sleepy Rockwood, Texas, looks like nothing more than a place to store farm tools and feed. But when the sun dips below the horizon, their roofs peel back in unison to reveal a hidden network of hundreds of telescopes. 

The so-called telescope farm is the brainchild of amateur astronomer Bray Falls, who turned his passion into a business when he co-founded the company Starfront Observatories 18 months ago.

“It has not gotten old yet. It’s so cool, every single time,” Falls said of the transforming sheds.

Starfront rents space to customers who ship their telescopes to the farm and control them via the internet from the comfort of their homes. The remote location allows amateur stargazers to take stunning pictures they wouldn’t be able to from home, because the sky in Rockwood is much darker than where they live — helping solve one of amateur astronomers’ biggest problems: light pollution. 

The night sky has gotten harder to see due to a 10% yearly increase in light pollution over the past decade, according to a 2023 study published in the journal Science [see below]. 

Starfront’s customers live all over the world, including Europe, Asia and the Middle East, Falls said.

Chuck Ayoub in suburban Detroit has a garage full of telescopes, but he hardly uses them anymore after shipping one out to Texas.

“The big difference are the dark skies. I am 20 minutes from downtown Detroit, and that light pollution is a killer,” Ayoub said.

Most nights, Ayoub livestreams his telescope feed to his large social media following. There’s also a small camera at the base so he can see his telescope in action.

From the Starfront property, Falls and others are identifying celestial objects no one has ever seen before, such as a photo he calls the “Crown of Thorns” nebula. The discoveries are furthering our understanding of space, even as our ability to see it is fading.

When asked about the threat posed by light pollution, Falls said, “It really prevents people from dreaming, like seeing what’s above them, just awe. You get the tingles, you get the goosebumps.”

But now, it’s a feeling you can get — even from your basement in Detroit.

[David Schechter is a national environmental correspondent and the host of “On the Dot with David Schechter,” a guided journey to explore how we’re changing the earth and earth is changing us.  His work has been honored with a 2021 Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Silver Baton for reporting about climate change.  He’s also a two-time winner of the national Murrow Award for documentary, three-time Scripps Howard National Journalism Award winner, recipient of the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Political Reporting and a James Beard Award Finalist.

[Aparna Zalani is an award-winning journalist for CBS News and Stations with over 25 years in journalism.  Before joining the CBS News Innovation Lab, she reported for MSNBC on major stories like the 2000 Florida election recount, the 9/11 attacks, and the 2011 Japanese tsunami.  An alumna of the NBC Page Program, Aparna joined the special projects unit at CBS Texas in 2013, working on local and state investigations, and covering medical and health stories.  She began her career in India at United Television (UTV), reporting for India Business Week.

[Jojo Macaluso is a Broadcast Associate at CBS News since January 2024; her prior experience includes positions as a News Assistant and a Production Intern at CBS News, as well as internships at NPR and dot.LA.  Macaluso has also contributed as a Quality Assurance Tester at UserTesting and a Technical Assistant at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.]

*  *  *  *
“LED LIGHTS ARE ERASING OUR VIEW OF THE STARS
— AND IT'S GETTING WORSE”
by David Schechter, Haley Rush, and Chance Horner

[This report on light pollution (the target of the embedded link above) is also from CBS News, broadcast on 1 September 2023.]

America’s rapid adoption of LED lighting saves money and uses less electricity. But it’s also making it harder to see the stars. 

Light pollution comes from excessive artificial light that causes the sky to glow and obscures the light of the stars, and the problem is growing fast. New research in the journal Science found the night sky is getting 10% brighter every year.  

Experts say much of that light pollution is driven by the growth of cheaper, cleaner and brighter LED lighting. 

“The most common kinds you see, the sort of bright white ones, are absolutely making the problem much worse,” said Stephen Hummel, the dark skies senior outreach coordinator at the University of Texas’ McDonald Observatory. 

A light pollution map of the United States shows the widespread nature of the problem. The eastern half of the United States is almost entirely blanketed by some level of light pollution. And while the night sky is hardest to see in big cities, the view of the night sky is also degraded in suburban and rural areas. 

“(Light) basically gets reflected from the sky and creates what we call air glow,” said Ohad Shemmer, an astronomer at the University of North Texas, who studies black holes. “The Milky Way is gradually disappearing from view. Many of the fainter stars are disappearing.”

Government regulation is driving the rapid switch to LEDs. In 2007, Congress mandated that all lightbulbs be three times more efficient. That policy finally took effect on August 1 of this year [2023], effectively banning new incandescent light bulbs in favor of LEDs and compact fluorescents.  

But there are unintended consequences. 

Research shows too much light at night can interrupt our sleep cycle, potentially contributing to health issues like certain cancers and heart problems. It’s also a major factor in the decline of insect populations which require darkness to navigate, and it contributes to the death of hundreds of millions of birds each year that fly into brightly lit buildings.   

The McDonald Observatory is in the Big Bend region of far West Texas. It’s home to the Hobby-Eberly Telescope, the largest of its kind in the world. At night it collects the faint lights of outer space on an exceptionally large mirror. A dark night sky is essential to that work. 

“If the sky got too bright, eventually there would be no point in building big telescopes on the ground at all,” said astronomer Steven Janowiecki, who is the telescope’s science operations manager. 

To protect the night sky, the Observatory helped organize the Greater Big Bend International Dark Sky Reserve. It covers an area of 15,000 square miles across West Texas and portions of northern Mexico. The certification is granted by the nonprofit DarkSky, which has more than 70 chapters across the country. 

The reserve is a partnership of parks, communities and local groups that have all agreed to better lighting practices by swapping out their bright white LED streetlights for amber-colored ones that do not scatter as much light up into the sky and by installing covers that point light downward. 

The Alpine [Texas] City Council unanimously passed an ordinance in 2021 regulating outdoor lighting. Nearly all the city’s 200 streetlights have been updated from white to amber. The ordinance gives businesses and homes 5 years to convert to dark sky friendly lighting or face a daily fine of $50. 

“[Dark skies are] our product,” said Chris Ruggia, the director of tourism for the City of Alpine. “It’s the experience of coming here, and if we want that to continue, to provide some kind of prosperity in the community, we have to take care of it.”  

Ruggia says there are local programs to help homeowners cover the associated costs of making the switch and that there has been little controversy around the mandate. But he anticipates that might change as the deadline approaches. 

“There’s going to be some conversations that aren’t easy, especially as the time limit runs out,” he said. 

The American Lighting Association, which represents lighting manufacturers, acknowledges the problem of light pollution is “more extensive than originally thought.”  In response, it says many of its manufacturers now make shielded outdoor light fixtures to direct light away from the sky. 

Light pollution readings taken across the reserve show the plan is working. Astronomer Stephen Hummel says there has been a 20% reduction in nighttime light pollution there since 2020.  

But it is not just small communities that are making an impact. Hummel points to big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and Phoenix that are all swapping out overly bright streetlights for ones that are dark sky friendly. 

“The problem really is not money. It isn’t infrastructure, really. It’s awareness. Light pollution is completely reversible. It’s one of the few kinds of pollution that you could solve immediately. You could flip a switch and fix the problem,” he said. 

[U.S. Dark Sky Places: There are approximately 165 International Dark Sky Places — sanctuaries for natural darkness designated by the DarkSkyInternational (formerly International Dark-Sky Association) — across the United States.  In these places, you can often find exceptionally clear views of the night sky.

[Haley Rush is an Investigative Producer for CBS News & Stations/Local News Innovation Lab.  She brings experience from previous roles at KPTV Fox 12 Oregon (Portland), KRQE NEWS 13/KASA FOX 2 (Albuquerque/Santa Fe, New Mexico), and KPLC-TV (Lake Charles, Louisiana).  Rush holds a 2013 Bachelor of Arts degree in Broadcast Journalism from Mayborn School of Journalism – University of North Texas in Denton, Texas.  

[Chance Horner is a photojournalist and producer covering climate change and the environment for CBS News.]

*  *  *  *
“RAPID BRIGHTENING OF NIGHT SKIES GLOBALLY:
RECENT RESULTS FROM CITIZEN SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS”

[This article was posted to the website of the American Astronomical Society on 1 March 2023.  It’s somewhat technical, and the references are mostly from scientific journals, so I've included the list of sources, which I would ordinarily omit, below the article itself.  (Most of the references are likely to be in university libraries or the public systems of large cities, rather than local community libraries.  I see, however, that all have URL’s noted in the citations below, so there may be online editions accessible—though some may limit access in one way or another.)]

A recent paper by Kyba et al. (2023) [this is a link to the Science article referenced in the report above] found that light pollution of the world’s night skies has increased by as much as 10% a year since 2011, based on star counts made by citizen scientists. Paraphrasing the authors, night skies would brighten by a factor of about four over the duration of human childhood, strongly reducing the visibility of stars. This has been widely covered in the media and articles. Here, we share an overview of these results, related consequences, and one ray of hope: ground-based light pollution can be addressed through mitigating solutions that have already been successfully demonstrated.

[A citizen scientist is a member of the general public—an amateur or nonprofessional researcher—who voluntarily participates in scientific work (i.e., citizen science, also known as community science or participatory science), often in collaboration with or under the direction of professional scientists and scientific institutions.]

Although our newsfeeds and attention are dominated by SpaceX Starlink launches and the impact on astronomy from low-earth orbiting satellites, ground-based light pollution remains the largest threat to astronomical science and to humanity’s relationship with the skies. The recent citizen-science analysis in Kyba et al. 2023 revealed that terrestrial light pollution has not gone away and is, in fact, increasing faster than expected, by as much as 10% each year over the previous year. Although even this is likely an underestimate, there is some good news: ground-based light pollution can be mitigated successfully.

Skyglow — the most familiar symptom of light pollution — is caused by atmospheric scattering of light from ground-based sources (direct or reflected). Short wavelengths are scattered most effectively leading to the familiar light domes and distinctive glow that yield a washed-out appearance to the skies above light-polluted regions at night. Anyone who has frequented a major metropolitan area well knows that seeing more than a handful of stars is rare. And as astronomers, we’re all familiar with the forlorn husks of once-productive research facilities now stranded amongst bustling, brightly lit city streets or university campuses.

As the global population continues to grow and cities expand, the problem of light pollution grows and expands with them. This seems like a faraway concern for most astronomical sites these days, with the largest telescopes being built in remote regions of the planet with little light pollution to worry about, for now. However, with growth rates as high as 10% per year, the impact of light pollution poses an increasing problem for our science.

Light pollution isn’t just bad for our astronomical sites. How many astronomers were motivated to consider an astronomy career by childhood experiences of the night sky or an astronomical event (Comet Hale-Bopp, anyone?)? As fewer and fewer people are able to experience the night sky, we lose the inspiration that drives our science, something that makes astrophysics one of the easiest physical sciences to "sell" to the public and that brings talented engineers to our field to design and run our facilities.

[Comet Hale-Bopp, formally designated C/1995 O1, last appeared over Earth in 1997. It’s predicted to appear next in about 4385 (2,360 years from now).]

Beyond these human concerns, there is increasing evidence that ground-based light pollution is responsible for disruption to human and animal circadian rhythms (Cao et al. 2023, Touzot et al. 2023), migratory patterns (Torres et al. 2020), and plant seasonal cycles (Meng et al. 2022), as well as changes in reproductive cycles of insects (Firebaugh & Haynes 2016) to name a few of the problems. It may also make urban air quality worse (Stark et al. 2011, Shith et al. 2022). Poor-quality outdoor lighting, which is the source of light pollution, wastes energy (Tatro 2020) and is in part responsible for workplace accidents (Wren & Locke 2015). So, even if your own scientific endeavors are not impacted by ground-based light pollution, it is highly likely that your life or environment is.

[The circadian rhythm is the natural, internal process that regulates the physical, mental, and behavioral changes an organism experiences over a roughly 24-hour cycle. The word ‘circadian’ comes from the Latin circa diem, meaning ‘about a day.’

[This “internal clock” is found in most living things, including humans, animals, plants, and microorganisms. It’s primarily influenced by light and darkness and regulates important functions like sleep-wake cycles, body temperature, hormones, and digestion.

[Disruptions to the circadian rhythm (e.g., from jet lag or shift work) can negatively impact health and well-being, leading to sleep disorders, fatigue, and an increased risk of other health issues like obesity and depression.]

For more than a decade, NSF’s [National Science Foundation] National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory (NOIRLab) has been leading a citizen-science program known as the Globe at Night. This program collects estimates of naked-eye limiting magnitude (NELM) and Sky Quality Meter measurements submitted by volunteers around the world. Contributions typically exceed some 10,000 to 30,000 observations per year with more than a quarter of a million data points from 180 countries over the last 17 years.

[NELM is the magnitude of the faintest star you can see with your unaided eyes in a particular night sky. It varies depending on factors like light pollution, atmospheric conditions, and your own vision, but is a common way to measure the darkness of the sky. A lower number for limiting magnitude means a darker sky where fainter stars are visible.

[Sky Quality Meter (SQM) measurements quantify the brightness of the night sky in a specific area. This measurement is typically taken in “magnitudes per square arcsecond” (mag/arsec²) using a portable device, with lower numbers indicating a darker sky. These measurements are used to monitor light pollution, with data collected by amateur astronomers and researchers worldwide.]

Kyba et al. (2023) studied the NELM estimates and based on these data inferred a global average increase in the light pollution of 9.6% (10.4% in North America) per year between 2011 and 2022. This is a much larger increase than has been reported by studies using only satellite remote sensing observations of light emissions (Kyba et al. 2017, Sanchez de Miguel 2017), which had found a roughly 2% per year increase on a global average basis. Satellite instrumentation is focused on wavelengths of 500-900 nm [nanometer, a unit of length equal to one billionth of a meter commonly used to express the very tiny dimensions of electromagnetic radiation], which misses short-wavelength optical emissions characteristic of modern white light-emitting diodes (LEDs) that increasingly dominate the light budgets of cities. In addition, blue light (i.e., shorter wavelengths) is more effectively scattered in the atmosphere than other colors. These two effects give a possible reason for the lower estimate from orbital-based light pollution measures versus the ground-based estimates studied by Kyba et al. The team also points out that direct glare from poorly shielded LED street lights could blind observers near them to faint stars, biasing the NELM estimates toward brighter values without increasing skyglow locally (Bará, Bao-Varela & Kocifaj 2023).

It is probable that the global average change of +9.6% per year is in fact an underestimate of the true rate of increase in light pollution. Since artificial nighttime lighting is strongly correlated with economic performance metrics (Rybnikova 2022) and regions with high rates of economic growth are under-sampled in the Globe At Night data, it is likely that the true rate of increase exceeds 10% per year.

For our work as astronomers, this means that skies over existing observatories are getting noticeably degraded over timescales far less than one astronomer's lifetime, and the options available for sufficiently dark locations for new observatories are dwindling rapidly. This finding also demonstrates (as the authors note) that existing lighting policies are not adequate for the protection of the night sky.

There is, however, some good news — the sky glow from artificial light at night can be reduced. The strategies for cutting light pollution are straightforward: use outdoor lighting only when, where, and how it is needed (timing, area, and brightness), minimize blue light content, and use fully shielded fixtures (see Outdoor Lighting Basics for more information). Those approaches may be simple, but as the Kyba et al. study shows, more effort is needed to put these recommendations into ordinances, bylaws, and other regulations to reverse the degradation of our shared night sky, which is a millennia-old resource and inspiration for us all.

Please join us at AAS 242 in Albuquerque to hear about recent successes in mitigating light pollution, the creation of protected dark-sky places, recent documentaries on the many ways we connect to dark skies, and how good lighting practices have been implemented in lighting ordinances in different regions of the US. [This meeting of the American Astronomical Society took place on 4-8 June 2023.]

References:

•   Bará, S., Bao-Varela, C., & Kocifaj, M. 2023. “Modeling the artificial night sky brightness at short distances from streetlights”. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, vol. 296, 108456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2022.108456 

•   Cao, M., Xu, T., & Yin, D. 2023. “Understanding light pollution: Recent advances on its health threat and regulations” Science Direct, vol 127, 589-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2022.06.020

•   Firebaugh, A. & Haynes, K. J. 2016. “Experimental tests of light-pollution impacts on nocturnal insect courtship and dispersal” Oecologia, 182, 4, 1203-1211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3723-1

•   Kyba, C. C. M., Kuester, T., Sanchez de Miguel, A., et al. 2017. “Artificially lit surface of Earth at night increasing in irradiance and extent” Science Advances, vol 3, 11. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701528

•   Kyba, C. C. M., Altintas, Y. O., Walker, C.E., et al. 2023. “Citizen scientists report global rapid reductions in the visibility of stars from 2011 to 2022” Science, vol. 379, 6629, 265-268. DOI: 10.1126/science.abq778

•   Meng, L., Zhou, Y., O Roman, M., et al. 2022. “Artificial light at night: an underappreciated effect on phenology of deciduous woody plants” PNAS Nexus, vol 1, 2, pgac046. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac046

•   Rybnikova, N. 2022. "Everynight Accounting: Nighttime Lights as a Proxy for Economic Performance of Regions" Remote Sensing vol. 14,  4, 825. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040825

•   Sanchez de Miguel, A., Aube, A., Zamorano, J., et al.  2017. “Sky Quality Meter measurements in a colour- changing world” MNRAS, vol. 467, 3, 2966-2979. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx145

•   Shith, S., Ramli, N. A., Awang, N. R., Ismail, M. R., Latif, M. T., & Zainordin, N. S. 2022. “Does Light Pollution Affect Nighttime Ground-Level Ozone Concentrations?” Atmosphere, vol. 13, 11, 1844. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13111844 

•   Stark, H., et al. 2011. “City lights and urban air”. Nature Geoscience, vol. 4, 11, 730–731. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1300

•   Tatro, K., 2020. “Light Energy: Our Wasted Resource” Consilience, vol. 22, 65-72. https://doi.org/10.7916/consilience.vi22.6731

•   Torres, D., Tidau, S., Jenkins, S., et al. 2020. “Artificial skyglow disrupts celestial migration at night” Current Biology, vol 30, 12, R696-R697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.05.002

•   Touzot, M., Dumet, A., Secondi, J., et al. 2023. “Artificial light at night triggers slight transcriptomic effects on melatonin signaling but not synthesis in tadpoles of two anuran species” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 111386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2023.111386

•   Wren, W., & Locke, S. 2015. “Upgraded Rig Lighting Improves Night Time Visibility While Reducing Stray Light and the Threat to Dark Skies in West Texas” SPE E&P Health, Safety, Security and Environmental Conference – Americas” March 2015. https://doi.org/10.2118/173492-MS