Squirrels have fuzzy tails.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Before today, I was one of the few people willing to accept the true definition of today's modern robot. I was so ignorant to believe that robots are close to being able to replace humans in basic functions.
I realize now that deep down inside I always knew this subconsciously that this would never happen. It's like the medicine man coming into town selling you sugar pills that promise XYZ.
Well today it all changed for me. I had a meeting with a very smart person today about the current state of robot cognition. After the meeting, I stopped ignoring what I always knew and it just clicked in my brain. Robotics as we know it today are really just machines that are basically functional for specific tasks much like a fax machine is functional for sending faxes. We're so far away from the real meaning of a robot that it isn't even realizable yet.
Well maybe for once I can focus on the issues that will help robots become what I had imagined they should be.
Quote from: vidam on April 04, 2008, 08:57:45 PMBefore today, I was one of the few people willing to accept the true definition of today's modern robot. I was so ignorant to believe that robots are close to being able to replace humans in basic functions. What are these "basic functions"? Robot CAN and have replace humans in many situations.Quote from: vidam on April 04, 2008, 08:57:45 PMI realize now that deep down inside I always knew this subconsciously that this would never happen. It's like the medicine man coming into town selling you sugar pills that promise XYZ. There is nothing stopping it from happening. As the cliche goes, "Never say never"Quote from: vidam on April 04, 2008, 08:57:45 PMWell today it all changed for me. I had a meeting with a very smart person today about the current state of robot cognition. After the meeting, I stopped ignoring what I always knew and it just clicked in my brain. Robotics as we know it today are really just machines that are basically functional for specific tasks much like a fax machine is functional for sending faxes. We're so far away from the real meaning of a robot that it isn't even realizable yet. It is dangerous to draw too much out of one conversation. Sure, robots are machines, but they will always be machine because that is the definition of machine.AI research still has a long way to go but I am optimistic it will get there.Think of a computer. Can you pin a specific function? It can't learn yet, but it has gone a long way from simple fax-machines.Quote from: vidam on April 04, 2008, 08:57:45 PMWell maybe for once I can focus on the issues that will help robots become what I had imagined they should be.What did you imagine they should be?For a look at comtemporary robotics, check out the Darpa Urban Challenge.
Robots cannot handle context. Something humans can do very well. For example, if I mounted a bedsheet between 2 orange cones a robot will think it is a wall. But a human know it is just a bedsheet.
WELL, people are really getting influenced by terminator,matrix etc etc etcThere is always a strict margin between reality and fantasy .The reality is that humans contains thousands and thousands of neurons and receptor brain cells which have the ability to differentiate light ,heat,vision and most important emotions , even a baby can realise when it is danger or that it is going to fall off a table if it crawls any further... can a robot do that unless it is pre-programmed???The reality is no matter how much we try , we can never play God we can never make what he has done , we can never imitate nature and save ourselves from facing the consequences ..this gap should be kept always..
WOW szhang you are really taking this whole discussion out of my original context. (no pun intended)I'm not advocating giving up on robotics or automation. There is a reason why the word "Artificial Intelligence" is a dirty word at some famous institutions. They spent millions of dollars on AI and without much return on the investment. I've spent years studing AI..neural networks, evolutionary computation are among them. I know the failing of most of these algorithms. They are slow to learn and cannot do well in dynamic environments. Robots don't handle change very well either.Enough said. Think what you want. I'm merely pointing out we can't have progress without realizing the limitations.
years later, x number of robotics courses and AI courses later, I'm sitting in some guys office trying to come up with a project proposal that uses Robots for military applications and why we can't just start using them tomorrow.What are the problems why we can't use them tomorrow. Darpa Grand Challenge and Urban grande challenge were deemed a huge success. But why are we still holding robots in the wings.
I dismiss the current standards in AI as a pipe dream to getting where we need to be.
I've met lots of people and I have to say it is the people I've met from CMU that seem to have the hardest time accepting any notion that they might not have the answers to all the problems.
Quote from: vidam on April 06, 2008, 03:50:11 PMyears later, x number of robotics courses and AI courses later, I'm sitting in some guys office trying to come up with a project proposal that uses Robots for military applications and why we can't just start using them tomorrow.What are the problems why we can't use them tomorrow. Darpa Grand Challenge and Urban grande challenge were deemed a huge success. But why are we still holding robots in the wings. Remember that the DARPA challenges were held in isolated locations under controlled conditions, and were not conducted in public locations for good reason.At the same time, consider that most commercial airplanes are flown almost completely by autopilot with little pilot interaction. That probably wasn't the case 50 years ago - it took a long time for the bugs to get removed from the system and for the FAA to certify safe operation, but at this point, the onboard computers have the possibility of replacing all pilot functions, including takeoff and landing.
So if humans are not number crunching machines then how is it we are so far superior to robots in dynamic environments?
Heres my humble opinion on the original question:QuoteSo if humans are not number crunching machines then how is it we are so far superior to robots in dynamic environments?I think that in many cases biological brains(such as human) are in fact number crunching machines.Think about when you are crossing a busy road you monitor traffic coming from both directions and then judge when to cross, how fast etc... You can do this long before being taught vector movements at school yet the math equivalent is actually happening in your brain. Albeit without you realising it.The reason is that in the advanced biological brain there are 2 seperate structures, there is 1 subconcious/subliminal structure and 1 concious structure. In most cases the subconcious actually handles most of our basic functions and performs the calculations, whereas the concious is the area that we think with. The two areas are defined as such:a)The concious cannot access the subconcious, it can only send requests such as movement requests.b)The subconcious actually programs the conscious area and sets boundaries, rules and behavioursc)The concious area is what is used to make decisionsd)The subconcious can override the concious decisions only when primary instincts are being compromised (such as if you command your body to fall over, the subconcious interrupts and forces you into a state of balance)e)the subconcious records everything that you see, hear, touch, taste, smell.f)the conscious only records the information that it sees as important to the situation. (meaning that during the day you see millions upon millions of points of objects, yet the conscious area can only recall matbe a few hundred when asked. Wheras the subconcious records everything!)g)there are more, but i think this is the core of it.finally:computers / robots are number crunching machines, when they are programmed in the lower levels. When you get to higher level programming (look at java). You can actually make an entire program without putting any mathematics into your code. The number crunching has already been done in the lower level, and so all you are left with is manipulating objects this is similar to a brain allowing a subconscious area to do all of the work while the actual front end just does the higher level thinking.Also, i mentioned that biological brains are number crunchers. You have to open your mind up a bit to accept this, since it doesnt have a base number system to work with, this is taught to the conscious area later in development. More likely is that it calculates in fractions or ratios, so that it can decide between this is bigger or this is further away etc.. without placing an actual number to the size or distance. I think that it works as a big mass of altering ratios. When you look at something and think: that can of coke is 1 metre away, what actually happens is that your subconscious returns its ratio of the distance compared to previously known ratios and then your conscious brain takes this ratio and applies a number to it (that was taught in school) that is compared to numbers associated to previously known assigned number/ratio pairs. Until you are taught a measurement system such as metric / imperial, you cannot say that something has a distance, yet you actually know that can of coke is further away than the book on the table due to ratio assignment.Sorry for the long post, and im in no means a brain surgeon this is just the understanding that i have gained over researching the subject myself
I think that in many cases biological brains(such as human) are in fact number crunching machines.Think about when you are crossing a busy road you monitor traffic coming from both directions and then judge when to cross, how fast etc... You can do this long before being taught vector movements at school yet the math equivalent is actually happening in your brain. Albeit without you realising it.
For example, imagine you're trying to catch a baseball, do you actually compute the trajectory? No, instead you take shortcuts (sometimes without recongnizing it) like move to a position where the falling basebal seems to be going straight towards you. This applies to animals as well.