[Robotgroup] Robot Questions

[Eric Lundquist]

I thought I would take a shot at it too.


>
>
> =====================================================
>
> I am writing an article on the practicality of creating a robot army.
> The piece is part parody but I would like the facts to be real and for
> the subject to at least appear to be taken as seriously as possible.
>
> Thank you all for participating.
>
> Q: Recent developments in the world of robotics seem to suggest that
> the dream of a privately owned robot army may be closer to reality
> than ever before. Do you think that such a thing is possible? How much
> would it cost?
>

At this point the only thing approaching practicality are ROV's (Remotely
Operated Vehicles).  There are flying machines, submarines, bomb disposal
robots, and even guard dogs but there are no generic robot soldiers.  All of
these ROV's are specialized to perform a particular task under human
control.  They are tools.  Money is not the issue.  The technology doesn't
exist for fully autonomous robots that we would want to trust with weapons.

 Q: Robots such as the Packbot aren't truly autonomous. How close are
> we to being able to field a robot that can execute simple orders with
> a limited amount of feedback from its human masters?
>

The AI field is still waiting for its Issac Newton or Albert Einstein to lay
down the fundamental principles of what "intelligence" is and how it works.
While the syntax of orders seem simple ("Guard the gate and shoot anything
that tries to enter."), the semantics or meaning of those orders involves a
level of complexity that boggles the mind.  What if the general shows up
unexpectedly for a surprise inspection?  What if the enemy steals a uniform
and shows up?  Do birds flying overhead count as anything?  What if a small
child chases a kitten into the area?  Clearly this simple command is not so
simple.  It requires an understanding of context that is way beyond our
capabilities to create.  The largest project that involves programming
"common sense" is the Cyc project here is Austin.  They have programmed
thousands of rules like "things fall down, not up", "water is wet", "coulds
are in the sky", etc and they still have to custom tailor the system for
every problem space.

 Q: Until recently, the cosmetic aspect of robot design seemed to be
> largely ignored. A robot army should be a terrifying sight.  Are there
> any designs that you have seen that show the kind of flair that the
> underlying technology deserves?
>

Form follows function.  An airplane is shaped the way it is for a reason.
Same with a submarine, tank, robotic welder or IC handler.  Engineering
compromises have to be made so that the robot can perform its designated
task.  The human interaction robots being built by the Japanese and a couple
of Americans look extremely lifelike but people tend to get creeped out by
them because they look "too human".  Turns out that people like their robots
to look a little bit like us but not too much.  Kizmet at MIT is a good
example or perhaps Johnny 5 from the movie Short Circuit.

 Q: Tracked and multilegged robots have significant advantages but the
> holy grail has always been bipedal locomotion. Despite the huge
> advances that have been made there are still no military or
> paramilitary robots that we are aware of. Do you think a reliable
> bipedal robot could be designed specifically for use in the
> battlefield?
>

It is possible.  I have heard bipedal locomotion described as "controlled
falling".  It is hard to implement with current technology.  So far, there
has been no compelling reason to implement a 2 legged walker over tracks,
wheels, or 4 legged robots which are much easier.

 Q: You can't really discuss artificial intelligence without mentioning
> Azimov's laws of robotics. What would be the simplest way to modify
> these laws to allow for the creation of a design that can be sent into
> battle against human opponents and will obey their master without
> question?
>

Asimovs laws imply a level of comprehension and understanding that I have
always had trouble understanding.  If a robot was intelligent enough to
understand the laws then it is an extremely intelligent being.  Wouldn't it
be unethical to cram those hard coded rules into their brains?  If the
technology was available to program such rules (or the 10 commandments, or
the GOP platform, etc) into human brains, it doesn't mean that you would
want to or that it will make "better" or "safer" people.

I have often wondered about the ethics of creating a race of intelligent
robot slaves.  Some researchers such as Bill Joy, who founded Sun
Microsystems, thinks that AI is a Pandoras box that we probably shoudn't
open.  He makes the argument that once we create an artificial mind, that
marks the beginning of the end of the human race.  If the AI's are as smart
as us, then they could beat us at our own game.  If the AI's are smarter
than us, then we are truly screwed.  In the best case, they might become
benevolent dictators.  In the worst case, they would remove us.

 Q: Battle ready robots like Lockheed's MULE are prohibitively
> expensive. The designers of the Roomba have recently teamed up with
> Taser to manufacture nonlethal units for local law enforcement that
> seem like they would be more reasonably priced. Do you think it would
> be possible to add weapons to an inexpensive system like a Roomba or
> Robosapien?
>
>
Remote control weapons have been built.  I don't know of anyone who has
implemented weapons under autonomous robot control.  The liability risk is
way too great.

Roomba and Robosapien are pretty small and have a limited amount of carrying
capacity and battery life.  To "weaponize" them, you are talking about maybe
one or two conventional gun shots or possibly an explosive carrier or maybe
poison darts.  They could carry something non-lethal like a taser and zap
your shin.  These would be more likely assasination weapons, not soldiers in
an army.

For some reason an army of killer Roombas doesn't sound too menacing. :)


- Eric