[Robotgroup] Fwd: Robot Questions

[Glenn Currie]

Eric Lundquist wrote:
> I was approached by a person writing an article about creating a "Robot
> Army".   Anyone who wants to respond can send their responses to me and I
> will consolidate all the answers.  I can keep your responses anonymous if
> you want.
>
> Thanks!
> Eric L
>
>
> =====================================================
>
> 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?
>   
Your question and terminology are vague.  If you cite your sources, and 
we might be closer to a usable
answer than ever before.  Define exactly what you mean by "robot" and 
maybe somebody
would have a basis for making a bid on building it.
> 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?
>   
Your terminology is vague.  Humans are cheap and there are lots of 
them.  Why worry
about an expensive machine?  Things can seem simple, when you don't have 
a clue.
What method of accounting do you wish to use? Dollars, human lives, time 
wasted, perusing
vague questions?  Elaborate mechanisms, for warfare, are simply a 
different type of club.
The technology will change.  Human motivations will remain the same for 
the foreseeable future.
> 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?
>   
Humans have their current form for good reasons, learn about these, then 
understand what it
is that you want a device to do, and you are on your way of finding out 
what it would look like.
The Internet, books, and magazines are full of information
on these topics. Check into human psychology, before you go looking for 
the product of
a machine shop.

You don't need robots to scare people.
> 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?
>   
The "holy grail' has not and will not always be bipedal locomotion.  For 
robots, their from follows
function.  If you don't understand this, you would not recognize a robot 
if you saw one.
> 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?
>   
Yes you can.  It has been done, many times.  If you missed it, some 
homework is in order.

You cannot really discuss artificial intelligence, if you do not define 
your terms.  An imprecise
or erroneous assumption, yields little useful information - garbage in, 
garbage out.

Asimov pointed out that his laws of robotics were a mechanism for 
stories that explored
humans more than robotics.  If you read the laws, it is obvious that a 
robot would be
all knowing in order to follow them fully.  So the robots would have to 
be "god like" in their
abilities.  They are fictional beings created to provide a measuring 
stick for for the pros
and cons of human abilities and morality.

Read the laws again - no human has the capability to follow these laws, 
much less any
device humans could devise.
> 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?
>   
Yes, mechanisms can expensive.  The really fancy ones are paid for by 
taxpayers.
Humans have a history of building a variety of devices to carry out 
their emotional desires,
including nuclear bombs, and inflatable love dolls. 

Define your terms and you might get a usable answer. A Roomba with a 
brick of C4
and a detonator duct taped to it could brighten your day.  But it seems 
that humans are the
preferred carrier these days, not vacuum cleaners.  Check the news and 
look for
"suicide bomber".  Brutally efficient, cheap, and scary, all without 
fancy mechanical devices.
The information should be easy to find.

> _______________________________________________
> Robotgroup mailing list
> Robotgroup at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/robotgroup
>
>
>
>