[Robotgroup] Robot Questions

Mon Jul 30 13:51:01 PDT 2007

Brooks,

I think this is for a book or article, not an actual build.

Les

On Jul 30, 2007, at 2:47 PM, brooksdesign wrote:

> I would like to be involved if anyone wants to take a serious crack  
> at this ,mainly in the cosmetic department .putting a real  
> functional set of legs on the pitbull would be a nice sidekick for  
> a robo human and if money really is "not an issue" we could make it  
> actualy work .
> -brooks
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Lundquist <eric.g.lundquist at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Jul 29, 2007 7:06 AM
>> To: Eric Lundquist <roboenator at gmail.com>, The Robot Group Mailing  
>> List <robotgroup at puremagic.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Robotgroup] Robot Questions
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Robotgroup mailing list
>> Robotgroup at puremagic.com
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/robotgroup
>
>
> ________________________________________
> PeoplePC Online
> A better way to Internet
> http://www.peoplepc.com
> _______________________________________________
> Robotgroup mailing list
> Robotgroup at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/robotgroup