Subject:
|
Re: Design
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Dec 2005 19:37:55 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
dan miller <danbmil99@*Spamcake*yahoo.com>
|
Viewed:
|
1291 times
|
| |
|
|
--- PeterBalch <PeterBalch@compuserve.com> wrote:
> dan miller wrote:
> > I can think of one field where autonomous robot-like, pseudo-AI is alive • &
> > kicking, and making tons of money. One word: videogames.
> > You click on an object, and the character picks it up.
> > These are very sophisticated actions,
>
> Toy world!
Hmm, yes in a sense. Why the negativity about constrained or simulated
worlds? We are not Nature; we are not constrained to work in a design space
that never changes.
You can mean different things by calling something a 'toy world'. I would
propose that it would be much more difficult to design a functional robot in
a complex, unconstrained 3D simulation, than it is to design something like
the Roomba, which works in the 'real world', but in a very limited domain.
Animals very clearly live in 'constrained environments'. Obviously fish
can't fly, ants can't live underwater, etc. So although they live in the
real world, the domain they are expected to function in may be very
specialized.
>
> > As for the Darpa challenge
> > DARPA dumbed down the race to
> > make sure there were winners, etc. • ...
> I can see both sides of the argument - it was the real world but
> simplified. I was impressed.
As well you should be. In spite of the limitations, it was an impressive
feat of engineering. I agree that there were no spectacular breakthroughs;
but that just reinforces my belief that 99% of success in this field will
come from small, incremental improvements (as it apparently does in nature,
BTW). Every now and then, that continuous, slow march might be punctuated
by a stroke of brilliance or some other quantum jump, but that will be the
exception, not the rule.
> > as soon as machines achieve something, we just move the bar up
>
> Has that applied to other technologies? Not really. With AI and robots,
> the
> bar is way out of reach. The only people who crow about their acheivments
> are AI researchers. The rest of the world has seen on TV what real robots
> will be able to do Real Soon Now.
If you're saying the field has been over-hyped, sure. But that happens in
lots of domains, and it has little to do with determining what real progress
has taken place, or estimating what the pace of progress will be in the
future.
>
> Does completing the Darpa challenge mean that NASA will soom send an
> autonomous robot to Mars? No.
Right, and that's because the risks/rewards of spaceflight make it
economically unrealistic. The cost of human interaction pales in comparison
to the cost of the mission. Autonomous robots will only be used where there
is a real economic advantage.
One example of a space mission where this could happen would be to send
hundreds or even thousands of small, agile robots to a planet. You could
statistically expect some percentage of failures, and the mission could
still be a complete success. That's sort of how insects survive, if you
think about it. I disable insects all the time (as do other animals), so
they're not infallable.
> I would love to put cheap autonomous toy robots for into the hands of
> children (and adults) who might come up with the wacky ideas that will
> actually work. The intellectual attack seems to be getting us nowhere;
> maybe evolution will work - it has done before.
On that score, I'm in total agreement!
>
> Peter
-dbm
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Design
|
| (...) To get to the goal of autonomous and 'sufficiently intelligent' robots, we have a lot of problems to solve. Some of these are to do with mechanics, battery technology, communications and sensors - others are to do with solving problems, path (...) (19 years ago, 4-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Design
|
| (...) That's a very interesting point. Why won't it be popular? There's just been a long thread on Seattle Robots then another on PARTS about fine-tuning the rules for walking contests. There are similar threads here about "can I use non-lego (...) (19 years ago, 4-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
