Slashdot Mirror
Robots, Robots, Robots
destructor writes: "It looks as though robots can answer the questions of life and capitalism through robotic soccer simulations. I found this article over at megarad.com that tells us about Dr. Balch's experiments with soccer robots [NYT, free reg, blah blah]. For now, it is purely a computer simulation, but I guess it will be turned into a physical environment rather soon."
Additionally Shabazz writes: "The SF Weekly has a story about a band called 'Captured! by Robots' that started by Jay Vance (who some may recognize from Skankin' Pickle) and several robots that he created. The band is a bit out there, but something that any true geek can appreciate. Maybe this is the start of something great!" Additionally Phred noted that the Oregon Robotics Tournament being held this Saturday (December 1).
That's pretty cool . There are lots of sort of soccer championships for robots, one of them with aibo, the famous robot dog. It's especialy interresting in the field of the computer vision interaction.
From the BBC's web site from August this year:
Robot world cup kicks off
Now, next time those professional athletes go on strike we can just replace them with robots!
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
How can robotic action teach us about human relations? Humans are so much more complicated than capacitors, circuits and processing units that there is very little that one could find that would allow us to understand human behavior.
If you look hard enough at anything, you will find what you are looking for.
Remember a scooner is a sailboat and there is no Easter Bunny.
I personally think that they should have robots competing to see who can complete a jigsaw puzzle first. It is completely unbiased and provides a test of both vision and dexterity, and both to fairly high degrees......but then what do I know?
"I'm tired of all this 'Aren't humanity great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes" - Bill Hicks
They should replace the fans with robots. That way they might actually be able to sing in-time and tune. Also, they could smash stuff up after the game _carefully_ - cutting tables into neat little bits before throwing them at the opposing teams fans and not at passers by or camera-crews. You could deactivate the most violent ones.
I think this experiment could teach us allot about stupid people, and how they behave in packs.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The general technique is to use an approximation of search (finding based upon luck) which tends to find good solution. Generally, it is based upon luck, and the only way to guarantee that its human-like is to restrict the search space to human-like possibilities. Whatever human-like means.
This is NOT the simulation of algorithms already created always, its often the creation of totally new algorithms, which can be extracted after development - a learning approach.
How? Straight statistics, support vector machines, decision trees, neural networks, fuzzy logic, and simulated annhealing are all common techniques to lead towards the goal. Who knows what they actually use.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
A poster above had commented on Logical v. Illogical Actions. I'd agree with him, but what actually sets us apart is emotions, or instinct, however you may choose to call it since the two are subtly connected.
Robot emotions play a much larger part than most people know. In fact, any serious researcher into AI would know that emotions are nothing but another decisive factor, except that they are not well understood.
I'd seriously advice looking at Arthur T Murray's research into this area available here. It has a lot more to it than mere `entertainment` value.
And if you really are worried about robots having souls or a conscience, you should read this!. It is a pretty insightful article into what robots may have to do to qualify as humans.
You will get a lot more useful information if you do social experiments with people instead.
I agree that group performance as well as individual reward should be rewarded, and in most large companies it is. Annual bonuses are often based on company performance multiplied by individual performance. Rewarding a small group/division is useful where its possible.
Soccer is individualistic. You will make more money (or receive more fame if amateur) as a striker than as a defender, so if you have the talent, that's the position you want. Economics also alow for people to realize that their talent level may be better suited to being a defender.
The robot social system may also evolve into letting better robots be the strikers, but its incidental. The motivations of individual fame and wealth are not being accounted for, but is what causes teams and players to stabilize into their positions.
If you don't want to register, just visit this url instead.
-J
Alexis 'jeriqo' BRET
I'm training my Bio Bugs to play a wicked game of Tetherball.
------
Let me give you the lowdown
As someone who dropped out of high school because of stupid ideas like cooperative learning and "team teaching" and block scheduling which were the antithesis of learning, I'm so tired of seeing this drivel being accepted and put into practice.
The Article quotes a 'cooperative learning' researcher extolling the joys of diversity that it produces. It doesn't mention that while kids are learning diversity, they're not actually LEARNING anything.
Group work in a school setting produces smart students who don't excel because they're holding up the rest of the group, mediocre students who can slack because the intelligent ones will do the work for them, and slow students who never get the attention they deserve.
I'm tired of these education theorists taking their insane pet theories and putting them into schools. And its even worse when they use some sort of silly robotic experiment to back them up. Isn't there some way to stop these wackos?
I agree with the opinion of many others that the connection drawn between this simulation and capitalism is a little far fetched. The modivation behind human behaviour is far more complex. Besides group production is rewarded through profit sharing, bonuses and stock options. However, I do think this simulation shows something useful on a far more obvious level. That is that rewarding group behavoir of autonomous agents may produce better group behaviour than individualistic behaviour. As opossed to some behaviour such as bird flocking which has been shown to coorelate well with a purely individual reward (motivation) system. I think one fundemental flaw in his reward system is that rewards are only based on goals. In an individual sense, this will never produce a goalie. So without the proper reward stimulation you can not expect the team to perform well on all levels. A useful experiment to show what's really happening here would be to set up two sets of 50 (or more) teams. Then keep statistics on each player such as scoring, saves, take-aways, etc. For the first set of 50 use an individual reward system. For the second set of 50 use a team reward system. Then draft two teams consisting of the top players from each division and pit them against one another. This might give a better understanding of which reward system really produces better players. Perhaps the individual reward system would produce some real supper stars, where the group reward system only produces good teams, but no stars. Jettra
What are you smoking? American football is a man's game. Rugby is just a way for effete Englishmen to show off their fancy rugby shirts.