Slashdot Mirror
Social Robot?
smashr writes "Researchers are currently putting the finishing touches on robots that will be attending the AAAI (American Association for Artificial Intelligence) conference this year as part of the AAAI robot challenge. In addition to robots wearing tuxedos and serving drinks, several robots designed to actually register themselves will be participating in the conference. One such robot is GRACE, being built by Carnegie Mellon University and the Naval Research Lab (among others). GRACE features a digital face and speech recognition to interact with people attending the conference. (She even runs Linux!) Her goal is to register for the conference, give a speech and answer questions. Stories at: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, CNN.com, and USA Today."
Is it really *her* goal, or is that the goal of the people behind creating her? Has anyone asked her what she might want to do?
(Did you ever notice that no one wnats to admit this. They always try for the educational uses for a while first)
While I'm sure this robot will be impressive in some respects, I really wish people would go ahead and segment the AI field out into two separate fields - "Cognitive Modeling" and "Cognitive Imitation". These types of robots which simulate high-level human behaviour that we realistically just don't understand how it works are essentially parlor tricks. They're entertaining, but do they really tell us more about how the brain works? I don't think so - they mostly push the envelope in the field of pattern recognition and imitation.
In other words, when it comes to "AI", these things tend to be really heavy on the "A" and really light on the "I".
Course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
...they sent Vikia out into hallways to see if she could get passersby to stop and talk with her and if she could learn to predict the behavior of people.
So it's a neat exercise. Is this really what we want robots to do? Recognizing human emotional states and predicting their responses from facial expressions and actions is one of the things humans do best. Why work at making a robot do it? It would seem to make more sense to design robots to do things that humans are BAD at, rather than having them try to do things we're GOOD at.
do you wonder why you never get a date? you're too negative buddy! think of it this way, how many questions will be answered "yes, i will meet you in the hotel room."
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
do they really tell us more about how the brain works? I don't think so - they mostly push the envelope in the field of pattern recognition and imitation.
So pattern recognition and imitation are not considered a part of intelligence now?
Wow. I better call my friends at every elementary school on the planet and tell them to radically change their teaching style.
The Register had a good article on pronoun usage.
In English the masculine is used in gender-neutral cases where the gender cannot be specified before hand ("The officer should have his standard equipment present").
The feminine is used in cases of abstract personification ("The United States has her hands full") of a concept or an object (Freedom or automobiles).
Much like a car, to give it "personality" would move it from the first case to the second. Thus when you give a generic machine a specific voice, it is (usually) female).
But, as with all usage, it is up to the user. There is a strong push for gender neutral language in most things. The problem is that in cases that are purely up to personal taste, these rules apply.
So you can't tell someone to not make their robot feminine. But you can tell someone to make their manual not masculine.
And you seem to think their purpose was purely political (ie that there was a certain quota that needed to be maintained so they added a female robot to offset the male engineers). I really think it is much simplier than that.
What is music when you despise all sound?