Slashdot Mirror
Sony Claims First Running Humanoid Robot
News for nerds writes "Sony Corporation announced the new development of Sony's humanoid robot, enabling integrated motion control for walking, jumping and running on feet. By applying this technology Sony has created the world's first running humanoid robot 'QRIO'. Japanese PC watch has an article with pictures and movies of QRIO running at 14 meters per minute, sometimes with both feet leaving the floor (= running)."
We may have been the first ones to the moon, but Japan is whooping our asses in the race to build a running robot.
The uproar from giving those same rights to animate/inanimate objects before humans opens the door to so many arguments it's not even funny.
Of course the preceeding statement is contradicted by the fact that seemingly every conglomerate seems to have rights....
Let's keep in mind that patents are in place to keep lawyers employed and keep them litigating. -CatGrep
Well sure when we get AI to the point of self awareness, that however is decades, maybe even centuries off.
We will have robots that run, jump, look like human beings long before any self awareness is achieved. And no they won't need to have rights, just because they will act and look human will mean nothing.
East Coast Brewers
I was just watching some news program (60 Minutes, 20/20 or the like) about recent Iraqi war veterans that have lost limbs in combat. Since their medical expenses are covered by the government, they were being fitted with the best prosthetics available (containing micro-processors that make adjustments based on the user's movements).
What surprised me was that although the legs did seem to work fairly well for walking, there's still a lot of room for improvement (climbing stairs was very difficult and running was out of the question). Advancements in robotics like this could be a great step forward for prosthetic limbs.
How soon before robotic limbs become so efficient that people are voluntarily amputating their legs for the better robotic counterparts?
The Red Pill
yes you did.
you can walk pretty fast too, i'd imagine a robot being able to 'walk' incredibly fast were it developed so.
you missed the part that roughly said "both legs leaving the floor".
for really ridiculous on-the-line judging go see some competition walkers(that can walk really fucking fast and get disqualified if they're detected running too much) sport events.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Sure, when we start getting towards sentience. Anything that is self-aware and capable of higher level communications should be granted some level of rights. The rights of a sentient creature should not be based on whether they think with water and carbon, or silicon, or whether they have testicles or a certain skin color.
But this is just a clever toy. It's no more aware of itself than Eliza is. They aren't even TRYING to go for AI, just fun toys.
The first AI (if/when) will probably NOT be in a robot; it'll be too large to be mobile, perhaps it'll even be a distributed supercomputer. Nevertheless, it also should be granted rights. Even if that day ever comes, it'll still probably be a long time, if ever, that the machinery necessary would be small enough to put inside a humanoid robot. I could see a humanoid robot being under the control of a machine intelligence via remote link, if the link is clever enough, it might even feel the body as it's "self."
Lets not go overboard here, women in some countries still do not have the right to vote or have basic human rights.
If we are ever able to create a truly self-aware machine, the fact that humans in other countries are denied basic rights would be no reason at all to deny that intelligence those same rights.
After all, those countries have their reasons (though we, of course, consider them to be wrong); are you seriously saying that we should do the same, just because we have our reasons too? How would denying our creations rights improve the situation for those humans? If anything, it would strengthen the countries' positions, giving them something to point at - "Look, you've created an intelligence and are doing to it what you accuse us of doing. How can you possibly expect us to not do something that you're doing yourselves?"
It's official. Most of you are morons.
This is where fuel cells will really come in handy. All jokes aside, a robot that can down a jug of methanol (and dump its waste water) and be refuelled in 30 seconds would be vastly superior to a robot that must be tethered for an hour or more to recharge its batteries. The superior energy density and speed of "recharging" make fuel cells the way to go.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Try getting a wheeled vehicle to go everyplace you can go. Upstairs, climb a ladder, move in any direction from a dead stop. Wheel are great if you want to go fast, but legs are better if you want moderate speed and maneuverability.
Ask someone in a wheel chair what they think of wheels instead of legs.
it can run, but can it recover well if it slips?
or will it just fall down and break?
MABASPLOOM!
If you have the ability to make dummy robot soldiers that were useful for training, you may as well send them into battle (as long as you can afford to replace them when they inevitably get blown up in battle).
Until they are useful enough to be used in real battle soldiers are clearly better off training as they do now - against each other. Likely targets don't have robots of their own, and arnt likely to have any soon, so training against them is not going to be useful for troops.
It would be a easier to make remote controlled camera enabled battle robots than to make free thinking (or computer controlled) simulated battle trainer robots (and of course, the former of which actually we have and use now, as the US have used in Afghanista, they are just not anthropomorphised)
It depends, are the children starving, or the humans not allowed to procreate within the borders of the same country that they're talking about giving rights to the artificial intelligence in?
Women, who are citizens of the United States have a great many rights that they aren't allowed to exercise when they travel to certain foreign countries. They will be arrested for not wearing veils in certain states.
Should a full blown, actual factual AI appear tomorrow in the U.S. would you advocate denying it the rights of any other intelligent national of the U.S. because there are children starving in Africa, or Chinese citizens have their procreation limited by their government, or women are second class citizens in any number of other countries?
While the U.S. may be able to influence these other countries, and I like the idea of a Utopian world as much as the next man, holding that all humans should be in full posession and practicing their "inalienable rights" before we extend those self same rights to non human intelligences, should the opportunity present itself, strikes me as mildy impractical, to say the least.
-H
"If there's anything more important than my ego, I want it caught and shot now." -- Z. Beeblebrox
"Both feet leaving the ground" is the definition of running. It's a balance thing they are demonstrating here, not an absolute speed thing.
"women in some countries still do not have the right to vote or have basic human rights."
Oh, you mean like black voters in certain southern American states?
That was classic intercourse!
What necessitates the need for granting of rights? Is it sentience? Or is it something else? I would posit that no matter what level of human mimicry our technology allows, it will at best be a mimicry. Why?
It is my belief that there is this thing called a "soul" which is the defining thing between humans and all other sentient life on earth. (There are arguments for other animals, such as dogs, dolphins, cats, etc. to have a soul, or not, but I won't go into that one for now). Considering we don't know what a soul is, how to measure it, whatever, then how can we say that a machine would have this? If we turn off a machine, it is turned off. What happens when you restart it? It comes back on (assuming it's not broken). Is it wrong to smash a (soulless) piece of machinery (considering you own it, destroying won't damage anyone, etc. etc.)? Why would a machine with "AI" be any different than a car? Just because it says "ow" when its sensors say that it is being damaged, and it starts to avoid being damaged, what is that? Single-celled organisms do that. Humans do that. But is that what makes humans special? Why is it OK for lions to kill other animals for food, but we get mad when lions kill humans? Why do we get mad when humans kill other animals for food? The troubling thing is this: the outcome of "sentient" AI will either mean that humans are simply machines as well and our laws and moral structure is simply hubris, and there is no real reason to preserve life at all, or there really is something more to humanity then the chemical mechanics of the body. There are only those two possibilities, and there isn't much grey area as far as I see it. One is full of despair, the other awe and wonder.
Mankind must come to first understand what it is that makes him different, and why, before he even thinks about granting "rights" to man's creations. After all, what is a "right" anyway but an agreement between the people with the bigger weapons to let you do something? For that is all a "right" really is in this world. Sure, that's kind of a cynical view, but it's the truth.
This is a bit off-topic, perhaps, but I posit the only "right" we have is the right to make choices. We can choose to do anything, but we must do so knowing that there are consequences. True rights cannot be taken away, and nobody can take away the ability for us to make decisions. Why? Because decisions can be made in the absence of anything else. Sure, we may be prevented from acting on our decisions, but nobody can take away the ability to make them. Sure, they can give us a lobotomy, but then what is left? (This is a possible hole in this idea that even decision-making is a right).
So, when it comes down to it, if we build robots, and start giving them priviledges (i.e., we won't shut them off for certain things and will punish others for doing so), then we have to understand what the consequences of this choice may be. And there's the old Law of Unintended Consequences to think about.... for every outcome you can forsee, there are usually (at least) two more you don't.
What I think bugs me most about this article, though, is that I want to know where I can get a job making cool robots like that!
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Why are the Japanese building humanoid robots? So that the robots can fit in in a human environment. Basically, they eventually want humanoid helpers for their aging population. Rather than have a separate robot for various acts, they'd rather have one robot that can use the same equipment as a human (e.g. load the washing machine, do the ironing, pick things up before it vacuums the floor).
Try saying this: "Do you mean that you would give gays the right to marry, while in many countries children are starving?"
That's nonsense... why deny one thinking beings rights because someone else is denying another thinking being rights? There a biblical quote that's appropriate: "As for me and my house, we will obey the Lord." Or in this case, as for me and my house, we will treat thinking beings properly.
Robots are machines however cute they look. Get over it.
If you get a pacemaker, can we deny you your rights?
May we never see th
Quite possibly if you'd read the books you'd have noticed that this is the exact issue that Daneel struggles with.
The configuration may not be the most adept at any one particular type of motion, but the humanoid design allows for a greater range in the types of motion that could be accomodated in the first place. And in an unpredictable environment, versatility can mean the difference between accomplishing the desired goal and having spent half a billion dollars on an essentially useless lump of metal that can't get past an unforseen obstacle.
We would design robots the way we are built for what amounts to the same reason in hindsight that evolution built us the way we are: adaptability.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
From story #4 on the QRIO homepage:
"QRIO can connect to the internet and share the kind of information you like to hear!"
Great. So I buy a robot, and it's instantly a felon, just for playing a few mp3's.
*sigh*