Slashdot Mirror
Robot Makers Say World Cup Will Be Theirs By 2050
mindpixel writes "The Scotsman is reporting that the Japanese are very confident they can build a robotic team that will win the World Cup by 2050 using a descendent of the 38cm tall VisiON which operates completely independently of human input, making its own decisions based on information that it perceives with its 360 degree vision, and is able to recognise the football, approach it and deliver a hefty kick. It is also able to identify an opponent and shield the ball in much the same way as a human player does."
So what happens when one of the human players on the other team does a slide tackle on the robot? Does the robot fall down? Does the robot get damaged? Does the human get injured? IANASP, but it seems like physical contact between opposing players is so common that replacing man with machine is either clumsy, scary, or both.
I was wondering about the 3 "rules" of robotics. Namely will these robots not get aggressive in their gameplay to avoid harming a human being? If they move out of the way to prevent hurting an oncoming player then the only thing they'll have going for them is the goalie.
Trolling is a art,
Also, there's the interesting question of logistics: will the World Cup champion team want to play against a team of robots? How would you like to miss the ball and kick your shin right into a robot's aliminum alloy leg? Ouch!
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
Absolutely! By the year 2050 they may be as skilled technically as human players, but I really doubt they be able to win the World Cup. I think the Brazilians (not to mention the Germans, English, Italians, Argentinians, etc.) might have something to say about that...
I've had several conversations with pro-level soccer players from Europe, and they've for the most part said the same thing about Americans; technically, we're better than most other countries. Unfortunately, as we've seen, that doesn't necessarily translate into winning games, particularly at a high level.
If computers are still rank amateurs when it comes to Go, a game (as I understand it) which derives its complexity from the number of options available, how are they going to deal with such a large field, where the "possession" of the field and the positioning of players is so important? Can you really imagine a computer being able to see and react quickly to Brazil's "samba" style of soccer? I've played for my entire life, and even watching on tv I don't know how they do what they do!
As a robotics researcher, I've thought about this a lot, so here's my take:
The biggest problem is that Asimov's 3 Laws require complete information, which is not possible. Opening a door could hurt a human on the other side, therefore no robot can open a door. If you walk backwards or in the dark, you might step on a baby, so you can't do that either. And so it goes, making any action not possible. At the sime time, a robot is supposed to act to save people from harm. In addition, this all assumes the robot can process its sensors well enough to recognize people in all situations, and all potential sources of harm.
The best I've come up with is the following: A robot must take the action (possibly null) that results in the minimum expected harm to humans given currently available or easily obtainable information.
That's a lot weaker, and results potential accidental deaths due to ignorance (just like human actions). But everything in life involves risk, so that's pretty much inescapable.
Energy will be the issue. If a robot can use hydrocarbon fuels at whatever temperature the engineers can contain, they will have more energy available, and they will win.
If they are restricted in their power sources to roughly the same energy density as carbohydrates and muscle, then it's a much greater challenge. They will be making the same tradeoffs as humans: sprint now to get there, if it means being winded for a little while afterward?
It was kind of an extrapolation, Brazil has the highest rate per capita of plastic surgery of any nation in the world. (I would link to some studies to back that up, but time is of the essence.)
"Something unknown is doing we don't know what." - Sir Arthur Eddington