Fudan Intelligent Robot Learns To Fit In

martinsslaves writes "Shanghais' Fudan University have made some considerable progress in their endeavors in learning robots, with their new 'Fudan Intelligent Robot' looking a whole lot more polished than their previous Fudan-1 model. The goal is for the robot to learn new tasks by following voice commands, which the researchers hope could eventually allow the robot to help the elderly or become a 'good household mate' for families. Among other things, the bot can currently can plot out its own map of its surroundings and remember specific locations and, of course, change TV channels at your command (or even serve as a TV itself)."

Comments

Is it just me?

[doyoulikeworms]

Or is this "robot" not really very, well, good at anything? The description sounds like only a notch above children's toys today.

Could someone explain what's so story-worthy about this bot?

Re:Is it just me?

[JK_the_Slacker]

I could argue the same think about the neurons and synapses in your head. You'd be crazy to think that they could actually be capable of as advanced an activity as thought.

No, but seriously, the question becomes "Just how high a level of autonomy is required of any seemingly-sentient being before they are deemed capable of thought?" As with many things in computer science, it's all about abstraction; just how far outside the box are you sitting? I as a computer scientist may look at Asimo and say, "Boy that's neat, but it's not really thinking." On the other hand, I wonder just how many kids have watched Asimo walk with wonder in their eyes. "Mommy mommy, look at the robot walking around! He's waving at me!" I know that computers are only capable of doing what you program them to do, but several of my friends will swear that their computer hates them, or that their gaming console has it in for them. Were we to plop an Aibo down in front of a group of people in certain remote villages in certain third-world countries, how much would it take to convince them that it was alive?

Arthur C. Clarke suggested that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I'd like to build on that and suggest that any sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from real intelligence. The question is, how "intelligent" should we build them? In the case of a robot to assist the elderly, I'd say that accepting voice commands to perform common tasks is a pretty darn good start.

Re:Is it just me?

[sm62704]

I could argue the same think about the neurons and synapses in your head.

The neurins and synapses are in a 3d structure, and are electrochemical. Thought is a chemical/electrochemical process or getting drunk would be impossible. Your computer IS an abacus. Your brain, or your dog's for that matter, are not.

As with many things in computer science, it's all about abstraction

I don't argue that thought can't be simulated; I do argue that a flight simulator doesn't leave the ground and a neuclear explosion simulator doesn't leave any radioactivity.

"Mommy mommy, look at the robot walking around! He's waving at me!" I know that computers are only capable of doing what you program them to do, but several of my friends will swear that their computer hates them, or that their gaming console has it in for them

That behavior is called Anthropomorphism, "the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena" and is perfectly normal. There must have been some evolutionary advantage to it, as it has existed as long as we have.

Arthur C. Clarke suggested that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I'd like to build on that and suggest that any sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from real intelligence.

I agree, which is why we need to educate people before they go and so something incredibly stupid, like passing "robotic rights" legislation.

Funny

[jagdish]

9 Comments moderated to +5, and all of them moderated Funny. Will someone post an insightful comment already?

They're made out of meat

[BlueHands]

I am personally surprised to find someone here on /. with such a different point of view. It is good to see that we are not as monolithic as we might seem.

However, if you agree that AI can become indistinguishable than it follows that you MUST grant them rights since there is no way to proved that any person you ever meet or have ever met is "real" - they could just be really advanced tech in a pretty package that cons you into thinking they are human. If there is no difference you can tell, what is the difference?

And for those few people who might read this and have not read the following short story:

They're made out of meat

is a classic and shorter than many /. posts.