Slashdot Mirror
Teaching Robot Learners To Ask Good Questions
garthsundem writes "I disagree with this article's opening line: 'Within a decade, personal robots could become as common in U.S. homes as any other major appliance.' Haven't we been promised this since the 50s? But I'm fascinated by the rest — how do you teach humans to teach robots? Or, more precisely, how can you teach robots to teach humans to teach robots? The idea that designers can put a flexible platform in a robot, allowing users to determine functionality, is pretty interesting. The lead researcher for this project said, 'People are not so good at teaching robots because they don't understand the robots' learning mechanism. It's like when you try to train a dog, and it's difficult because dogs do not learn like humans do. We wanted to find out the best kinds of questions a robot could ask to make the human-robot relationship as 'human' as it can be.'"
I think the only thing keeping them out of homes NOW is no used market yet, and the high cost ($200-$5000) of entry. Basically the same problem that faced real personal computers in 1979.
Only THAT will change the real adoption of robots into the average American household.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The real question is "how to build robots that can learn." Dogs can learn. Cats can learn. Birds and bees can learn. People ... the results are not so good ...
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
It's a Roomba, it vacuums my floor on schedule and does a decent job, also drives back to the charging post by its self, other than cleaning its brushes it's entirely autonomous.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Gets my mail, answers my phone it I want it to, looks for music I might like, l lets me know of up coming social event. Play chess against it.
It's called a 'smart phone'. Hell, with minimal effort I can have it follow me on it's own accord.
I mean, some Lego motors and gear, and it can us it's camera to follow me. Might take a day.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
no. It needs to have a definition for those things, doesn't need to feel them.
Also, we have robots that can learn through observation. Don't really need meat emotions to learn.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
To some extent I disagree that dogs do not learn as humans. Its a reward and/or pain/discipline system and it works well on both. Robots on the other hand, may not feel reward or pain, so something new does need to be developed.
I will agree with his disagreement on the first line. As a retired hobbyist I am hugely directly connected to the current state of robots. They are stagnant, dead, and useless with the exception of the Vacuum cleaner bots. There are some super high end stuff going on, but it is far more akin to smart remote control. Computers are not anywhere near fast enough at present. And as long as we stick to the von neumann model for their design probably will not be for 20-30 more years.
But i have been an advocate of having moral discussion now, before it is too late. Saw a good short clip this am; http://boingboing.net/2012/03/08/disturbing-and-poignant-video.html about a robot that becomes self aware. Do we kill her, or let her be free? If we let her be free, what incentive ($$$) does anyone have to build her? If she is a slave (ie sold for profit) can we justify the treatment of any self aware being that way? And if so, why not retroactive?
Anyhow, back top the subject; we need research in that area. Today for a current project I am looking at http://mnemstudio.org/path-finding-q-learning-tutorial.htm for ideas on what is going on now. I assume it the field will advance.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Do you really want self-driving cars to feel road rage?
If my wife wanted a mindless automoton that could that could take instructions in natural terse language, and can be ignored the rest of the time, she would have gotten a husband. ..... oh, wait....
Sure, dogs don't learn the same as humans do, but that's because they have their own naturally-developed instinctive way of doing things. Robots don't learn the same as humans do because their technical capabilities are different, but the way they learn is still human design. The way a robot learns can be changed, and it will most certainly evolve to adapt to new technologies, but no matter what there will always be human design behind it all.
Sometimes road rage is necessary. There is no other way to proceed at a busy four-way stop in South Carolina.
See, in South Carolina- four way stops arn't what they are in the rest of the US.
Rules here are. Stop. If there are any other cars nearby- the most aggressive driver proceeds next. Doesn't matter who stopped first- it's the most aggressive driver- (or the driver with biggest silly-wheels on their pick-up) that gets to go first.
There are exceptions... sometimes a pick-up truck with just moderately big silly-wheels will trump a pick-up with 6ft wheels... but only if it is a police pick-up.
If the driverless car had no road-rage he'd be stuck at the four-way stop for eternity.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
1. Fetch a beer from fridge.
2. Walk the dog to do its business.
3. Wash dishes.
4. Mow the Lawn.
5. Clean House.
6. Make robot programmable and able to share/sell programs ala app store.
People don't want to program stufff and you are not going to change that behaviour. Just make their life easier and give the innovators the tools to accomplish this and the rest takes care of itself.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.