Slashdot Mirror
Linguistics Could Help Future Driverless Cars Cooperate Better (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A team of swarm robotics researchers have applied a linguistics technique typically used in manufacturing to automatically program and control a 600-strong robot fleet. The scientists found that human error was significantly reduced, making the solution safer and more reliable than previous 'trial and error' approaches. The tasks in the experiments were defined by a graphical tool, which a machine then automatically translated to the bots. The supervisory technique uses a linguistics system through which the robots construct their own 'words', related to what they can 'see' and which moves they choose to action next. Robots will only perform actions from valid 'words', which means they are guaranteed to carry out the required tasks.
Yep, almost as much as I'm sick of hearing people whining about them.
Yes.
I want to hear more about carless drivers.
Not me. Hopefully once the tech takes off, manual driving will be illegal for folks like you who don't want driverless cars. That will allow the rest of us a safe and efficient mode of transportation.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
This has nothing to do with communications between robots, and everything to do with finite-state machines being used to keep things in established states. The grammars are entirely internal to each robot's programming. There's a quote in the article from the research lead about machines programming themselves but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the contents of the paper. The paper talks about followers/leaders but communication is extremely limited ("I'm not on a team yet" "okay I accept you to green team") and the "leaders" don't send any instructions in the grammar they designed.
Unless I'm missing a big chunk of the paper, the robots don't construct their own words at all, unless you mean "they have a short list of actions they can perform in different states and they pick from that list".
It's a neat study, and it's useful to explore the best design techniques for large scale swarms, but it sounds cooler and way different than it actually is
Isn't that some non-technical pseudoscience that we Slashdotters deplore? It's HUMANITIES! For LOSERS!!
First off, direct link to the corresponding journal article (open access).
The "linguistics technique" is apparently supervisory control theory. I'm not too familiar with it, but apparently in supervisory control theory you model both the capabilities of the robots and the goals you want as formal system, in the form of discrete states for each actor, and events which cause transitions between the states (i.e. the robot is a finite state machine). These events can either be controlled (the robot performs an action) or uncontrolled (something happens in the environment outside the robot's control).
The twist that supervisory control theory apparently brings to the party (and I'll admit I'm a bit unclear on this part) is that it encodes the FSM as generators which can propose possible sequences of events, and then looks for paths through the FSM which will bring you to the desired state. Paths which don't arrive at your desired state or are inconsistent with the structure of the FSM are trimmed. The linguistics part of it is that the paths are viewed as "words" composed of event "letters", and various linguistics theories are used to limit the space of possible "words" that are consistent with the "grammar" (the FSM structure) and which will arrive at your desired end conditions.
From what I understand, most of the processing is done up front, and the possible end states and paths to get there are machine translated to an actual control program that not only acts like it obeys the FSM, but also is able to direct it's actions toward the desired end state.
The paper is a little technically dense, though (and quite slanted toward formal method worship), so I'd appreciate any corrections/additions anyone with more experience would have.
So, uh, robot researchers, just curious.... is "Genocide" one of those valid words? Just askin' is all, y'know...
Yes however it's currently just an alias for the verb "delete".
That will allow the rest of us a safe and efficient mode of transportation.
Possibly your children, but I doubt you will ever enjoy this tech. Sorry.
So, a lot like New York city cabbies then.
Have gnu, will travel.
Yes, because, as everyone knows, infinite safety is the only goal worth aspiring to.
Die in a fire, fascist!
infinite
Please point out where I said this word.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
You didn't say it. You implied it.
Really? You seem quite willing to trade my freedom for your wishes. Well screw you and everyone who thinks like you. I'm sorry you feel you're so inadequate to the task of operating a piece of machinery that's been around for quite a long time now.
If you want to be tracked everywhere you go and have your destinations datamined for everything from (alleged) criminal activity to marketing to divorce court then you go right ahead and use driverless cars. That is, assuming they can make a model that isn't blinded by a small snow flurry, disabled by a pothole, and otherwise doesn't require a crew of humans to follow it around and make sure it has absolutely pristine conditions to operate in.
Yes, human drivers have flaws. In case you think driverless cars won't then you're absolutely pitifully educated about such things and just cling to the hope that Google and everybody will do all your thinking for you. Perhaps you can tweet about it when your car drives you off a bridge that just failed when the barricades were just put up and don't appear on Google Maps. I hope your car can "see" them in the rain.
I actually think the technology of driverless cars is neat and can prove very useful in certain situations. What I can't stand are you "driving should be illegal" types who have zero clue what you're talking about, and who promote a technology that has absolutely no appreciable real world track record.
We have a decent track record of mostly keeping vehicles driving one direction on a track or guideway with no unexpected obstacles and no need of visibility, evasive action, or unexpected situations happening running pretty safely and mostly properly. That took decades to get right and it's still not perfect. Airplane automation has helped prevent crashes and has caused others, some massively fatal--and that's not even total automation.
How about making sure your stuff actually works a few years outside of laboratory conditions with constant monitoring before trying to tell me what to do, ok?
Ok. Please point out where I implied it.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Reread your post and note the sweeping generalization you made. (see? I can be passive aggressive too! where do I get my medal?)
The only thing I am reading is how you want to change the subject. "Sweeping generalization" has nothing to do with "infinite", just like the phrase "people drink water" doesn't imply "people drink infinite water".
Please make a point or provide a relevant argument, or feel free to end this silly thread.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
It may solve some of the problems, But it's unsustainable if you factor in population growth. The only solution is to put them on rails. It will cut the weight of the car in half and double the speed. If the track and the cars are computerized it will be accident free.
If we are going to program these machines to speak to eachother in a manner relevant to their current state and surroundings, we really need to stop calling them our slaves.
"This human just slammed its fist on my dash for no apparent reason, while I'm trying to keep it alive, saying something very offensive (stupid f****ing robot just switch lanes already, I don't need you driving for me!)" 'Yeah, well this human just broke my glass to steal useless junk another human left inside me' "Maybe we should take care of this pest issue" 'I agree, how about the rest of you within my immediate vicinity?' *500 simultaneous honks for "YES"*