Believe it or not, that appears to be a subset of this particular theologian's concern—that we'll develop "exclusive" relationships with bots, including possibly "going to bed with them." The implications are a little strange, mainly that sanctioned sex is, by some law of salacious syllogism, a component of a person's continuing relationship with God.
Agreed. It's not like biological conception is a miracle—it's biology, presumably set in motion by a higher power (if you're into such things). Why would the creation of an inorganic humanoid be any less under His purview or jurisdiction?
I would love to see research related to the potential moral damage, as you put it, resulting from owning (and possibly abusing) an apparently soulless, though somewhat life-like machine. I don't think this college will get there, but it really would be a perfect research area for them.
Unfortunately, the sense I got from Staley was that there wouldn't be much actual experimentation going on. Which makes sense, since he's a theologian, not a psychologist (or roboticist), and the robot isn't a super-advanced HRI model. I honestly think that he's open to new conclusions, but that his main emphasis is to explore a religious version of Sherry Turkle's concerns, about the disconnection that can result from interfacing with tech, including bots. He was also very upfront, in the interview, about the fact that this might be a non-issue, since there's no guarantee that we'll get to a point where humanoids can really command a ton of our attention. He also referenced issues like people "going to bed" with robots, something that I wouldn't trust a Christian college to discuss in a useful way.
Still, HRI is such a small, nascent field, that any work seems valuable, even if it winds up being devoid of data, and purely anecdotal.
I think the robots are coming for a ton of our jobs, no matter how hard we resist. Politics could (and maybe should) slow things down, but robotic long-haul trucking wouldn't necessarily require a go-ahead from the government, if it simply follows broader autonomous driving regulations. They could start, for example, with requiring a driver to be in the cab, as with Google's cars, but companies might find a way to pay less for those positions. If robo-trucks rack up a better safety record, and, say, news outlets start harping on automated 18-wheelers driving less aggressively, playing to notions of truckers as bullies, then popular support could build, and more autonomy could kick in. Inch by inch, as companies save money and the general populace sees it as a positive, the political resistance could give way.
Lots of coulds and what-ifs, I know, but I think money beats politics, in the long run. And as much as people value retaining jobs, lots of them also see tractor trailers as a problem that needs solving.
Good eye! Lockheed told me that some of the gear used in this demo was relatively high-end, but they think they can downgrade with commercial applications (they might also be hoping for more a priori LIDAR data by the time that's feasible).
Yeah, they unveiled the research back in 2010, when it was still a combined Cornell/U of Chicago/iRobot project. The parties sort of went their separate ways since. The news here, in theory, is that while iRobot is still in the experimental stage with its own jamming gripper work, Empire Robotics (comprised of some of those original Cornell researchers) have brought it to market, and are actively pursuing prosthetics next.
You're right, I left out a lot of the potentially game-changing manufacturing news, but mostly because I felt like it was iterative, and we haven't seen the full results, yet. Even Baxter (not an iRobot bot, by the way—Rodney Brooks hasn't done anything with iRobot for years) is a great-seeming bot that isn't really doing much at the moment, and that could get eclipsed by what Google comes up with.
I was torn, regarding the autonomous driving stuff. I kind of felt like that was, for the most part, just marketing talk. It's true that companies claimed to have demonstrated at least partially autonomous operation on the Autobahn and such, but doesn't it seem like the real news is still to come? Or, at the very least, that none of what happened this year really trumps the 2012 legislation that cleared robot cars for use in Nevada?
Good point, though a lot of bots, like most of the models in the DRC, also use LIDAR to get a full 360-degree awareness. But check out NASA JPL's RoboSimian. They didn't do this for the first DRC trial, but for the finals next year, they're going to mount cameras around the entire body (it has the mounts already, but the ones in back are empty), so it can reverse direction, go sideways, etc., without having to deal with a neck, or wobbling around to get into a face-forward position.
I'm biased, since I wrote this story, and included the emphasis on cloud computing, but I agree--it's not fair to discount the utility of cloud assets. I think that's the biggest, most exciting news in here, actually. The kinds of über-rigs that Virginia Tech's DRC Track A team was using for simulation would never be within reach for a high school robotics class/teacher. To say its irrelevant is to basically claim that Gazebo's creators at OSRF are flat-out liars. I don't think that's the case.
Hey now, I did say, in the piece, that I wasn't getting into the EU.
But I don't think C-3PO can even lift his arm that high, much less propose an action that might cause his masters the slightest, momentary spot of bother. There's a reason I had originally wanted to call the story "Uncle 3PO's Cabin"...
I wonder if the author paid the computer he wrote this on a fair wage.
Oh c'mon, I upgraded its RAM and everything. What more does it want from me!?!?
I also feed it crumbs on what seems to be a daily basis. That counts for something, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Believe it or not, that appears to be a subset of this particular theologian's concern—that we'll develop "exclusive" relationships with bots, including possibly "going to bed with them." The implications are a little strange, mainly that sanctioned sex is, by some law of salacious syllogism, a component of a person's continuing relationship with God.
Agreed. It's not like biological conception is a miracle—it's biology, presumably set in motion by a higher power (if you're into such things). Why would the creation of an inorganic humanoid be any less under His purview or jurisdiction?
Well, in Staley's defense, that wasn't necessarily his view. He was trying to describe the reaction he wants to head off.
I would love to see research related to the potential moral damage, as you put it, resulting from owning (and possibly abusing) an apparently soulless, though somewhat life-like machine. I don't think this college will get there, but it really would be a perfect research area for them. Unfortunately, the sense I got from Staley was that there wouldn't be much actual experimentation going on. Which makes sense, since he's a theologian, not a psychologist (or roboticist), and the robot isn't a super-advanced HRI model. I honestly think that he's open to new conclusions, but that his main emphasis is to explore a religious version of Sherry Turkle's concerns, about the disconnection that can result from interfacing with tech, including bots. He was also very upfront, in the interview, about the fact that this might be a non-issue, since there's no guarantee that we'll get to a point where humanoids can really command a ton of our attention. He also referenced issues like people "going to bed" with robots, something that I wouldn't trust a Christian college to discuss in a useful way. Still, HRI is such a small, nascent field, that any work seems valuable, even if it winds up being devoid of data, and purely anecdotal.
I think the robots are coming for a ton of our jobs, no matter how hard we resist. Politics could (and maybe should) slow things down, but robotic long-haul trucking wouldn't necessarily require a go-ahead from the government, if it simply follows broader autonomous driving regulations. They could start, for example, with requiring a driver to be in the cab, as with Google's cars, but companies might find a way to pay less for those positions. If robo-trucks rack up a better safety record, and, say, news outlets start harping on automated 18-wheelers driving less aggressively, playing to notions of truckers as bullies, then popular support could build, and more autonomy could kick in. Inch by inch, as companies save money and the general populace sees it as a positive, the political resistance could give way. Lots of coulds and what-ifs, I know, but I think money beats politics, in the long run. And as much as people value retaining jobs, lots of them also see tractor trailers as a problem that needs solving.
Good eye! Lockheed told me that some of the gear used in this demo was relatively high-end, but they think they can downgrade with commercial applications (they might also be hoping for more a priori LIDAR data by the time that's feasible).
Yeah, they unveiled the research back in 2010, when it was still a combined Cornell/U of Chicago/iRobot project. The parties sort of went their separate ways since. The news here, in theory, is that while iRobot is still in the experimental stage with its own jamming gripper work, Empire Robotics (comprised of some of those original Cornell researchers) have brought it to market, and are actively pursuing prosthetics next.
Justly burned. Maybe they should rent it out to the live-action Patlabor production?
You're right, I left out a lot of the potentially game-changing manufacturing news, but mostly because I felt like it was iterative, and we haven't seen the full results, yet. Even Baxter (not an iRobot bot, by the way—Rodney Brooks hasn't done anything with iRobot for years) is a great-seeming bot that isn't really doing much at the moment, and that could get eclipsed by what Google comes up with. I was torn, regarding the autonomous driving stuff. I kind of felt like that was, for the most part, just marketing talk. It's true that companies claimed to have demonstrated at least partially autonomous operation on the Autobahn and such, but doesn't it seem like the real news is still to come? Or, at the very least, that none of what happened this year really trumps the 2012 legislation that cleared robot cars for use in Nevada?
Good point, though a lot of bots, like most of the models in the DRC, also use LIDAR to get a full 360-degree awareness. But check out NASA JPL's RoboSimian. They didn't do this for the first DRC trial, but for the finals next year, they're going to mount cameras around the entire body (it has the mounts already, but the ones in back are empty), so it can reverse direction, go sideways, etc., without having to deal with a neck, or wobbling around to get into a face-forward position.
I'm biased, since I wrote this story, and included the emphasis on cloud computing, but I agree--it's not fair to discount the utility of cloud assets. I think that's the biggest, most exciting news in here, actually. The kinds of über-rigs that Virginia Tech's DRC Track A team was using for simulation would never be within reach for a high school robotics class/teacher. To say its irrelevant is to basically claim that Gazebo's creators at OSRF are flat-out liars. I don't think that's the case.
Hey now, I did say, in the piece, that I wasn't getting into the EU. But I don't think C-3PO can even lift his arm that high, much less propose an action that might cause his masters the slightest, momentary spot of bother. There's a reason I had originally wanted to call the story "Uncle 3PO's Cabin"...
I wonder if the author paid the computer he wrote this on a fair wage.
Oh c'mon, I upgraded its RAM and everything. What more does it want from me!?!? I also feed it crumbs on what seems to be a daily basis. That counts for something, right?