I started a Cybernetics degree at Reading University about 7 years ago. At the time they had just been featured on TV demonstrating their amazing set of 7 robots (named after a certain set of Dwarfs immortalised by Disney) which SIMULATED the behaviour of sand wasps. Wow I mean they could simulate insect behaviours - incredible! This must have been a huge breakthrough right? Erm....no. In one of the lab experiments we had to re-program portions of their behaviour. The object avoidance code consisted of (it wasn't C, but this is the equivalent):
while(1)
{
MoveForward();
while(Sensors()==OBJECT_AHEAD)
TurnRight();
}
The code to "follow" another "sand wasp" (they all had beacons on the backs of them) was something like the following:
if(bNeedToDriveLeftWheel || bNeedToDriveRightWheel)
MoveSandFly(bNeedToDriveLeftWheel,bNeedToDriveRigh tWheel);
else
MoveSandFly(false,true);//Hunt for new target
}
Not what you would call rocket science I think you'd agree. But the head of cybernetics (Known on http://www.theregister.com as Captain Cyborg for his other idiotic media antics) managed to get on national TV with them. Hence I have a certain amount of cynicism when these people claim any kind of breakthrough.
Incidentally I also remember him getting on NewsNight with an "AI" program which was "deciding" if it wanted to eat a hamburger or not. My code for that:
Sorry and you are..? The Anonymous Coward - most prolific poster on slashdot.
I have had first hand experience with some of the Muppets in the field of cybernetics. Genuine advances I have no problem with, but blatant publicity stunts using existing technology and a ton of spin don't impress me. I write computer software for a living that are more complex than the stuff they're peddling here. However it's not in a "sexy" field like cybernetics and I don't go making press releases eg: "Programmer hails breakthrough as revolutionary web software expands the possibilities of online assessment systems!!"
Maybe the story in Reuters was totally inaccurate, and the code was amazingly revolutionary (as opposed to a total rip-off of thousands of undergraduate projects and simulation software around the web). But it didn't seem like it. If they constructed software for the robot that analysed the effect it's initial attempts had then PREDICTED what it should do in order to get a better result (ie it had actually learned something from it's previous experiences) - tried that etc etc then that sounds like some interesting software.
But claiming that semi-random incremental trial and error is genuine learning is a bit much for me to stomach.
If you or I were trying to fly we'd observe what seemed to work for one arm - think "hmmm - I'll bet that'll work for the other too" then proceed to try flapping with both. Course we'd rapidly come to the conclusion (as children do, though they'd love it to be different) that it's not going to work anywhere near well enough, and go and try something else (like a jet engine and a shit load of electronics). The robot of course will still be sitting there poking different signals down the wires to it's other wing not making any kind of "judgement" or deduction about the information it gathered while trying the first wing. Basically it hasn't LEARNT anything by it's pervious experience. It just got a good numerical score for executing a given sequence of op-codes, and it's been told to keep high scores and tweak the related code to try and get better scores. There's no intelligence there, it doesn't understand the implications of the data it's stored, and it hasn't LEARNT anything. It's merely STORED a sequence that got a high score - because it's been pre-programmed to. If you class that as learning, then every program ever written that compares two values then stores one because it's higher is LEARNING.....what a creapy feeling I'm surrounded by machines that are learning at an astonishing rate....some call Cyberdyne systems and tell em to throw the switch!!!
It is however an "evolutionary STYLE" of programming (not a genuine mimicking of evolution in animals - which have to adapt their bodies too). Yes it works.... it just isn't new. Evolution isn't difficult to simulate, it's a simple process, it just takes a very very long time. It'll get it right (if it's possible) or close enough for practical purposes given enough time. Oh, you can tweak the way in which genes (or code fragments in this case) are selected then mixed, and you can spend years writing ingenious code to simulate environments for your virtual robot to interact with - but after that it's down to chance and time.
Course, you can cheat and preload strategies to try and complete the task more intelligently, but that's not true evolutionary AI is it. If you start doing that you might as well just write the code to flap it's wings - hell dump the electronics and use a coiled rubber band like on those flying children's toys. Much more efficient and as a bonus it will actually fly!
>*Your* definitions of learning and evolving are not the ultimate authority.
And yours are?
Having been on a Robotics course, I knew what tripe this would be before I even read the article. The fact it was allegedly "learning to fly" is totally academic - it could have been trying to hit a football or move towards a light. All they are actually doing is producing negative feedback using semi-random programming. Damping the system to produce more and more desirable results as the process continues.
This isn't rocket science, it's not even particularly clever. It's the sort of thing they gave as routine lab work on the first year of my undergraduate Cybernetics course. And even then I thought it was pretty pointless. As many people here have already pointed out: Why even give it a physical body? It would be far more efficient to simulate the whole process in a computer environment. The answer is of course that robots get column inches.
If the robots reconfigured their physical bodies as part of this life-cycle (like the replicators can in Stargate) - then you would have the beginnings of a evolutionary process.
I would even dispute the idea that the robot was learning. Learning implies that it considered various facts then made a decision based on those facts. From the descriptions given (both above and in the article) the code consisted of starting with a random seed of commands - mutated it in various ways, then selected ones that obtained more successful results and continued using those. This is blind incremental trial and error not learnt or deduced information.
There's nothing revolutionary about this work in the slightest..... hence I confidently predict an IP claim within the week will be made for "Experienced based learning software and related hardware". You got it, they're gona sue all life-forms on the planet for infringement of IP!:)
PS If anybody has evidence of PRIOR ART, I hear god is trying to build a portfolio to refute the inevitable law-suits (course he's gona get screwed cos the devil has all the best lawyers:D ).
Slashdot Mirror
I started a Cybernetics degree at Reading University about 7 years ago. At the time they had just been featured on TV demonstrating their amazing set of 7 robots (named after a certain set of Dwarfs immortalised by Disney) which SIMULATED the behaviour of sand wasps. Wow I mean they could simulate insect behaviours - incredible! This must have been a huge breakthrough right? Erm....no. In one of the lab experiments we had to re-program portions of their behaviour. The object avoidance code consisted of (it wasn't C, but this is the equivalent):
h tWheel); //Hunt for new target
:)
while(1)
{
MoveForward();
while(Sensors()==OBJECT_AHEAD)
TurnRight();
}
The code to "follow" another "sand wasp" (they all had beacons on the backs of them) was something like the following:
while(1)
{
bool bNeedToDriveLeftWheel=false;
bool bNeedToDriveRightWheel=false;
if(BeaconPickedUpByRightSensor())
bNeedToDriveLeftWheel=true;
if(BeaconPickedUpByLeftSensor())
bNeedToDriveRightWheel=true;
if(bNeedToDriveLeftWheel || bNeedToDriveRightWheel)
MoveSandFly(bNeedToDriveLeftWheel,bNeedToDriveRig
else
MoveSandFly(false,true);
}
Not what you would call rocket science I think you'd agree. But the head of cybernetics (Known on http://www.theregister.com as Captain Cyborg for his other idiotic media antics) managed to get on national TV with them. Hence I have a certain amount of cynicism when these people claim any kind of breakthrough.
Incidentally I also remember him getting on NewsNight with an "AI" program which was "deciding" if it wanted to eat a hamburger or not. My code for that:
if((rand()%2)==1)
EatBurger();
else
WatchWeight();
Jeremy Paxman quite obviously hated his guts, as he can sniff out a fraud a mile off
BTW I transferred my ass outa there after the first year onto the Comp-Sci course and never looked back!
Sorry and you are..? The Anonymous Coward - most prolific poster on slashdot.
.... it just isn't new. Evolution isn't difficult to simulate, it's a simple process, it just takes a very very long time. It'll get it right (if it's possible) or close enough for practical purposes given enough time. Oh, you can tweak the way in which genes (or code fragments in this case) are selected then mixed, and you can spend years writing ingenious code to simulate environments for your virtual robot to interact with - but after that it's down to chance and time.
Course, you can cheat and preload strategies to try and complete the task more intelligently, but that's not true evolutionary AI is it. If you start doing that you might as well just write the code to flap it's wings - hell dump the electronics and use a coiled rubber band like on those flying children's toys. Much more efficient and as a bonus it will actually fly!
>*Your* definitions of learning and evolving are not the ultimate authority.
And yours are?
I have had first hand experience with some of the Muppets in the field of cybernetics. Genuine advances I have no problem with, but blatant publicity stunts using existing technology and a ton of spin don't impress me. I write computer software for a living that are more complex than the stuff they're peddling here. However it's not in a "sexy" field like cybernetics and I don't go making press releases eg: "Programmer hails breakthrough as revolutionary web software expands the possibilities of online assessment systems!!"
Maybe the story in Reuters was totally inaccurate, and the code was amazingly revolutionary (as opposed to a total rip-off of thousands of undergraduate projects and simulation software around the web). But it didn't seem like it. If they constructed software for the robot that analysed the effect it's initial attempts had then PREDICTED what it should do in order to get a better result (ie it had actually learned something from it's previous experiences) - tried that etc etc then that sounds like some interesting software. But claiming that semi-random incremental trial and error is genuine learning is a bit much for me to stomach.
If you or I were trying to fly we'd observe what seemed to work for one arm - think "hmmm - I'll bet that'll work for the other too" then proceed to try flapping with both. Course we'd rapidly come to the conclusion (as children do, though they'd love it to be different) that it's not going to work anywhere near well enough, and go and try something else (like a jet engine and a shit load of electronics). The robot of course will still be sitting there poking different signals down the wires to it's other wing not making any kind of "judgement" or deduction about the information it gathered while trying the first wing. Basically it hasn't LEARNT anything by it's pervious experience. It just got a good numerical score for executing a given sequence of op-codes, and it's been told to keep high scores and tweak the related code to try and get better scores. There's no intelligence there, it doesn't understand the implications of the data it's stored, and it hasn't LEARNT anything. It's merely STORED a sequence that got a high score - because it's been pre-programmed to. If you class that as learning, then every program ever written that compares two values then stores one because it's higher is LEARNING.....what a creapy feeling I'm surrounded by machines that are learning at an astonishing rate....some call Cyberdyne systems and tell em to throw the switch!!!
It is however an "evolutionary STYLE" of programming (not a genuine mimicking of evolution in animals - which have to adapt their bodies too). Yes it works
Having been on a Robotics course, I knew what tripe this would be before I even read the article. The fact it was allegedly "learning to fly" is totally academic - it could have been trying to hit a football or move towards a light. All they are actually doing is producing negative feedback using semi-random programming. Damping the system to produce more and more desirable results as the process continues.
..... hence I confidently predict an IP claim within the week will be made for "Experienced based learning software and related hardware". You got it, they're gona sue all life-forms on the planet for infringement of IP! :)
:D ).
This isn't rocket science, it's not even particularly clever. It's the sort of thing they gave as routine lab work on the first year of my undergraduate Cybernetics course. And even then I thought it was pretty pointless. As many people here have already pointed out: Why even give it a physical body? It would be far more efficient to simulate the whole process in a computer environment. The answer is of course that robots get column inches.
If the robots reconfigured their physical bodies as part of this life-cycle (like the replicators can in Stargate) - then you would have the beginnings of a evolutionary process.
I would even dispute the idea that the robot was learning. Learning implies that it considered various facts then made a decision based on those facts. From the descriptions given (both above and in the article) the code consisted of starting with a random seed of commands - mutated it in various ways, then selected ones that obtained more successful results and continued using those. This is blind incremental trial and error not learnt or deduced information.
There's nothing revolutionary about this work in the slightest
PS If anybody has evidence of PRIOR ART, I hear god is trying to build a portfolio to refute the inevitable law-suits (course he's gona get screwed cos the devil has all the best lawyers