I'd be impressed if they were developing AI which mimicked human reactions. If the thing could learn by watching people and apply those observations for its own use in interactions.
This robot is not an exercise in AI -it is an exercise in robotics. Your lack of enthusiasm stems from the fact that you are interested in a different domain. To put the article in a more positive light, this story is a sign of the times. Maybe it doesn't demonstrate a completely new and incredible breakthrough (in fact it definitely doesn't), but it does represent a number of things: people are thinking of new and interesting uses of robotics technology; people are creating complicated robots on a whim (ie I felt like having a replacement in class to save time so I made one); robotics is in a state where humanlike movements can be readily recreated.
You might not be interested in this robot because it doesn't learn, but you are talking about a completely different domain. Aren't you at least interested in the fact that, once the abilities you are interested in are fully developed, we already have a working body to plug them into? Furthermore, we don't need to make the robot fully autonomous for it to have interesting cognitive abilities -the robot could be made to do certain cognitive activities on its own. For example, the professor, working remotely, clicks on an object in the robots visual display -a pen, let's say. The robot then has its computer vision kick in -notices the object is a pen, then its grasp-pen procedure kicks in. This is blending the cognition of the professor with that of the robot. It leaves the decision making and high level planning up to the professor, who initiates the action with only a click*, then the robot engages in the lower level cognitive acts. Cool, right? Well, we already have all the technology to make this a possibility. But, you need the robot to plug it into first!
*with a click, is basically how our mind works. We pick a location in space, and then consciously decide to grasp for it -the rest is an unconscious grasping protocol directed at that region in space -you don't have to consciously control your action, you jsut think about what action you are doing and where.
From an evolutionary perspective, telepathy is a strong survival trait. Since we don't see it in the gene pool, it's unlikely that it's even possible.
No offense but this isn't very good reasoning. There are no doubt millions of abilities that would be useful to us, that aren't in the gene pool, but are nevertheless are possible. Your argument contains a missing premise which is ridiculous, and it is this: every ability that is useful from an evolutionary perspective will be present in the genepool. Why should this be the case? This premise is false, but without it your argument falls apart.
The following are all possible but not present in the gene pool: flamethrower mouths; internal nuclear reactors; wheels for legs.
I don't disagree with your views on telepathy, but the reasoning you presented here isn't very good.
Development of Supermans Powers Over Time
on
The Physics of Superman
·
· Score: 5, Informative
For anyone interested in the development of Supermans powers as the series progressed, check out this website:
As other posters have mentioned, yes, it is true that he started without flying ability -he could leap only one eighth of a mile. The development of his powers is actually quite staggering, going from what nowadays would be a lesser superhero, to being one of the most powerful superheroes in the combined comic book multiverse.
Who says it's a problem? A warmer environment worked well for the dinosaurs. Welcome to "evolution." If global warming is occuring, natural, man-made (isn't man part of nature, btw?), or caused by little green men, and we go extinct, isn't it really part of a natural process anyway? You know, survival of the fittest and all?
I'd like to point out that just because something occurs naturally does not mean it's good. Are you in favour of birth defects, famine, and pestilence? they are all natural. Are you in favour or rape, theft, and murder? I guess you are, because they are all natural. Please respond -I am genuinely interested in your line of thought, and what leads you to believe that just because something is natural it is somehow okay and we should allow it.
It works by stimulating via vibration "somatosensory apparatus" (ie touch), which to the best of my knowledge IS available on the outside of the finger -it should work by being strapped to the outside. Albeit it is not as cool and cyberpunk sounding, but it does remove EVERY SINGLE NEGATIVE POINT associated with the device (painful surgery, risk or rejection, no more MRIs, etc)
In response to the problem of symbols losing their meaning: haven't any of these people read "Contact"? Use prime numbers -it doesn't matter what language you speak, prime numbers are the same to everyone!
In response to the problem itself (how to warn future generations about a dangerous radioactive stockpile underground) why are we so concerned about future generations 100,000 years from now, and not even concerned with our own well-being? Get on the global warming problem and curbing nuke proliferation before worrying about what happens a thousand years from now when mole men try to dig into our plutonium piles.
Actually, I don't believe any advance in neuroscience makes the debate harder for adherents of free will, because causal determinism in the physical universe has been an accepted truth in the scientific world for some time (disregarding quantum indeterminacy, which is besides the point since no one has been able to coherently describe how quantum indeterminacy could amount to what we call free will.)
For those people willing to read the right philosophers (ie Dennett) I believe the free will problem has already been adequately solved (not first by Dennett, but he is a good starting point if you are interested in reading into it yourself). The solution amounts to clarifying what we mean by free will, and then demonstrating that this definition of free will is in fact consistent with determinism.
Memory fails me as to how exactly Dennett chooses to define free will, but personally, I think that the concept of "the ability to choose" fits nicely, where "choosing" means something along the lines of "evaluating different actions, and picking one based on some selection criteria." Note that it is quite easy for this process of choosing (ie free will) to be consistent with a deterministic view of the universe. If anything, this article supports the notion of free will (but then again it doesn't, since we already knew that choosing happens in the brain...)
I personally feel that there are so many "disorders" these days, that people often find a crutch for every vice and desire. Instead of working tochange for the better, people say "That's the way I am... I can't change."
I think people still have choices regardless of the addiction they suffer from (OCD disorders, Serial Killer, Gambling, etc.) A person doesn't HAVE TO Gamble, but it feels that way. He doesn't HAVE TO wash his hands 5 times, but he thinks he does.
Likewise, gravity doesn't force us to fall, it just feels that way.
Seriously dude, there is a reason the above mentioned disorders are classified as as such -because something is wrong (ie out of order; or if you prefer disordered) with the workings of the brain. For you to just jump up and say, "you know, I think these people really do have a choice." Is not just enlightened (nor does it follow from the article in any coherent way) but it is also insensitive and maybe even mean -it serves only to shift responsibility to people who should rightly be considered victims.
You write as if you know what you're talking about, but as a matter of fact ID is directly opposed to evolution. This is the central doctrine of ID: life is too complicated to have evolved by natural selection. Explain to me how that is not opposed to evolution.
Human cognition has been described by some researchers as unique in that it is the result of many years of cumulated cultural evolution. We think in symbols that have developed over time. In that sense, all of us can be said to "stand on the shoulders of giants."
Certain environments (cultural, social, intellectual, environments) are ripe for a certain key innovation. It is up to individual researchers to make that development, but of course it wouldn't be possible without the work of others before them. This is even more evident when we look at scenarios in which several researchers develop the same innovation at almost precisely the same time.
Of course, drawing the conclusion that "geniuses are just like the rest of us" is totally of base. Some individuals are most assuredly better than others at innovating and developing our knowledge. In fact, I would submit that the majority of humans take the role of "imitator" not innovator. Innovators have to be rare, and imitators prevalent, in order for cumulative cultural evolution to work; lots of people need to preserve our knowledge -you can't have everyone thinking differently and innovating.
Further to this, I would like to add that the sort of genius that makes an "Einstein" is not necessarily just "being smart", whatever that means, but thinking differently than the rest of us -just being weird. A low amount of weird individuals in a social group will allow that group to explore new possibilities safely.
actually many who argue that machines will not acquire semantics state as a reason that semantics requires context, so you are actually arguing the same thing. Problems with context = problems with semantics.
While this is true, the best approach is likely to be one that combines the swarming and master bot approaches. During normal operations, individual bots maneuver independently, but when the situation warrants, the swarm coalesces into a master bot that can meet greater challenges.
I don't know if its the result of my own intellectual deficiencies, but I had a lot of trouble getting any meaningful content out of your post. What exactly is a "normal operation", versus a "greater challenge"? More importantly, how do the bots know "when the situation warrants" a change of strategy? Most important of all, what the heck does "coalesces into a master bot" mean? The whole point of a swarm is a bunch of bots functioning as an individual unit;they already are a functional unit, and they can't combine any more than that -this isn't transformers!
not to be too nit-picky, but after pointing out the ambiguity "normal operation"/"greater challenge"/"situation warrants", and absurdity "coalesces into master bot" your post contains nothing more than a baseless assertion of "the best approach":
While this is true, the best approach is likely to be one that combines the swarming and master bot approaches. During [?], individual bots maneuver independently, but when [?], the swarm [?] that can [?].
Something leads me to believe that, seeing as though the researchers are considering sending these to investigate lava tubes, they will be considering a means by which the robots will be able to get out of the tubes...
Having said that, I agree completely that there will certainly be the possibility of the robots getting stuck or damaged by different terrain or obstacles. However, this is something swarms are good at dealing with!
First of all, having one bot getting stuck or damaged isn't catastrophic -the system continues functioning, just with slightly lower efficiency.
Secondly, if a bot gets stuck, it could send out a danger signal to nearby bots. As a matter of fact, such a system is probably not even necessary,because chances are, the swarms will be designed with the following rule: steer clear of nearby bots. Why? To cover a wider area. (staying within sensor range of at least a few bots though). So by default, if one bot gets into a tough situation, the others avoid it. Of course, there will probably be a grouping rule as well -steer to maintain the same heading as the average of the group. We want these guys staying together and functioning as a whole unit.
In any case, the point is this -swarms are BETTER at dealing with tough conditions than individual bots. Secondly, having a master bot defeats almost all purposes of having a swarm in the first place. It would be better to just design the swarm in such a way that they are able to gather themselves up at a meeting point when the time comes.
Many of us are no doubt familiar with models of ant foraging behavior that make use of pheremone dropping. For those of you who didn't catch the important difference mentioned here, it's basically the discovery of a different type of pheremone (whereas previously we had imagined that the ants made use of only two pheremones 'home' and 'food' -now there is 'no food').
if you are interested in such a model, you can get a simple one programmed in python here:
http://www.carleton.ca/ics/courses/cgsc5001/assign 4.html
Actually the link here is specifically about applications of genetic algorithms. But the second application (the first is a maze solver) is a GA used to optimize ant pheremone settings.
I know it's generally more interesting to talk about how cool it is that technology is doing such great things, and to start imagining all the implications of the wonderful progress we're making. I'm going to do something dangerously uncool and uninteresting -I'm going to expose this article for what it really is. And what is that? An overhyped project with nothing impressive going for it. Really. Nothing. Let's examine the claims to fame made in the article.
First of all, the big claim made is that "the system has been predicting Billboard hits with surprising accuracy over the past several months." They achieve this one simply by reading weblogs. That is ridiculously simple to do: count the number of times a song is mentioned. Predict based on this value. They have not claimed that they are able to predict success on NEW songs based on scanning the music, they have simply claimed, as above, that they can predict billboard hits. Another easy method for doing this is as follows: Take todays hit-list. Copy it identically. That's tomorrows hit-list. There is not that much change over a day -you will get pretty good accuracy.
Second, the software picks out little known groups with popular sounds that agents have missed (ex. Crossfade). How does the network achieve this amazing (sarcasm) feat? By noticing a spike in focus-group data; "HitPredictor struck gold again in late 2003, when its computers flagged a blip in the focus-group data." Hoorah! MIT has invented an algorithm that finds spikes in data.
Thirdly, the software describes the music it hears, from "sexy to romantic to loud and upbeat". Again, this is not complicated. Just look at weblogs and attach to any song titles nearby descriptor words from a small set. This of course is just an example of a simple way to do it. I'm sure there are others.
But there must be some reason for us reading about it? Mustn't there? Well yes. Firstly, there is profit to be made by individuals offering services. Secondly, you can't write or post stories titled "MIT project achieves nothing interesting".
Not trying to be rude here but there are alot more stupid assholes on this site than I expected. Why do so many people engage in this activity, brag about it, laugh about it, talk about how fun it is, etc.? What kind of person do you have to be to get a kick out of causing innocent creatures suffering? That is what this behavior amounts to. You are getting enjoyment from causing pain. Doesn't that strike you as wrong? Maybe even a little bit?
here is a site set up so people can get kicks from tipping over cows without actually injuring or killing real cows. yay. http://www.cowguys.com/pasture.html
This is nothing to get worked up about. Just like any scenario in which money is traded between players based on some set of rules, someone has to come out on top, or else no one would play it. Like any casino game (or lottery), someone is bound to win (of course the house always wins.)
You have to wonder whether "Deathifier" is as intelligent as so many people on this website are suggesting, or whether he A) was one of the lucky ones or B)simply worked alot harder than the other people to sell his property. This second option makes alot of sense, and is supported by his commitment that was demonstrated by his willingness to make such a large investment. Could you imagine paying that much and NOT making it back?
However, if his goal was making money, then this probably was not a good (intelligent?) way to go. He worked for a year -in order to make his money back. Is there a guarantee he will see much more profit coming off of that? Not likely, given that he made his money by selling his land away. Overall, he could've done better flipping burgers for a few months.
Last I checked, the U.S. fleet still dwarfs that of any other country.
Actually as of 2004 Russia had 98 subs to the US's 84, and China has 63. At this time the US had 8.2 thousand tanks, to Russia's 15 thousand, and Chinas 8.8 thousand. the US has at this time 4.1 thousand combt aircraft, compared to Russia's 3.1 thousand, and China's 4.1 thousand. Total military personnel(army, navy, air force) for this period: US has 1.4 million, Russia has 1.15 million, and China has 2.8 million.
So the winners are:
Submarines: Russia beats USA beats China
Tanks: Russia beats China beats USA
Aircraft: China TIES USA beats Russia
personnel: China beats USA beats Russia
In short, the US is dominant in none of those areas.
Firstly, a score on an IQ test indicates nothing more than performance on a selection of mental tasks that a researcher has deemed to be fairly representative of some quality (general intelligence) that is assumed -but not yet proven- to actually exist.
Secondly, Those who know the history of IQ tests will give this study much less credibility. Allow me to inform. The first IQ tests showed that women were smarter than men, and whites were smarter than blacks. The former was taken to be an error in the testing, so the questions were adjusted (by adding and removing test elements that tested different abilities) until men and women scored equally. The latter was taken as evidence of racial superiority.
I hate having to draw obvious conclusions but I will do so anyways in case you are tired while reading this -the results of an IQ test do not actually correspond to an actual characteristic or trait of an individual, and should not be taken as seriously as they are.
Other IQ tests could just as easily produce the opposite result as this study (as they indeed did originally) simply by switching around the scoring of a few questions. I think it is terribly irresponsible of the researchers to make statements such as they are without providing a thorough explanation of what it is the tests are actually measuring, because it promotes a sexist attitude (ie its okay that men are smarter, its just genetics!)
This study demonstrates nothing more than how sexism still thrives among the intellectuals of today, in their willingness to draw and promote such conclusions in the face of valid alternatives.
Those of you taking the position that this project is a waste of time (or simply a researchers way to make some cash for a few years) need to step back and give yourselves a shake -or alternatively read a cognitive science textbook. In terms of gaining understanding of the workings of the mind this project has real potential. Traditionally, cognitive scientists usually focus on the individual agents using neuroscience and psychology, modelling their theories of cognition in computer simulations. However, it is occasionally pointed out that we should pay attention to anthropological issues. What if it is the case that certain behaviors and thought processes of an agent only make sense when interpreted within the sphere of that agents immediate society? This project has the obvious potential of exploring this possibility, and may yet reveal valuable insights.
You stated your position nicely, even provided a nice quote from someone who feels the same way, but failed entirely to provide support for your view. What exactly is fundamentally different from a robots "reward function" and a humans motivation?
People love to put themselves on a different level than robots. Frankly, this is probably because people just don't like to be compared to steel and wire. But this view is indefensible, as I will show.
First and foremost, with a materialistic view of the universe (as most every philosopher and scientist now hold) a human being is no more than a very complex machine. A robot we construct, if complicated enough, will be able to exhibit REAL learning, thinking, motication, etc.
You can buy a robot that will walk around your room. Would you say it is just imitating walking around the room? It would be ridiculous to say so. What is so different about our various cognitive mechanisms (motivation, learning, thinking -whatever that is)? Any mechanism responsible for those abilities in humans could in principle be implemented in a machine. This is true, unless it can be demonstrated that some aspect of human cognition is fundamentally unimplementable in a machine.
This mysterious unidentifiable element in humans is not a soul, or any intangible essence -How would such a thing interact with our world, since doing so would mean a violation of the governing physical laws of our universe.
The alternative position is offered by philosopher John Searle, a materialist who also believes a computer will never actually have understanding in the sense that humans do (they will just be able to imitate it). Searle's view, is that "understanding" is "secreted by the brain, just as bile is secreted by the liver".
What a weird notion! Understanding as a "secretion" of a biological component? I had always thought understanding was used to describe what happens when someone has a handle on a concept. Maybe that's just me though; perhaps it is a secretion. If thats the case, let's start bottling and marketing the stuff!
I wonder what Searle would say about the possibility of the 'understanding' secretion glands (or wherever understanding is supposed to be released from) malfunctioning. Could there be a hereditary disorder, and 15% of the human population doesn't ACTUALLY have understanding, they just behave exactly as they do, but lack the proper secretions?
I have explained the two positions available if you want to deny robots real thinking status. Either humans have an intangible essence that freely violates the laws governing our universe, or 'understanding' is a 'secretion' of our brain uniquely available to biological organisms. Take your pick. Both views are ridiculous.
A feature that would be very useful, though I didn't see it mentioned anywhere on the site, would be the ability to "punish" the knee for making an error. Most learning algorithms work by having a teacher tell them what sort of actions/decisions were right or wrong. With this system, there is probably some sort of hardcoded teacher, which is not necessarily the best way to do things -the best judge of what you want your bionic leg to do is probably yourself, and not a programmer somewhere.
For example, if your leg starts to give way as youre walking up stairs, forcing you to catch onto the rail to prevent serious injury, you should have the ability to say, basically "bad leg!". By pressing the appropriate button, you would teach the AI that it made a mistake, and it would modify itself as necessary. A similar system might be useful for telling the system when its doing a good job, perhaps a dial that simply represents the users satisfaction.
Slashdot Mirror
This robot is not an exercise in AI -it is an exercise in robotics. Your lack of enthusiasm stems from the fact that you are interested in a different domain. To put the article in a more positive light, this story is a sign of the times. Maybe it doesn't demonstrate a completely new and incredible breakthrough (in fact it definitely doesn't), but it does represent a number of things: people are thinking of new and interesting uses of robotics technology; people are creating complicated robots on a whim (ie I felt like having a replacement in class to save time so I made one); robotics is in a state where humanlike movements can be readily recreated.
You might not be interested in this robot because it doesn't learn, but you are talking about a completely different domain. Aren't you at least interested in the fact that, once the abilities you are interested in are fully developed, we already have a working body to plug them into? Furthermore, we don't need to make the robot fully autonomous for it to have interesting cognitive abilities -the robot could be made to do certain cognitive activities on its own. For example, the professor, working remotely, clicks on an object in the robots visual display -a pen, let's say. The robot then has its computer vision kick in -notices the object is a pen, then its grasp-pen procedure kicks in. This is blending the cognition of the professor with that of the robot. It leaves the decision making and high level planning up to the professor, who initiates the action with only a click*, then the robot engages in the lower level cognitive acts. Cool, right? Well, we already have all the technology to make this a possibility. But, you need the robot to plug it into first!
*with a click, is basically how our mind works. We pick a location in space, and then consciously decide to grasp for it -the rest is an unconscious grasping protocol directed at that region in space -you don't have to consciously control your action, you jsut think about what action you are doing and where.
No offense but this isn't very good reasoning. There are no doubt millions of abilities that would be useful to us, that aren't in the gene pool, but are nevertheless are possible. Your argument contains a missing premise which is ridiculous, and it is this: every ability that is useful from an evolutionary perspective will be present in the genepool. Why should this be the case? This premise is false, but without it your argument falls apart.
The following are all possible but not present in the gene pool: flamethrower mouths; internal nuclear reactors; wheels for legs.
I don't disagree with your views on telepathy, but the reasoning you presented here isn't very good.
For anyone interested in the development of Supermans powers as the series progressed, check out this website:
http://www.johnath.com/~david/etc/superman.html
As other posters have mentioned, yes, it is true that he started without flying ability -he could leap only one eighth of a mile. The development of his powers is actually quite staggering, going from what nowadays would be a lesser superhero, to being one of the most powerful superheroes in the combined comic book multiverse.
why are they implanting it?
It works by stimulating via vibration "somatosensory apparatus" (ie touch), which to the best of my knowledge IS available on the outside of the finger -it should work by being strapped to the outside. Albeit it is not as cool and cyberpunk sounding, but it does remove EVERY SINGLE NEGATIVE POINT associated with the device (painful surgery, risk or rejection, no more MRIs, etc)
In response to the problem of symbols losing their meaning: haven't any of these people read "Contact"? Use prime numbers -it doesn't matter what language you speak, prime numbers are the same to everyone!
In response to the problem itself (how to warn future generations about a dangerous radioactive stockpile underground) why are we so concerned about future generations 100,000 years from now, and not even concerned with our own well-being? Get on the global warming problem and curbing nuke proliferation before worrying about what happens a thousand years from now when mole men try to dig into our plutonium piles.
Actually, I don't believe any advance in neuroscience makes the debate harder for adherents of free will, because causal determinism in the physical universe has been an accepted truth in the scientific world for some time (disregarding quantum indeterminacy, which is besides the point since no one has been able to coherently describe how quantum indeterminacy could amount to what we call free will.)
For those people willing to read the right philosophers (ie Dennett) I believe the free will problem has already been adequately solved (not first by Dennett, but he is a good starting point if you are interested in reading into it yourself). The solution amounts to clarifying what we mean by free will, and then demonstrating that this definition of free will is in fact consistent with determinism.
Memory fails me as to how exactly Dennett chooses to define free will, but personally, I think that the concept of "the ability to choose" fits nicely, where "choosing" means something along the lines of "evaluating different actions, and picking one based on some selection criteria." Note that it is quite easy for this process of choosing (ie free will) to be consistent with a deterministic view of the universe. If anything, this article supports the notion of free will (but then again it doesn't, since we already knew that choosing happens in the brain...)
Likewise, gravity doesn't force us to fall, it just feels that way.
Seriously dude, there is a reason the above mentioned disorders are classified as as such -because something is wrong (ie out of order; or if you prefer disordered) with the workings of the brain. For you to just jump up and say, "you know, I think these people really do have a choice." Is not just enlightened (nor does it follow from the article in any coherent way) but it is also insensitive and maybe even mean -it serves only to shift responsibility to people who should rightly be considered victims.
You write as if you know what you're talking about, but as a matter of fact ID is directly opposed to evolution. This is the central doctrine of ID: life is too complicated to have evolved by natural selection. Explain to me how that is not opposed to evolution.
Human cognition has been described by some researchers as unique in that it is the result of many years of cumulated cultural evolution. We think in symbols that have developed over time. In that sense, all of us can be said to "stand on the shoulders of giants."
Certain environments (cultural, social, intellectual, environments) are ripe for a certain key innovation. It is up to individual researchers to make that development, but of course it wouldn't be possible without the work of others before them. This is even more evident when we look at scenarios in which several researchers develop the same innovation at almost precisely the same time.
Of course, drawing the conclusion that "geniuses are just like the rest of us" is totally of base. Some individuals are most assuredly better than others at innovating and developing our knowledge. In fact, I would submit that the majority of humans take the role of "imitator" not innovator. Innovators have to be rare, and imitators prevalent, in order for cumulative cultural evolution to work; lots of people need to preserve our knowledge -you can't have everyone thinking differently and innovating.
Further to this, I would like to add that the sort of genius that makes an "Einstein" is not necessarily just "being smart", whatever that means, but thinking differently than the rest of us -just being weird. A low amount of weird individuals in a social group will allow that group to explore new possibilities safely.
actually many who argue that machines will not acquire semantics state as a reason that semantics requires context, so you are actually arguing the same thing. Problems with context = problems with semantics.
The thesis that machines will not have semantics is championed predominately by Searle, who is an atheist.
haha okay so you were just joking. sorry about that. I guess I was thrown off by the rating of 3, 100% 'insightful'.
I don't know if its the result of my own intellectual deficiencies, but I had a lot of trouble getting any meaningful content out of your post. What exactly is a "normal operation", versus a "greater challenge"? More importantly, how do the bots know "when the situation warrants" a change of strategy? Most important of all, what the heck does "coalesces into a master bot" mean? The whole point of a swarm is a bunch of bots functioning as an individual unit ;they already are a functional unit, and they can't combine any more than that -this isn't transformers!
not to be too nit-picky, but after pointing out the ambiguity "normal operation"/"greater challenge"/"situation warrants", and absurdity "coalesces into master bot" your post contains nothing more than a baseless assertion of "the best approach":
Having said that, I agree completely that there will certainly be the possibility of the robots getting stuck or damaged by different terrain or obstacles. However, this is something swarms are good at dealing with!
First of all, having one bot getting stuck or damaged isn't catastrophic -the system continues functioning, just with slightly lower efficiency. Secondly, if a bot gets stuck, it could send out a danger signal to nearby bots. As a matter of fact, such a system is probably not even necessary,because chances are, the swarms will be designed with the following rule: steer clear of nearby bots. Why? To cover a wider area. (staying within sensor range of at least a few bots though). So by default, if one bot gets into a tough situation, the others avoid it. Of course, there will probably be a grouping rule as well -steer to maintain the same heading as the average of the group. We want these guys staying together and functioning as a whole unit.
In any case, the point is this -swarms are BETTER at dealing with tough conditions than individual bots. Secondly, having a master bot defeats almost all purposes of having a swarm in the first place. It would be better to just design the swarm in such a way that they are able to gather themselves up at a meeting point when the time comes.
if you are interested in such a model, you can get a simple one programmed in python here: http://www.carleton.ca/ics/courses/cgsc5001/assign 4.html
Actually the link here is specifically about applications of genetic algorithms. But the second application (the first is a maze solver) is a GA used to optimize ant pheremone settings.
First of all, the big claim made is that "the system has been predicting Billboard hits with surprising accuracy over the past several months." They achieve this one simply by reading weblogs. That is ridiculously simple to do: count the number of times a song is mentioned. Predict based on this value. They have not claimed that they are able to predict success on NEW songs based on scanning the music, they have simply claimed, as above, that they can predict billboard hits. Another easy method for doing this is as follows: Take todays hit-list. Copy it identically. That's tomorrows hit-list. There is not that much change over a day -you will get pretty good accuracy.
Second, the software picks out little known groups with popular sounds that agents have missed (ex. Crossfade). How does the network achieve this amazing (sarcasm) feat? By noticing a spike in focus-group data; "HitPredictor struck gold again in late 2003, when its computers flagged a blip in the focus-group data." Hoorah! MIT has invented an algorithm that finds spikes in data.
Thirdly, the software describes the music it hears, from "sexy to romantic to loud and upbeat". Again, this is not complicated. Just look at weblogs and attach to any song titles nearby descriptor words from a small set. This of course is just an example of a simple way to do it. I'm sure there are others.
But there must be some reason for us reading about it? Mustn't there? Well yes. Firstly, there is profit to be made by individuals offering services. Secondly, you can't write or post stories titled "MIT project achieves nothing interesting".
here is a site set up so people can get kicks from tipping over cows without actually injuring or killing real cows. yay. http://www.cowguys.com/pasture.html
You have to wonder whether "Deathifier" is as intelligent as so many people on this website are suggesting, or whether he A) was one of the lucky ones or B)simply worked alot harder than the other people to sell his property. This second option makes alot of sense, and is supported by his commitment that was demonstrated by his willingness to make such a large investment. Could you imagine paying that much and NOT making it back?
However, if his goal was making money, then this probably was not a good (intelligent?) way to go. He worked for a year -in order to make his money back. Is there a guarantee he will see much more profit coming off of that? Not likely, given that he made his money by selling his land away. Overall, he could've done better flipping burgers for a few months.
So the winners are:
Submarines: Russia beats USA beats China
Tanks: Russia beats China beats USA
Aircraft: China TIES USA beats Russia
personnel: China beats USA beats Russia
In short, the US is dominant in none of those areas.
Firstly, a score on an IQ test indicates nothing more than performance on a selection of mental tasks that a researcher has deemed to be fairly representative of some quality (general intelligence) that is assumed -but not yet proven- to actually exist.
Secondly, Those who know the history of IQ tests will give this study much less credibility. Allow me to inform. The first IQ tests showed that women were smarter than men, and whites were smarter than blacks. The former was taken to be an error in the testing, so the questions were adjusted (by adding and removing test elements that tested different abilities) until men and women scored equally. The latter was taken as evidence of racial superiority.
I hate having to draw obvious conclusions but I will do so anyways in case you are tired while reading this -the results of an IQ test do not actually correspond to an actual characteristic or trait of an individual, and should not be taken as seriously as they are.
Other IQ tests could just as easily produce the opposite result as this study (as they indeed did originally) simply by switching around the scoring of a few questions. I think it is terribly irresponsible of the researchers to make statements such as they are without providing a thorough explanation of what it is the tests are actually measuring, because it promotes a sexist attitude (ie its okay that men are smarter, its just genetics!)
This study demonstrates nothing more than how sexism still thrives among the intellectuals of today, in their willingness to draw and promote such conclusions in the face of valid alternatives.
Those of you taking the position that this project is a waste of time (or simply a researchers way to make some cash for a few years) need to step back and give yourselves a shake -or alternatively read a cognitive science textbook. In terms of gaining understanding of the workings of the mind this project has real potential. Traditionally, cognitive scientists usually focus on the individual agents using neuroscience and psychology, modelling their theories of cognition in computer simulations. However, it is occasionally pointed out that we should pay attention to anthropological issues. What if it is the case that certain behaviors and thought processes of an agent only make sense when interpreted within the sphere of that agents immediate society? This project has the obvious potential of exploring this possibility, and may yet reveal valuable insights.
You stated your position nicely, even provided a nice quote from someone who feels the same way, but failed entirely to provide support for your view. What exactly is fundamentally different from a robots "reward function" and a humans motivation? People love to put themselves on a different level than robots. Frankly, this is probably because people just don't like to be compared to steel and wire. But this view is indefensible, as I will show. First and foremost, with a materialistic view of the universe (as most every philosopher and scientist now hold) a human being is no more than a very complex machine. A robot we construct, if complicated enough, will be able to exhibit REAL learning, thinking, motication, etc. You can buy a robot that will walk around your room. Would you say it is just imitating walking around the room? It would be ridiculous to say so. What is so different about our various cognitive mechanisms (motivation, learning, thinking -whatever that is)? Any mechanism responsible for those abilities in humans could in principle be implemented in a machine. This is true, unless it can be demonstrated that some aspect of human cognition is fundamentally unimplementable in a machine. This mysterious unidentifiable element in humans is not a soul, or any intangible essence -How would such a thing interact with our world, since doing so would mean a violation of the governing physical laws of our universe. The alternative position is offered by philosopher John Searle, a materialist who also believes a computer will never actually have understanding in the sense that humans do (they will just be able to imitate it). Searle's view, is that "understanding" is "secreted by the brain, just as bile is secreted by the liver". What a weird notion! Understanding as a "secretion" of a biological component? I had always thought understanding was used to describe what happens when someone has a handle on a concept. Maybe that's just me though; perhaps it is a secretion. If thats the case, let's start bottling and marketing the stuff! I wonder what Searle would say about the possibility of the 'understanding' secretion glands (or wherever understanding is supposed to be released from) malfunctioning. Could there be a hereditary disorder, and 15% of the human population doesn't ACTUALLY have understanding, they just behave exactly as they do, but lack the proper secretions? I have explained the two positions available if you want to deny robots real thinking status. Either humans have an intangible essence that freely violates the laws governing our universe, or 'understanding' is a 'secretion' of our brain uniquely available to biological organisms. Take your pick. Both views are ridiculous.
A feature that would be very useful, though I didn't see it mentioned anywhere on the site, would be the ability to "punish" the knee for making an error. Most learning algorithms work by having a teacher tell them what sort of actions/decisions were right or wrong. With this system, there is probably some sort of hardcoded teacher, which is not necessarily the best way to do things -the best judge of what you want your bionic leg to do is probably yourself, and not a programmer somewhere. For example, if your leg starts to give way as youre walking up stairs, forcing you to catch onto the rail to prevent serious injury, you should have the ability to say, basically "bad leg!". By pressing the appropriate button, you would teach the AI that it made a mistake, and it would modify itself as necessary. A similar system might be useful for telling the system when its doing a good job, perhaps a dial that simply represents the users satisfaction.