EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: BrianHG on November 17, 2017, 04:42:25 am
-
It's becoming a cross between awesome and creepy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRj34o4hN4I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRj34o4hN4I)
-
Things I notice:
- No tether
- No noisy power source, which was the weakness of previous models
- Regularly looks like guy in robot suit
These guys going into combat doesn't seem far off, though battery life is an important one. I hope we can avoid the messiness and dubious legality of the current drone operations.
-
https://youtu.be/XcNXq5DUZnk
Mood music
-
Still somewhat geriatric compared to this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_wZBkoq7E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_wZBkoq7E)
-
Still somewhat geriatric compared to this...
Then try doing that yourself?
-
Awesome demo but why should a robot resemble a human?
Depending on its task it should have the physics for that task.
Give it three or four legs it would have been much easier to hold the balance.
But yes we are for a lot of tasks going to be replaced, insaw a demo of an automated p&p line five rows only two operators which could be replaced by a robot. Trays in, with pcbs were robotcars or as they call them self travelling transport vehicles (stv) , trays out were stv's , they moved the pcbs to an assembly line were robot hands put multiple pcbs in plastick enclosures, connected and glued or hotmelted it stuck and close , next stop put testleads in run automated test, stv, packaging robot, stv warehouse.
That is how the future factory look like, and very few human jobs left.
-
Replaced doing what? Jumping on and off boxes?
-
Give it three or four legs it would have been much easier to hold the balance.
They have 4 legged robots. And even robot with two legs with wheels on them.
Depending on its task it should have the physics for that task.
Think about time when electronics were tailored very specific to the narrow task and there was no CPUs. Did it work that well? If you make 2 legged robot, it can access all spaces which were made for humans and do all general tasks. If you make specialized robot, it might be very good at it specific task but completely useless in general tasks. You cannot ask PNP machine to bring you pcb laying on the shelve. Think about computer which can do all sorts of things. Most of those things consist of tasks from so very different areas that it's completely not viable to make a specialized machine for that.
-
Awesome demo but why should a robot resemble a human?
We're a pretty good general purpose design. Makes sense to copy it rather than have to do the evolution bit.
-
If you make 2 legged robot, it can access all spaces which were made for humans and do all general tasks.
Good point. Humans do have problems accessing small spaces though so improve the design so it can have access to all spaces ;)
We're a pretty good general purpose design. Makes sense to copy it rather than have to do the evolution bit.
I don't agree. Humans are instable design, we can not sleep standing up without falling over. A robot should be a steady design, upon power failure it should stop not fall over and wreck things. Look at retired humans and their difficulty of keeping vertical, that is a design weakness.
-
It is not a design weakness, it is a result of having the design work properly for the time of its life when it is tasked with needing to work optimally.
Abilities during the time spent learning and time spent retired are not applicable to functionality during the working period.
Most things that humans make are the same. The functionality of a mountain of iron ore is pretty minimal, it then becomes a car then it is a pile of rust. The functionality of the time in the life of the thing is only relevant during the normal working life.
-
Then try doing that yourself?
Irrelevant. This robot is supposed to be about the best there is. So I posted best there is human performance. Little to do with all the rest of the robots or humans.
-
We're a pretty good general purpose design. Makes sense to copy it rather than have to do the evolution bit.
I don't agree. Humans are instable design, we can not sleep standing up without falling over. A robot should be a steady design, upon power failure it should stop not fall over and wreck things. Look at retired humans and their difficulty of keeping vertical, that is a design weakness.
That's only because we don't scrap them when they break down due to emotional attachment :D
-
This robot is supposed to be about the best there is. So I posted best there is human performance.
Supposed to be by who's opinion? What you have posted has no practical use, only entertainment. But being able to jump indeed has practical uses. First things that come to my mind, rescue or military operations. Not always you have a flat surface you can walk through.
-
Supposed to be by who's opinion?
Youre welcome posting some humanoid robot video with free movement comparable or better [smoothness and quietness] than good biological examples. Thinks this will require artificial muscles. IMHO these geared clunkers do not cut it, if we talk about replacing economical well trained [chinese] special unit soldier for example.
-
Supposed to be by who's opinion?
Youre welcome posting some humanoid robot video with free movement comparable or better [smoothness and quietness] than good biological examples. Thinks this will require artificial muscles. IMHO these geared clunkers do not cut it, if we talk about replacing economical well trained [chinese] special unit soldier for example.
You seem to be so close minded. Why do you assume humans necessarily will be replaced for solely economic reasons? Would you personally order people to go for a sure death or risk their lives? Like entering a burning building, enter radioactive area, neutralize bomb?
-
You seem to be so close minded. Why do you assume humans necessarily will be replaced for solely economic reasons? Would you personally order people to go for a sure death or risk their lives? Like entering a burning building, enter radioactive area, neutralize bomb?
I missed the point here...
Every single day, firefighters VOLUNTEER to enter burning buildings. Given proper equipment, technicians have been working around the Fukushima reactor and every day, trained military and civilian personnel work on disarming bombs (or blowing it up in place). They're still recovering WWII bombs in the UK and Germany and the earth is littered with anti-personnel mines. Disarming a deteriorated WWII bomb has to be exciting!
Would I order it? Well, if that's my job then I do it. It's my job!
-
You seem to be so close minded. Why do you assume humans necessarily will be replaced for solely economic reasons? Would you personally order people to go for a sure death or risk their lives? Like entering a burning building, enter radioactive area, neutralize bomb?
I missed the point here...
Every single day, firefighters VOLUNTEER to enter burning buildings. Given proper equipment, technicians have been working around the Fukushima reactor and every day, trained military and civilian personnel work on disarming bombs (or blowing it up in place). They're still recovering WWII bombs in the UK and Germany and the earth is littered with anti-personnel mines. Disarming a deteriorated WWII bomb has to be exciting!
Would I order it? Well, if that's my job then I do it. It's my job!
And if you had an alternative to send a robot instead?
-
I missed the point here...
Every single day, firefighters VOLUNTEER to enter burning buildings. Given proper equipment, technicians have been working around the Fukushima reactor and every day, trained military and civilian personnel work on disarming bombs (or blowing it up in place). They're still recovering WWII bombs in the UK and Germany and the earth is littered with anti-personnel mines. Disarming a deteriorated WWII bomb has to be exciting!
Would I order it? Well, if that's my job then I do it. It's my job!
I feel you're the one missing the point. We send people into horrible situations because we don't have a better way of doing it. In every case where a robot is already viable, the robot gets the job. With properly agile robots, we don't have to risk human lives any more. No one is sending humans in simply because it's their job. Do you think the poor men who secured the Chernobyl site would have volunteered for certain death if a robot could do the job?
Even if you look at it from a purely economical perspective, it makes a lot of sense. Humans are incredibly expensive to train en the upkeep is ridiculous too. You can blown up a lot of expensive robots instead, and the PR isn't as terrible either.
-
You seem to be so close minded. Why do you assume humans necessarily will be replaced for solely economic reasons? Would you personally order people to go for a sure death or risk their lives? Like entering a burning building, enter radioactive area, neutralize bomb?
In general my interest is technology of tomorrow, maybe even one indistinguishable from magic. There is long way from clunkers of today to something really robust and agile, self repairing and comparable in efficiency to biology. Im not saying there is no tasks for clunkers to do, just that they are not that impressive yet and depend very heavily from infrastructure and suitable only for narrow operating conditions.
-
In general my interest is technology of tomorrow, maybe even one indistinguishable from magic. There is long way from clunkers of today to something really robust and agile, self repairing and comparable in efficiency to biology. Im not saying there is no tasks for clunkers to do, just that they are not that impressive yet and depend very heavily from infrastructure and suitable narrow operating conditions.
I bet not even 5% of the population is able to do what that robot does, no matter how they manipulate the conditions in their favour.
Besides, our technology has surpassed our biology an almost every way imaginable. My voice carries 200 meters if I try, but I can pick up the phone and talk to someone on the other side of the world or even on another planet. I can run over 10 km/h for an hour or so, but get in my car and travel an order of magnitude faster all day. I can draw with reasonable precision if I try, but I can print a sheet of millimeter perfect graphics almost instantly.
-
I bet not even 5% of the population is able to do what that robot does, no matter how they manipulate the conditions in their favour.
If this tech seems superior to trained personnel for wideband conditions to you then you are free to gaze in wonder and prepare to be replaced :)
Now what would impress me is pony sized biological ant with high IQ and hopefully very mellow mood and low ambitions. Unless latter conditions met would be not only impressed but also depressed and picking best possible god to pray to.
-
If this tech seems superior to trained personnel for wideband conditions to you then you are free to gaze in wonder and prepare to be replaced :)
Now what would impress me is pony sized biological ant with high IQ and hopefully very mellow mood and low ambitions. Unless latter conditions met would be not only impressed but also depressed and picking best possible god to pray to.
It's not an if. People are being replaced every day.
-
It doesn't matter how good they get they will never self repair as well as we can. :)
-
It doesn't matter how good they get they will never self repair as well as we can. :)
Our self repair is fairly limited without outside help. Our success is in large part thanks to technology aiding repair. We're all technological hybrids.
-
I think most people over 50 fall into the "cyborg" class now with ocular enhancements and enhanced audio, artificial knees and hips, pacemakers.
Self repair is quit amazing without any help, that's the "self" in self repair. No machine could repair any sort of hydraulic leak as a human can, no redundancy in the basic operating components just lots of redundant little parts floating about ready to be self assembled on site to heal. No matter how amazing that robot's abilities are do they actually get even one percent of the way to being what we are.
-
You seem to be so close minded. Why do you assume humans necessarily will be replaced for solely economic reasons? Would you personally order people to go for a sure death or risk their lives? Like entering a burning building, enter radioactive area, neutralize bomb?
I missed the point here...
Every single day, firefighters VOLUNTEER to enter burning buildings. Given proper equipment, technicians have been working around the Fukushima reactor and every day, trained military and civilian personnel work on disarming bombs (or blowing it up in place). They're still recovering WWII bombs in the UK and Germany and the earth is littered with anti-personnel mines. Disarming a deteriorated WWII bomb has to be exciting!
Would I order it? Well, if that's my job then I do it. It's my job!
And if you had an alternative to send a robot instead?
There are bomb disposal robots already, certainly no need for a humanoid one.
http://www.forces.net/news/meet-mods-new-ps1m-bomb-disposal-robot (http://www.forces.net/news/meet-mods-new-ps1m-bomb-disposal-robot)
-
I think most people over 50 fall into the "cyborg" class now with ocular enhancements and enhanced audio, artificial knees and hips, pacemakers.
Self repair is quit amazing without any help, that's the "self" in self repair. No machine could repair any sort of hydraulic leak as a human can, no redundancy in the basic operating components just lots of redundant little parts floating about ready to be self assembled on site to heal. No matter how amazing that robot's abilities are do they actually get even one percent of the way to being what we are.
Well, that was what I'm trying to get at. It would probably be naive to think it's robots or pure biology. The two intertwine more and more, until they are indistinguishable. We don't look twice at replacement hips, inhalers, glasses or other medical aids.
-
The ethical question : what happens in the future when the robot costs more money than a human life?
We had big businesses made those decisions in the 70s remember the Ford Pinto case?
Everyone thinks that it will be a nicer society when robots will do the dirty or boring jobs , however humans need goals in life and when there ain't enough jobs what will they do and who is going to pay them?
-
There are bomb disposal robots already, certainly no need for a humanoid one.
http://www.forces.net/news/meet-mods-new-ps1m-bomb-disposal-robot (http://www.forces.net/news/meet-mods-new-ps1m-bomb-disposal-robot)
Humanoid robots are the holy grail and for good reason. Our society and technology is structured around humanoid interaction. Having a robot that can leverage all of that, while combining it with superhuman feats, will put it light years ahead of any other robot.
For instance, they started developing humanoid robots after the Fukushima disaster, to aid the containment and clean-up. They found that more traditional robots weren't adept at interacting with the human centric design of the power plant. Something trivial like opening a door, traversing a stairwell with debris strewn across it, turning a valve, connecting a cable and getting back out again is nearly impossible for a traditional robot.
The issue becomes more pressing as the plant is decaying, creating an environment that structurally unsound and ever more contaminated.
-
The ethical question : what happens in the future when the robot costs more money than a human life?
We had big businesses made those decisions in the 70s remember the Ford Pinto case?
Everyone thinks that it will be a nicer society when robots will do the dirty or boring jobs , however humans need goals in life and when there ain't enough jobs what will they do and who is going to pay them?
The trend so far has been that technology becomes cheaper and humans become more expensive. The reverse hasn't been true so far.
Jobs being taken over by robots will likely mean a large shift, but not needing to work to survive doesn't mean not having a goal. People will find goals, or goals will be found for them. Maybe something like sports will become ever more important. Making humans obsolete seems a recipe for eventual extinction of the biological human, but humans will go extinct sooner or later, as all species must.
-
Humanoid robots are the holy grail and for good reason. Our society and technology is structured around humanoid interaction. Having a robot that can leverage all of that, while combining it with superhuman feats, will put it light years ahead of any other robot.
We don't need autonomous robots for that, humans remotely controlling a robot wearing a sensor suit in small rooms (think office cells) would be enough to clean up plants and do dangerous work remotely.
That would be more feasible for the coming decade than to think a.i. will be mature enough.
-
No matter how amazing that robot's abilities are do they actually get even one percent of the way to being what we are.
And quite possible we are less than 1% what we could be provided proper guidance. Transhumanism is not that guidance but rather excuse to slip to ever lower usage of native capability. Advanced tech and transhumanism are not glued together. Think perfected stem cell technology and growing actual new tooth vs inserting ceramic excuse.
That does not mean that clunker could not take the trash out, just no need to get too fascinated about it.
-
We don't need autonomous robots for that, humans remotely controlling a robot wearing a sensor suit in small rooms (think office cells) would be enough to clean up plants and do dangerous work remotely.
That would be more feasible for the coming decade than to think a.i. will be mature enough.
I didn't claim we need autonomous robots for that. However, for a proper bipedal humanoid robot, you need a fair amount of autonomous control to have it operate correctly. A human basically only tells it where to move, not how.
However, why bother with doing boring tasks if you can fully automate them?
-
And quite possible we are less than 1% what we could be provided proper guidance. Transhumanism is not that guidance but rather excuse to slip to ever lower usage of native capability. Advanced tech and transhumanism are not glued together. Think perfected stem cell technology and growing actual new tooth vs inserting ceramic excuse.
That does not mean that clunker could not take the trash out, just no need to get too fascinated about it.
Judging by the amount of times I've seen this clip shared by technologically and non-technologically inclined people, your non-fascination is a fairly rare exception :)
Humans are intrinsically fascinated by anything that resembles us. Just look at how people respond to monkeys and apes.
-
your non-fascination is a fairly rare exception :)
I understand how it works - so not too exciting. On the other hand women - still fascinate to this day :P
-
I understand how it works - so not too exciting. On the other hand women - still fascinate to this day :P
Knowledge of something does not preclude fascination.
-
Robots don't need to be entirely humanoid. I had a dream when I was a little kid where I invented a utility robot that was basically a wheeled framework box with machinery in the bottom (hollow on top), and a humanoid torso on the front that could rotate 180 degrees. You plugged in modules containing all the tools and instructions necessary to perform the task, then put a worktbench on top the base unit.
EDIT: I'm assuming you could have different sized base units too, to fit the requirements of the job.
-
I missed the point here...
Every single day, firefighters VOLUNTEER to enter burning buildings. Given proper equipment, technicians have been working around the Fukushima reactor and every day, trained military and civilian personnel work on disarming bombs (or blowing it up in place). They're still recovering WWII bombs in the UK and Germany and the earth is littered with anti-personnel mines. Disarming a deteriorated WWII bomb has to be exciting!
Would I order it? Well, if that's my job then I do it. It's my job!
I feel you're the one missing the point. We send people into horrible situations because we don't have a better way of doing it. In every case where a robot is already viable, the robot gets the job. With properly agile robots, we don't have to risk human lives any more. No one is sending humans in simply because it's their job. Do you think the poor men who secured the Chernobyl site would have volunteered for certain death if a robot could do the job?
Even if you look at it from a purely economical perspective, it makes a lot of sense. Humans are incredibly expensive to train en the upkeep is ridiculous too. You can blown up a lot of expensive robots instead, and the PR isn't as terrible either.
Of course I would use a robot and there are many examples of Law Enforcement robots handling a variety of situations. Our local PD is getting drones to see if they can get a better view of active shooter situations. Not robotic, just radio control. Bomb squads routinely use robots but they aren't really autonomous and they certainly don't use artificial intelligence. They are just a human guided machine. Technology will improve over time but it's going to be a while. I'm not aware of these devices actually defusing a bomb. Mostly, they look at it with x-ray, shoot at it with a shotgun or water cannon and then haul the device to the bomb truck and drop it in the containment vessel.
Pretty cool LE tools:
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/11-police-robots-patrolling-around-world/ (https://www.wired.com/2016/07/11-police-robots-patrolling-around-world/)
Fire fighting robots are in their infancy. The ability to climb ladders, navigate staircases and find victims is a long way down the road. For accessible fires there are some tools:
https://www.wired.com/2012/10/fire-fighting-robots/ (https://www.wired.com/2012/10/fire-fighting-robots/)
Sometimes you just don't have a robot and the work still needs to get done. Somebody has to do it.
-
Of course I would use a robot and there are many examples of Law Enforcement robots handling a variety of situations. Our local PD is getting drones to see if they can get a better view of active shooter situations. Not robotic, just radio control. Bomb squads routinely use robots but they aren't really autonomous and they certainly don't use artificial intelligence. They are just a human guided machine. Technology will improve over time but it's going to be a while. I'm not aware of these devices actually defusing a bomb. Mostly, they look at it with x-ray, shoot at it with a shotgun or water cannon and then haul the device to the bomb truck and drop it in the containment vessel.
Pretty cool LE tools:
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/11-police-robots-patrolling-around-world/ (https://www.wired.com/2016/07/11-police-robots-patrolling-around-world/)
Fire fighting robots are in their infancy. The ability to climb ladders, navigate staircases and find victims is a long way down the road. For accessible fires there are some tools:
https://www.wired.com/2012/10/fire-fighting-robots/ (https://www.wired.com/2012/10/fire-fighting-robots/)
Sometimes you just don't have a robot and the work still needs to get done. Somebody has to do it.
One thing people seemingly tend to do is to view autonomy as an all or nothing affair. I think the quadrotor example shows why that isn't necessarily the case. Even a basic quadcopter does a part of the job by keeping itself upright. Without that mechanism, flying one is basically impossible. After that, there are varying degrees of autonomy. Some can maintain attitude, altitude or hold station, some can return home upon exhausting the battery, some can follow visual targets and some can fly complete flights without any external intervention. In every case, there is an operator conveying its intention to the device, and the device works out the result in various degrees.
Of course, our society is full of these kinds of automations. Cars have gained adaptive cruise control, lane keeping systems and more. Aircraft can fly themselves after being programmed by a pilot. Our devices are roboticized incrementally and there is no real event horizon after which things are autonomous.
-
Ten other interesting robots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ_-yb-TN9M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ_-yb-TN9M)
-
One thing people seemingly tend to do is to view autonomy as an all or nothing affair. I think the quadrotor example shows why that isn't necessarily the case. Even a basic quadcopter does a part of the job by keeping itself upright. Without that mechanism, flying one is basically impossible. After that, there are varying degrees of autonomy. Some can maintain attitude, altitude or hold station, some can return home upon exhausting the battery, some can follow visual targets and some can fly complete flights without any external intervention. In every case, there is an operator conveying its intention to the device, and the device works out the result in various degrees.
Of course, our society is full of these kinds of automations. Cars have gained adaptive cruise control, lane keeping systems and more. Aircraft can fly themselves after being programmed by a pilot. Our devices are roboticized incrementally and there is no real event horizon after which things are autonomous.
I view the Quadcopter as a machine with a couple of control loops. The fact that it uses a microcontroller instead of some analog circuitry doesn't elevate it to some higher form. At most, the RC control upsets the stability of the copter and it tends to correct. We can add layers like "home" and GPS positioning but it's still just a simple machine. There's really no 'autonomy'. Just control loops...
As a result of this thinking, I have a narrow view of the definition of 'robot'. RC doesn't qualify. Amazon.com sending my packages by drone might qualify (traffic avoidance, tree avoidance). I'm not sure what to think of the Amazon Fulfillment centers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLVCGEmkJs0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLVCGEmkJs0)
This may not be 'magic' but it's a pretty good application of computer science. But are the movers autonomous?
I started my working life in the very early days of Numerical Control - back when there were two flops per PCB and a 3 axis machine might have 4 swing-out bays of logic. A 5-axis machine cutting the swirl of an ice cream cone in a solid block of aluminum looked impressive. But it was still just a machine. The magic was in programming the cuts and punching out a 1" 8-channel paper tape.
I think the machines will have to have a lot more autonomy before I'll call them robots. Other opinions vary...
-
Most people would say we already have plenty of robots. Robots don't require any autonomy. Car building robots are just that. You old washing machine is a washing robot. Then there's autonomy. What autonomy exactly is can be debated, but it's clear that's a grey scale too, as has been explained in my previous post.
In the end we're all machines with control loops. Even our own bodies are mostly control loops with some intelligence on top, and even that is just a clever bit of hardware. A lot of people seem insistent on machines still being machines, no matter how clever they are, but most people seem to imply that way that humans somehow are not just machines.
-
People's main functions in the future are likely to be consuming and rate-paying. As long as you continue doing both at an equivalent volume to the consuming and rate-paying done by other members of your karass, they will love you.
-
Another 50 years and we may be the machine. Direct to brain computer implants have been predicted by 2029 and technology tends to accelerate quickly. Who knows where it all may lead.
-
In the end we're all machines with control loops.
This "Newtonian" position is quite dangerous, through central in transhumanism. In physics we have seen that reality has many layers and quite a few not yet open to our understanding. Much the same in biology. Making decisions based on our current mechanistic view will lead to giving to robots citizenship and rights. Already playing with it:
http://fortune.com/2017/10/26/robot-citizen-sophia-saudi-arabia/ (http://fortune.com/2017/10/26/robot-citizen-sophia-saudi-arabia/)
Govt will love it - easy to tax work they do. Owners also - property is better protected and maybe has even right to defend itself. Consumers cannot really object because think that themselves are essentially pooping type of robot. There are many ways for owners to exploit situation.
-
The big question is, how do we cope with technology making it possible to do almost everything with machines?
I don't think a race to the bottom-giving all the jobs to the cheapest workers, so that wages plummet everywhere, is the answer.
Thats likely to turn into an ugly situation that gets blamed on its victims more than anybody.
-
The EU has floated a proposal to tax what are flippantly called "Mode Five" workers, that do work across borders (but not Mode Four, human beings?) Basically they want to call computing appliances workers.
Quote: "A growing share of manufacturing goods can no longer be simply referred to as ‘goods’ but should be regarded as a complex bundle of products and services interactions".
Source EU Chief Economist Note: "Thinking in a box: A ‘Mode 5’ approach to service trade"
tradoc_152237.pdf
-
This will be much cheaper and people could be warehoused away in huge facilities, fed sugar water and gruel, and they would all think they were living like kings back in 1980!
Another 50 years and we may be the machine. Direct to brain computer implants have been predicted by 2029 and technology tends to accelerate quickly. Who knows where it all may lead.
-
I have been thinking about how I view the difference between a machine (complex or not) and a 'robot' and I guess it gets down to the ability to learn or improve.
A machine repeats the same steps, time after time, never varying beyond hard-coded limits. In my view, a robot learns or adapts to its environment. A robot's behavior may not be entirely deterministic. There probably isn't a hard-coded state machine at its core.
There has to be a difference, in my view, between a machine and a robot. Most of the stuff called robots are really just machines. There may be a lot of sensors, certain behaviors pre-programmed, whatever. It's still just a machine. My drill press is a machine. So is my CNC mill. Clearly there are orders of magnitude differences in complexity and capability but they're still just machines.
I don't know that I have ever seen a robot, using my definition.
-
Still somewhat geriatric compared to this...
Then try doing that yourself?
LOL, a robot doesn't have to be as good as our best athletes, it only needs to be as good as
the vast majority of us are(n't).
-
The big question is, how do we cope with technology making it possible to do almost everything with machines?
I don't think a race to the bottom-giving all the jobs to the cheapest workers, so that wages plummet everywhere, is the answer.
Thats likely to turn into an ugly situation that gets blamed on its victims more than anybody.
If a machine can replace the job field you choose to strived for within your own likeable lifetime then you choose poorly. :box:
-
A machine repeats the same steps, time after time, never varying beyond hard-coded limits. In my view, a robot learns or adapts to its environment. A robot's behavior may not be entirely deterministic. There probably isn't a hard-coded state machine at its core.
That is not the definition of a robot.
A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer— capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically.
See wiki, robot
-
This "Newtonian" position is quite dangerous, through central in transhumanism. In physics we have seen that reality has many layers and quite a few not yet open to our understanding. Much the same in biology. Making decisions based on our current mechanistic view will lead to giving to robots citizenship and rights. Already playing with it:
http://fortune.com/2017/10/26/robot-citizen-sophia-saudi-arabia/ (http://fortune.com/2017/10/26/robot-citizen-sophia-saudi-arabia/)
Govt will love it - easy to tax work they do. Owners also - property is better protected and maybe has even right to defend itself. Consumers cannot really object because think that themselves are essentially pooping type of robot. There are many ways for owners to exploit situation.
It's not so much a view, but our current understanding of the universe. Maybe quantum physics can shake things up, but so far it seems to be coherent with out findings.
I'm not worrying about the implications it will have on politics. Science and physics aren't based on what's desirable.
-
I have been thinking about how I view the difference between a machine (complex or not) and a 'robot' and I guess it gets down to the ability to learn or improve.
A machine repeats the same steps, time after time, never varying beyond hard-coded limits. In my view, a robot learns or adapts to its environment. A robot's behavior may not be entirely deterministic. There probably isn't a hard-coded state machine at its core.
There has to be a difference, in my view, between a machine and a robot. Most of the stuff called robots are really just machines. There may be a lot of sensors, certain behaviors pre-programmed, whatever. It's still just a machine. My drill press is a machine. So is my CNC mill. Clearly there are orders of magnitude differences in complexity and capability but they're still just machines.
I don't know that I have ever seen a robot, using my definition.
Fair enough, though that's a rather different definition than most people have and dictionaries indicate.
-
In my definition they don't even need electricity.
(http://www.thisiscolossal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/boy-1.jpg)
-
I have been thinking about how I view the difference between a machine (complex or not) and a 'robot' and I guess it gets down to the ability to learn or improve.
A machine repeats the same steps, time after time, never varying beyond hard-coded limits. In my view, a robot learns or adapts to its environment. A robot's behavior may not be entirely deterministic. There probably isn't a hard-coded state machine at its core.
There has to be a difference, in my view, between a machine and a robot. Most of the stuff called robots are really just machines. There may be a lot of sensors, certain behaviors pre-programmed, whatever. It's still just a machine. My drill press is a machine. So is my CNC mill. Clearly there are orders of magnitude differences in complexity and capability but they're still just machines.
I don't know that I have ever seen a robot, using my definition.
By your definition your car is then a robot and not a machine.as it has the ability to change the pre-programmed behaviour to suit your driving style.
-
For decades software has been available to catch exceptions in processes and learn from them. That is one major difference between machine learning and simple scripting. The goal of people developing automation is often something like automate the most common 90% of user interactions and leave the most difficult 10% for people, maybe catch them on the next iteration.
-
This just popped into my head for some reason.
https://youtu.be/oCW2-HaNQlg