My Advanced Realistic Humanoid Robots Project

[artbyrobot]

As far as the notion that a expert/rules based ai has to have an expert (aka the coder) - this is naive.  All around us we have sources of information and everyone thinks they are right and we all have to decide who is telling us the right thing and we draw conclusions based on who we think is right and we decide who we think is right based on how much we trust that source.  So all an expert need be is ANY source of information flowing in that we choose to trust.  There is our expert.  And as that expert tells us info, we store this as new rules or new knowledge/facts.  That is how the robot will do it, just like we do it.  We don't need a programmer to teach us by directly coding us, we use TV, newspaper, conversations with friends, google searches, watching youtube, reddit posts, etc to be our experts and train our minds on new stuff.  So you don't need some guy behind a desk coding it all meticulously.  The robot can learn just like we do.  It won't exist in a vacuum like you supposed when you said it can't be its own expert.  That comment supposes the robot will have no outside influence and will try to teach itself everything with no outside sources of new information.  I've repeatedly stated that it will learn from many sources, even reading books and articles all the time and talking with people to learn from others all the time.  In a way, the world around it is the expert and codes it, and in a way it codes itself by observing the world around it like we do for our own minds.

[KerimF]

As far as a baby being born totally ignorant, that's not true.round, could make out faces, knew faces carried great significance, wanted to be near her parents and cried when taken away to NICU, there was TONS of knowledge already there like millions of lines of code if it was a AI.  So an AI cannot be considered baby stage until years of development already in.

Good point and I agree with you.
A baby (as I was 75 years ago) could be seen as an AI robot which is programmed in advance on how to survive (though with help).
I meant by his ignorance; he cannot perceive his unique existence among the existing humans around him and the world.
 

[artbyrobot]

As to babies not perceiving their unique existence among existing humans, I disagree.  I think they know who their parents are and that they belong to them as their baby and want them to care for them and my newborn even expressed dismay when carted away from the birth room, crying for the first time, but totally calm when with my wife and I.  I think she knew she was being taken from her parents.  Now this knowledge could have to do with scent, smelling their mother perhaps.  But she knew one way or another she was being taken from her primary caregivers IMO.  She surely could recognize our voices having heard them in the womb for many months, and I think she knew they came from people and she knew those people were significant and to be clung to.  A baby calf knows to stick very near their mother, same with bears.  The babies follow close behind the mother duck.  This isn't explained to them.  They know to do so.  I think MUCH knowledge is passed genetically.  So to get to a baby level, the AI already has to have a TON of knowledge as a foundation.  it is wrong to think a mind begins as a blank slate.  It is hard coded with a ton of base knowledge and rules before it begins the learning journey officially in living.

[Andy Chee]

Something you should also be aware about babies, is that they lack the sensory capability, visual and auditory acuity, and motor strength of an adult.

This is very different from your proposed robot, who has the intelligence of an infant, but the eyes, ears, and muscles of an adult.

[KerimF]

As to babies not perceiving their unique existence among existing humans, I disagree.

I am not sure about you, but I couldn't perceive my unique existence till age 14, if I remember well. Before this age, I didn't have my own perception of life, based on my own nature (this is another topic). I was just following what others around me may say and do.

[SteveThackery]

@artbyrobot, you wrote:  "As far as you thinking my AI is not novel or innovated as described, prove it.  Who else solved AI like this.  Nobody if they did we'd all be using it like we use chatgpt."

Come on, this is NOT how science works.  The person making the claim has to prove it, not the other way round.

And the problem is you've given us not one jot or tittle of evidence that you have broken what is probably one of the greatest outstanding challenges in AI research: how to make a rules-based AI take over from the experts and continue its own training. Do you imagine that nobody has tried before? That nobody has thought about the potential benefits of developing the existing model into something that will autonomically grow its own, rules-based, expertise?  I would like to suggest that it is a blindingly obvious next step for any researcher to explore.  Imagine the kudos afforded the developer if he could create a medical rules-based AI - perhaps to 3rd year student level - and then have it go away and turn itself into a consultant!

So I don't believe you have cracked it, and I don't believe anyone else has yet, either.  How would you handle the subtle complexities and nuance of facts that are provisional on dozens or hundreds of factors, which take consultants years to even begin to appreciate? Some rules are probably just too convoluted to be discovered. 

Now look, about that chair: if you seriously think that taping a lamp to the back of a chair counts as an "invention" then you really need to reassess how you are judging these things.  Inventions are supposed to be novel and non-obvious.

[SteveThackery]

Just did a Google search on "chair with built in reading light". You didn't invent it.

[wobbly]

Now look, about that chair: if you seriously think that taping a lamp to the back of a chair counts as an "invention" then you really need to reassess how you are judging these things.

Imagine how much better received this thread would have been had it been about some dude sticking a flashlight on the back of an armchair.

Actually, that would be pretty sweet, where's my duct-tape?

[xrunner]

Just did a Google search on "chair with built in reading light". You didn't invent it.

LOL I did the same thing, it ain't an "invention". 

Jeez - Even if I thought I needed a lamp on the back of my chair, and mounted one, I wouldn't even think to tell anyone. Much less calling it an "invention", and much much less than making a YT video about my "invention".

 

[SteveThackery]

I know!  A YT video!  

[Manul]

I know!  A YT video!  

Well, to be fair, there are many YT videos which are way more useless. Stupid jokes, TikTok stuff, all that sort of garbage. I'm leaning towards giving thumbs up to this "light on a chair" video. Minus the "invention" part. Would be more than enough to say "hey, guys, I've attached light to my chair and I really like it, you may as well give it a try".

[wobbly]

It truly is an innovation.  To my mind it opens the floodgates: how many things in our daily lives could be improved by gluing a lamp onto it?

Skateboards, dialysis machines, hammers, ball-point pens... the list is literally endless.

[RJSV]

   I do like the principal behind an attached lamp...but thats mainly a packaging advantage.
A PATENT might be possible,  but would be easy to bypass,  as,  for example,  an examiner would only allow 'Novelty' for protection.
   Probably could be some PATENT issued,  (EXPENSIVE !). But also likely so easy to bypass that it wouldn't attract investors,  etc.

   At any rate,  I've had to GOAD you to mention the THING would be an ELECTRIC DEVICE.   Likely not 'street legal',  and by that I mean you might not be able to send it out in the world,  in your local Community,  freely.

   But,  would like to here more,  about any PATENT application ?   Any Patent Office actions ?   They usually have several back and forth communications / actions,  etc. right away, during first 2 years after submitted.

   Maybe try reading up on writing structure and paragraph structure...(breaks).

[Alex Eisenhut]

how many things in our daily lives could be improved by gluing a lamp onto it?

Colonial Marines?

[xrunner]

The great discoveries keep coming. In this video he discovers that the breadboard he broke has these, like, spring connectors inside (he actually calls it a "great discovery") that could be used for all kinds of electronics connections. The amazing thing he discovers is that the spacing of the spring clips is exactly the same as the spacing of the pads on a prototyping PCB! Wow - I wonder how that could have happened!

Yes in the screenshot he exclaims "a new electrical connector I discovered for the electronics community".

This guy is simply amazing! So many inventions and discoveries in the videos.

[artbyrobot]

As to whether I've cracked how to get the robot to develop its own rules rather than have it only rely on rules I manually input myself, I have.  I have an iron clad method for this.  And a method for it inputting knowledge autonomously into its knowledge database.

As to the office chair invention, in this context, I am using the word invention to describe a novel (to my knowledge) way of putting a office lamp onto a chair for convenient access to light without a detached lamp with base getting in the way of your chair.  Anything I come up with that solves a problem and is unique to my knowledge I will publish as a video calling it an invention.  The word invention need not exclusively and necessarily refer to something that is a new product that you have verified is entirely never before seen, nor need it necessarily refer to something "non-obvious" and it need not refer to something where you plan to commercialize it and get a patent.  None of that is necessary to use the word invention.  Words can be used sometimes to mean different things in different contexts.

I use the word invention or invented outside of the more formal usage frequently.  Like I could say I invented a way to do this or that thing better.  Or I came up with a invention for this or that.  In this informal usage, I sort of use these words interchangeably with "creative solution".  To my knowledge this is fine to do.

[SteveThackery]

The great discoveries keep coming. In this video he discovers that the breadboard he broke has these, like, spring connectors inside (he actually calls it a "great discovery") that could be used for all kinds of electronics connections. The amazing thing he discovers is that the spacing of the spring clips is exactly the same as the spacing of the pads on a prototyping PCB! Wow - I wonder how that could have happened!

Yes in the screenshot he exclaims "a new electrical connector I discovered for the electronics community".

This guy is simply amazing! So many inventions and discoveries in the videos.

That video is absolutely extraordinary. Seriously, it gives a remarkable insight into.... no, not electrical connectors..... into the narrator himself.  The level of hubris, the self-delusion, the Dunning-Kruger-multiplied-by-a-hundred..... truly, it is a fantastic spectacle.  This guy ought to be an exhibit in an important museum somewhere,  because he surely is beyond unique.

Damn, the ad hominem burst out of me. I couldn't control it.  Sorry, moderators, feel free to delete this post.

I'm certain of one thing now - this robot will NEVER get built. Its AI will NEVER teach itself by reading books or program a bigger and better version of itself. @artbyrobot will NEVER program the rules into his robot that allow it to balance dynamically on two legs and walk across uneven ground.  Let alone dance.

Those are my predictions. What a waste of server space this thread is.

[abeyer]

Damn, the ad hominem burst out of me. I couldn't control it.

While I don't disagree... I also kind of think it's the tough love the OP needs to hear (though don't expect he will.)

I'm certain of one thing now - this robot will NEVER get built. Its AI will NEVER teach itself by reading books or program a bigger and better version of itself. @artbyrobot will NEVER program the rules into his robot that allow it to balance dynamically on two legs and walk across uneven ground.  Let alone dance.

After he claimed to have explained his "solution to AI" in the videos, my better angels abandoned me and I went and watched some of them... and came away firmly of the same belief.

What a waste of server space this thread is.

At least he hasn't followed up on the requests to post the code to his solution... given that it's already ~250k lines of C++ that doesn't actually do much of anything yet.    (also, it's one function, aside from the thousands of global variables outside the function.)

[Analog Kid]

I wouldn't wring my hands too much over the pitiful nature of this undertaking.

Some of us here are stocking up on the popcorn ...

[RJSV]

Analog Kid;  thanks,  I've read your impression, of the reality of delusions and hubris.   
   There was an old old TV episode that covers the subject,  of deceit that has entertaining elements:

(In the TV show). The 'Beav is a ten year old kid who befriends a HOBO.
The whole question was,  why was the HOBO allowed to go on,  with his (pathetic) lies ?

   "I never heard such a story.",  the 'Beav said;
"I knew he was lying,  so I'd give him my lunch money."

Readers following this sometimes just want to,  fire up the popcorn,  and watch the BS fly"!

[artbyrobot]

Well here's the head so far:

[RJSV]

   I would consider that the regulators will require a bunch of independently mobile 'creatures' to have IDENTIFICATION.
SSM-14.011.4471 Will be registered with local authorities...That sounds degrading, which brings up yet another question burden:

   ?   Will you be leaving out the uh,  useless emotions,  dreams,  and desires ?   Those pesky aspects of life might cause any manner of problems.   Of course they will never murder...

Morals,  might be replaced by selfish caution:
That means, "just don't get caught".
What mechanism to be in place, if you DO,  accidently get a murderous Bot,  in the midst ?
Do you create a system where they police themselves ?
   What if it tries to sue you ?

Questions are a burden to use all.  - - The Prisoner Patrick Mcgowen

[artbyrobot]

It will have a Bible based morality system in place.  So it could not murder because that would violate said system.  It could not sue because that would violate said system.  It also will not be able to decide to toss out the Bible based morality system.  This will be hard baked and not editable. 

As far as identification, yes, we know regulators are going to ruin everything like usual.

[artbyrobot]

So I finally got the wrist done. And aside from grinding off welds on bolts and backing off the bolts to allow for free movement at joints, I'm mostly going to try to keep this skeleton stock for the most part. So I may be attaching the hand and going immediately into electronics rather than fiddling with the skeleton adding more range of motion here and there. I can always add that later anyways. And in fact the poseable joints that are fairly stiff I'm finding is actually pretty convenient while working on it so I may only free joints on an as needed basis for testing electronic actuation of that joint. Until then I'll leave them alone.

Also note: I was planning to have the wrist rotate axially around the location of the wrist for the pronation and supination. However, I realized this will not look right since you can visibly see the forearms move and the muscles there moving when you pronate and supinate your arm. So I have to have the pronation and supination be where the skeleton was originally doing this near the elbow. This will allow for much more natural looking pronation and supination. So the wrist location will not rotate AT ALL after all. This made it all the easier to make the ulna and radius distal wrist joint where the little wrist bones and hand will attach to and rotate on. I sculpted it all in fiberglass and super glue with some nails and some ABS plastic pieces and epoxy to build up the shape. I used my ABS 3d print of this part as reference only. This thing needed to be very strong as it's likely going to the point of failure as the rest of the arm is steel. So I wanted to make sure it was maximally solid and didn't fully trust just going with a 3d print there.

[Andy Chee]

It will have a Bible based morality system in place.  So it could not murder because that would violate said system.  It could not sue because that would violate said system.  It also will not be able to decide to toss out the Bible based morality system.  This will be hard baked and not editable. 

What if someone tries to attack your robot in order to destroy it?  You said your robot will be programmed to defend itself.  How do you plan to program defensive capability without killing the attacker(s)?

If you have a rule to distinguish self-defense from murder, how have you defined this rule?

And if a legal court decides that the robot really committed murder, not self-defence, will the robot comply with the court ordered destruction of itself?  Or will self-preservation again take precedence?