--
"Mars was destroyed with weapons from the future.
There, does that make you feel any better?"
-- nu-monet
Correspondent:: nikolai kingsley Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 06:58:12 +1100
--------
> http://tinyurl.com/4k3j7
' ...Then it waved its hands, saying: "I will see you again next time
when I will have become wiser..."
".... HU-man."
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:44:06 -0700
--------
nikolai kingsley wrote:
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/4k3j7
>
> ' ...Then it waved its hands, saying: "I will
> see you again next time when I will have become
> wiser..."
>
> ".... HU-man."
Seriously, though, I think in the future this will
be seen as a big step in robot evolution.
To extrapolate, there are now entire cities that are
bluetooth wireless. Why not have entire cities where
the robots have a "hive"-style artificial intelligence?
Each robot would be like a PC in a distributed computing
network, no matter what they do invidually, with their
own personal set of instructions to accomplish stored
locally, yet relying on "big brother" to help it do
things it dosen't have the brains to do.
That way, the robot is far more concerned with doing
its job of *routine* things, *rote* things, and the
problem solving AI is left to the supercomputer.
Let's say you tell the robot to "take out the trash",
something it already "knows" how to do. But while on
its way, it encounters the obstacle of a dog sleeping
in its path. It asks "big brother" what to do. Big
brother tells it to zap the dog on its ass with a 5W
laser, then continue on with its mission.
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
Correspondent:: Rev DJ Epoch Date: 3 Feb 2005 23:28:10 GMT
--------
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote in
news:42028D16.42D@succeeds.com:
> nikolai kingsley wrote:
>>
>> > http://tinyurl.com/4k3j7
>>
>> ' ...Then it waved its hands, saying: "I will
>> see you again next time when I will have become
>> wiser..."
>>
>> ".... HU-man."
>
> Seriously, though, I think in the future this will
> be seen as a big step in robot evolution.
>
> To extrapolate, there are now entire cities that are
> bluetooth wireless. Why not have entire cities where
> the robots have a "hive"-style artificial intelligence?
>
> Each robot would be like a PC in a distributed computing
> network, no matter what they do invidually, with their
> own personal set of instructions to accomplish stored
> locally, yet relying on "big brother" to help it do
> things it dosen't have the brains to do.
>
> That way, the robot is far more concerned with doing
> its job of *routine* things, *rote* things, and the
> problem solving AI is left to the supercomputer.
>
> Let's say you tell the robot to "take out the trash",
> something it already "knows" how to do. But while on
> its way, it encounters the obstacle of a dog sleeping
> in its path. It asks "big brother" what to do. Big
> brother tells it to zap the dog on its ass with a 5W
> laser, then continue on with its mission.
>
You really want to live in the Borg collective?
--
12th Epochalyptic MegaFisTemple Dungeon of The Church of Our Lady of
Perpetual Motion
Cathedral, Carwash and Dancehall- Home of the Traci Lords Memorial Brothel
Rev. DJ Epoch - proprietor and janitor
Divine Southern Redneck Yeti Clench Recruitment site: http://revdjepoch.COM
"Yeah yeah. It's all fun and games until someone ingests a quantum
singularity and implodes!!"
-- DJ Epoch
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:04:31 -0800
--------
On 3 Feb 2005 23:28:10 GMT, Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
>> Let's say you tell the robot to "take out the trash",
>> something it already "knows" how to do. But while on
>> its way, it encounters the obstacle of a dog sleeping
>> in its path. It asks "big brother" what to do. Big
>> brother tells it to zap the dog on its ass with a 5W
>> laser, then continue on with its mission.
>>
>
>You really want to live in the Borg collective?
as long as we're the masters and they're the borgs
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
I just can't see Howdy Doody in a debate without a hand up his ass.
- GW Bush in a nutshell
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:33:55 -0700
--------
Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
>
> > Let's say you tell the robot to "take out the trash",
> > something it already "knows" how to do. But while on
> > its way, it encounters the obstacle of a dog sleeping
> > in its path. It asks "big brother" what to do. Big
> > brother tells it to zap the dog on its ass with a 5W
> > laser, then continue on with its mission.
> >
>
> You really want to live in the Borg collective?
>
There is a big difference between this and a hive mind
kind of deal, and even the distributed computing technique
is different.
Here is an analogy, putting you in the place of the robot.
You have a cell phone and a WIFI PDA that you can use like
an Internet laptop. You also have glasses that can act
as a semi-transparent monitor, with tiny speakers next to
your ears to hear audio. Your glasses also have a camera
so somebody else can see what you are seeing.
Geeky, granted, but not entirely unrealistic. Pretty much
"right now" technologies.
Anyway, you go about your business, doing whatever it is
you want to do, until you need to know something, or to
reference something. If it is from a person, you call
them on your cell phone. If you are looking at something
and you don't know what it is, or what to do with it,
*they* can go online and see what you are seeing. Then they
can tell you what it is or what to do.
But the point is that unless they are your boss, you really
don't share more than a tidbit of info with them, and they
certainly don't have any real control over you.
Now, because a robot is best at performing repetitive tasks,
cramming it full of AI and "artificial stupidity" (really)
hardware and software takes up a tremendous amount of power
and space. It is already pretty full of stuff just to do
its basic robot thing, like ASIMO. So instead, you could
use its computing power and space to make it a more refined
system.
For example, right now, electro-chemical muscles have been
developed that are far more animal-like in their movement
than machine parts. Think of a bag of goo that contracts
when electricity is applied to it. Of course, it takes a
lot of these bags to replicate the muscles in a single
limb, each one needing to be independantly controlled, yet
working in a coordinated fashion.
If you want smoother or more subtle movement, you use more
than a single "muscle", you have a group, working in
parallel. But this really increases the amount of
computing power needed. And that's just muscles.
As far as robot-human interaction goes, voice recognition
is really pretty good, as is generated text-to-speech.
But at a particular point, using the AI assets of a much
more powerful system will really improve "communication".
Most of this can be kept on a stationary 'assistance'
computer that is near, but not part of the robot. If the
'assistant' can't help, it references "big brother" to ask
a question. It can also screen "big brothers" answer for
context and permissions.
Another example: a robot is helping you build something.
You ask it to hand you a phillips head screwdriver from
your tool box.
The robot itself answers "yes", in that its speech to text
did not report an error. It can determine what you said
and what the words generally meant, in the context of your
sentence.
The robot then asks its local 'assistant': what is a
phillips head screwdriver?, and what is a tool box? Both
objects are known to the 'assistant', which also places
the phillips head in context, i.e., in the box. So it
gives the robot a search order for the parameters of the
tool box.
The robot then compares objects in a search pattern to
find the tool box. When it locates what it thinks is the
tool box, it gets a confirmation from the 'assistant'.
The assistant, "seeing" the toolbox through the robot's
sensors, determines that the toolbox is closed, but not
latched. So it activates a "how to open a toolbox that
is closed but not latched" subroutine for the robot to
follow.
The the robot adjusts itself to "look" inside the tool
box, and to search for a phillips head screwdriver. If
it can't find one, it audibly asks the human "what does
it look like?"
Human replies, "It's the one with the green handle."
'Assistant' directs search for phillips head + green
handle, but still doesn't find it. Asks again.
Human says, "It's the greasy one."
Not having sensors to detect grease, the robot asks the
'assistant', which has no answer, so it asks the super-
computer what the parameters for a "greasy" phillips
head screwdriver with a green handle would be.
The large area supercomputer then uses its AI to guess
that the greenness of the handle may be obscured by the
grease. And then a miracle of modern science happens.
The supercomputer, the 'assistant', and finally the
robot say to the human, "There isn't a phillips head
screwdriver with a green handle in here."
The human then walks over, looks himself, and says,
"Shit, who took my screwdriver?"
At no time was it neccessary for the robot to plunge a
screwdriver into the skull of the human.
--
"If you can't be the head, don't be
the backside because there is nothing
there but a tail."
-- Saddam Hussein
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:12:06 -0800
--------
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:33:55 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:
>Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
>>
>> > Let's say you tell the robot to "take out the trash",
>> > something it already "knows" how to do. But while on
>> > its way, it encounters the obstacle of a dog sleeping
>> > in its path. It asks "big brother" what to do. Big
>> > brother tells it to zap the dog on its ass with a 5W
>> > laser, then continue on with its mission.
>> >
>>
>> You really want to live in the Borg collective?
>>
>
>There is a big difference between this and a hive mind
>kind of deal, and even the distributed computing technique
>is different.
really a hive mind is different from all of that.
In a true hive mind, there is no central controller, no centralized
anything. A hive of bees builds a beehive, a very complicated feat of
engineering, beyond any individual bee's thinking ability.
The bees have a loose colony instinct, an instinct to group with
others of their kind. Another fairly simple instinct works against
over-grouping and therefore overpopulating.
An individual bee follows a small number of instincts to gather
materials and bring them to the hive under construction. He doesn't
know why. It just makes him feel good. Another bee, a worker,
follows a simple instinct to move that material around a certain way.
Another worker likewise follows an urge to spit up all over some
papery substance and shove his hands in it and smear it around, but
where he smears it exactly depends on where the first worker smeared
his shit.
Their actions, taken alone, would be completely pointless. And there
is no central genius-bee watching them and saying "no fred, frank
already built the point of that hexagonal honey storage cell, you need
to shore up the side".
It's exactly because what they do it pointless that there's a point to
it at all. Fred's urge to smear shit around has to prefer a side when
he is working near a point and vice versa.
It's similar to the way birds fly in a v-formation.
An individual bird has an urge to fly behind and to the left of
another bird. But, the urge varies, and if there are already a lot of
birds on the left then the bird flies on the right. Almost identical
instinct, he just switches sides. And under just the right
circumstances, one bird decides to fly in front.
Anyway a fairly small number of fairly simple programs leads to very
complex behavior.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
You have grown sophisticated enough to realize that the Devil is a projection of
your own psyche, but you have not grown wise enough to learn how to use your
creativity constructively
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:23:51 -0800
--------
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:12:06 -0800, Zapanaz
wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:33:55 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
> wrote:
>
>>Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
>>>
>>> > Let's say you tell the robot to "take out the trash",
>>> > something it already "knows" how to do. But while on
>>> > its way, it encounters the obstacle of a dog sleeping
>>> > in its path. It asks "big brother" what to do. Big
>>> > brother tells it to zap the dog on its ass with a 5W
>>> > laser, then continue on with its mission.
>>> >
>>>
>>> You really want to live in the Borg collective?
>>>
>>
>>There is a big difference between this and a hive mind
>>kind of deal, and even the distributed computing technique
>>is different.
>
>really a hive mind is different from all of that.
>
>In a true hive mind, there is no central controller, no centralized
>anything. A hive of bees builds a beehive, a very complicated feat of
>engineering, beyond any individual bee's thinking ability.
>
>The bees have a loose colony instinct, an instinct to group with
>others of their kind. Another fairly simple instinct works against
>over-grouping and therefore overpopulating.
>
>An individual bee follows a small number of instincts to gather
>materials and bring them to the hive under construction. He doesn't
>know why. It just makes him feel good. Another bee, a worker,
>follows a simple instinct to move that material around a certain way.
>Another worker likewise follows an urge to spit up all over some
>papery substance and shove his hands in it and smear it around, but
>where he smears it exactly depends on where the first worker smeared
>his shit.
>
>Their actions, taken alone, would be completely pointless. And there
>is no central genius-bee watching them and saying "no fred, frank
>already built the point of that hexagonal honey storage cell, you need
>to shore up the side".
>
>It's exactly because what they do it pointless that there's a point to
>it at all. Fred's urge to smear shit around has to prefer a side when
>he is working near a point and vice versa.
>
>It's similar to the way birds fly in a v-formation.
>
>An individual bird has an urge to fly behind and to the left of
>another bird. But, the urge varies, and if there are already a lot of
>birds on the left then the bird flies on the right. Almost identical
>instinct, he just switches sides. And under just the right
>circumstances, one bird decides to fly in front.
>
>Anyway a fairly small number of fairly simple programs leads to very
>complex behavior.
Really a lot of the crazy stuff that people do is, I think, vestigial
hive mind behavior. We obviously have instincts that make no sense on
an individual level but seem to form complex behavior on a group
level.
Primitive stuff. The way people need a king-figure and project all of
the attributes of a stone-age "divine king" on like the president.
It's primeval. Humans have been doing it for a long time.
Personally I think a lot of conspiracy-theory type stuff has an
element of truth in that. The conspiracy theorists are always finding
all this stone-age magical symbolism revolving around big, significant
cultural events, like finding pentagrams in the Kennedy assassination
or Diana Spencer's death site. Maybe at some instinctive, collective
level, we did act as a collective to kill Kennedy, subtle behavior
that seemed meaningless in itself but taken together acted out the
prehistoric "killing of the king" drama. And somehow Oswald was just
the worker bee who the collective chose to act the drama out.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Cheese is the inevitable result of atomic physics
The Incredible Sulk
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0" Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:35:14 -0700
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> A hive of bees builds a beehive, a very complicated
> feat of engineering, beyond any individual bee's
> thinking ability.
There is a problem with this assumption, that is, in
distinguishing between intellect and instinct. In the
case of bees instinct is their intellect. But there
is no way of quatifying instinct to determine what a
bee *might* do, just what a bee does.
An immortal bee might be well able to construct an
entire beehive on his own, yet do so entirely from
instinct, no intellect involved. And yet, in its
short life, the most physical action a bee could do
would only be a fraction of what it might do.
On top of that, bees communicate with each other, both
by gesture and chemical message. And in that case,
bees who receive the messages may or may not continue
doing what they were doing. Some pass the messages
along, some do not. The *process* of this is complex.
First, *a* bee experiences something that overrules
what the bee was doing, be it an intruder into the
hive, the detection of a food supply, or to notice
that the hive is too warm. It then, on its own, seeks
out other bees and gives them gesture and chemical
notification of what it has experienced.
In the case of food, bees will indicate both direction
and distance in their gestures. Complex behavior.
Behavior far beyond a given bees intellect, but not
beyond its individual instinctual knowledge, which must
be very complex indeed.
--
"If you can't be the head, don't be
the backside because there is nothing
there but a tail."
-- Saddam Hussein
Correspondent:: "sputnik" Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 04:43:19 GMT
--------
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote in message
news:42028D16.42D@succeeds.com...
> nikolai kingsley wrote:
> >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/4k3j7
> >
> > ' ...Then it waved its hands, saying: "I will
> > see you again next time when I will have become
> > wiser..."
> >
> > ".... HU-man."
>
> Seriously, though, I think in the future this will
> be seen as a big step in robot evolution.
>
> To extrapolate, there are now entire cities that are
> bluetooth wireless. Why not have entire cities where
> the robots have a "hive"-style artificial intelligence?
>
> Each robot would be like a PC in a distributed computing
> network, no matter what they do invidually, with their
> own personal set of instructions to accomplish stored
> locally, yet relying on "big brother" to help it do
> things it dosen't have the brains to do.
>
> That way, the robot is far more concerned with doing
> its job of *routine* things, *rote* things, and the
> problem solving AI is left to the supercomputer.
Oh My God! Haven't you ever watched I Robot??????
They'll all kill us in our beds!
WWWSD? (What would Will Smith Do?)
Correspondent:: "Paul E. Jamison" Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 05:56:25 -0600
--------
"sputnik" wrote in message
news:H3DMd.9343$uc.8240@trnddc08...
>
> "nu-monet v7.0" wrote in message
> news:42028D16.42D@succeeds.com...
> > nikolai kingsley wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/4k3j7
> > >
> > > ' ...Then it waved its hands, saying: "I will
> > > see you again next time when I will have become
> > > wiser..."
> > >
> > > ".... HU-man."
> >
> > Seriously, though, I think in the future this will
> > be seen as a big step in robot evolution.
> >
> > To extrapolate, there are now entire cities that are
> > bluetooth wireless. Why not have entire cities where
> > the robots have a "hive"-style artificial intelligence?
> >
> > Each robot would be like a PC in a distributed computing
> > network, no matter what they do invidually, with their
> > own personal set of instructions to accomplish stored
> > locally, yet relying on "big brother" to help it do
> > things it dosen't have the brains to do.
> >
> > That way, the robot is far more concerned with doing
> > its job of *routine* things, *rote* things, and the
> > problem solving AI is left to the supercomputer.
>
>
> Oh My God! Haven't you ever watched I Robot??????
> They'll all kill us in our beds!
>
> WWWSD? (What would Will Smith Do?)
>
A real funky rap. That'll fix 'em!
Paul
Correspondent:: nikolai kingsley Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:02:28 +1100
--------
>>' ...Then it waved its hands, saying: "I will
>>see you again next time when I will have become
>>wiser..."
>>
>>".... HU-man."
>
> Seriously, though, I think in the future this will
> be seen as a big step in robot evolution.
if science fiction has taught us nothing else, it's that GOAL-SEEKING
MACHINERY IS BAD. someone always fucks up with the programming and it
turns on you.