Welcome to the Forum for InventorSpot.com, the most popular invention related website in the world. Read our welcome message.
Moderators: Michelle, Scrupulous, Roger Brown, citizen
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Google Me This
by Scrupulous » Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:04 pm
-
Scrupulous - Black Belt
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:32 pm
- Location: United States
It's that context-sensitive advertising at the bottom of the page that still amuses me.
I'm trying to see just how easy/hard it is to get what you want to show up there. Don't ask me why.
But, I figure if I write alot about say...artificial intelligence, then something about it may show up down below.
See, artificial intelligence is a rather interesting subject. Some say that all intelligence is artificial, being that we were created.
I saw the movie Artificial Intelligence one time, in band camp. I think it was titled AI. But, I thought it was a tad dull and incontinuous, if there is such a word. I do think Jude Law is pretty talented, though. And, I imagine that Stanley Kubrick had a bigger say in the first part of the film, than he did the second part.
They say artificial intelligence is right around the corner. I wonder if it is any easier to engineer self-replicating biological robots than it is to engineer self-replicating mechanical robots. Or is there a difference?
I'm trying to see just how easy/hard it is to get what you want to show up there. Don't ask me why.
But, I figure if I write alot about say...artificial intelligence, then something about it may show up down below.
See, artificial intelligence is a rather interesting subject. Some say that all intelligence is artificial, being that we were created.
I saw the movie Artificial Intelligence one time, in band camp. I think it was titled AI. But, I thought it was a tad dull and incontinuous, if there is such a word. I do think Jude Law is pretty talented, though. And, I imagine that Stanley Kubrick had a bigger say in the first part of the film, than he did the second part.
They say artificial intelligence is right around the corner. I wonder if it is any easier to engineer self-replicating biological robots than it is to engineer self-replicating mechanical robots. Or is there a difference?
artificial intelligence - Re: Google Me This
by JoeWaisman » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:56 pm
-
JoeWaisman - Green Belt
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:10 pm
In truth I was thinking about this form of artificial intelligence just the other day. I presently know how to build a robot that walks as people do. Coding the visual inputs is a little tricky, but coding the balance part is not. In truth all you have to do for balance is understand the formulas for momentum and balance for each individual body part and have them respond so that the aggregate center of weight is somewhere within the center of the system. This would be similar to the intelligence of the Segway. Of course you'd want to program the device so that it could learn, which would involve artificial intelligence.
The reality is that we could very well create, mass produce, market and sell robots today. Artificial intelligence is not yet up to par, and requires a great deal of processing. Now if we had something organic we could create protein based processing for example. We know that although the human mind has many flaws we can't match the same processing power efficiently with present electronics, so either that has to improve or perhaps we should be looking into organic artificial intelligence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
You will find that the wiki description of artificial intelligence is a bit vague. There is an implied and explicit definition and they are not the same. In general we as humans think artificial intelligence means human intelligence, which is how the two definitions occur. The explicit definition of artificial intelligence is something that learns from its history, and has the ability to predict basic events with some accuracy (I expect to be eating lunch soon for example), and also simplifies and improves its own algorithms. As humans we also specialize, so that a task we are familiar with becomes easier the more we do it (typing anyone?)...I wonder if anyone is looking into ways of adding that to artificial intelligence. For the implied definition artificial intelligence can be thought of as something that interacts with its environment. This is a flawed definition, but none the less if I see a robot, smile at it, and it smiles and waves back at me it will seem more human even if the programming driving it is not changing and a form of artificial intelligence.
As an avid futurama fan the thing that scares me about robots is what will happen when (not if) we put one in every household? Artificial intelligence or no their energy usage and potential waste could be an issue. The ideal would be to make robots that are part of the ecosystem. Something that takes in waste of some sort and spits out oxygen and soil would be nice. In truth I know how to make a robot walk atm. It's a fairly simple problem actually. Once you have that we could actually have bi-petal robots. I know artificial intelligence and robotics are not the same, but they can be tied at the hip at times.
The reality is that we could very well create, mass produce, market and sell robots today. Artificial intelligence is not yet up to par, and requires a great deal of processing. Now if we had something organic we could create protein based processing for example. We know that although the human mind has many flaws we can't match the same processing power efficiently with present electronics, so either that has to improve or perhaps we should be looking into organic artificial intelligence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
You will find that the wiki description of artificial intelligence is a bit vague. There is an implied and explicit definition and they are not the same. In general we as humans think artificial intelligence means human intelligence, which is how the two definitions occur. The explicit definition of artificial intelligence is something that learns from its history, and has the ability to predict basic events with some accuracy (I expect to be eating lunch soon for example), and also simplifies and improves its own algorithms. As humans we also specialize, so that a task we are familiar with becomes easier the more we do it (typing anyone?)...I wonder if anyone is looking into ways of adding that to artificial intelligence. For the implied definition artificial intelligence can be thought of as something that interacts with its environment. This is a flawed definition, but none the less if I see a robot, smile at it, and it smiles and waves back at me it will seem more human even if the programming driving it is not changing and a form of artificial intelligence.
As an avid futurama fan the thing that scares me about robots is what will happen when (not if) we put one in every household? Artificial intelligence or no their energy usage and potential waste could be an issue. The ideal would be to make robots that are part of the ecosystem. Something that takes in waste of some sort and spits out oxygen and soil would be nice. In truth I know how to make a robot walk atm. It's a fairly simple problem actually. Once you have that we could actually have bi-petal robots. I know artificial intelligence and robotics are not the same, but they can be tied at the hip at times.
___________________________________________
"The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad."
Fun links:
*http://www.scribd.com/doc/441708/Bad-Predictions-About-Great-Inventions
"The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad."
Fun links:
*http://www.scribd.com/doc/441708/Bad-Predictions-About-Great-Inventions
Re: Google Me This
by Scrupulous » Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:55 pm
-
Scrupulous - Black Belt
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:32 pm
- Location: United States
Every time I see the Honda Asimo, I say that's very cool...I wonder what happens if it falls down. I imagine it might have the programming to right itself and/or pick itself up. It makes you think though. The ability to repeatedly get back up, after falling down, would give any robot a very life-like appeal.
I'm sure it's not as easy as it sounds, and requires a great deal more processing than simply walking in a straight line does. But, I'd be willing to bet that the command sequence for getting off of the ground would have to take precedence over most all other processes. That is... if the bot is going to expect to be taken seriously. So, you start to see where certain behaviours almost necessitate putting the safety of others on the back-burner. Then it gets into how much force could and should be metered for such basic routines, and when do difficult decisions need to be made on behalf of RoboGoofy.
I'm sure it's not as easy as it sounds, and requires a great deal more processing than simply walking in a straight line does. But, I'd be willing to bet that the command sequence for getting off of the ground would have to take precedence over most all other processes. That is... if the bot is going to expect to be taken seriously. So, you start to see where certain behaviours almost necessitate putting the safety of others on the back-burner. Then it gets into how much force could and should be metered for such basic routines, and when do difficult decisions need to be made on behalf of RoboGoofy.
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1