Re: What is the state of Robotics Currently.
- From: fox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 30 May 2006 23:46:56 -0700
Curt Welch wrote:
My main interest is in AI, not robotics. I am a hobbyist but yet a still
have I have a good understanding of the field of AI. No one has invented a
machine than can learn, on its own, to do all those things. The current
learning algorithms are very limited. They tend to only be applied, and
work with, very specific toy problems.
I design and program new computers. My background includes AI
too.
Algorithms are not the problem. Toy computers do well on toy problems
but serious computers are expensive. I accept that you can't afford
a supersonic plane, I don't accept that that means that they are
impossible and don't exist at all.
You are not taking into account the fact that human learning skills
are not a fixed quantity. Average human skills are dropping about as
fast as computer capabilities are rising.
I've never heard that reported. What data is there to support that idea?
I could point you to a lot of books and scientific papers. I would
recommend Jaques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence or The
Twilight of American Culture by Morris Berman as excellent
references to trends like the decline of literacy. You know,
over half of American's don't know if the sun goes around the
earth or the earth goes around the sun etc.
Consider that if a neuron can be simulated with 100 instructions ...
Well, those calculates are very questionable (as are all attempts to
estimate the amount of computing power to duplicate human intelligence
since no one knows what computer power is needed - it's still an apples to
oranges comparison at best).
I was just using a rule of thumb offered here by Hans Moovec a few
years ago. Read his book Mind Children for more details..
Your arguments seem to have mixed up the idea of simulating
neurons on a digital computer with simulating a digital computer
using neurons.
I design and program new computers for a living. They are optimized
for things like AI and robotics. This is a mixture of abstraction,
large
computations, realtime performance, low cost, and lower power use.
Designing new computers is mostly about simulating transistors
so I could not disagree more that simulating transistors is not
important.
We don't need to simulate transistors to create a computer,
Who is the "WE" you refer to creating new computers? That
certainly doesn't include me or the people I work with or the
people that they worked with at Intel or General Dynamics
or whatever.
and we won't
create intelligent machines by simulating neurons in software.
Who is the "WE" you refer to as creating intelligent machines?
That doesn't include me or the people who I have worked with who
did that with your tax money.
In a lot of cutting edge science people are using computers to
simulate neurons, or using genetic algorithms to make new
discoveries for them. Some of the hardware and software that
most impress people was not really designed by people.
I suspect however that as we finish mastering the technology, that is
exactly what we will end up with - custom hardware that if built with
today's electronics technology, would only be the size of desk top
computer.
We? Who is this we?
In the end, I expect our machines will be substantially
smaller than a human brain in order to duplicate it's same power.
Is that the end of time, or just the end of humans?
long to make society believe. I believe it was only a few years to get rid
of the doubters in the case of the Wright Brothers work.
Well it depends on whom you asked and when. You know there are
people who don't think man actually went to the moon.
With the speed of
communication we have today, word would spread very fast - if only we had
something to show them.
Judging what technology exists by what the public is told is a very bad
idea. If you are part of the 'we' you know that the trick is getting
close to,
but not crossing the line of what the public is allowed to know. What
can
be made public is often a few decades behind what is classified. The
trick to commercializing technology is to not get too far ahead of what
the public is allowed to know about.
Here is a view of history: When _____ was still classified it was
common
knowledge that what it did was impossible.
My favorite is when amatuer scientists tell you that you can't break
the
laws of physics. It's funny, I thought that is what physicists
try to do every day, break the old laws, develop new ones. And
they are not interested in only things that the average person
already accepts.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What is the state of Robotics Currently.
- From: Curt Welch
- Re: What is the state of Robotics Currently.
- References:
- What is the state of Robotics Currently.
- From: Sanny
- Re: What is the state of Robotics Currently.
- From: fox
- Re: What is the state of Robotics Currently.
- From: Curt Welch
- Re: What is the state of Robotics Currently.
- From: fox
- Re: What is the state of Robotics Currently.
- From: Curt Welch
- What is the state of Robotics Currently.
- Prev by Date: Anyone know a good cheap relay for 120VAC loads
- Next by Date: Re: Roboscout - Any info?
- Previous by thread: Re: What is the state of Robotics Currently.
- Next by thread: Re: What is the state of Robotics Currently.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|