Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
Bob Mottram wrote: On 10/02/2008, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems we have different ideas about what AGI is. It is not a product that you can make and sell. It is a service that will evolve from the desire to automate human labor, currently valued at $66 trillion per year. Yes. I think the best way to think about the sort of robotics that we can reasonably expect to see in the near future is as physical artifacts which provide a service. Most robotics intelligence will be provided as remotely hosted services, because this means that you can build the physical machine very cheaply with minimal hardware onboard, and also to a large extent make it future-proof. I can see this for managing the download/installation of capabilities with periodic feedback of experience. It is less likely that centralized systems would effectively teleoperate large numbers of remote robots. The bandwidth and complexity would go up rapidly. It also enables the kinds of collective subconscious which Ben has talked about in the context of Second Life agents. As more computational intelligence comes online a dumb robot just subscribes to the new service (at a cost to the user, of course) What for? It may be part of the selling point of general robotics that your unit gains abilities at no additional charge over time. and with no hardware changes it's suddenly smarter and able to do more stuff. Ugly things like Sarbannes-Oxley accounting rules could come into play limiting what sorts of mods are allowed or how they are priced. - samantha - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
It's worth noting in this connection that once you get up to the level of mammals, everything is very high compliance, low stiffness, mostly serial joint architecture (no natural Stewart platforms, although you can of course grab something with two hands if need be) typically with significant energy storage in the power train (i.e. springs). This means that the control has to be fully Newtonian, something most commercial robotics haven't gotten up to yet. I think that state of the art is just now getting to dynamically-stable-only biped walkers. I've seen a couple of articles in the past year, but it certainly isn't widespread, and it remains to be seen how real. Josh On Sunday 10 February 2008 04:35:13 pm, Bob Mottram wrote: The idea that robotics is only about software is fiction. Good automation involves cooperation between software, electrical and mechanical engineers. In some cases problems are much better solved electromechanically than by software. For example, no matter how smart the software controlling it, a two fingered gripper will only be able to deal with a limited sub-set of manipulation tasks. Likewise a great deal of computation can be avoided by introducing variable compliance, and making clever use of materials to juggle energy around the system (biological creatures use these tricks all the time). - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
On 11/02/2008, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that state of the art is just now getting to dynamically-stable-only biped walkers. I've seen a couple of articles in the past year, but it certainly isn't widespread, and it remains to be seen how real. Famous robots such as ASIMO are far less energy efficient than humans in bipedal locomotion. The passive/dynamic aproach has become more popular in recent years, with some research robots approaching human levels of energy efficiency. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shc/robots.html - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
Bob Mottram wrote: On 11/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But now, by contrast, if you are assuming (as Matt does, I believe) that somehow a cluster of sub-intelligent specialists across the net will gradually increase in intelligence until their sum total amounts to a full AI, then you are begging some enormous questions. The army of experts is only one possibility. Probably like most people on this list I think producing more intelligent machines is going to require a more closely integrated cognitive architecture. Integration however doesn't mean that the system has to reside on a single computer or physical device. No, agreed: what I was really arguing against was a scenario that comes up frequently, in which AI is achieved by accident, so to speak, as a lot of expert systems gradually accumulate in the net. There is no reason, as you say, why someone should not design a complete AI system that was distributed. In practice, I think that any organization that will have the wherewithal to do that will take firm steps to keep it in house. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote: Hmmm. I'd suspect you'd spend all your time and effort organizing the people. Orgs can grow that fast if they're grocery stores or something else the new hires already pretty much understand, but I don't see that happening smoothly in a pure research setting. I would not be organizing the company: my COO will do that. My plan is predicated on a particular research approach, and that research would not be like putting a few hundred conventional AI people together and trying to herd them (I shudder at the thought). I have a very specific plan already worked out, so I would hire specialists capable of taking on each component of the work. In that sense, it would be 10% research and 90% implementation. About exactly the reverse of what you would get in a univiersity AI department. In fact, the situation is superfically similar to Doug Lenat's approach: he decided on a plan, then hired people to carry out the specific plan, with only (I am guessing... Stephen?) 10% research, whil ethe other 90% was about ontologizing. I'd claim to be able to do it in 10 years with 30 people with the following provisos: 1. same 30 people the whole time 2. ten teams of 3: researcher, programmer, systems guy 3. all 30 have IQ 150 4. big hardware budget, all we build is software ... but I expect that the hardware for a usable body will be there in 10 years, so just buy it. Project looks like this: yrs 1-5: getting the basic learning algs worked out and running yrs 6-10: teaching the robot to walk, manipulate, balance, pour, understand kitchens, make coffee It's totally worthless to build a robot that had to be programmed to be able to make coffee. One that can understand how to do it by watching people do so, however, is absolutely the key to an extremely valuable level of intelligence. 100% agreement on that. Richard Loosemore Josh On Friday 08 February 2008 11:46:51 am, Richard Loosemore wrote: My assumptions are these. 1) A team size (very) approximately as follows: - Year 1: 10 - Year 2: 10 - Year 3: 100 - Year 4: 300 - Year 5: 800 - Year 6: 2000 - Year 7: 3000 - Year 8: 4000 2) Main Project(s) launched each year: - Year 1: AI software development environment - Year 2: AI software development environment - Year 3: Low-level cognitive mechanism experiments - Year 4: Global architecture experiments; Sensorimotor integration - Year 5: Motivational system and development tests - Year 6: (continuation of above) - Year 7: (continuation of above) - Year 8: Autonomous tests in real world situations The tests in Year 8 would be heavily supervised, but by that stage it should be possible for it to get on a bus, go to the suburban home, put the kettle on (if there was one: if not, go shopping to buy whatever supplies might be needed), then make the pot of tea (loose leaf of course: no robot of mine is going to be a barbarian tea-bag user) and serve it. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob Mottram wrote: On 11/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But now, by contrast, if you are assuming (as Matt does, I believe) that somehow a cluster of sub-intelligent specialists across the net will gradually increase in intelligence until their sum total amounts to a full AI, then you are begging some enormous questions. The army of experts is only one possibility. Probably like most people on this list I think producing more intelligent machines is going to require a more closely integrated cognitive architecture. Integration however doesn't mean that the system has to reside on a single computer or physical device. No, agreed: what I was really arguing against was a scenario that comes up frequently, in which AI is achieved by accident, so to speak, as a lot of expert systems gradually accumulate in the net. There is no reason, as you say, why someone should not design a complete AI system that was distributed. In practice, I think that any organization that will have the wherewithal to do that will take firm steps to keep it in house. The idea behind my distributed search/message posting service is an infrastructure that motivates the provision of useful services. It is an economic system based on the currency of information, which has negative value. Peers compete for bandwidth and storage by providing value and developing a reputation so that other peers will copy and forward its messages. AI doesn't just happen. There is an incentive to make it happen. But no organization will control it. It is too big for that. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
Charles D Hixson wrote: Richard Loosemore wrote: J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote: On Friday 08 February 2008 10:16:43 am, Richard Loosemore wrote: J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote: Any system builders here care to give a guess as to how long it will be before a robot, with your system as its controller, can walk into the average suburban home, find the kitchen, make coffee, and serve it? Eight years. My system, however, will go one better: it will be able to make a pot of the finest Broken Orange Pekoe and serve it. In the average suburban home? (No fair having the robot bring its own teabags, (or would it be loose tea and strainer?) or having a coffee machine built in, for that matter). It has to live off the land... Nope, no cheating. My assumptions are these. 1) A team size (very) approximately as follows: - Year 1: 10 - Year 2: 10 - Year 3: 100 - Year 4: 300 - Year 5: 800 - Year 6: 2000 - Year 7: 3000 - Year 8: 4000 2) Main Project(s) launched each year: - Year 1: AI software development environment - Year 2: AI software development environment - Year 3: Low-level cognitive mechanism experiments - Year 4: Global architecture experiments; Sensorimotor integration - Year 5: Motivational system and development tests - Year 6: (continuation of above) - Year 7: (continuation of above) - Year 8: Autonomous tests in real world situations The tests in Year 8 would be heavily supervised, but by that stage it should be possible for it to get on a bus, go to the suburban home, put the kettle on (if there was one: if not, go shopping to buy whatever supplies might be needed), then make the pot of tea (loose leaf of course: no robot of mine is going to be a barbarian tea-bag user) and serve it. FWIW, the average suburban home around here has coffee, but not tea. So you've now added the test of shopping in a local supermarket. I don't believe it. Not in eight years. It wouldn't be allowed past the cash register without human help. Note that this has nothing to do with how intelligent the system is. Maybe it would be intelligent enough, if it's environment were sane. But a robot? Either it would be seen as a Hollywood gimmick, or people would refuse to deal with it. Robots will first appear in controlled environments. Hospitals, home, stockrooms...other non-public-facing environments. (I'm excluding non-humanoid robots. Those, especially immobile forms, won't have the same level of resistance.) Well, I am not talking about the event proceeding without anyone noticing: I assume it will be done as a demonstration, so what the robot looks like will not matter. I imagine it would be followed by a press mob. The point is only whether the system could manage the problems involved in doing the shopping and then making the tea. And I think that other things will be happening at the same time anyway: I suspect that new medicines will already be coming out of the lab, from an immobile version of the same system. So if people are skittish about the tea-making robot, they will at least see that there are other, obviously beneficial products on the way. Really, though, the question is whether such a system could be built, from the technical point of view. My only point is that IF the resources were available, it could be done. That is based on my understanding of the timeline for my own project. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=93208591-d770cb
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
It seems we have different ideas about what AGI is. It is not a product that you can make and sell. It is a service that will evolve from the desire to automate human labor, currently valued at $66 trillion per year. I outlined a design in http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html It consists of lots of narrow specialists and an infrastructure for routing messages to the right experts. Nobody will control it or own it. I am not going to build it. It will be more complex than any human is capable of understanding. But there is enough economic incentive that it will be built in some form, regardless. The major technical obstacle is natural language modeling, which is required by the protocol. (Thus, my research in text compression). I realize that a full (Turing test) model can only be learned by having a full range of human experiences in a human body. But AGI is not about reproducing human form or human thinking. We used human servants in the past because that was what was available, not because it was the best solution. The problem is not to build a robot to pour your coffee. The problem is time, money, Maslow's hierarchy of needs. A solution could just as well be coffee from a can, ready to drink. --- J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm. I'd suspect you'd spend all your time and effort organizing the people. Orgs can grow that fast if they're grocery stores or something else the new hires already pretty much understand, but I don't see that happening smoothly in a pure research setting. I'd claim to be able to do it in 10 years with 30 people with the following provisos: 1. same 30 people the whole time 2. ten teams of 3: researcher, programmer, systems guy 3. all 30 have IQ 150 4. big hardware budget, all we build is software ... but I expect that the hardware for a usable body will be there in 10 years, so just buy it. Project looks like this: yrs 1-5: getting the basic learning algs worked out and running yrs 6-10: teaching the robot to walk, manipulate, balance, pour, understand kitchens, make coffee It's totally worthless to build a robot that had to be programmed to be able to make coffee. One that can understand how to do it by watching people do so, however, is absolutely the key to an extremely valuable level of intelligence. Josh On Friday 08 February 2008 11:46:51 am, Richard Loosemore wrote: My assumptions are these. 1) A team size (very) approximately as follows: - Year 1: 10 - Year 2: 10 - Year 3: 100 - Year 4: 300 - Year 5: 800 - Year 6: 2000 - Year 7: 3000 - Year 8: 4000 2) Main Project(s) launched each year: - Year 1: AI software development environment - Year 2: AI software development environment - Year 3: Low-level cognitive mechanism experiments - Year 4: Global architecture experiments; Sensorimotor integration - Year 5: Motivational system and development tests - Year 6: (continuation of above) - Year 7: (continuation of above) - Year 8: Autonomous tests in real world situations The tests in Year 8 would be heavily supervised, but by that stage it should be possible for it to get on a bus, go to the suburban home, put the kettle on (if there was one: if not, go shopping to buy whatever supplies might be needed), then make the pot of tea (loose leaf of course: no robot of mine is going to be a barbarian tea-bag user) and serve it. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
For the immediate future I think we are going to be seeing robots which are either directly programmed to perform tasks (expert systems on wheels) or which are taught by direct human supervision. In the human supervision scenario the robot is walked through a series of steps which it has to perform to complete a task. This could mean manually guiding its actuators, but the most practical way to do this is via teleoperation. So, after a a few supervised examples the robot is able to perform the same task autonomously, abstracting out variations in human performance. This type of training already goes on for industrial applications. Seegrid have a technology which they call walk through then work. Within the next ten years or so I think what we're going to see is this type of automation gradually moving into the consumer realm due to the falling price/performance ratio. This doesn't necessarily mean AGI in your home, but it does mean a lot of things will change. The idea that robotics is only about software is fiction. Good automation involves cooperation between software, electrical and mechanical engineers. In some cases problems are much better solved electromechanically than by software. For example, no matter how smart the software controlling it, a two fingered gripper will only be able to deal with a limited sub-set of manipulation tasks. Likewise a great deal of computation can be avoided by introducing variable compliance, and making clever use of materials to juggle energy around the system (biological creatures use these tricks all the time). Some aspects of the problem are within the realm of pure software, such as visual perception, navigation and mapping. Also, the idea that you can suspend real world testing until the end of the project is a recipe for disaster, unless your environment simulators are highly realistic, which at present involves substantial computing power. For more intelligent types of learning by imitation you really have to get into the business of mirror neurons, and ideas of selfhood. This means having the robot learn its own dynamics and being able to find mappings between these and the dynamics of objects which it observes. However, this can only be achieved if good perception systems are already developed and working. On 10/02/2008, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm. I'd suspect you'd spend all your time and effort organizing the people. Orgs can grow that fast if they're grocery stores or something else the new hires already pretty much understand, but I don't see that happening smoothly in a pure research setting. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
Personally I would rather shoot for a world where the ever present nano-swarm saw that I wanted a cup of good coffee and effectively created one out of thin air on the spot, cup and all. Assuming I still took pleasure in such archaic practices and ways of changing my internal state of course. :-) I am not well qualified to give a good guess on the original question. But given the intersection of current progress in general environment comprehension and navigation, better robotic bodies, common sense databases, current task training by example and guesses on learning algorithm advancement I would be surprised if a robot with such ability was more than a decade out. - samantha - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
On 10/02/2008, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems we have different ideas about what AGI is. It is not a product that you can make and sell. It is a service that will evolve from the desire to automate human labor, currently valued at $66 trillion per year. Yes. I think the best way to think about the sort of robotics that we can reasonably expect to see in the near future is as physical artifacts which provide a service. Most robotics intelligence will be provided as remotely hosted services, because this means that you can build the physical machine very cheaply with minimal hardware onboard, and also to a large extent make it future-proof. It also enables the kinds of collective subconscious which Ben has talked about in the context of Second Life agents. As more computational intelligence comes online a dumb robot just subscribes to the new service (at a cost to the user, of course) and with no hardware changes it's suddenly smarter and able to do more stuff. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
--- Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt: I realize that a full (Turing test) model can only be learned by having a full range of human experiences in a human body. Pray expand. I thought v. few here think that. Your definition seems to imply AGI must inevitably be embodied. It also implies an evolutionary model of embodied AGI - - a lower intelligence animal-level model will have to have a proportionately lower agility animal body. It also prompts the v. interesting speculation - (and has it ever been discussed on either forum?) - of what kind of superbody a superagi would have to have? (I would personally find *that* area of future speculation interesting if not super). Thoughts there too? No superhero fans around? A superagi would have billions of sensors and actuators all over the world -- keyboards, cameras, microphones, speakers, display devices, robotic manipulators, direct brain interfaces, etc. My claim is that an ideal language model (not AGI) requires human embodiment. But we don't need -- or want -- an ideal model. Turing realized that passing the imitation game requires duplicating human weaknesses as well as strengths. From his famous 1950 paper: Q: Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge. A: Count me out on this one. I never could write poetry. Q: Add 34957 to 70764. A: (Pause about 30 seconds and then give as answer) 105621. Q: Do you play chess? A: Yes. Q: I have K at my K1, and no other pieces. You have only K at K6 and R at R1. It is your move. What do you play? A: (After a pause of 15 seconds) R-R8 mate. Why would we want to do that? We can do better. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
Matt: I realize that a full (Turing test) model can only be learned by having a full range of human experiences in a human body. Pray expand. I thought v. few here think that. Your definition seems to imply AGI must inevitably be embodied. It also implies an evolutionary model of embodied AGI - - a lower intelligence animal-level model will have to have a proportionately lower agility animal body. It also prompts the v. interesting speculation - (and has it ever been discussed on either forum?) - of what kind of superbody a superagi would have to have? (I would personally find *that* area of future speculation interesting if not super). Thoughts there too? No superhero fans around? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
Richard Loosemore wrote: J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote: On Friday 08 February 2008 10:16:43 am, Richard Loosemore wrote: J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote: Any system builders here care to give a guess as to how long it will be before a robot, with your system as its controller, can walk into the average suburban home, find the kitchen, make coffee, and serve it? Eight years. My system, however, will go one better: it will be able to make a pot of the finest Broken Orange Pekoe and serve it. In the average suburban home? (No fair having the robot bring its own teabags, (or would it be loose tea and strainer?) or having a coffee machine built in, for that matter). It has to live off the land... Nope, no cheating. My assumptions are these. 1) A team size (very) approximately as follows: - Year 1: 10 - Year 2: 10 - Year 3: 100 - Year 4: 300 - Year 5: 800 - Year 6: 2000 - Year 7: 3000 - Year 8: 4000 2) Main Project(s) launched each year: - Year 1: AI software development environment - Year 2: AI software development environment - Year 3: Low-level cognitive mechanism experiments - Year 4: Global architecture experiments; Sensorimotor integration - Year 5: Motivational system and development tests - Year 6: (continuation of above) - Year 7: (continuation of above) - Year 8: Autonomous tests in real world situations The tests in Year 8 would be heavily supervised, but by that stage it should be possible for it to get on a bus, go to the suburban home, put the kettle on (if there was one: if not, go shopping to buy whatever supplies might be needed), then make the pot of tea (loose leaf of course: no robot of mine is going to be a barbarian tea-bag user) and serve it. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; FWIW, the average suburban home around here has coffee, but not tea. So you've now added the test of shopping in a local supermarket. I don't believe it. Not in eight years. It wouldn't be allowed past the cash register without human help. Note that this has nothing to do with how intelligent the system is. Maybe it would be intelligent enough, if it's environment were sane. But a robot? Either it would be seen as a Hollywood gimmick, or people would refuse to deal with it. Robots will first appear in controlled environments. Hospitals, home, stockrooms...other non-public-facing environments. (I'm excluding non-humanoid robots. Those, especially immobile forms, won't have the same level of resistance.) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=93139505-4aa549
[agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
[ http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5524028.html ] Steve Wozniak has given up on artificial intelligence. What is intelligence? Apple's co-founder asked an audience of about 550 Thursday at the Houston area's first Up Experience conference in Stafford. His answer? A robot that could get him a cup of coffee. You can come into my house and make a cup of coffee and I can go into your house and make a cup of coffee, he said. Imagine what it would take for a robot to do that. It would have to negotiate the home, identify the coffee machine and know how it works, he noted. But that is not something a machine is capable of learning — at least not in his lifetime, added Wozniak, who rolled onto the stage on his ever-present Segway before delivering a rapid-fire speech on robotics, his vision of robots in classrooms and the long haul ahead for artificial intelligence. ... Any system builders here care to give a guess as to how long it will be before a robot, with your system as its controller, can walk into the average suburban home, find the kitchen, make coffee, and serve it? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=93139505-4aa549
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote: On Friday 08 February 2008 10:16:43 am, Richard Loosemore wrote: J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote: Any system builders here care to give a guess as to how long it will be before a robot, with your system as its controller, can walk into the average suburban home, find the kitchen, make coffee, and serve it? Eight years. My system, however, will go one better: it will be able to make a pot of the finest Broken Orange Pekoe and serve it. In the average suburban home? (No fair having the robot bring its own teabags, (or would it be loose tea and strainer?) or having a coffee machine built in, for that matter). It has to live off the land... Nope, no cheating. My assumptions are these. 1) A team size (very) approximately as follows: - Year 1: 10 - Year 2: 10 - Year 3: 100 - Year 4: 300 - Year 5: 800 - Year 6: 2000 - Year 7: 3000 - Year 8: 4000 2) Main Project(s) launched each year: - Year 1: AI software development environment - Year 2: AI software development environment - Year 3: Low-level cognitive mechanism experiments - Year 4: Global architecture experiments; Sensorimotor integration - Year 5: Motivational system and development tests - Year 6: (continuation of above) - Year 7: (continuation of above) - Year 8: Autonomous tests in real world situations The tests in Year 8 would be heavily supervised, but by that stage it should be possible for it to get on a bus, go to the suburban home, put the kettle on (if there was one: if not, go shopping to buy whatever supplies might be needed), then make the pot of tea (loose leaf of course: no robot of mine is going to be a barbarian tea-bag user) and serve it. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=93139505-4aa549
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
On 08/02/2008, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any system builders here care to give a guess as to how long it will be before a robot, with your system as its controller, can walk into the average suburban home, find the kitchen, make coffee, and serve it? Robots which can navigate in the home, knowing where the kitchen is, are a near term prospect. With simple navigation systems such as northstar, commercially available robots will be able to do this within a year, although they will require multiple projectors to cover an entire house. More sophisticated navigation and object recognition abilities will require a less trivial approach using vision and possibly lasers (although I don't see lasers playing a big part in the future of home robotics). I know there are commercially available robots which do this already, but they're somewhat pricey and are typically confined to factories so it may be a while before the price/performance comes down to consumer levels. This is something which I'm working on, and I think a fairly conservative estimate is in the region of 5-10 years. With luck I'll have a working solution within the next few years. Making and serving coffee is more difficult, and success in recognising and handling objects will depend very much upon earlier developments with navigation. Perceiving objects in 3D requires very similar algorithms to the SLAM methods used in navigation, just on a smaller scale. There will probably be a substantial amount of crossover between robotic manipulation and the development of human prosthetics, such as the recent luke arm. Grabbing and holding objects may actually be easier than it may appear, relying heavily upon dense tactile sensing and passive compliance. Loosely coupled control of a compliant system seems to be the way that we handle many things. So I think competent manipulation is a longer term prospect (maybe 10-20 years), but simpler forms of manipulation, such as situations where the coffee maker is specially adapted for robotic handling, will be available much sooner. As a side note, once you have a domestic robot capable of making coffee in a similar manner to the way that humans do it, then a large amount of human labour will become obsolete fairly quickly since such a machine could be applied to many other tasks currently done by people. I don't give Wozniak's robot prediction much credence. The video just seems like random, not especially informed, stream of consciousness stuff and as far as I'm aware he doesn't have much knowledge of what's going on in robotics or automation industries. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=93139505-4aa549
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
--- J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5524028.html ] ... Any system builders here care to give a guess as to how long it will be before a robot, with your system as its controller, can walk into the average suburban home, find the kitchen, make coffee, and serve it? Nope, that's the wrong definition of AI. AI doesn't mean human form or human capabilities. Fifty years ago we had maids, typists, and gas station attendants. The technical solution was not to build robotic versions, but to eliminate the need for them. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=93139505-4aa549
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
On Friday 08 February 2008 10:16:43 am, Richard Loosemore wrote: J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote: Any system builders here care to give a guess as to how long it will be before a robot, with your system as its controller, can walk into the average suburban home, find the kitchen, make coffee, and serve it? Eight years. My system, however, will go one better: it will be able to make a pot of the finest Broken Orange Pekoe and serve it. In the average suburban home? (No fair having the robot bring its own teabags, (or would it be loose tea and strainer?) or having a coffee machine built in, for that matter). It has to live off the land... - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=93139505-4aa549
Re: [agi] Wozniak's defn of intelligence
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote: [ http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5524028.html ] Steve Wozniak has given up on artificial intelligence. What is intelligence? Apple's co-founder asked an audience of about 550 Thursday at the Houston area's first Up Experience conference in Stafford. His answer? A robot that could get him a cup of coffee. You can come into my house and make a cup of coffee and I can go into your house and make a cup of coffee, he said. Imagine what it would take for a robot to do that. It would have to negotiate the home, identify the coffee machine and know how it works, he noted. But that is not something a machine is capable of learning — at least not in his lifetime, added Wozniak, who rolled onto the stage on his ever-present Segway before delivering a rapid-fire speech on robotics, his vision of robots in classrooms and the long haul ahead for artificial intelligence. ... Any system builders here care to give a guess as to how long it will be before a robot, with your system as its controller, can walk into the average suburban home, find the kitchen, make coffee, and serve it? Eight years. My system, however, will go one better: it will be able to make a pot of the finest Broken Orange Pekoe and serve it. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=93139505-4aa549
