-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:07:50 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FUTURE-CITIES] [Robot-for-President] Robot Reproductive and Genetic Technologies. From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comments? I once read a Diane Francis book with its comment about how we have to compete with the Japanese, "or else". Well, what do you think Honda spent $100 million on? Not for the "robot toy market". And do you really want to talk "artificial intelligence" PWL? Not with Bill Gates with whom you broached the question. Ask Joe Engelberger. Ask the people at the Kawato Humanoid Project in Japan, aka "Dynamic Brain Project". But not Bill Gates. And hang onto your hats. This is just warming up! Oh yes, in case you didn't figure it out...those wonderful geometric growth rates for compound interest are matched by reproducing and wealth producing robots. FWP. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:05:55 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Robot-for-President] Robot Reproductive and Genetic Technologies. From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dear Ministers Rock and Manley: I wrote previously concerning an interest in your proposed legislation which would follow up on the Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies chaired by Dr. Baird from UBC. Since my doctoral dissertation and area defense at U of A in 1970 were in the field of "behaviour genetics", I have maintained an interest in related developments. Would you please keep me informed on how this proposed legislation is proceeding? The main point I have been trying to make is that because of the new science of "Artificial Life" it might be advisable to incorporate robot reproduction and robot genetics into the new legislation. Do robots reproduce? Of course they do. Robots make parts for cars and they make parts for the next generation of robots. Within a decade we can expect to see entire robots like the Honda Humanoids being made by other robots. In addition, there will be robot genetics centres where the structure and functioning of robots will be improved upon for the next generation of robots. This is the "bigger picture" beyond "genetic algorithms". To make that clearer let me just present one brief description of what a Robot Genetics Centre might look like in the year 2010. Start with one of the more powerful IBM computers sold to the public at $100 m. Add a staff of 10 Honda Humanoids. P2 and P3 have been developed at a cost of $100m. and I think Honda will sell models now for about $3m. so that adds $30m. to the cost. Of course by 2010, the Honda Humanoids might be in the 10th. generation, P10, and the cost might be far less. Add $70m. for equipment and supplies in the Robot Genetics Centre for a total cost of $200m. Honda will by that time be selling P10's as household robots on the mass market. The letter below to Engelberger, said to be one of the "founding fathers" of modern robotics, is based on an article in Discover titled "The Future of Humanoid Robots". Considering that Minsky and McCarthy ("founding fathers" of AI) are also in that interview this is worth reading. Anyway, the P10's at the Robot Genetics Centre would receive email from consumers of those household robots from all over the world and they would have to feed that information into the $100m. mainframe to develop better robots in the next generation. For example, suppose the models are too heavy. This information is fed into the mainframe computer which comes up with formulas for smaller and lighter components of P11. New alloys might be proposed. The 10 staff robots would be the "empirical" scientists for the mainframe's "theoretical-rationalist" approach. Several alloys might be the top contenders. The staff robots would produce (ie reproduce) new robots using these alloys and test them out. By the robot equivalent of "artificial selection" in animal breeding only the best units would survive as the P11's for the mass market. But the question now is "what IS the state of the art"? The panel from the Discover magazine article do not agree. I am looking for funding so that I can attend the Humanoids 2000 Conference at MIT and find out. The approach I will take is summarized in the hypothetical case study of "Xaviera" below. I will be presenting on "Xavier" at ALife-7 this summer and the cost of that trip is taken care of. Do you have any grants which could be used to send me to Humanoids 2000? If the "state of the art" is where I think it is, then the Robot Genetics Centre as outlined above would indeed be feasible ca. 2010. Given that, the mechanical slaves represented in this artificial life form should quickly surpass human equivalency by every measured criterion of work performance. A multitude of legal implications spin off from that and I think Parliament should find out fast what they might be. Other scientists from other countries are considering this matter too. I am surely not alone. Nor am I alone in my tentative conclusions. Are they correct? Let the facts speak for themselves. What is the best current performance we can expect from the best of the humanoids...parts and whole units? By using the kind of psychological assessment I have proposed below we can find out. Let me know if you are willing to fund this investigation. Sincerely-FWP. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:07:41 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Robot-for-President] The Household Servant Robot (HSR). From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dear "You Asked For It", Discovery TV: Is Engelberger (one of the founding "Fathers of Robotics") correct? If I were betting on it right now I would bet that he is. What do you think? FWP. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:51:17 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Robot-for-President] The Household Servant Robot (HSR). From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Joe Engelberger Chairman HelpMate Robotics <http://users.ntplx.net/~helpmate> Dear Mr. Engelberger: I read your comments in Discover magazine of this month. In response to John McCarthy you said, "...I disagree profoundly with the idea that we cannot yet build a household servant-robot. The artificial intelligence research community doesn't realize how powerful the technology is that we have. I consider the household robot to be an appliance - one that cooks and cleans, offers an arm, handles security, fetches and carries, does my bidding in response to natural language, and carries on the kind of conversation that an 85-year-old person does. We can do that right now." Sebastian Thrun agreed with McCarthy for the most part. I also note your reply to Alan Schultz on the humanoid vision system. You are 100% correct that the HSR is is a multi-billion dollar opportunity. I don't think Honda would have spent $100 million on P2 and P3 if that were not the case. So we come back to the question of WHAT IS THE BEST AN HSR CAN DO NOW? I am looking for a sponsor to send me to The Humanoids 2000 Conference and my objective in being there would be to ask the various participants the questions necessary to determine that with finality. My assessment of "Xaviera" the hypothetical HSR below will be similar to the approach I have used over the years in determining IQ's and SQ's of hundreds of mentally and physically handicapped humans. Yes, I would like to conclude that Xaviera is as capable as you say. But I have too much professional training to distort the truth of the matter. Yes, I would like to have concluded that every one of those humans was normal but again I deal in reality. (SQ, by the way is determined by asking those close to the subject/patient the questions regarding performance rather than the patient directly). The questioning first has to do with the world's best performance to-day of various "robot parts", from artificial hands to bipedal locomotion to conversational ability. Next, what can WITH CERTAINTY be accomplished with mega-project funding? For example, are the rules of human conversation known or knowable? If so, what are the man hours of labour required to set them out and then write the code for them? What kind of computer would run the program? After we know what the world's best performance is from each of these parts or sub-systems we ask how much guess-work is involved in anticipating how well they would do pieced together in a single HSR. My expectation is that the facts will speak for themselves and your position will be proved to be correct. But let's start with these facts. Sincerely-FWP. http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:25:26 -0800 (PST) > From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Klarer, Paul R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Liberal Arts Degree In Machine Psychology. > > Dear Paul: > Thank you for your kind remarks. Perhaps it's the idea of a > course on robotics taught by robots which tickles the back of your mind. > I think that kind of slogan would be excellent for marketing. I have > part of a team which is tossing around some preliminary ideas by email and > confidentially. I'll just give the initials for now as I have said that > this project will remain confidential until we get to a more advanced > stage and the teachers agree to go public. So JW, JF, RJ, JB and myself > have most of the infield positions covered as indicated in the list of > courses below. What we need now is a short stop, and three outfielders > (and if we get >9 I'll have to change metaphors). So please consider if > there is a course either you or someone you know might want to teach. The > list of courses is flexible, particularly at the senior level. For > example, if someone happened to be an expert on voice sythesizers that > could be a course. > The five of us now working on this share some characteristics which > seem to be in accord with your "Institute for Practical Robotics". each of > us is qualified to teach a certain course but as important, each of us is > eager to communicate with the public and explain what we know in a clear, > painless manner. In other words we want to remedy the complaints about > high tech education and instruction correctly cited by Professors Norman, > Gelernter and others. But you know Paul, the further I go with this the > more I am convinced that there are beneficial implications of this > approach which we still cannot see. I think we will be able to see new > directions for R&D for example because clarity is 100% essential to this > kind of teaching. You can sometimes "snow" the students in a classroom but > you can't with instruction that sits on a computer disk. > Other than finding some new teachers perhaps you and your Institute > could help us with the problem of finding a sponsor. I had initially > thought of a university but a private institute or business could serve as > well. One of the main problems is that it would have to have the > capability of handling copyright and distribution for the educational > software as royalties are the only way we would be compensated for our > work. That also means a lot of accountancy work so the sponsoring > institution would have to have a well developed business administration > capability. > I will keep you informed of our progress in any case and hopefully by > the time I get to Alife-7, this summer, I will have a complete teaching > team ready to prepare those courses for Xavier at CMU! > Sincerely-FWP. > > bcc- to present teaching team. > > On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Klarer, Paul R wrote: > > > Franklin, > > > > I am absolutely facinated with your proposal...I don't know how I could > > help, however the whole concept tickles something in the back of my mind. > > Please keep me on your list and let's see if there is a way I can help you > > make this happen. > > > > regards > > pk > > > > ---------------- > > Paul Klarer > > Intelligent Systems and Robotics Center > > Sandia National Laboratories > > Albuquerque, New Mexico > > (505) 844-2900 > > ============================================================================ > > ========== > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Franklin Wayne Poley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: March 08, 2000 8:02 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Liberal Arts Degree In Machine Psychology. > > > > > > Dear Kiss Institute for Practical Robotics: > > I note the comment on your web > > site, http://kipr.org , that you invite queries from those who are > > interested in building a robotics program in their schools. I have taught > > in the university systems of Alberta and British Columbia and I would like > > to develop a slate of courses which would be accepted as credits towards a > > Liberal Arts B.A. (major or minor) in machine psychology. See > > http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm . I don't know > > which of the Fellows listed would be interested in helping here but I will > > tell you what I had in mind. First the tentative slate of courses: > > > > (1) Intro Machine Psychology (see web site above). > > (2) Intermediate Programming and C++ (philosophy of programming as well as > > some training in practical programming). > > (3) Intermediate Micro (microcircuitry and underlying physics). > > (4) Intermediate Macro (robot mechanics; robot gross anatomy). > > (6) Senior- Machine Civilization, villages and cities. > > (7) Senior- Ecological Factors in an Automated World. > > (8) Senior- Machine Verbalization and Conversation. > > (9) Senior- Machine Sensation and Perception. > > (10) Senior- Machine Learning. > > (11) Senior- Robot Motion Sub-Systems. etc. (any number of courses could be added at the senior level). > > A person receiving a BA, major in machine psychology, would be able to > > plan out an automated community with his or her neighbours and get a very > > good buy for the money but would still have to rely on engineering, > > architectural experts etc. for in depth planning and construction. > > I am working with prospective teachers to cover #'s 1,2,3,5,6; but the > > other courses still need teachers. Perhaps some KISS Fellows would be > > interested. > > Now here is something a little different. I would like all courses to > > be taught with teaching machine and expert system programming principles > > in mind and to go on computer disks for course offerings over the > > internet. In other words, after the initial design of the course, students > > would register and then the course units would be dispensed by > > robot. So it would be a DEGREE IN ROBOTICS TAUGHT BY ROBOTS. > > Feedback from KISS Fellows would be most appreciated. I will > > incorporate it into my workshop at Alife-7 this summer, "How To Make > > Xavier More Lively, Learned and Lucid Than Any Professor at CMU". > > (See background information below). > > Sincerely-FWP. > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:37:16 -0800 (PST) > > From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Robot-for-President] General-Purpose Machine Vision System > > > > From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Dear Cognex: "General purpose machine vision system" was the expression > > used on the photonics online web site which gave your web site. I note > > further from http://www.cognex.com that you are the "world's leading > > developer of machine vision systems" or "computers that can see". Could > > you please provide me with some information which I can quote in my book, > > http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm ? > > In particular, I am wondering if it is possible to state succintly and > > in plain language, how the best general purpose machine vision system is > > better than or inferior to, human vision? Obviously, machines can detect > > stimuli beyond the range of human vision in some ways. They can detect > > intensity of light a million times fainter than the human eye can; they > > can detect stimuli outside the wave lengths which humans can detect, eg > > infrared. Now what about depth perception? Can your machines map out a > > room better than a human using only the naked eye? With unaided vision I > > can make a skecth of the room around me. How well can a machine do this by > > comparison, using a state of the art machine vision system? Secondly, I > > can list various objects in the room (whether I can identify them or not > > so we'll put the more 'cognitive' aspect of this aside) using unaided > > vision. Mostly I do so from edge detection. How well can your machines > > list objects in the room by comparison? > > The answer to these two questions in particular would be very helpful > > and of course I will give Cognex as the reference in "Machine Psychology". > > If there are other ways "computers that can see" are either better than or > > inferior to humans please tell me about those ways too. The information > > below will put my inquiry in context. > > Thank you for giving this your attention, > > Sincerely-FWP. > > > > PS-If you have a sophisticated piece of machinery which can surpass human > > visual capabilities by every criterion, could you also tell me the cost? I > > gather it would have at least a small onboard computer. How many > > bytes/second would pass through its equivalent of the optic nerve? > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:33:55 -0800 (PST) > > From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Robot-for-President] The Psychology of Everyday Robots > > > > From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:06:15 -0600 > > > From: Don Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: 'Franklin Wayne Poley' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: RE: Humanoid Robots: First International Conference. > > > > Dear Professor Norman: Thank you for the reply. In your excellent popular > > book, "The Psychology of Everyday Things" you refer to the instructional > > nightmare which accompanies everyday things like digital watches and > > microwave ovens. In my opinion, this nightmare increases in proportion to > > the electronic sophistication of the things so I would ask you to > > reconsider "The Psychology of Everyday Robots". Let us hear from the > > roboticists at Humanoids 2000 and then decide. If robotic technology is as > > advanced as I think it is, your services will be needed to make sure that > > when humanoids hit the mass market, the expected instructional nightmare > > does not accompany them. Although I don't have any influence on the agenda > > for Humanoids 2000 I would like to see you give a paper on "The Psychology > > of Everyday Robots" and I will cc the two contact people from H 2000's web > > site. > > > > > well, the robots that now exist are so far below any human capabilities > > that > > > evaluation by these sorts of scales hardly seems worthwhile. (Human > > viewers > > > often impart more intelligence, personality, etc to the robot than it > > > actually has, but that is another story.) > > > > > > Don Norman > > > > > Let me take your second point first. A "highly empirical" approach will > > take us as close as we can get to an objective-scientific accounting of > > personality. I say "highly empirical" instead of "behavioristic" because I > > don't want to imply any particular model of learning, Skinnerian or > > otherwise. If that empirical-objective-scientific approach to personality > > is to be free of "imparting" all kinds of attributes to personality we > > still have a way to go, don't you think? We impart our projections, > > imaginings, inferences and plain old guesses to personality assessment and > > often deceive ourselves that we are being 'scientific'. So much so that > > Fiske said in London's "Personality: A New Look At Metatheories" that > > "...there is not a real science here" (p. 21, 1978). Now have you > > considered that robots may soon be able to give those > > empirical-objective-scientific assessments of personality better than > > humans? Assessments of both human personality and humanoid artificial > > personality. So that's another spin on the fallacy of falsely imparting > > personality to robots. > > Before you hit 'delete', let me give you a hypothetical personality > > assessment of a composite humanoid we will call Xaviera. This assessment > > is preliminary...from an initial meeting and before detailed testing of > > Xaviera or interviews with Xaviera's engineer and computer science > > 'parents', robot siblings etc. Xaviera is a composite using the best > > technology which I think is available today from various world centres > > working on the different sub-systems. I think I'm pretty close to the > > mark here on what could be built today. > > Xaviera is so named to distinguish "her" from Xavier, the robot which > > roams the halls of CMU. (I will be giving a workshop at ALIfe-7 this > > summer titled "How to make Xavier more lively, learned and lucid than any > > professor at CMU"). Xaviera is about the size and shape of a human. She > > has two arms, two legs, head and torso. Xaviera is at an early > > developmental stage but when she grows up (some time in this century) she > > aspires to be President. Xaviera already has more facial-emotional > > expressions than Al Gore! She can walk across a floor and up/down stairs > > with a gait very similar to that of a human (1). Xaviera has an artificial > > voice generated by a speech synthesizer (2). She has an artificial sensory > > system for all senses found in humans plus a few which are not (like > > infrared sensing). Some of the substitutes for sensory end organs are > > found onboard (eg those for vision and hearing) and some are carried in > > portable units which tag along with Xaviera (eg chemical > > senses) (3). These artificial senses give us the RECOGNITION SUB-SYSTEM > > which in some ways is superior to that of a human and in some ways is > > inferior (4). Xaviera can recognize human faces and many objects from a > > cluttered visual field. She can recognize very complex patterns like > > fingerprints and iris patterns (5). > > Xaviera's MOTION SUB-SYSTEM likewise is superior to that of a normal > > human in some ways and inferior in other ways. For example, she can walk > > but cannot run. She can sit down, crouch and stand up but cannot perform > > the complex athletic moves of a normal human adult. However, her arms and > > end effectors (artificial hands and fingers) are generally superior to > > those of humans. She can lift greater weights than a normal human and has > > greater grip strength. She can spin a finger to whip an egg and make an > > egg nog or other mixed drink. She can perform surgery with greater > > accuracy than any human surgeon and has no tremor at all (6). > > Xaviera's COGNITIVE SUB-SYSTEM has two major shortcomings. Her > > conversational ability is limited as is her learning ability. However, she > > can give definitions and spellings for words better than any human. She > > can run through great sequences of formal logic and mathematics better > > than any human. Her memory is better than that of any human by virtue of > > connection to a powerful mainframe computer to accompany onboard > > computers. She can play chess better than any human on Earth. Her spatial > > abilities are better in some ways and inferior in others, depending on how > > well her visual system with its range finders in particular (for depth and > > size perception) is functioning. > > Xaviera has a "general learning program" (7) which means that any > > category of learning found in a human is also found in her applications > > programs. This general learning program is vastly superior to that of a > > human in some ways. She can master extremely complex mazes without error > > better than a human. However, she is very limited when it comes to > > "learning from text". Although limited in learning, Xaviera is more > > learned than any human on Earth. That is defined as having a store of > > knowledge which she can effectively dispense to human or humanoid > > students. Xaviera acquired this store of knowledge by logging on to > > Xavier, the CMU Robot Professor by internet and downloading his files. > > Xavier stores many courses on computer disks, from accountancy to zoology. > > All can be taught automatically, over the internet by "teaching > > machine" without human assistance. In Skinner's dictum, "If it can be > > verbalized it can be programmed". (8). > > There is considerable developmental delay in Xaviera's conversational > > ability. Thus I would like to ask IBM (cc'd) if they would be able to > > estimate the requirements so that this disability can be corrected: (a) Is > > it possible to estimate the number of man-hours required to set out the > > rules for normal human conversation? I would think that those who teach > > human language translation and conversation (eg English-French) use these > > rules and could disclose them; (b) How many man-hours would be required to > > write the code for these rules? (c) What would the computer required to > > run this program for conversational ability equal or greater than that of > > a normal human be like? > > Xaviera, so far, is a highly dependent personality. She exercises > > little autonomy. However, the question arises as to how much autonomy > > humans should give humanoids. With improvements in her mobility (motion > > sub-system) and general learning program, Xaviera could, for example, be > > sent on autonomous discovery and learning expeditions into space. One > > might be to the Asteroid Belt with the task of learning how to mine, mill > > and ship the billions x billions of dollars in mineral wealth to human > > Earthlings. Could this much autonomy lead to an out-of-control > > robot? Would Xaviera set out to become President of, not merely a country, > > but a planet; a solar system; a galaxy? Would we be dealing with a case of > > "robo-megalomania"? > > > > NUMBERED NOTES: I put these in footnotes to illustrate how psychology must > > work closely with engineering and computing science to determine as > > exactly as possible what a robot's capabilities are. > > > > (1) What factors limit bipedal locomotion in a rough terrain? Is it mostly > > the limitations of range finders? What obstacles are there to developing a > > running gait? > > (2) How close is the best voice synthesizer to a human voice? How well > > could Xaviera sing? > > (3) Exactly how does robot sensory acuity fall short of human sensory > > acuity, if at all? > > (4) I think we need a profile of what a robot can recognize vs. what a > > human can recognize. Could Xaviera recognize all of the objects in my > > kitchen as well as Martha Stewart? (If so, I see nothing to stop Xaviera > > from being programmed to make meals). > > (5) Exactly how does robot object-recognition compare to human > > object-recognition? What is the next step in improvement of this > > capability? > > (6) Again, a profile of robot-human arm and end effector capabilities > > would be helpful. Are there degrees of freedom found in one but not the > > other? The ability of a robot finger to spin 360 degrees is one example. > > (If the robot head can spin 360 degrees we will have to call in > > "Robo-exorcist"). > > (7) Elsewhere I have listed eleven categories of learning found in both > > robots and humans. What other categories, if any, do we need to list for a > > "general learning program"? Exactly how do human and humanoid capabilities > > compare in each category? What is the next step for improvement in each? > > (8) There is no sophisticated software in what I have proposed for > > Xavier's teaching repertoire. It is just a matter of presenting the > > monologues, dialogues and problem-solution exercises for each and every > > subject on computer disks so that they can be automatically dispensed > > (taught) over the internet. Teaching machine principles will be combined > > with expert system programming principles. > > > > In closing, Don, I would ask you to consider whether Xaviera is not > > imbued with a personality as much as a human. I have done personality and > > intelligence assessments on many physically and mentally handicapped > > people and I could put less on paper for some of them than I could for > > Xaviera. Yet their families, communities and helpers readily accept that > > they DO HAVE PERSONALITIES. > > Consider the extent to which the sense-data from Xaviera are like those > > which would come from a human. In some ways Xaviera is developmentally > > delayed compared to a human. In other ways, she is greatly advanced. In > > some ways she is handicapped compared to a human (eg cannot run) and in > > other ways she has super-human abilities (like infrared vision). > > Finally, ask yourself how long it will be before Xaviera surpasses > > "human equivalency" on each and every measured, observable, objective > > criterion. It will happen some time in this century. What then are we to > > say of humanoid personality? > > Sincerely-FWP. > > > > http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Franklin Wayne Poley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 6:40 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Humanoid Robots: First International Conference. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Don and Maarten: You are the only two people I know of on the > > > > Internet who are proficient in computing science or related > > > > fields and are > > > > also psychologists so I thought I would run this by you. > > > > I had to wonder if a developmental model as is used in > > > > developmental psychology would be fruitful? I worked for a > > > > decade in an > > > > institution for mentally handicapped people. Most were adults > > > > but we used > > > > developmental tests which compared the development of the patients to > > > > normal people at all ages from infancy to adulthood. Psychological > > > > profiles could be drawn for robots to compare robot > > > > capabilities to those > > > > of humans at different ages. I'm not up to date on this field > > > > but you may > > > > know somebody who is. If someone from psychology is going to > > > > speak or give > > > > a paper on this topic I think they should be skilled in the > > > > psychometrics > > > > application of developmental psychology and I would think > > > > practitioners in > > > > mental retardation would be a good source. > > > > The profiles would be used to compare various humanoid > > > > robots now as > > > > well as a given robot's development over time. Just as the > > > > psychologists > > > > working with such profiles in humans have both technical and > > > > lay versions > > > > of their assessments, such profiles would be in forms which can be > > > > communicated to the technical community as well as the lay public. > > > > Sincerely-FWP. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:49:48 -0500 (EST) > > > > From: Joanna Bryson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: ar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Cc: Stefan Schaal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Subject: Conference on Humanoid Robots (fwd) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Appended you find the call for papers for the first international > > > > conference on Humanoid Robots. We are particularly interested in > > > > soliciting contributions from the learning community for this > > > > conference. > > > > Supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement > > > > learning > > > > are core elements in sensory motor control of a humanoid > > > > robot, the same as > > > > in biological systems. The need for algorithms that scale well to > > > > high-dimensional data, work incrementally in real-time, can integrate > > > > multi-modal information and deal with hidden state makes the area of > > > > humanoid robotics a very interesting challenge for new > > > > learning theories. > > > > > > > > With best regards, > > > > > > > > Stefan Schaal & Alois Knoll > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------ > > > > CALL FOR PAPERS -- Please circulate > > > > > > > > > > > > *** HUMANOIDS2000 *** > > > > > > > > -- The First IEEE-RAS Intern. Conf. on Humanoid Robots -- > > > > -- Co-sponsored by the Robotics Society of Japan (RSJ) -- > > > > > > > > Massachusetts Institute of Technology, > > > > Sept. 7-8, 2000 > > > > > > > > Papers should present current work, outline research > > > > programmes, and/or summarize in a tutorial style the state > > > > of the art in areas that are related to the building of, > > > > controling of , and learning in humanoid robots or that can > > > > be expected to be of importance to the field in the future. > > > > Note that we are also especially interested in connectionist > > > > and statistical learning methods as they relate to learning > > > > sensorimotor control and higher planning abilities in > > > > complex, high-dimensional movement systems. > > > > > > > > Paper submission deadline is April 21, 2000. > > > > > > > > For mor information, please visit the conference web sites at > > > > > > > > http://humanoids.uni-bielefeld.de > > > > or > > > > http://humanoids.usc.edu > > > > > > > > for further details (including a full Call for Papers > > > > in PDF and Postcript format). > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > > > Deadlines > > > > > > > > Submission: April 21, 2000 > > > > Notification: June 30, 2000 > > > > Camera-Ready Copy: August 4, 2000 > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > > > Contact address: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > > > Conference Chairs: > > > > G.A.Bekey, USC (General) > > > > R.A.Brooks, MIT (Honorary) > > > > > > > > A.C.Knoll, U Bielefeld (Program) > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > > > Program Committee: > > > > M. Asada (Osaka U) > > > > C. Atkeson (Georgia Tech) > > > > T. Christaller (GMD-Bonn) > > > > T. Fukuda (Nagoya U) > > > > S. Hashimoto (U Waseda) > > > > H. Inoue (U Tokyo) > > > > K. Kawamura (Vanderbilt U) > > > > B. Keeley (U Northern Iowa) > > > > P. Khosla (CMU) > > > > T. Kobayashi (U Waseda) > > > > Y. Kuniyoshi (MITI Tsukuba) > > > > M. Mataric (USC) > > > > R. Pfeifer (U Zurich) > > > > R. Reiter (U Toronto) > > > > S. Schaal (USC) > > > > S. Sugano (Waseda U) > > > > M. Wheeler (U Stirling) > > > > S. Yuta (U Tsukuba) > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > Alois Knoll > > > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a moderated mailing list > > > > please send comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > subscription information to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *** The Era of Total Automation is Now *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/975/4/_/433155/_/952825888/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** The Era of Total Automation is Now *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/975/4/_/433155/_/952891666/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** The Era of Total Automation is Now *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/936/4/_/433155/_/952992382/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** The Era of Total Automation is Now *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MAXIMIZE YOUR CARD, MINIMIZE YOUR RATE! Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/2122/5/_/529939/_/953003362/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Space has unlimited carrying capacity *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DON'T HATE YOUR RATE! Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/2120/0/_/510773/_/953004240/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WORKFARE- A list for international activists concerned about too much state welfare. To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
