|
[DPRG] SRS thread
Subject: [DPRG] SRS thread
From: dpa
dpa at io.isem.smu.edu
Date: Mon Apr 30 17:37:28 CDT 2007
Howdy,
Steve writes:
> I see this more as an ongoing semantic challenge. Some want "robot" to
> be the word that describes only intelligent tools or sheep dog level
> autonomous agents. Others want to use the word "robot" to describe only
> human-level autonomous machines. In a sense, robot has become as
> controversial as the word emotion. People who advocate "dogbots" don't
> want the folks advocating "peoplebots" to use the word robot.
<snip>
But of course we don't really need a word for machines with human level
intelligence because no such thing exists. I think you are trying to
see this as a discussion of whether such a machine may or may not ever
exist, a discussion we have had many times. I'm trying to steer away from
that basically philosophical discussion to something that is more useful
and meaningful for robot builders living today, in this world, at this time.
Once again, I'd like to focus on what sort of robots we (that means you and
me, the DPRG membership) can actually build now, and that does not include
robots with human intelligence. But it does include robotic agents acting
autonomously but not independently. That is something we can do now.
I find discussions of human-level robots fairly meaningless, like pondering
the personality traits of leprechauns and unicorns. Maybe such a thing will
exist someday, I venture no opinion on that subject. But I'm not willing to
wait for that day before trying to build robots.
The author of the original post posits a different approach:
> I believe that we need to reject AI as a robot design model.
> I believe that we can make a full, just-like-in-the-movies (tm) robot
> using object recognition and straight-forward engineering.
best,
dpa
More information about the DPRG mailing list
|
