At 08:22 AM 8/31/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Aping Biology, Computer Guides Automated Evolution of a Robot
Mr. Chang's article has been garnering newstime since early AM. For what it's worth, Janet, with tongue in cheek, I have to respond to some of what I've read.
>
>For the first time, computer scientists have created a robot that designs
>and builds other robots, almost entirely without human help.
>
>From the article:
>.......may one day be truly regarded as "artificial life," able to
>reproduce and evolve, building improved versions of themselves.
My response: With that mentality, why would they need us?
>From the article:
>Such durable, adaptive robots, astronomers have suggested, could someday be
>sent into space to explore the galaxy or search for other life.
My response: We've made such a mess of our planet; now lead us to all the others!
>From the article:
>But the quest to create artificial life also revives concerns that computer
>scientists could eventually create a robotic species that would supplant
>biological life, including humans.
My response: See, I told you so.
>
>From the article:
>Dr. Pollack and Dr. Lipson, a research scientist, report their results in
>today's issue of the journal Nature.
>>"This is the first example of pretty much 100 percent automated evolution
>of a machine," said Dr. Philip Husbands, a professor of artificial
>intelligence at the University of Sussex in England. "It's a rather
>primitive example, but it's the first step to something that could be quite
>significant."
My response: It's the mutants that might be dangerous.
>
>From the article:
>In the future, the technique could be used to design robots that assemble
>parts in factories clean up chemical spills or vacuum a home
My comments: I thought we already had these prototypes, and I believe the UK has done much in this field for many years. Consider, too, not everyone can master the PC. Shades of another Depression!
>From the article:>
Because computers cost much less than human engineers, "It opens for the
>first time a more economical approach to robotics," Dr. Pollack said. "We
>can now essentially design for free and build for a few thousand dollars."
My comments: Who cares that engineers will be passe? They're only human! Out with them now. This is down-in-the-dirt corporate economics.
>
>From the article:
The cost of designing a robot today typically runs from hundreds of
>thousands of dollars to millions of dollars, Dr. Pollack said.
My response: With Bill Gates and Ted Turneer, it's a piece of cake.
>
>From the article:
The computer in the Brandeis system had no idea what a successful design
>might look like. Instead, it was merely given a list of possible parts it
>could work with, the physical laws of gravity and friction, the goal of
>moving on a horizontal surface and a group of 200 randomly constructed,
>nonworking designs.
>>Mimicking biological evolution, the computer added, subtracted and changed
>pieces in the designs. At the same time, the computer similarly mutated the
>programming instructions for controlling the robot's movements. After each
>step, the computer ran simulations to test the designs, keeping the ones
>that moved well and discarding the failures.
My comments: SCARY!>
>From the article:
>After 300 to 600 generations of evolution and fine-tuning, the computer
>sent the design to a prototyping machine, used by manufacturers to build
>test models of product designs, to build the robot. Then, in the step that
>required human help, the researchers installed the robot's motor and
>microchip and downloaded the robot's programming instructions.
>
My comment: Well, there's still some hope for us humanoids-at least temporarily.
>From the article:
>The robots' evolution is currently a dead-end, as the designing computer
>never learns how well its designs work in the real world. The simple robots
>also have no ability to improve their performance. According to the
>researchers, the robots currently have the brainpower of bacteria. "We hope
>to get up to insect level within a couple of years," Dr. Pollack said.
My comment: Are you kidding? I saw that movie.
>From the article:
>"There's no danger of Commander Data walking out of our fabricator anytime
>soon," he said, referring to the android character in "Star Trek."
>>In future research, the Brandeis researchers intend to add sensors to the
>robots and improve the design programs.
>Future robots may also be able to exchange information among each other and
>learn from each other's experiences.
My comment: Another techtool in Big Brother's hands.
>
>From the article:
As computer chips speed up and fabrication machines become more
>sophisticated, the robotic designers will produce robots that are more and
>more complex. Some have wondered what will happen when a robot can design
>and build something as complex as itself.
My comment: If you think there's time, plan for an early retirement.
>
>From the article:>
For example, Dr. Seth Shostak, an astronomer at the SETI Institute in
>Mountain View, Calif., has suggested that researchers listening for radio
>signals from alien civilizations are more likely to first come across
>intelligent machines created by aliens.
My comments: Something's wrong here. Alien machines have been flying since before Roswell. Seems to me we've had plenty of time to make contact. Frankly, I don't blame them if they are afraid to identify themselves.
>
>From the article:
>In an article in the April issue of Wired, Mr. Joy argued that scientists
>should perhaps deliberately steer themselves away from research that would
>create self-replicating, evolving, autonomous robots. >
>With forethought, he said, computer scientists should be able to tap into
>most of the benefits of the emerging technology while avoiding the dangers.
>"This doesn't have enough of the pieces to be by itself dangerous," Mr. Joy
>said about the Brandeis work. But, he added, "We're on the road to
>somewhere where there's big issues down the road."
Others working in the field are not as worried, even if technological
>advances make such devices possible. Dr. Ralph C. Merkle of the
>nanotechnology firm Zyvex and an adviser to the Foresight Institute, said
>that high costs would probably prevent the design of dangerous robots. >Rather, robots would continue to be designed for specific tasks with little
>or no ability to evolve and adapt.
>"It looks like having a device to work at all is hard," Dr. Merkle said>"There is no desire to add additional complexity. Those systems do not look like they would be dangerous." >
>The Brandeis researchers find the speculation premature. "Really, it's so
>far removed from anything dangerous," Dr. Lipson said about their work. >"There are many other things to worry about before this."
My comments: I fear our scientists "doth protest too much". Looking at the parts I rendered in bold-face, doesn't it just make you wonder(I do)what nefarious drawings are already on the boards?
>
>By KENNETH CHANG
>Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
>"http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/08/biztech/articles/31robot.html"
>
>janet paterson
>53 now / 44 dx cd / 43 onset cd / 41 dx pd / 37 onset pd
>tel: 613 256 8340 url: "http://www.geocities.com/janet313/"
>email: janet313@xxxxxxxxxxx smail: POBox 171 Almonte Ontario K0A 1A0 Canada
>
>
Parkinsn's Archive Treasures Doctors, students, patients and caregivers find current Parkinson's information such as the Algorithm, Caregivers Handbook, and talks by respected Movement Disorder Specialists.
