Re: [-empyre-] next (robotic) steps
what is the next most essential 'human' sense for a robot,
in your opinion - artificial life - artificial intelligence
- ethical robots - what would *your* priorities be?
This is my first post to empyre.
In the last few years the idea has become quite popular that
intelligence is a complex system that arises from the interaction of
small, discreet particles performing simple tasks in relation to one
another. Very recently I've been hearing about 'dumb' machines. This
seems to remove the overarching goal of emulating complex behaviour, and
refocuses the energy on just exploring simple, 'dumb' tasks.
'Intelligence, ethics and human priorities' it is said are far too
complex to represent through current technology, let alone understand
for ourselves. The New York Times Magazine has a small blurb on it this
week (you can read it online but have to subscribe). If anyone knows
about this topic it would be good to hear more.
My questions to you then are what do you think of approaching machines
as 'dumb', as unlike us? Why use mimesis as a guiding principle in
robotic design instead of other principles and references, or are they
by definition mimetic? I ask because I'm currently confronting this in
my own work. Some of my machines to date have been explorations of the
boundary between things that are like us and things that aren't by
rolling them into the same object. Lately, I've been more curious about
machines that are complementary instead of similar to us, but these are
not necessarilly mutually exclusive ideas.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and