Re: [-empyre-] next (robotic) steps

On 12/17/04 10:30 PM, "Nicholas Stedman" <> wrote:

>> 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?
> 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.
> feels funny to communicate by e-mail with my neighbors...
 Looks like we are all looking for something that at the same time differs
from and mimics human beings: Nancy looks for "human sense" in a robot and
Nick calls for something "complementary instead of similar". No matter how
you think of it, you end up comparing robots to human beings. I agree that
their characteristics don't have to be similar to us. But this makes me
think that maybe before we formulate any hypothesis we should think about
our relation with robots and how and where we locate them in such relation :
does  looking for something complementary mean that their function is
(still) a servile/merely entertaining one? Why do we make them? To
experiment with something new, to play, to entertain or...? Or does it mean
that we might find unexpected characteristics that we, as human beings,
don't have ? (note that I say "unexpected" because I believe that they are
not "programmable" in advance)



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.