Comments on: Invasion of the robots

Machines that can perform tasks usually reserved for humans are finally starting to creep into mainstream society and could become a multibillion-dollar market in a few years.

Mind B-4 Matter

Any robot is useless without computer controls and would be as useless as a brain dead olympian.
Yet, someone whose body is as wasted a Dr. Stephen Hawking's could be a formidible adversary with the proper machine assistance. It is a fact of life and it follows that the computer minds to control robots will develop before robo-sapiens.
At the current rate of progress, computer intelligence will soon advance beyond that of most of mankind, and these minds will take part in developing their own bodies. In 30 years, we will be asking ourselves if we are ready to submit to robo-cops and Stepford Wives. Long before the brain and body are ready to be merged, holographically projected images from thinking machines will confront us with their ability to remotely control all sorts of things, giving us much to think about in the meantime.
Plus ca change, Plus c'est la meme chose.
Musichombre

[DLP]

More than 1 Cpu required

It?s probably accurate to assume that a 1,000 MIPS processor will suffice to guide mobile utility robots reliably, but more than 1 will be required to do the job efficiently. For example, a mobility device requires and avoidance Cpu with appropriate sensors, a mapping Cpu for navigation, a Cpu for motor wheel / track speed forward, reverse, pivot etc. where these processors would interface with a primary Cpu which would process and Artificial Intelligence program to get the job done.

Suppose someone were to propose a means of passing the Turing Test?

Would anyone believe them?
For ten years, I have worked on a very different approach to passing the Turing Test. I have studied semantics and behavioral psychology from a very different perspective and this has yielded a means of semantic interpretation that is universal, and a universal artificial intelligence can be constructed from this technique.
I have written a book proposing this AI design and it is now online, free, for review, at www.universalartificialintelligence.com

I know that it is hard to believe that the human mind can be viewed in tangible terms, a necessary step in producing a universal fixed domain AI, but if I may, I'd like to show a brief example of the method of semantic interpretation presented in the book (towards the end of the book there are a few examples of semantic interpretation). The following semantic breakdown is from the movie ?As Good As it Gets,? starring Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt. This was part of a demonstration that I had given on several occasions to a few friends, some computer programming students, and a few teachers at a local community college. This scene is near the beginning of the movie when Greg Kinnear's character, Simon, knocks on the door of Jack Nicholson's character, Melvin. Cuba Gooding Jr's character, the art dealer, is also in the hallway, participating quietly in the scene. The dialogue here is approximately 2 minutes long, and comprises approximately 285 discrete, definable human actions.

Let us consider, hypothetically, that an AI is present in the hallway, observing the conversation. The AI is not acquainted with any of these three humans.
?Yes!? Melvin says in a loud and angered way. The AI records the word ?yes? as being uttered with anger because the word ?yes? is stated with a louder than normal volume (relatively); this human's eyes are squinted slightly with brows turned inward; the lips are pouted slightly with the corners turned down; the door is swung open quickly (relative to other door openings), and the human moves forward quickly from the interior of the apartment (relative to other humans moving into position for conversation).
Simon does not respond right away, he shifts his chin out slightly as his upper torso moves to the left and rocks both sideways and then backward. The AI records this hesitation as a sign of submission, fear. (Melvin's emotion of anger is recorded as a tangible emotion, of a measurable quantity, and Simon's exhibition of fear is recorded as a tangible emotion, of a measurable quantity. Please bear with me.)
Melvin's head tilts back and then comes down with a quick short nod as recognition of Simon's submission in the conversation.
?Maybe this can wait.? Simon says, in reference to this greeting and the ensuing conversational problems to be solved. The tones across this phrase step down on every other syllable to the lowest tone on ?wait? making this phrase a concluding phrase to the current conversational topic, ?the purpose of the visit.? Melvin nods and then glances to his right in acknowledgement that there are no other particular problems to be solved in the hallway. Melvin turns to re-enter the apartment.
?I, I found uh, I found Verdell Mr. Udahl.? Simon says. The first ?I? is stated articulately and with assertive volume and tone, and then Simon hesitates before repeating ?I? with its beginning predicate word, ?found.? The word ?uh? follows as a logic breaking utterance to signify a submissive relativity to the current conversational problem. Then Simon repeats and completes the thought, ?I found Verdell, Mr. Udahl.? When Simon states the complete sentence, it is with slightly subdued volume and subdued tone variation (relatively). ?Found? is said with a peaked tone and the word contains its own tone variation, signifying the importance of this action/word/fact/topic relative to the other information being delivered in the sentence. ?Verdell? is also stated with a tone variation, making this word a sub-topic/sub-problem of the superior topic/superior conversational problem of ?finding Verdell.?
The AI now knows the name of one of these three humans, Mr. Udahl (Melvin). It also knows of another entity mentioned in the conversation, Verdell. It is aware of the anger of Melvin and the fear of the human in the hallway (this human is still unknown). It has detected the purpose of the visit, the ?finding,? and the main topic of this conversation.
Melvin turns slowly with his chin tilted back. This is likely a gesture signifying the acknowledgement and processing of Simon's proposed topic. Some gestures have definitions to be verified with an observance of their repeated use (regardless this ambiguity will not affect the AI's comprehension of the scene). Melvin states ?Well, that's a load off.? In between ?well? and ?that? his head turns to the right, down, and back to a relative center while his right eyebrow turns up temporarily. This gesture, and its accompanying phrase, is in reference to that successful conclusion of that problem of ?the missing Verdell,? the apparent superior topic of ?finding Verdell.? The tones of the phrase begin high with ?well? and ?that? and hit a bottom tone with ?load? before rising slightly with the word ?off.? This signifies the importance of the ?load? or the pressing problem of the ?missing Verdell.? The topic, ?the finding,? is still treated as the prevalent superior topic because a concluding low tone is not presented by Melvin in this phrase.
Simon replies, ?Uhuh (affirmative). Did you uh, did you do something to him.? The ?uhuh? is said quickly, articulately and assertively, as an acknowledgement of Melvin's statement, and also as an acknowledgement of this expected, inconsequential response from Melvin. He hesitates before the word ?do? and then states it with a slight high tone compared to the other words, signifying the importance of the alleged action of Melvin. The topic has now shifted to the new topic of ?the alleged action of Melvin.? The tones rise on the end because this is a question.
?Do you realize that I work at home?? Melvin states. ?Realize? has a tone variation within its utterance and it is sustained for a longer than usual amount of time (relatively) signifying it as an important sub-topic. ?Work? is given a low tone compared to the other tones, and it is sustained for a longer than usual amount of time (relatively). This marks the word ?work? as the newly proposed topic/fact/problem. During the phrase, his eyebrows are raised three times for emphasis.
The conversational problems being attempted by these social members has shifted three times. The first proposed topic, ?the finding of Verdell? was simply a means of transferring information to determine a reaction of the other social member. Melvin contributed one sub-topic under this superior topic- ?the load off.? The emphasized ?do? of Simon's next question proposed the topic of ?an alleged action of Melvin.? Then Melvin's use of the low toned word ?work? proposes a new topic of ?Melvin's work.?
?Uh, no I wasn't aware.? Simon says with subdued volume. ?No? is said with a tone variation across the word signifying it as an important sub-fact, sub-topic to this new, current conversational problem. This tone variation also permits the shift in topics- Simon is submitting to Melvin's intimidating demeanor and accepting this new topic/conversational problem.
?Do you like to be interrupted when you're nancing around in your little garden?? Melvin asks while his body rocks from side to side, with tilting, rocking shoulders, to emphasize the various sub-facts of the communication. He begins with high tones and hits a low tone within the word ?nancing? to emphasis this derogatory adjective. His head also moves in a circular motion during this word for added effect. ?Nancing? is presented as an important sub-topic because it is an example of Simon's ?work.? Tones are raised near the end to make this clause a question (in addition to the grammatical structure). The high tones at the end of the question do not exceed the high tones at the beginning, exemplifying Melvin's belief that Simon's answer to the question is irrelevant. Also, due to its grammatical placement (being an object of the predicate), and due to its mid-range tone variation within the word, ?interruption? is presented as a sub-topic of ?work.?
Simon's eyes fixate on empty space and his lips motion twice to speak while he looks to form a response. ?No, no, I actually will turn the ringer off on my phone and sometimes put a piece of cardboard . . . ? Simon states submissively. ?No? is stated twice for emphasis before he presents an example of how he sometimes solves the problem of preventing interruption. The phrase is stated in lower tones signifying the thought (in this case) as being an example of ?preventing interruption,? the sub-topic of ?work.? With eyebrow movement and a slight smile, Simon seeks to emphasis the humorous aspect of his example- a means to shift the conversation towards a more pleasant demeanor.
?Well, I work all the time, so never, never, interrupt me. Okay? . . .? The tones of this phrase descend to a very low tone on the words ?interrupt me,? making this the new superior topic. Yet, it is not only a low tone of this phrase, but the entire series of phrases during this exchange, making it the predominant topic/problem/fact of the conversation, according to Melvin.
?. . .Not if there's a fire. Not even if you hear the sound of a thud from my home and one week later there is a smell coming from there that can only be a decaying human body and you have to hold a hankie to your face because the stench is so thick that you think you're going to faint. Even then, don't come knocking.? He states. This series has numerous tone variations with low tones on ?home,? ?there,? ?body,? ?faint,? and ?knocking.? Because these low tones are still higher than the previous low tone on ?interrupt me? these sub-facts and sub-topics are still subordinate to the main topic of ?interrupt me.?
?. . .Or, if it's election night and you're excited and you want to celebrate because some fudge packer that you date has been elected the first queer president of the United States and he's going to have you down to camp David and you want someone to share the moment with. Even then, don't knock. Not on this door. Not for any reason. Do you get me sweetheart?? He states. Throughout these phrases there are words given low tones- ?election night,? ?celebrate? (the last syllable), ?president,? ?States,? ?you down,? ?with,? ?then,? ?knock? ?reason,? and ?me sweetheart? to signify them as being important sub-facts and sub-topics. ?Interrupt me? is still the superior topic because its low tone has not been surpassed. During this exchange a myriad of facial expressions and body movements are exhibited for emphasis. The series ends with the lowest tone on ?sweetheart? signifying a conclusion to this topic of ?interruption.?
vDuring Melvin's statements, Simon's head rocks and his eyebrows move inward to follow Melvin's thoughts. At one point Simon glances at the art dealer for a communication of reactions. When Melvin states the word ?hankie,? his volume increases as his hand motions quickly in a manner to simulate the use of a hankie and Simon reacts with a flinch. During the example of the ?queer president scenario,? Simon's shoulders shift to his left as a hint (probably) of hoping to conclude the conversation, while his facial expression exemplifies thoughts of disbelief.
?Yes, It's not a subtle point you're making.? Simon states.
?Okay then.? Melvin states and then closes the door.
In the book, I propose that all human actions are produced for the solving of only four possible problems- consumption, reproduction, peripheral problems (distinct genetically transferred problems or problem solving procedures with distant connections to consumption and reproduction), and positive emotion problems. The first topic/conversational problem of this exchange (besides the greeting, ?yes?) is ?the finding of Verdell.? This has no other real purpose but to relay information to Melvin so as to observe a reaction and segway to the next topic of ?the alleged action of Melvin that caused Verdell to become missing.? Simon maintains a social bond with Verdell for the sake of achieving positive emotion. This positive emotion from bonding is a side effect of human beings grouping together to solve the many problems of life (consumption, reproduction, peripheral problems, and positive emotion problems). The second topic/conversational problem is ?Melvin's work.? Working solves the resource problems of consumption and reproduction, as well as peripheral problems (which in turn distantly connect humans to consumption and reproduction) and positive emotions (associated with the satisfaction of resource and peripheral problems). The third topic, ?interruption,? solves the problem of removing an obstacle to work, resources, peripheral and positive emotion problems.
Do you see where the logarithms of humans are clear and unambiguous? Do you see how the logarithm of an AI can be produced to work in unison with the logarithms of humans? This semantic interpretation may not be perfect. I may have made a mistake or two, but I'm telling you, an AI of the future will observe this scene without fail and to make such a machine programmers must have the ability to breakdown a conversation into these elemental parts. Programmers must be able to do this, or at least something similar to this.

[coschmi]

Conference on INTELLIGENT ROBOTS etc.

CALL FOR PAPERS
___________________________________________________
COMPUTERS & PHILOSOPHY, an International Conference
___________________________________________________

Le Mans University, Laval, France, 3-5 May, 2006



Chair: C.T.A. Schmidt

Conference web page: http://www.iut-laval.univ-lemans.fr/i-CaP_2006/

IMPORTANT DATES (check conference url for up-to-date information)
Friday November 18 th 2005 Submission deadline for extended abstracts
3-5 May 2006, Conference in Laval France

GENERAL INFORMATION
From Wednesday 3rd to Friday 5th May 2006, COMPUTERS & PHILOSOPHY will be held in cooperation with the American Association for Artificial Intelligence at Le Mans University in Laval (near Rennes, France).

Overview: Those interested in the study of philosophical problems and related technological applications are encouraged to participate. Philosophical, epistemological, theological and anthropological stances
on the construction and use of machines, computers and Robots are of
relevance to the conference.

Within the framework of the programme, we are looking forward to the
contributions of some eminent thinkers:

FRANCE Francis JACQUES Philosophy, Theology, Litterature, Sorbonne
USA Daniel DENNETT, Philosophy, Tufts
USA Rodney BROOKS, Robotics, MIT
Italy Lorenzo MAGNANI, Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, Pavia
UK Margaret BODEN, Art. Intelligence, Cognitive Sc. & Philosophy, Sussex
Canada Daniel VANDERVEKEN, Logic & Language, UQTR
Thailand Darryl MACER, UNESCO Reg. Adviser for Soc.& Human Sc. in
Asia-Pacific
UK Noel SHARKEY, Computation & Robotics, Sheffield
FRANCE Denis VERNANT, Logic & Philosophical Pragmatics, Grenoble

SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME
The increasing interaction between Philosophy and Computer Science over the past 40 years has lead to many position-taking stances in theories of mind, applied machine-embedded intelligence and cultural adaptations to the onslaught of robots in society. The chair is seeking short contributions to the body of knowledge within or about the intersection of the two fields. Is there a proper answer to the question of whether machines can think? Contemporary thought on computers and Artificial
Intelligence is not the exclusive aim of the conference the birth of original forms of machine intelligence can inform us about potential human beliefs and permissibility thresholds with regards to technology ?i.e. are all communities equally-footed with respect to machines that speak? The notion of machines that have desires and beliefs, increase their own learning capabilities, develop bodily functions, play games with us, help us learn, help children or the ill to express themselves, care-give the elderly, etc. used to create heated debates. Or do they still do so? In view of these on-going investigations, comparative studies and forward-looking accounts are welcome, as well as reports on innovative uses of knowledge found at the crossroads of philosophy and intelligent machinery sciences. Breaking news in computer science that pull the philosopher towards the computationalist point of view on mind are equally encouraged; and so are proposals that show the limits of representationalist theories. The main goal of the conference is to spur on interdisciplinary dialogue between 50-80 engaging intellectuals. Potential contributors may wish to use the topics listed below for further inspiration.

RELEVANT RESEARCH AREAS

In addition to main-stream areas of research ?Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent Robotics, Cognitive Science, Computer Ethics? we are looking for cross-cultural studies on the place of machines in society, as well as the following:

1. Evolution & Technologies
* Evolutionary Computation and Evolutionary Language Development
* Information Systems and the Philosophy of Design
* Biologically-Incorporated Intelligence; the Use of Organic Components
for Robotics
* Bio-computation, Bio-Robotics, Artificial Life & Meaning
* Robotics (Humanoid, Cognitive, Epigenetic, "Autonomous", Service, etc.)
* Humanoid Hosts and Guides for Museums, Galleries and Virtual Reality
Environments

2. Pragmatics & Comp. Linguistics
* Speech Acts and the Limits of Machine-embedded Use of Dialogue
* Obstacles to Parsing (Accents, Intonations, Emotional States, etc.)
* Relations, Reference and Communicability
* Artificial Affectivity in (non-)Dialogical Settings
* Dialogical Capabilities of Machines & Philosophy of Communication
* All Language, Meaning and Dialogue Issues

3. Minds and Intentionality
* Evocative Objects and Presumed Intelligence
* Personification of Artefacts
* Other Minds Theories and Simulating Co-intentionality
* The Mind/Body Problem in Cognitive Science
* European Versions (and Anti-theses) of the Intentional Stance

4. Culture & Adaptability
* All Anthropological Views on Computers and Robots
* Context-embedded Computer Learning
* In-class Robotic Teachers, Vulgarisation and (non-)Acceptance Issues
* The Pros and Cons of Computer-Mediated Communication & Learning
* Virtual Reality & Digitally-supported Personalities
* Post-modernism and Fiction related to Machines and Individuals

5. History, Ethics & Theology
* Issues arising from the Automation of Thought
* Designing Users' Beliefs, Beliefs Designing Machines, Religious
Deontology
* Robo-Ethics, Moral Agents, Spirituality of Machines, Technological Souls
* The Impacts of Intelligent Computers and Robotics on Society
throughout History
* Cognitive Epistemology or Science as Applied Technology

6. Other
* Transdisciplinary attempts to link Philosophy, Computing and/or Robotics

Please see web site for full details; programme, topics, accommodation, registration as well as a colourful poster and detailed information on plenary session talks.

Conference web page: http://www.iut-laval.univ-lemans.fr/i-CaP_2006/