Walking, talking androids have been a sci-fi staple for decades.
In a 2012 article (see link), John Pavlus reports building an intelligent robot in reality is still a matter of getting the right parts and smarts.
Some excerpts:
"The patterns of sensory stimulation that we generate from moving our bodies in space and interacting with our environment are the basic building blocks of cognition," says Rolf Pfeifer, a lead researcher on ECCERobot. "When I grasp a cup, I am inducing sensory stimulation in the hand; in my eyes, from seeing how the scene changes; and proprioceptively [in my muscles], since I can feel its weight.”
In any case, says Pfeifer, building an intelligent humanoid robot – one that "can smoothly interact with humans and human environments in a natural way" – will require breakthroughs in computing and battery efficiency, not to mention a quantum leap in sensory equipment. "A really crucial development will be skin," he says. "Skin is extremely important in the development of intelligence because it provides such rich sensory patterns: touch, temperature, pain, all at once."
A robot with skin and human-like internal anatomy starts to sound less like a robot at all, and more like a synthetic organism – much like David in Prometheus. Which takes us back to the question he asks in the film. Or as Pfeifer more pragmatically puts it: "Why build a robot which is a very fragile and expensive copy of a human being?"
It is a very useful goal, Pfeifer argues. “Even if we still mostly want robots to do specialized tasks, there will be tons of spinoffs from an understanding of humanoid, intelligent behaviour. Yes, we'll draw inspiration from biology. But that doesn't imply that we won't go beyond it.
Your views are welcome! - Sundar
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120628-can-we-create-intelligent-robots
Some scientists say that AI will have human-level intelligence some time in the 21st century! There are many different prognosis about. Intelligent Robots Will Overtake Humans by 2100, Experts Say offers some good minds on this issue!
http://www.livescience.com/29379-intelligent-robots-will-overtake-humans.html
I saw one science-fiction film titled, "Bicentennial Man", which explored the theme of Android - an Intelligent Robot, played by Robin Williams. Question is - will the man-kind ever create an Intelligent Robot envisioned by Science-Fiction writers like Asimov?!
Intelligent robots is a matter of time and more research in the field.
The possible applications of robots or robotic technologies to medicine, the general areas of advanced robotics are identified are based on the current technological background and expertise and could potentially provide significant improvements to the state of the art in medicine. These are: macrorobotics, microrobotics, and biorobotics.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444822505500475
Dear Roland Iosif Moraru :
Long time ago, World Chess Master Gary Kasparov took on IBM's Deep Blue in a Chess tournament (1997??), but he lost to Deep Blue. This was a big news in those days, I remember..
From Wikipedia:
"Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov was a pair of famous six-game human–computer chess matches, in the format of machine and humans, versus a human. In this format, on the machine side a team of chess experts and programmers manually alter engineering between the games.
The matches were played between the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue with a team of IBM programmers and chess experts who directed and reprogrammed the machine between games on the one side, and the World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov on the other side.
The first match was played in February 1996 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Kasparov won the match 4–2, losing one game, drawing in two and winning three.
A rematch took place in 1997, with Deep Blue winning 3½–2½."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov
I do agree with dear Professor @Erlado, achieving beneficial behavior of future humanoid robots is an aim of high priority because of their benefits to the human kind.
"Will we ever create intelligent robots? "
- that is rather popular question; the answer is “no”.
For example see some comment in http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/consciousness-actually-auid-460?utm_source=Institute+of+Art+and+Ideas&utm_campaign=8ad19e27d5-IAI+Weekly+Newsletter+20%2F11%2F14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_33593fe9fa-8ad19e27d5-46979289
Cheers
Dear @Sergey, thanks for fine article about the problem of consciousness and its aspects! Professor Ted Honderich did very nice job!
Regarding consciousness, can you put it in a machine? And if you did, how could you ever know for sure?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/can-robots-become-conscious.html
Scientists try to teach robots morality
Seventy-two years ago, science fiction writer Isaac Asimov introduced "three laws of robotics" that could guide the moral compass of a highly advanced artificial intelligence. Sadly, given that today's most advanced AIs are still rather brittle and clueless about the world around them, one could argue that we are nowhere near building robots that are even able to understand these rules, let alone apply them.
"Moral competence can be roughly thought about as the ability to learn, reason with, act upon, and talk about the laws and societal conventions on which humans tend to agree," says Scheutz. "The question is whether machines – or any other artificial system, for that matter – can emulate and exercise these abilities."
For instance, a robot medic could be ordered to transport urgently needed medication to a nearby facility, and encounter a person in critical condition along the way. The robot's "moral compass" would allow it to assess the situation and autonomously decide whether it should stop and assist the person or carry on with its original mission.
http://www.gizmag.com/machine-ethics-artificial-intelligence/32036/
It seems it is worthwhile to repeat the SS post above – there cannot be “artificial intelligence” , see, for example, Dzen_o comment to the Ted Honderich’s paper in the link to iainews.iai.tv above.
If briefly – here we have a number of metaphysical problems that cannot be solved/ understandable properly in any mainstream philosophical (and mainstream [Nature] scientific) approach and can be understandable and – one can hope – solved in the “Information as Absolute” conception.
First of all – the consciousness is principally non-material system, which works only sometimes like a “material” (computer) system. So the last can behave alike the consciousness, but principally never will be the same.
Next (though that is some rather specific problem, but it is touched here) – the morality is metaphysical also, it depends on – or at least should depend on – awareness of a human about her/his position on Earth and, further, in the “Information” Set. So the moral is a complex of rules that must optimize the humans co-existence on Earth/outside (in the Set), including it is, in depth, a base to construct the law systems in concrete societies.
“Don’t harm a human” – that’s a rather primitive setting, which, if installed in a robot, can work in (again principally) concrete limited conditions and concrete limited cases.
More – see “The information as Absolute”, http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173
Cheers
With this advanced technology, I think yes we will have the ability to create intelligent robots.
My problem is always to decide what robot intelligence and human intelligence are like or different. It would help me a lot, if someone first defines what these two kinds of intelligences are and then continue the discussion.
PS: I know we had already some questions about intelligence here in RG, but I had no brake through.
Dear @Hanno, I do suggest You to read this paper Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness!
http://www.isical.ac.in/~goutam.paul/AIConscCamera.pdf
Dear Hanno,
Machine intelligence tries to imitate human intelligence. There are some problems though. Artificial intelligence (AI) should be interpreted as "Artificial Intuition". If AI succeeds, then having the machine properties as well (big memory, fast calculations, etc.) then this intelligence might be superior to human.
Dear Costas,
try to get it. So far as I have not understood the human technique of recognition, I have problems to believe in the prior abilities of computers. I´ll try to learn.
Dear Hanno,
I agree with you, but notice that tha last decade, we've made a huge advance in studying humans. We are at the first steps. So the same difficulty transfers to construction of robots! So be sure that we will not be present when such developments will be close to success!
It´s real a problem. Try to prolongate your live and to continue our discussions.
;-)
You mean "Data"? Even he has the problem to fully assimilate humanity. Borg has certainly tried but couldn't either, that is why they created both Locutus and 7 of 9 to represent them in human's image.
It seems that the discussion here goes on, in fact, as some terminological problem; when the answer is rather simple: if somebody likes to use the term “artificial intelligence” for some very sophisticated automata with very sophisticated software – that doesn’t mean something wrong, of course. But any automata is a material structure, which principally never will be non-material (as the human’s consciousness is) and so never will be the intelligence.
Again – see “The information as Absolute” , http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173 , at least the section 6.2. Though to understand the context there it is desireable to read the whole paper.
Cheers
Dear Ljubomir,
I´ve read your attended paper with big interest and profit and feel now a little bit safer with terminology and logic.
My opinion now, using the definitions and demarcations of your paper, is: we will construct intelligent robots, but they won´t be humans.
Dear friends,dear @Hanno, please read the following paper Review of Consciousness and the Possibility of Conscious Robots! I quote the conclusion from:"Conscious robots are likely to be built within this century, if technological advances continue at their current pace.To accomplish this, an interdisciplinary effort involving neuroscience, psychology, computer science, and engineering will be needed. It will require a hybrid approach using functional approximations of cognition and this will probably include cognitive architectures, neural networks, fuzzy logic, data fusion, parallel computers, signal processing, and massive sensor arrays. It will also require computational power near the levels of the human brain. With proper cognitive development, hardware implementations, sensor processing, and efficient learning algorithms, machine consciousness is an achievable goal.
It will not be possible, however, to simple build and program a conscious robot.
Consciousness develops in humans as an emergent property, and we will need to rely on this for conscious robots as well. Conscious robots will have both positive and negative effects on society. In particular, ethics and laws defining what it means to be a human and what it means to be autonomous may need to be reconsidered; especially if there is a merging of human and machine systems. The first conscious robot that is built will be as astounding (and frightening) to humans as the discovery of life on other planets."
http://www.personal.psu.edu/lnl/papers/consc_JACIC_2010.pdf
Again – any robot cannot be conscious, since it is purely material object and so can act in depth only – possibly very sophisticatedly – as some deterministic system. As, for example, any development of given mathematical theory doesn’t add any new information to the information that is already in the theory’s axioms – and, indeed, if some system of axioms is established, further the theory can be developed very successfully – now seems better then by a human, by a computer if the computer is properly programmed. The computer will prove a huge number of theorems, solve a huge number of mathematical problems, - but that will be nothing new to the system of axioms and in accordance with the program that were stated/ developed by a human’s consciousness.
A next example – any mathematical theory, if be complex enough, is [Gödel] incomplete and cannot be effectively developed (by, e.g., introducing new axioms) by a robot principally, such a action can be done only by non- material system – for example by human’s consciousness.
Because of any notion is (absolutely?) infinitely complex since every notion is the element of absolutely infinite “Information” Set, at that every notion, say a point in the spacetime, contains whole Set. At that informational (there are no others in the reality) connections often are very bifurcative. So to operate effectively with this absolutely infinite arrays of information is necessary to have absolutely infinite material resources (memory, operating rate, etc).
That is principally impossible for any material system, even inside Gödel’s limits. But the consciousness is capable – at least sometimes and for somebodies - to operate with the arrays, intuitively separating just useful information and not taking attention to non-sufficient details. That principally differs the non-material systems from material ones.
However to work effectively a non-material system must be essentially developed. Yet crows (see Sundarapandian Vaidyanathan) are capable to make “non-material” decisions when solving material problems aimed at support the existence of mainly material automaton, i.e., its body, but it isn’t capable to formulate some abstract statements.
Cheers
@Sergey,
I agree with your statements and thoughts.
I think we will get intelligent computers which are working extremely faster than humans will ever be able to do it (for pure calculation we already have this status). But these computers do calculations initiated by input data or orders of humans. And robots will be able to help us in our daily work, help old people and they will recognize most of the problems they find by their sensors. But where is the place and program for consciouness in machines?
Dear Hanno,
There is absolutely infinite space in the Set, where anything can be (and always, i.e. “in infinitely long time” has been placed) placed, including – every human’s consciousness.
The point seems is that – since every element in the Set is always connected with all other elements in the Set – for a system to exist in the Set as something stable, the system must be essentially logically closed; what can be only if the system is totally deterministic. Just therefore there exist so long the totally deterministic system – Matter, where every informational exchange between material objects (and the objects themselves), i.e., interactions, happens by using the true information exclusively.
For consciousnesses that (exchanging by only true information) isn’t so, as anybody’s experience shows. So to exist as a stable system a consciousness uses the stable “lodge” - practically material automaton “body”. At that the consciousness – though it is non-material – govern the body by using some unknown till now forces; at that, it seems she uses as some hardware (for example – the memory) the practically material brain.
But, it seems, “the processor” is purely non – material and is placed outside Matter’s spacetime…
Cheers
Most researchers in the field have known for a long time that mimicking exclusively human intelligence is not a good path for progress, neither from the viewpoint of building practical applications nor from the viewpoint of progressing in the scientific understanding of intelligence
It is possible as we evolve to progress on these two motives for work in AI.
http://www.csl.sony.fr/downloads/papers/2003/manuel-03a.pdf
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence