Saturday, April 21, 2012
Computers that learn
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Building a Humanoid Robot
It has always been the dream of fans of science fiction (including myself) to have someone build a humanoid robot that would be as intelligent or at least close to as intelligent as human being. Such robots under human control would be enormously useful. Many number of tasks now done by human beings could be done more efficiently by machines. Some jobs are extremely odious; for example, sorting garbage for recyclables. Some are extremely dangerous; construction work on skyscrapers and handling radioactive materials are two instances. Some exist in hostile environments, such as in space or under the sea. Some are just boring. With apologies to housewives, housecleaning is a suitable job for an android. Wouldn't you like to have a robot servant? In addition, as robotic missiles have shown, there are many military uses. Imagine a robot army. Robots could be sent to explore other worlds in and out of our solar system.
But why build a robot in human form? If you think about it a little, you can conclude that few machines are as versatile as the biological machine that nature has taken a billion years to perfect. Take wheels for example. They allow a vehicle to travel rapidly over relatively smooth surface, but what wheeled vehicle can climb a mountain. Look at your hands. What mechanical device has such a large range of grasping abilities?
I'd like to quote from a science fiction novel written by the great Isaac Asimov, the Caves of Steel. In the novel, an expert on androids is explaining to a detective why robots should be made in human form. 'Because the human form is the most successful generalized form in all nature. We are not a specialized animal, Mr. Baley, except for our nervous systems and a few odd items. If you want a design capable of doing a great many widely various things, all fairly well, you could do no better than to imitate the human form. Besides that, our entire technology is based on the human form. An automobile, for instance, has its controls so made as to be grasped and manipulated most easily by human hands and feet of a certain size and shape, attached to a body by limbs of a certain length and joints of a certain type. Even such simple objects as chairs and tables or knives and forks are designed to meet the requirements of human measurements and manner of working. It is easier to have robots imitate the human shape than to redesign radically the very philosophy of our tools.'
My novel The Isaac Project is about a computer corporation who set out to exactly that. In my novel the project head divides the project into three groups. The first, the body group, must design and build the mechanical structure, the arms, legs, torso, head, hands and senses. They must also design a power source, such as rechargeable batteries.
The second group was to design the brain, a daunting task, for the internal computer must have the storage capability of the human brain in the same amount of space. Right now, our largest supercomputers which are enormous machines do not even come close to the ability of the human brain to process data.
The final group must design the artificial intelligent software. So far, there is AI software that can do amazing things such as Deep Blue who beat the reigning champion at chess and Watson, the Jeopardy prodigy. But these programs are highly specialized. None of them show the versatility of human thought.
Finally, the designs must be integrated and tested.
Will such a machine actually ever be built? I believe that sooner or later it will. There are many scientists and engineers working on each of these daunting tasks.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Artificial Intelligence and Emotions
In an article in Scientific American by the skeptic Michael Shermer, he wrote about the IBM supercomputer Watson. In it he asks the question, "Does Watson know that it won Jeopardy?" Did it take pride in its victory? That is an interesting question that goes to the heart of whether an artificial intelligence will ever become self-aware. Shermer asked the first question of IBM's David Ferucci, who replied, "Yes. Because I told it that it had won."
In truth, there is no way to test whether an artificial intelligence or any entity is self-aware. An AI can be programmed to say that it is self-aware, but that proves nothing. We know that we ourselves are self-aware, and we assume that all humans are self-aware. Actually, the mechanism of our self-awareness has not been determined yet. There are many theories, but no definitive answer.
As far as the other question, "Did it take pride in its victory," pride is an emotion, and like all emotions has value to the entity "feeling" it. An AI or robot that was programmed to simulate the "pride" emotion may know that its methodology for solving whatever spurred the "pride" emotion is sound.
In many science fiction stories and movies, robots are shown as these analytical beings that think only in terms of logic with no emotional content at all. In my mind a robot with these characteristics would be badly designed. In designing an AI the designer should mimic nature. Emotions have a definite function in humans and animals and should have in AIs and robots as well. For one thing simulated emotion helps the AI relate to human beings as was pointed out in the movie, 2001, A Space Odyssey, in a scene where Astronaut Bowmen is being interviewed by the press.
Depending upon the use the robot is put to, different simulated emotions should be a part of its software. "Fear" is useful emotion for any entity to keep it out of danger. "Loyalty" to its master is another emotion that most robots should have. A robot that baby-sits children should simulate "love" for those children. A soldier robot should "hate" the enemy.
I used quotes around the emotions because AI emotions would not be identical to emotions felt by human beings, but would trigger responses similar to the response these emotions trigger in humans and animals.