Aftermath News

Entries categorized as ‘AI Robotics’

Robots learn to lie, cheat and hoard

August 19, 2009 · Leave a Comment

robot liar

Evolving Robots Learn To Lie To Each Other

PopSci | Aug 18, 2009

By Stuart Fox

With the development of killer drones, it seems like everyone is worrying about killer robots. Now, as if that wasn’t bad enough, we need to start worrying about lying, cheating robots as well.

In an experiment run at the Laboratory of Intelligent Systems in the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale of Lausanne, France, robots that were designed to cooperate in searching out a beneficial resource and avoiding a poisonous one learned to lie to each other in an attempt to hoard the resource.

The experiment involved 1,000 robots divided into 10 different groups. Each robot had a sensor, a blue light, and its own 264-bit binary code “genome” that governed how it reacted to different stimuli. The first generation robots were programmed to turn the light on when they found the good resource, helping the other robots in the group find it.

The robots got higher marks for finding and sitting on the good resource, and negative points for hanging around the poisoned resource. The 200 highest-scoring genomes were then randomly “mated” and mutated to produce a new generation of programming. Within nine generations, the robots became excellent at finding the positive resource, and communicating with each other to direct other robots to the good resource.

However, there was a catch. A limited amount of access to the good resource meant that not every robot could benefit when it was found, and overcrowding could drive away the robot that originally found it.

After 500 generations, 60 percent of the robots had evolved to keep their light off when they found the good resource, hogging it all for themselves. Even more telling, a third of the robots evolved to actually look for the liars by developing an aversion to the light; the exact opposite of their original programming!

So far, the research has more application in explaining the evolution of behaviors in the natural world than in developing new programming for robots. But if you think that means I’m one step closer to trusting robots, then you’re probably the sort who’s attracted to the blue light.

Categories: AI Robotics

Atlanta mayoral candidate proposes spy robots to patrol streets for “bums”

August 19, 2009 · 2 Comments

bumbot

Atlanta Mayoral Candidate Rufus Terrill, creator of the bum bot

Creative Loafing interviews Atlanta mayoral candidate Rufus Terrill owner of Terrill’s restaurant in Atlanta and creator of the Bum Bot, a robot that he advocates that the city use to fight homelessness and crime.

Related

‘Bum Bot’ Robot Plays Sheriff on the Streets of Atlanta

Categories: AI Robotics · Big Brother Surveillance Society · Police State Dictatorship

The next revolution in computers and manufacturing: programmable matter

August 17, 2009 · 3 Comments

Claytronics or Gershenfeld: Why You’ll Be Able to Make Almost Anything

Singularity Hub | Jul 23, 2009

by Aaron Saenz

We still tell our children “you can be anything when you grow up.” It’s time to start telling them “you’re going to be able to make anything…right now.” Similar work at MIT and Carnegie Mellon is pointing towards the next revolution in computers and manufacturing: programmable matter. In the future you won’t use computers to design a car, the car will form from billions of tiny computers that arrange themselves into anything you want. The physical and computational world will merge. Hope you’re ready.

How can a material be intelligent? By being made up of particle-sized machines. At Carnegie Mellon, with support from Intel, the project is called Claytronics. The idea is simple: make basic computers housed in tiny spheres that can connect to each other and rearrange themselves. It’s the same concept as we saw with Modular Robotics, only on a smaller scale. Each particle, called a Claytronics atom or Catom, is less than a millimeter in diameter. With billions you could make almost any object you wanted. See the concept video after the break.

Carnegie Mellon isn’t the only university pursuing intelligent materials. MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA) is actively trying to merge physics and computer science. Neil Gershenfeld, CBA’s director and one of the leaders in computational physics, is seeking to design, build and program computers that are what they compute. He’s taking the “bit” and turning it into an “it,” instead of the other way around.

It All Looks Good on Paper

It would be amazing if these technologies were available today, but they are still a long way off. In fact, as far as accomplishments, modular robotics on the human sized scale have shown a lot more success. What makes CBA and Claytronics so interesting is that they are proceeding at a steady (albeit slow) pace and making clear progress in the underlying research of the concept.

In hardware, Claytronics has already made centimeter sized cylindrical catoms that have basic features. They can latch together and recognize when they are latched, and they can be moved using electrostatic forces. Carnegie Mellon is also researching how to power the catoms using magnetic resonance coupling (having each catom convert a magnetic field into electricity). Catoms will be so small that electric forces will be more important than gravity so they’re using helium filled cubes to test how catoms will work when gravity is no longer the dominate force.

Software research is just as rigorous. Programmers have to create a system where catoms can communicate wirelessly over relatively long ranges and with little power. In a single cubic meter, there could be a billion catoms. That means a billion computers trying to talk to each other and move themselves to form a shape. It’s a daunting task but it’s helped by a great concept known as “fungibility.”

When something is fungible, not only is twice as many twice as useful, half as many is half as useful. Bread is fungible, a human is not. Cut one in half and you still have food, cut the other in half and you go to jail. Right now, computers are not fungible. With programmable matter, they would be. That same cubic meter of a billion catoms is essentially a network of a billion computers. That’s a lot of computational power – more than enough to organize it into different shapes. And if the computer was separated into sections, the overall computing power would still be the same. Don’t try that with your laptop.

Fungbility is a concept that Gershenfeld at CBA can really get behind. At TED 2006, he discussed how programmable matter and fungible computers will allow you to “pour out” as much computer as you need to solve a problem. The amount of computational strength you need would be matched by a physical quantity in the real world. Watch his talk below, but be warned: it’s long, he talks fast, and some of the ideas are a little heady.

What will it mean for us to be Post-Scarcity?

For those of you who managed through all seventeen minutes of Gershenfeld’s talk, you’ll notice a lot of it didn’t have anything to do with programmable matter at all. He started discussing “fabrication labs” as well. The two concepts are related. When you have programmable matter, tiny computers will be able to form into any shape. You’ll be able to make almost anything. So what will we do with this technology?

Working with non-programmable matter, Gershenfeld organized a lab with some basic tools: a laser cutter, milling machines, a sign cutter, and programming instruments. Costing somewhere around $20,000 these basic labs can make almost any useful modern device. Computer boards, antennas, you name it. He shared these labs with educational groups all over the world. What did he find? Human ingenuity is more powerful than previously expected.

Children, and adults, were designing chips, tools, and many other inventions to solve local problems. By providing the means, local solutions arose from local inventors. This, my friends, is one of the most promising aspects of programmable matter: when we can build anything, we can solve any problem. The programmable matter will provide the computational power and the physical forms that we can organize into tools to fix…well…everything.

That’s the dream, and I believe in it, but I would be amiss if I didn’t point out the nightmare. Look at the weapons humanity has made from sticks and stones and you can begin to imagine the destruction that could be unleashed with programmable matter. Even if we learn to love and let live, the programmable matter will have a huge amount of computational power, enough to support artificial intelligence. Can we hope to control a material that can out-think and out-build us?

Fear doesn’t help us much, however. Intelligent material isn’t just a powerful and promising concept, it’s an inevitable invention. Computer chip manufacturers are creating smaller and smaller devices, modular robotics are becoming more sophisticated, and artificial intelligence is pre-natal but growing. These trends will converge and lead us to programmable matter eventually. Instead of fearing that development, we can work to understand it better and harness it for limitless possibilities.

Because that’s a real likelihood. The world could really use programmable matter to move beyond living for day to day necessities and start exploring humanity’s potential. When everyone has access to a fabrication lab that can make almost anything, the world will be populated by inventors. Not only will every cubic meter have billions of computers, the world will have 7 billion (or more) human minds guiding those computers to new discoveries. In our life times, or our children’s, we will come to realize an inevitable and quite literal truth: the world is what we make it.

Categories: AI Robotics · Nanotechnology · Sci-Tech

Military killer robots could lead to major escalation in civilian deaths

August 4, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Terminator salvation robot

Terminator style killer robots could lead to a major escalation in civilian deaths, warns Prof Noel Sharkey  Photo: WARNER BROS. PICTURES

Action on a global scale must be taken to curb the development of military killer robots that think for themselves, a leading British expert said.

Military killer robots ‘could endanger civilians’

Telegraph | Aug 3, 2009

“Terminator”-style machines that decide how, when and who to kill are just around the corner, warns Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield.

Far from helping to reduce casualties, their use is likely to make conflict and war more common and lead to a major escalation in numbers of civilian deaths, he believes.

“I do think there should be some international discussion and arms control on these weapons but there’s absolutely none,” said Prof Sharkey.

“The military have a strange view of artificial intelligence based on science fiction. The nub of it is that robots do not have the necessary discriminatory ability. They can’t distinguish between combatants and civilians. It’s hard enough for soldiers to do that.”

Iraq and Afghanistan have both provided ideal “showcases” for robot weapons, said Prof Sharkey.

The “War on Terror” declared by President George Bush spurred on the development of pilotless drone aircraft deployed against insurgents.

Initially used for surveillance, drones such as the Predator and larger Reaper were now armed with bombs and missiles.

The US currently has 200 Predators and 30 Reapers and next year alone will be spending 5.5 billion dollars (£3.29 billion) on unmanned combat vehicles.

Britain had two Predators until one crashed in Iraq last year.

At present these weapons are still operated remotely by humans sitting in front of computer screens. RAF pilots on secondment were among the more experienced controllers used by the US military, while others only had six weeks training, said Prof Sharkey. “If you’re good at computer games, you’re in,” he added.

But rapid progress was being made towards robots which took virtually all their own decisions and were merely “supervised” by humans.

These would be fully autonomous killing machines reminiscent of those depicted in the “Terminator” films.

“The next thing that’s coming, and this is what really scares me, are armed autonomous robots,” said Prof Sharkey speaking to journalists in London. “The robot will do the killing itself. This will make decision making faster and allow one person to control many robots. A single soldier could initiate a large scale attack from the air and the ground.

“It could happen now; the technology’s there.”

A step on the way had already been taken by Israel with “Harpy”, a pilotless aircraft that flies around searching for an enemy radar signal. When it thinks one has been located and identified as hostile, the drone turns into a homing missile and launches an attack – all without human intervention.

Last year the British aerospace company BAe Systems completed a flying trial with a group of drones that could communicate with each other and select their own targets, said Prof Starkey. The United States Air Force was looking at the concept of “swarm technology” which involved multiple drone aircraft operating together.

Flying drones were swiftly being joined by armed robot ground vehicles, such as the Talon Sword which bristles with machine guns, grenade launchers, and anti-tank missiles.

However it was likely to be decades before such robots possessed a human-like ability to tell friend from foe.

Even with human controllers, drones were already stacking up large numbers of civilian casualties.

As a result of 60 known drone attacks in Pakistan between January 2006 and April 2009, 14 al Qaida leaders had been killed but also 607 civilians, said Prof Sharkey.

The US was paying teenagers “thousands of dollars” to drop infrared tags at the homes of al Qaida suspects so that Predator drones could aim their weapons at them, he added. But often the tags were thrown down randomly, marking out completely innocent civilians for attack.

Prof Sharkey, who insists he is “not a pacifist” and has no anti-war agenda, said: “If we keep on using robot weapons we’re going to put civilians at grave risk and it’s going to be much easier to start wars. The main inhibitor of wars is body bags coming home.

“People talk about programming the ‘laws of war’ into a computer to give robots a conscience, so that if the target is a civilian you don’t shoot. But for a robot to recognise a civilian you need an exact specification, and one of the problems is there’s no specific definition of a civilian. Soldiers have to rely on common sense.

“I’m not saying it will never happen, but I know what’s out there and it’s not going to happen for a long time.”

Matthew Knowles, from the aerospace, defence and security trade association SBAC, said: “Scare stories such as this are not helpful contributions to what is an important debate. The convention is that any decision to take a life using unmanned vehicles, which is of course a very serious choice to make, is carried out by a properly trained military human operator.”

Categories: AI Robotics · Advanced Weaponry · Crime & Corruption · Depopulation · Genocide · Perpetual War · Psychopathy · Sci-Tech · Social Engineering

Scientists fear a revolt by killer robots

August 2, 2009 · Leave a Comment

terminator_robot

Advances in artificial intelligence are bringing the sci-fi fantasy dangerously closer to fact

London Times | Aug 2, 2009

by John Arlidge

A ROBOT that makes a morning cuppa, a fridge that orders the weekly shop, a car that parks itself.

Advances in artificial intelligence promise many benefits, but scientists are privately so worried they may be creating machines which end up outsmarting — and perhaps even endangering — humans that they held a secret meeting to discuss limiting their research.

At the conference, held behind closed doors in Monterey Bay, California, leading researchers warned that mankind might lose control over computer-based systems that carry out a growing share of society’s workload, from waging war to chatting on the phone, and have already reached a level of indestructibility comparable with a cockroach.

“These are powerful technologies that could be used in good ways or scary ways,” warned Eric Horvitz, principal researcher at Microsoft who organised the conference on behalf of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.

According to Alan Winfield, a professor at the University of the West of England, scientists are spending too much time developing artificial intelligence and too little on robot safety.

“We’re rapidly approaching the time when new robots should undergo tests, similar to ethical and clinical trials for new drugs, before they can be introduced,” he said.

The scientists who presented their findings at the International Joint Conference for Artificial Intelligence in Pasadena, California, last month fear that nightmare scenarios, which have until now been limited to science fiction films, such as the Terminator series, The Matrix, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Minority Report, could come true.

Robotic unmanned predator drones, for example, which can seek out and kill human targets, have already moved out of the movie theatres and into the theatre of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. While at present controlled by human operators, they are moving towards more autonomous control.

They could also soon be found on the streets. Samsung, the South Korean electronics company, has developed autonomous sentry robots to serve as armed border guards. They have “shoot-to-kill” capability.

Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at Sheffield University, warned that such robots could soon be used for policing, for example during riots such as those seen in London at the recent G20 summit. “Is this a good thing?” he asked.

Scientists are particularly worried about the way the latest, highly sophisticated artificially intelligent products perform human-like functions.

Japanese consumers can already buy robots that “learn” their owner’s behaviour, can open the front door and even find electrical outlets and recharge themselves so they never stop working.

One high-tech US firm is working on robotic nurses, dubbed “nursebots”, that interact with patients to simulate empathy. Critics told the conference that, at best, this could be dehumanising; at worst, something could go wrong with the programming.

The scientists dismissed as fanciful fears about “singularity” — the term used to describe the point where robots have become so intelligent they are able to build ever more capable versions of themselves without further input from mankind.

The conference was nevertheless told that new artificial intelligence viruses are helping criminals to steal people’s identities. Criminals are working on viruses that are planted in mobile phones and “copy” users’ voices. After stealing the voice, criminals can masquerade as a victim on the phone or circumvent speech recognition security systems.

Another kind of smartphone virus silently monitors text messages, e-mail, voice, diary and bank details. The virus then uses the information to impersonate people online, with little or no external guidance from the thieves. The researchers warned that many of the new viruses defy extermination, reaching what one speaker called “the cockroach stage”.

Some speakers called for researchers to adopt the “three laws” of robotics created by Isaac Asimov, the science fiction author, that are designed to protect humanity from machines with their own agenda. Each robot, Asimov said, must be programmed never to kill or injure a human or, through inaction, allow a human to suffer. A robot must obey human orders, unless this contravenes the first law. A robot must protect itself, unless it contravenes either of the first two laws.

While many scientists fear artificial intelligence could run amok, some argue that ultrasmart machines will instead offer huge advances in life extension and wealth creation.

Some pointed out that artificial intelligence was already helping us in complex, sometimes life-and-death situations. Poseidon Technologies, the French firm, sells artificial intelligence systems that help lifeguards identify when a person is drowning in a swimming pool. Microsoft’s Clearflow system helps drivers to pick the best route by analysing traffic behaviour; and artificial intelligence systems are making cars safer, reducing road accidents.

Categories: AI Robotics · Order Out Of Chaos · Predictive Programming · Sci-Tech

Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man

July 27, 2009 · Leave a Comment

robot_recharge

This personal robot plugs itself in when it needs a charge. Servant now, master later?

NY Times | Jul 26, 2009

By JOHN MARKOFF

A robot that can open doors and find electrical outlets to recharge itself. Computer viruses that no one can stop. Predator drones, which, though still controlled remotely by humans, come close to a machine that can kill autonomously.

Impressed and alarmed by advances in artificial intelligence, a group of computer scientists is debating whether there should be limits on research that might lead to loss of human control over computer-based systems that carry a growing share of society’s workload, from waging war to chatting with customers on the phone.

Their concern is that further advances could create profound social disruptions and even have dangerous consequences.

As examples, the scientists pointed to a number of technologies as diverse as experimental medical systems that interact with patients to simulate empathy, and computer worms and viruses that defy extermination and could thus be said to have reached a “cockroach” stage of machine intelligence.

While the computer scientists agreed that we are a long way from Hal, the computer that took over the spaceship in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” they said there was legitimate concern that technological progress would transform the work force by destroying a widening range of jobs, as well as force humans to learn to live with machines that increasingly copy human behaviors.

The researchers — leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence researchers and roboticists who met at the Asilomar Conference Grounds on Monterey Bay in California — generally discounted the possibility of highly centralized superintelligences and the idea that intelligence might spring spontaneously from the Internet. But they agreed that robots that can kill autonomously are either already here or will be soon.

They focused particular attention on the specter that criminals could exploit artificial intelligence systems as soon as they were developed. What could a criminal do with a speech synthesis system that could masquerade as a human being? What happens if artificial intelligence technology is used to mine personal information from smart phones?

The researchers also discussed possible threats to human jobs, like self-driving cars, software-based personal assistants and service robots in the home. Just last month, a service robot developed by Willow Garage in Silicon Valley proved it could navigate the real world.

A report from the conference, which took place in private on Feb. 25, is to be issued later this year. Some attendees discussed the meeting for the first time with other scientists this month and in interviews.

The conference was organized by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, and in choosing Asilomar for the discussions, the group purposefully evoked a landmark event in the history of science. In 1975, the world’s leading biologists also met at Asilomar to discuss the new ability to reshape life by swapping genetic material among organisms. Concerned about possible biohazards and ethical questions, scientists had halted certain experiments. The conference led to guidelines for recombinant DNA research, enabling experimentation to continue.

The meeting on the future of artificial intelligence was organized by Eric Horvitz, a Microsoft researcher who is now president of the association.

Dr. Horvitz said he believed computer scientists must respond to the notions of superintelligent machines and artificial intelligence systems run amok.

The idea of an “intelligence explosion” in which smart machines would design even more intelligent machines was proposed by the mathematician I. J. Good in 1965. Later, in lectures and science fiction novels, the computer scientist Vernor Vinge popularized the notion of a moment when humans will create smarter-than-human machines, causing such rapid change that the “human era will be ended.” He called this shift the Singularity.

This vision, embraced in movies and literature, is seen as plausible and unnerving by some scientists like William Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems. Other technologists, notably Raymond Kurzweil, have extolled the coming of ultrasmart machines, saying they will offer huge advances in life extension and wealth creation.

“Something new has taken place in the past five to eight years,” Dr. Horvitz said. “Technologists are replacing religion, and their ideas are resonating in some ways with the same idea of the Rapture.”

The Kurzweil version of technological utopia has captured imaginations in Silicon Valley. This summer an organization called the Singularity University began offering courses to prepare a “cadre” to shape the advances and help society cope with the ramifications.

“My sense was that sooner or later we would have to make some sort of statement or assessment, given the rising voice of the technorati and people very concerned about the rise of intelligent machines,” Dr. Horvitz said.

The A.A.A.I. report will try to assess the possibility of “the loss of human control of computer-based intelligences.” It will also grapple, Dr. Horvitz said, with socioeconomic, legal and ethical issues, as well as probable changes in human-computer relationships. How would it be, for example, to relate to a machine that is as intelligent as your spouse?

Dr. Horvitz said the panel was looking for ways to guide research so that technology improved society rather than moved it toward a technological catastrophe. Some research might, for instance, be conducted in a high-security laboratory.

The meeting on artificial intelligence could be pivotal to the future of the field. Paul Berg, who was the organizer of the 1975 Asilomar meeting and received a Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1980, said it was important for scientific communities to engage the public before alarm and opposition becomes unshakable.

“If you wait too long and the sides become entrenched like with G.M.O.,” he said, referring to genetically modified foods, “then it is very difficult. It’s too complex, and people talk right past each other.”

Tom Mitchell, a professor of artificial intelligence and machine learning at Carnegie Mellon University, said the February meeting had changed his thinking. “I went in very optimistic about the future of A.I. and thinking that Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil were far off in their predictions,” he said. But, he added, “The meeting made me want to be more outspoken about these issues and in particular be outspoken about the vast amounts of data collected about our personal lives.”

Despite his concerns, Dr. Horvitz said he was hopeful that artificial intelligence research would benefit humans, and perhaps even compensate for human failings. He recently demonstrated a voice-based system that he designed to ask patients about their symptoms and to respond with empathy. When a mother said her child was having diarrhea, the face on the screen said, “Oh no, sorry to hear that.”

A physician told him afterward that it was wonderful that the system responded to human emotion. “That’s a great idea,” Dr. Horvitz said he was told. “I have no time for that.”

Categories: AI Robotics · Mind Control · Predictive Programming · Psychological Operations · Psychopathy · Sci-Tech · Social Engineering

Boy drinks gasoline to become a Transformer robot

July 22, 2009 · 5 Comments

transfomer

A scene from the movie Transformers II

A nine-year-old Chinese boy has been left seriously ill after drinking petrol in order to turn him into a Transformer-type robot.

Telegraph | Jul 22, 2009

Xiao Fang, from Xingwen in eastern China, reportedly drank the petrol in secret, sipping it as he ate food in the belief that it could help him emulate the powers of robotic superheroes such as the Transformers.

However he has been left critically ill and has suffered serious nerve damage.

A doctor treating him said: “I am amazed he kept it down.”

The boy’s parents admitted their suspicions had been aroused by a strange smell.

“I wondered about the smell of petrol in our home,” said Xiao Fang’s father.

Categories: AI Robotics · Child Takeover · Mental Health · Movies · Predictive Programming · Social Engineering · Transhumanism

Robots Could Replace Teachers

July 18, 2009 · 2 Comments

LiveScience | Jul 16, 2009

By Robin Lloyd

In the future, more and more of us will learn from social robots, especially kids learning pre-school skills and students of all ages studying a new language.

This is just one of the scenarios sketched in a review essay that looks at a “new science of learning,” which brings together recent findings from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, machine learning and education.

The essay, published in the July 17 issue of the journal Science, outlines new insights into how humans learn now and could learn in the future, based on various studies including some that document the amazing amount of brain development that happens in infants and later on in childhood.

The premise for the new thinking: We humans are born immature and naturally curious, and become creatures capable of highly complex cultural achievements — such as the ability to build schools and school systems that can teach us how to create computers that mimic our brains.

With a stronger understanding of how this learning happens, scientists are coming up with new principles for human learning, new educational theories and designs for learning environments that better match how we learn best, says one of the essay’s authors, psychologist Andrew Meltzoff of the University of Washington’s Learning in Informal and Formal Environments (LIFE) Center.

And social robots have a potentially growing role in these future learning environments, he says. The mechanisms behind these sophisticated machines apparently complement some of the mechanisms behind human learning.

One such robot, which looks like the head of Albert Einstein, was revealed this week to show facial expressions and react to real human expressions. The researchers who built the strikingly real-looking yet body-less ‘bot plan to test it in schools.

Machine learning

In the first 5 years of life, our learning is “exhuberant” and “effortless,” Meltzoff says. We are born learning, he says, and adults are driven to teach infants and children. During those years and up to puberty, our brains exhibit “neural plasticity” — it’s easier to learn languages, including foreign languages. It’s almost magical how we learn a foreign language, what becomes our native tongue, in the first two or three years we’re alive, Meltzoff said.

Magic aside, our early learning is computational, Meltzoff and his colleagues write.

Children under three and even infants have been found to use statistical thinking, such as frequency distributions and probabilities and covariation, to learn the phonetics of their native tongue and to infer cause-effect relationships in the physical world.

Some of these findings have helped engineers build machines that can learn and develop social skills, such as BabyBot, a baby doll trained to detect human faces.

Meanwhile, our learning is also highly social, so social, in fact, that newborns as young as 42 minutes old have been found to match gestures shown to them, such as someone sticking out her tongue or opening his mouth, Meltzoff and a colleague reported more than a decade ago.

Imitation is a key component to our learning — it’s a faster and safer way to learn than just trying to figure something out on our own, the authors write.

Even as adults, we use imitation when we go to a new setting such as a dinner party or a foreign country, to try and fit in. Of course, for kids, the learning packed into every day can amount to traveling to a foreign country. In this case, they are “visiting” adult culture and learning how to act like the people in our culture,  becoming more like us.

If you roll all these human learning features into the field of robotics, there is a somewhat natural overlap — robots are well-suited to imitate us, learn from us, socialize with us and eventually teach us, the researchers say.

Robot teachers

Social robots are being used on an experimental basis already to teach various skills to preschool children, including the names of colors, new vocabulary words and simple songs.

In the future, robots will only be used to teach certain skills, such as acquiring a foreign or new language, possibly in playgroups with children or to individual adults. But robot teachers can be cost-effective compared to the expense of paying a human teacher, Meltzoff told LiveScience.

“If we can capture the magic of social interaction and pedagogy, what makes social interaction so effective as a vehicle for learning, we may be able to embody some of those tricks in machines, including computer agents, automatic tutors, and robots,” he said.

Still, children clearly learn best from other people and playgroups of peers, Meltzoff said, and he doesn’t see children in the future being taught entirely by robots.

Terrance Sejnowski of the Temporal Dynamics of Learning Center (TDLC) at the University of California at San Diego, a co-author of the new essay with Meltzoff, is working on using technology to merge the social with the instructional, and bringing it to bear on classrooms to create personalized, individualized teaching tailored to students and tracking their progress.

“By developing a very sophisticated computational model of a child’s mind, we can help improve that child’s performance,” Sejnowski said.

Overall, the hope, Meltzoff said, is to “figure out how to combine the passion and curiosity for learning that children display with formal schooling. There is no reason why curiosity and passion can’t be fanned at school where there are dedicated professionals, teachers, trying to help children learn.”

The essay is the first published article as part of a collaboration between the TDLC and the LIFE Center, both of which are funded under multimillion-dollar grants from the National Science Foundation. Meltzoff’s other co-authors on the essay are Patricia Kuhl of the University of Washington and Javier Movellan of the TDLC.

Categories: AI Robotics · Child Takeover · Mind Control · Sci-Tech · Social Engineering

Military Robots to Feed on Human Flesh

July 16, 2009 · 1 Comment

terminator_robot

It could be a combination of 19th-century mechanics, 21st-century technology — and a 20th-century horror movie.

Fox News | Jul 15, 2009

A Maryland company under contract to the Pentagon is working on a steam-powered robot that would fuel itself by gobbling up whatever organic material it can find — grass, wood, old furniture, even dead bodies.

Robotic Technology Inc.’s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot — that’s right, “EATR” — “can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment (and other organically-based energy sources), as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable,” reads the company’s Web site.

That “biomass” and “other organically-based energy sources” wouldn’t necessarily be limited to plant material — animal and human corpses contain plenty of energy, and they’d be plentiful in a war zone.

EATR will be powered by the Waste Heat Engine developed by Cyclone Power Technology of Pompano Beach, Fla., which uses an “external combustion chamber” burning up fuel to heat up water in a closed loop, generating electricity.

The advantages to the military are that the robot would be extremely flexible in fuel sources and could roam on its own for months, even years, without having to be refueled or serviced.

Upon the EATR platform, the Pentagon could build all sorts of things — a transport, an ambulance, a communications center, even a mobile gunship.

In press materials, Robotic Technology presents EATR as an essentially benign artificial creature that fills its belly through “foraging,” despite the obvious military purpose.

_______

Related

Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR)

Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR)™

Categories: AI Robotics · Advanced Weaponry · Crime & Corruption · Dehumanization · Perpetual War

March of the killer robots

June 16, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Robots_predator

Killing machine: one of America’s unmanned Reaper hunter-killer aircraft Photo: PHILIP COBURN

The development of mechanical soldiers and remote-controlled tanks and planes is changing war for ever – but the moral consequences have often been overlooked.

Telegraph | Jun 15, 2009

By Noel Sharkey

It’s the most realistic shoot-’em-up game ever. The player has a choice of two planes: a Predator with two Hellfire missiles, or a Reaper with 14. The action takes place in the Middle East, where you can attack villages and kill the inhabitants with impunity. But don’t bother looking for it in the shops: to play this deadly game, you’ll have to travel to Creech Air Force base in the Nevada desert. That’s because the planes are real, and so are the casualties.

The first time a Predator made a kill was in Yemen, in 2002, when the CIA used it to destroy a vehicle carrying an al-Qaeda leader and five of his associates. The fleet now stands at around 200 craft, which have flown more than 400,000 combat hours. The company that makes them, General Atomics, can’t keep up with the demand. The bigger, badder version – the Reaper hunter-killer – is also flying off the shelves. There are now around 30 in active service, with the first kill taking place in the mountains of Afghanistan in October 2007.

In every field of warfare, mechanical soldiers are fighting alongside – or instead of – human beings. Apart from unmanned combat air vehicles such as Predators, the skies above Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are filled with drones carrying out surveillance operations. On the ground are between 6,000 and 12,000 robots, up from a mere 150 in 2004. Their role is mostly to protect our soldiers by disrupting improvised explosive devices, or to carry out surveillance of dangerous places such as caves and buildings.

Our image of such robots owes a great deal to films – most notably The Terminator or Transformers, both of which have sequels out this month. But the actual models being used are more like miniature tanks, similar to the contraptions seen on the television series Robot Wars. The most popular is the PackBot made by the US company iRobot, which is normally used for bomb disposal. As the company started out making robotic vacuum cleaners known as Roombas, the 18kg PackBot is sometimes jokingly referred to as the “Roomba of doom” or “Doomba” – much to the displeasure of the firm’s management, who would clearly hope to keep the two brands separate.

Recently, iRobot joined forces with Taser International to mount the allegedly non-lethal weapons on the “bots”. But that pales in comparison with the ordnance that comes with the Talon, a larger device made by Foster-Miller, a US subsidiary of the British firm QinetiQ. It comes with chemical, gas, temperature and radiation sensors and can be mounted with a choice of grenade launcher, machine gun, incendiary weapon or 50-calibre rifle. Its bigger brother, the MAARS robot, ups the stakes with a tanklike turret.

Despite planned cutbacks in spending on conventional weapons, the Obama administration is increasing its budget for robotics: in 2010, the US Air Force will be given $2.13 billion for unmanned technology, including $489.24 million to procure 24 heavily armed Reapers. The US Army plans to spend $2.13 billion on unmanned vehicle technology, including 36 more Predators, while the Navy and Marine Corps will spend $1.05 billion, part of which will go on armed MQ-8B helicopters.

Of course, when the military describes such systems as “unmanned”, it is stretching the truth very slightly. At the moment, all the armed robots in the Middle East are remote-controlled by humans – there is a “man in the loop” to control them and to decide when and whether to apply lethal force.

But that makes very little difference to villagers in Waziristan, where there have been repeated Predator strikes since 2006, many of them controlled from Creech Air Force Base, thousands of miles away. According to reports coming out of Pakistan, these have killed 14 al-Qaeda leaders and more than 600 civilians.

Such widespread collateral damage suggests that the human remote-controllers are not doing a very good job of restraining their robotic servants. In fact, the role of the “man in the loop” is becoming vanishingly small, and will disappear. “Our decision power [as controllers] is really only to give a veto,” argues Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. “And, if we are honest with ourselves, it is a veto power we are often unable or unwilling to exercise because we only have a half-second to react.”

As Dyke Weatherington, deputy director of the Pentagon’s Unmanned Aerial Systems Task Force, points out: “There’s really no way that a system that is remotely controlled can effectively operate in an offensive or defensive air combat environment. The requirement of that is a fully autonomous system.”

Sure enough, plans are well under way to develop robots that can locate and destroy targets without human intervention. There are already a number of autonomous ground vehicles, such as the seven-ton “Crusher” developed by DARPA, the US military’s research agency. BAE Systems, a British defence contractor, recently reported that it had “completed a flying trial which, for the first time, demonstrated the co-ordinated control of multiple Unmanned Aerial Vehicles autonomously completing a series of tasks”. The Israelis are already fielding autonomous radar-killer drones known as Harpy and Harop, and the South Koreans use lethal autonomous systems to defend their border with the North.

Many in the military are enthusiastic about such developments. “They don’t get hungry. They’re not afraid. They don’t forget their orders,” says Dr Gordon Johnson, of the Pentagon’s Joint Forces Command. “Will they do a better job than humans? Yes.”

Dr Johnson insists that “there are no legal prohibitions against robots making life-and-death decisions”, adding: “The US military will have these kinds of robots. It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when.”

The problem, however, is that no autonomous robots or artificial intelligence systems have the necessary capabilities to discriminate between combatants and innocents. Compared with the robots in the Terminator films, they suffer from artificial stupidity. Allowing them to make decisions about who to kill falls foul of the fundamental ethical precepts of the laws of war set up to protect civilians, the sick and wounded, the mentally ill and captives. We are already overreaching the technology and stretching the laws of war.

“Unless we end war, end capitalism and end science, the use of robots will only grow,” says Peter Singer. “We are building and using machines with more and more autonomy because they are viewed by militaries as useful for war, and viewed by companies as profitable business.” Spending on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles is expected to exceed tens of billions of dollars over the next 10 years, and more than 40 countries – including Russia and China – now have their own programmes.

Amid this robotic arms race, there is a sliver of hope. Professor Ron Arkin, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, believes that humans do not have the time to make rational ethical decisions in the modern battlefield. “There appears to be little alternative,” he says, “to the use of more dispassionate autonomous decision-making machinery.” He has funding from the US Army for research on how to programme ethical rules into robots to stop them causing excessive collateral damage. But this does not get around the problem of how to discriminate between innocents and combatants – and Arkin admits that the technology to fully support his system may not be available for 25 years.

The problem is that it is not just a matter of developing adequate sensors. In complex wars, complex human reasoning is often needed to decide when it is appropriate to kill. Robots do not feel anger or seek revenge – but they also don’t have sympathy, empathy, remorse or shame. Nor can they be held accountable for their actions. In subcontracting our wars to our robotic creations, we are abdicating moral responsibility, too.

Categories: AI Robotics · Advanced Weaponry · Crime & Corruption · Perpetual War