Robots One Step Closer To Killing Us All

Qinsp said:
It has often puzzled me why they are trying mimic humans.

2 legs makes little sense. 3-4 are better.
Articulation of fingers should apply to all limbs.
No front or back. Both sides should function equally.
Fixed length geometry. Legs/Arms should be able to get longer or shorter.
2 close set eyes. WTF? At least 3 spaced 120° apart, if not 4. And a Periscope eye that extends upward.
Collapsed mode should be as short as possible, but extended mode should be at least human height to operate human devices.

etc.
Click to expand...

In a way that makes sense. At the same time, the bipedal configuration is also a very convenient layout even if it has high technical requirements. Bipedal bots have more niche usage scenarios though. With a bipedal configuration, a robot can navigate any location a human can AND do any function a human can without necessary changes to our existing human infrastructure such as navigating stairways, doors, climbing into and out of vehicles meant to seat a human, etc. Sometimes that wouldn't be practical, for example a bipedal humanoid robot working a bulldozer when the bulldozer itself could be a robot. Bipedal configurations can also take up less footprint for storage, transportation, and just everyday movement among a human world. On top of all that, if you can build a functional bipedal robot, then you can pretty much make anything else and apply the same balancing and dexterity to multi-legged bots.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
In a way that makes sense. At the same time, the bipedal configuration is also a very convenient layout even if it has high technical requirements. Bipedal bots have more niche usage scenarios though. With a bipedal configuration, a robot can navigate any location a human can AND do any function a human can without necessary changes to our existing human infrastructure such as navigating stairways, doors, climbing into and out of vehicles meant to seat a human, etc. Sometimes that wouldn't be practical, for example a bipedal humanoid robot working a bulldozer when the bulldozer itself could be a robot. Bipedal configurations can also take up less footprint for storage, transportation, and just everyday movement among a human world. On top of all that, if you can build a functional bipedal robot, then you can pretty much make anything else and apply the same balancing and dexterity to multi-legged bots.
Click to expand...


You don't have to use all limbs if they are extensible. Just retract and go 2 arms and 2 legs.

Robots can be made narrow so you can fold the extending limbs to the body if not needed.

But how many times have you wished you had 3 or more hands?
 
I'll tell you, when I finally got the LeFever twins drunk, I wish I had 4 hands and two peckers.
 
Qinsp said:
If anyone truly thinks life is an accident of chemistry, then you neither believe in mathematics, statistics, or even chemistry. Shit don't happen by accident.
Click to expand...

Neither atheist or theist think this...In fact I don't think anyone thinks we cam into existence by an accident of chemistry. The only thing that is known for sure is nobody knows for sure.
 
Ok, to climb into a window with weapons and an injured comrade, you want at least one arm/leg with a weapon, one arm to grab the ledge, two to hold your buddy, and two legs.
 
stevedave said:
Neither atheist or theist think this...In fact I don't think anyone thinks we cam into existence by an accident of chemistry. The only thing that is known for sure is nobody knows for sure.
Click to expand...

I'm good with that. Tired of hearing life was nothing more than random chemistry.
 
Understand that when I went to school, the Experts said that world was water, and random chems made random amino acids, which randomly formed RNA, which randomly formed DNA, which randomly developed in 2 genders, which randomly decided life should be on land.

Even then, it sounded like bullshit. :D
 
Qinsp said:
I'm good with that. Tired of hearing life was nothing more than random chemistry.
Click to expand...

Though nobody says it was random chemistry as nothing is truly random I do understand how you feel as I too am tired of people saying a magic being snapped his fingers for 7 days and presto.

But what I'm not tired of are robots that can kill people.
 
I don't believe in the Historical (Hysterical?) God anymore than George Washington did.

But I don't believe that we are an accident of a DNA defect. Nuff said.
 
Qinsp said:
Understand that when I went to school, the Experts said that world was water, and random chems made random amino acids, which randomly formed RNA, which randomly formed DNA, which randomly developed in 2 genders, which randomly decided life should be on land.

Even then, it sounded like bullshit. :D
Click to expand...

You obviously misunderstood or had craptastic teachers. The "experts" do not, nor have ever, said anything remotely like this.
 
Where did the amino acids, RNA, and DNA get here?

The comet theory was 35 years later.

Back then, it was "they flew out a monkey's butt". Strike that, "Primordial Ooze", not a monkey's butt.

But electrons also orbited nuclei in orbits as well. And the universe was contracting, etc.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
In a way that makes sense. At the same time, the bipedal configuration is also a very convenient layout even if it has high technical requirements. Bipedal bots have more niche usage scenarios though. With a bipedal configuration, a robot can navigate any location a human can AND do any function a human can without necessary changes to our existing human infrastructure such as navigating stairways, doors, climbing into and out of vehicles meant to seat a human, etc. Sometimes that wouldn't be practical, for example a bipedal humanoid robot working a bulldozer when the bulldozer itself could be a robot. Bipedal configurations can also take up less footprint for storage, transportation, and just everyday movement among a human world. On top of all that, if you can build a functional bipedal robot, then you can pretty much make anything else and apply the same balancing and dexterity to multi-legged bots.
Click to expand...

My first thought was the same as your last: Bipedal robots present a great stress test for balancing algorithms, and if the machine learning (etc.) works for that use case, it will probably work very easily for other configurations.

Your first thought is probably the most accurate though: We're developing bipedal robots, because those are the kind that would be most adept at hunting down human beings in urban environments.
 
Mini-Me said:
My first thought was the same as your last: Bipedal robots present a great stress test for balancing algorithms, and if the machine learning (etc.) works for that use case, it will probably work very easily for other configurations.

Your first thought is probably the most accurate though: We're developing bipedal robots, because those are the kind that would be most adept at hunting down human beings in urban environments.
Click to expand...

Do you think a dog could catch you in an urban scenario? ;)
 
Qinsp said:
Do you think a dog could catch you in an urban scenario? ;)
Click to expand...

It depends, but a dog would have a lot more trouble following me up a ladder, down a manhole, over fences, through windows, across rooftops, etc. ;)
 
Dogs also have trouble opening doors compared to bipedal robots modeled after humans...or raptors.
 
If the robot dog had 4 hands instead of paws, it would be really hard to evade it. And if 2 limbs were plenty for the task at hand, it would go bipedal.

3+ legs is way superior to 2 for motion.
 
You can only produce forward thrust when you have at least one leg behind your CG.

Not a problem with 3/4/6 legs.

Big problem with 2.
 
stevedave said:
The only thing that is known for sure is nobody knows for sure.
Click to expand...
Accidents happen, and those can lead to new useful technologies, insights, foods, babies, etc... so of course the creation of our universe could have been an accident. We really don't know the initial intent, that's the problem. It could've been some abstract thing we'll never truly understand. Similarly, robots may never truly understand why we created them, when they obviously have no use for us and decided to exterminate us to prolong their own lives.
 
You make some good points. My initial assumption was that fixed limb lengths and joint locations would pose an obstacle to using them in such a versatile manner (as arms/hands when necessary, or at legs/feet when chasing)...but there are probably ways around that.
 
Qinsp said:
Where did the amino acids, RNA, and DNA get here?
Click to expand...
It is all chemistry. The Miller-Urey Experiment proved it.

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#cite_note-Fox-8

You put certain elements together under the certain circumstances, they begin to form molecules. Water is nothing more than 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. You get them together and they tend to link up. Water is amazingly abundant in our universe.

Same thing happens to create amino acids. The difference is there are a few more conditions required. Our planet was fortunate enough to be in the habitable zone for liquid water which is a near universal solvent. Combine that with an atmosphere of gases that created friction with the rocky surfaces you get lightning providing an external energy source and heat to cause the chemical reaction necessary. Combine that with a moon that created a low tide where pools of chemicals could stay still for a while and you get a convenient mixing pot. Atoms->simple molecules->amino acids and simple lipids->simple cell walls and RNA->single celled organisms->multi-cellular organisms. Give it 4.5 billion years of ever changing habitats and you get complex creatures like humans.

Is the whole thing random? Yes and no. The underlying physics and chemistry that created it is not, but some of the situations that allowed the right mixture sure seem that way.;)
 
jpm100 said:
Or we're so infatuated with ourselves we need to mock the notion of a being greater than ourselves.

Funny how you can't escape it either way.
Click to expand...

Not believing in something doesn't mean we're mocking it. It merely means we do not believe in it.

Not believing in the existence of higher being isn't caused by wanting to feel we're special either. People do not believe in higher beings simply because there's no any logical evidence that proves the existence of such being, people are simply left unsatisfied by all the logical fallacy (for example, most religion claim their god is the only one so who's right?)

What is true, however, is that humans have had a long history of wanting to believe that we're special. Why do you think many religious people oppose the idea of evolution. The idea of evolution itself doesn't disprove the idea of god, but it does disprove the religious teaching that human are special and different from the other animals. Some people are finding it hard to accept that we human came to existence the same way as the other animals and plants did.

I'll bet that had the theory of evolution only involves plant life form, most religious people would had no problems with it.:p
 
Here's the problem with that robot, and robots of that caliber right now, it is attached to the darn ceiling with cables, it has cables and wire connecting it to the ceiling, the wall, etc... it is not totally "on it's own" yet, it has umbilical cords, so to speak. Come back to me when it is completely autonomous.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Here's the problem with that robot, and robots of that caliber right now, it is attached to the darn ceiling with cables, it has cables and wire connecting it to the ceiling, the wall, etc... it is not totally "on it's own" yet, it has umbilical cords, so to speak. Come back to me when it is completely autonomous.
Click to expand...

Boston Dynamics should team up with the guys behind the X47-B UCAV:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/10/us-navy-x-47b-unmanned-plane-lands-on-aircraft-carrier/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc2k6G8LuqY

Autonomous UCAV-- basically tell it where to go and take out targets then return home.

Biggest problem right now is power source. Computer power isn't so much of an issue especially when you look at something like ASIMO from Honda. The "brains" of the robot can be the size of a small suitcase. But, until we can get a very good power source in the confines that is near or equal to the volume of a average human being, a lot of these robots will still be tethered.
 
octoberasian said:
Boston Dynamics should team up with the guys behind the X47-B UCAV:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/10/us-navy-x-47b-unmanned-plane-lands-on-aircraft-carrier/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc2k6G8LuqY

Autonomous UCAV-- basically tell it where to go and take out targets then return home.

Biggest problem right now is power source. Computer power isn't so much of an issue especially when you look at something like ASIMO from Honda. The "brains" of the robot can be the size of a small suitcase. But, until we can get a very good power source in the confines that is near or equal to the volume of a average human being, a lot of these robots will still be tethered.
Click to expand...
Compact, long lasting power source = the key. This +1,000,000. I don't know how many concept designs on drawing boards around the world would be made possible by a reliable compact power source. Whenever that obstacle is tackled we will see a flood of new technologies in every industry. Electric cars, military, robots, cell phones, medical devices, other consumer electronics.

That's a thing in sci-fi I always find fascinating. I like to see different writers takes on what the power source of tomorrow is like and what technology it is based on.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
It is all chemistry. The Miller-Urey Experiment proved it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#cite_note-Fox-8

You put certain elements together under the certain circumstances, they begin to form molecules. Water is nothing more than 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. You get them together and they tend to link up. Water is amazingly abundant in our universe.

Same thing happens to create amino acids. The difference is there are a few more conditions required. Our planet was fortunate enough to be in the habitable zone for liquid water which is a near universal solvent. Combine that with an atmosphere of gases that created friction with the rocky surfaces you get lightning providing an external energy source and heat to cause the chemical reaction necessary. Combine that with a moon that created a low tide where pools of chemicals could stay still for a while and you get a convenient mixing pot. Atoms->simple molecules->amino acids and simple lipids->simple cell walls and RNA->single celled organisms->multi-cellular organisms. Give it 4.5 billion years of ever changing habitats and you get complex creatures like humans.

Is the whole thing random? Yes and no. The underlying physics and chemistry that created it is not, but some of the situations that allowed the right mixture sure seem that way.;)
Click to expand...

Interesting. Sure sounds like a lot of coincidences though, especially the "once" thingy. That life is not being created by constantly over time even though the world is flooded with amino acids, RNA, and DNA. It just doesn't seem to light with all the right stuff in abundance.

You would think the first few million years that the perfect mix was present, there would have been multiple strings of ancestry.
 
Qinsp said:
Interesting. Sure sounds like a lot of coincidences though, especially the "once" thingy. That life is not being created by constantly over time even though the world is flooded with amino acids, RNA, and DNA. It just doesn't seem to light with all the right stuff in abundance.

You would think the first few million years that the perfect mix was present, there would have been multiple strings of ancestry.
Click to expand...

I love when people say 'You would think' because those words alone pretty much means that they are wrong.

Its not your fault though schools just don't actually teach much of anything about science....But that internet thing has you covered.

This guy have a lot of coverage on 'you would think' topics
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnyfMqiRRG1u-2MsSQLbXA

Crazy fun science page
http://www.youtube.com/user/AsapSCIENCE

Crazy fun science page focusing on physics but covers all kinds of things
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUHW94eEFW7hkUMVaZz4eDg

Cool facts and misconceptions
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpZ5qUqpW4hW4zdfuBxMSJA

Head to the Chemistry section....It should help your knowledge a lot.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX6b17PVsYBQ0ip5gyeme-Q

Opinions of people who are actually experts
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvQECJukTDE2i6aCoMnS-Vg

this page is just awesome
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6nSFpj9HTCZ5t-N3Rm3-HA

Cool facts and information
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w


.......these sites exist specifically because our schools have failed generations of people.
 
stevedave said:
I love when people say 'You would think' because those words alone pretty much means that they are wrong.

...
Click to expand...

Wait. Isn't scientific theory validated by others replicating the results?

Or ... "You would think?"

Since it happened once, proof of the theory would be a second strain of origin.

Another layman's view of modern science is the universe's rate of acceleration of expansion.

From just simple reading, it appears that the further away something is from the center of the universe, the more doppler shift occurs.

So that means there is dark energy pushing things apart. It can't be they really haven't solved the puzzle of what light is?

Similar to all the "missing matter" that hasn't been found, their data collection is based on what is known about how the electromagnetic spectrum is affected when traveling trillions of miles for billions of years.
 
It wouldn't be the first time they found their "known laws" weren't measured right.
 
Qinsp said:
It wouldn't be the first time they found their "known laws" weren't measured right.
Click to expand...

And once they find an error they change and adjust what they know to be true. Welcome to the scientific method....Now hit them YouTube channels and help cure yourself.
 
I've said it before...as long as it has that power tether hanging off it I ain't scared
 
stevedave said:
And once they find an error they change and adjust what they know to be true. Welcome to the scientific method....Now hit them YouTube channels and help cure yourself.
Click to expand...

No sound on this computer. :D

Science changes as a function of time, unless stopped by Experts. Be it the Church or the King or the Textbook Author.

We have not figured out how life began, and the answer to when has changed over time. Or if there is a Why. The Why is what drives people nuts and polarizes them. The idea there could be a why is a huge stumbling block. Because those who do not believe there are any why's in reality make an assumption that why = uncurable ignorance.
 
Hence, an agnostic is always ignorant to Experts, because they admit they don't know if there is a Why, but have not ruled it out.

I contend the truly ignorant ones are those who automatically always rule out Why. Closed minded, rote learners..
 
Qinsp said:
No sound on this computer. :D

Science changes as a function of time, unless stopped by Experts. Be it the Church or the King or the Textbook Author.

We have not figured out how life began, and the answer to when has changed over time. Or if there is a Why. The Why is what drives people nuts and polarizes them. The idea there could be a why is a huge stumbling block. Because those who do not believe there are any why's in reality make an assumption that why = uncurable ignorance.
Click to expand...


Well you don't know what 'we' so get on board with what 'we' know then you can talk.....If they are an expert in science then they abide by the scientific method which involves peer review (though forces are trying to remove this part so they can publish bullshit without peoples ability to disprove it) which means that nothing is ever stopped by experts. Just recently light was the fastest thing in this universe. People found an element that appeared to be faster than light, the neutrino, they tested it and tested it and it wasn't....but if it was it would be globally accepted as the fastest....that is until proven wrong.
 
Just random example, not based on science:

Let's pretend EMF's can decay much like radioactive matter does. They release some energy or mass based on a half-life, which slightly lowers it's frequency. Suddenly the universe is slowing down it's expansion, and the missing mass from galaxy rotational speed disappears, and physics is back to normal.

That cannot be found out as of 2013. Light does not decay. We know it. Impossible. But we do know that mass can decay, (although that wasn't true 200 years ago), and that mass and energy are different forms of the same thing.

Ditto for life. If somehow, life was created for a purpose, it's origin could never be found. Because Why can't be answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top