Re: The Turing test tells us nothing really.
- From: rick_sobie@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 4 Jan 2006 12:30:29 -0800
briggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> In article <1136320465.372692.134870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rick_sobie@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > Eureka!
> > I've got it by cracky I've got it.
> >
> > What about operators? Human operators, who work for a company, like
> > answering service, and they are paid, to just sit there, in their
> > office, and they look through the eyes of your robot, and when you talk
> > to it, you talk to them, they use the net to look up stuff, and they
> > merely act as the humunculous for your robot!
> >
> > Thats cheating but it is a way to do it without the positronic brain.
>
> On Star for the home, eh?
>
> What the heck has a positronic brain to do with it? Or, for that matter,
> why require it to be asenian (*)?
> >
The positronic brain is just what Isaac Asimov came up with as a
solution to the thinking robot. I suppose it was just his way of saying
some type of electronic brain designed and made when we have sufficent
advancement in our understanding of physics.
> On Star for the home, eh?
I think that important thing would be to have this companion robot be
able to connect to any humunculous service. It would need to be capable
of connecting to a service, which has robot operators, at their end,
with all the necessary skills and controls right there, to manipulate
your robot remotely, to make it appear as to be skilled itself.
You could have computer assist, filter the incoming messages, like a
pilot has on board computers in a fighter jet, which assist his flying
the plane.
But we are quite a ways away it appears, from making a robot with the
dexterity necessary, to be able to walk like a person.
Would it be so weird to have to push it around in a wheel chair then?
Until the technology could be developed further.
Until there is a good solid recognized demand, the industry isn't going
to get the funding it needs.
Maybe the best approach, is to make the robot, look human, put it in a
wheel chair, and allow people themselves, to develop it further.
If it is programming it needs, for better range of movement, then let
each user as they are capable, form clubs that do programming, and they
will develop that.
If it needs anything, make sure there are kits, that allow users to
customize their robot.
Make sure that the parts are generic, like the pc, so you can swap out
pieces, like you swap out your sound card in your pc.
Someone for instance might want to go for the 44s rather than the 36c
if you know what I mean.
You need to get the end users involved, and then you can sell them the
extras. But you can't make that your focus. Your focus would be on just
creating a robot, that had easy to swap out generic parts, could
connect to a generic service, could be enhanced by the end user, and
looked human.
I think it would be a hugely profitable industry that could equal the
pc in time.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Turing test tells us nothing really.
- From: rick_sobie
- Re: The Turing test tells us nothing really.
- References:
- The Turing test tells us nothing really.
- From: rick_sobie
- Re: The Turing test tells us nothing really.
- From: rick_sobie
- Re: The Turing test tells us nothing really.
- From: briggs
- The Turing test tells us nothing really.
- Prev by Date: Re: The Turing test tells us nothing really.
- Next by Date: Re: What cranks have been run out of this group?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Turing test tells us nothing really.
- Next by thread: Re: The Turing test tells us nothing really.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
