Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study Shows Babies Think Friendly Robots Are Sentient

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the stupid-babies dept.

Robotics 159

seanonymous writes "A study from University of Washington claims that babies think robots are human, so long as the robots are friendly. No word on what evil robots are thought to be. From the article: 'At 18 months old, babies have begun to make conscious delineations between sentient beings and inanimate objects. But as robots get more and more advanced, those decisions may become harder to make. What causes a baby to decide a robot is more than bits of metal? As it turns out, it takes more than humanoid looks — babies rely on social interaction to make that call.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

understandable (4, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | about 4 years ago | (#33909756)

Klaatu barada nikto -now doesn't that sound like clear baby talk?.

Re:understandable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33910154)

From what I've seen, babies have trouble making multiple consonant sounds like "kl".
Maybe "Katu bada niko". Maybe.

Re:understandable (1)

badran (973386) | about 4 years ago | (#33911774)

Just do not say that "baby talk" sentence in Arabic speaking countries.

Re:understandable (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 4 years ago | (#33910516)

If you are talking about the sounds you make TO a baby? No. Babies like "oo" sounds, like "whooos a cuutie baby? why yoou are, yes yoou are!"

There is a good reason why some call it cooing to the baby, it is because babies like the oo sound. I don't know if it is the mouth gesture, the sound, or both, but you want a fussy baby to pay attention and perk up start using words with lots of oo sounds.

Don't make fun of babies... (1)

msauve (701917) | about 4 years ago | (#33911518)

...after all, they created the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

How does this differ between humans and animals? (3, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | about 4 years ago | (#33909760)

Do they think the dog is sentient?

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33909898)

Have you ever watched a young child (18-24 months) interact with a dog or a cat? Yes, they do.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

atisss (1661313) | about 4 years ago | (#33910578)

That's it. I'm gonna build an interaction robot for my cat. So that cat thinks it's sentient and asks it for attention, not me :D

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33910460)

Dogs are sentient... I'm confused by your question.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

RawJoe (712281) | about 4 years ago | (#33910550)

I guess the question is, do you? I do.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33910626)

If you think a dog is sentient, then you must be as dumb as one. ;-) Dogs are no smarter than a mouse, or turtle, or any other animal. They simply react to rote repetition. (Run a can opener - they salivate. Pavlovian response not intelligence.)

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (2, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 years ago | (#33910680)

depends on your definition of sentience. By the wikipedia definition for example I'd say dogs are sentient.

from wikipedia...
"Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive. The term is used in science and philosophy, and in the study of artificial intelligence. Sentience is used in the study of consciousness to describe the ability to have sensations or experiences, known to Western philosophers as "qualia""

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 4 years ago | (#33910894)

My laptop and phone can feel and perceive. I don't think that qualifies them as sentience.

The problem with the term sentience is that it is a word like 'Lots". We know what it means, but it is a sliding scale.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

speroni (1258316) | about 4 years ago | (#33911190)

Your laptop can feel? What does it feel?

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 4 years ago | (#33911282)

They feel my touch, and respond to it.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 years ago | (#33911222)

I don't think my laptop or phone can 'feel or perceive'. These things have sensors, but I don't think it is remotely the same thing.

The problem with the term sentience is that it is a word like 'Lots". We know what it means, but it is a sliding scale.

I agree the line between sentience and non-sentience is very ill defined, but in my opinion its clear that higher animals fall on the sentient side of it while laptops and cell phones fall on the non-sentient side of the line.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 4 years ago | (#33911374)

Humans have sensors that allow them to feel and perceive also. That is how we do it.

I agree the line between sentience and non-sentience is very ill defined, but in my opinion its clear that higher animals fall on the sentient side of it while laptops and cell phones fall on the non-sentient side of the line.

I don't disagree with this. But, feel and perceive is not in any way what defines it.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33910726)

That's okay, we'll give you a few minutes to look up the meaning of the word sentient. If you're more logically oriented, here's a hint: sentience != sapience.

And as far as pavlovian response (aka classical conditioning) goes, that just happens to play a very large role in human development. It's when something doesn't learn from repetition that there's a good chance of no intelligence. Claiming that the presence of learning in response to repetition isn't intelligence, isn't very intelligent.

My CAPCHA word is: realize. I found that somewhat relevant.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | about 4 years ago | (#33910784)

Hm. Attack quickly followed by condescending smiley? Check. Viewpoint designed to belittle and offend? Check. Ignorance of topic in question and clear lack of qualification to comment based on statements? Check.

I'm gonna go ahead and ask you to shut the fuck up.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

PPH (736903) | about 4 years ago | (#33911354)

Hm. Attack quickly followed by condescending smiley? Check. Viewpoint designed to belittle and offend? Check. Ignorance of topic in question and clear lack of qualification to comment based on statements? Check.

Good boy. Here's a treat.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (2, Funny)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33910922)

Dogs are no smarter than a mouse, or turtle, or any other animal. They simply react to rote repetition.

I've heard other people say that, before you.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33911278)

If you think a dog is sentient, then you must be as dumb as one. ;-) Dogs are no smarter than a mouse, or turtle, or any other animal. They simply react to rote repetition. (Run a can opener - they salivate. Pavlovian response not intelligence.)

You, like 99% of nerds before you, fail to understand sentience.

You're describing sapience. Dogs, mice, and turtles are not sapient, but they almost definitely are sentient.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

hey (83763) | about 4 years ago | (#33911356)

I have a Pavlovian response to the sound of a beer being poured in to a frosty glass.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33911410)

Dogs can follow a point and can communicate through pointing. If you have a kid, you realize that at about a year old (when they really start pointing) how much of a huge communications jump this is. Other than humans, primates, and dogs, I don't know of any other animal that can communicate through pointing.

Dogs were selected as pets/companions because they have a unique set of gifts that humans find complimentary. One of those is an enhanced ability to communicate. Another is that some dogs are very cuddly.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 4 years ago | (#33911586)

If you think dogs are not sentient, then you know nothing about dogs or the proper definition of sentience.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33911652)

You're off your rocker! Dogs are absolutely in the category of sentient beings, that's not even debatable, it's science. Not only can they feel, perceive, and have high-level problem solving skills, but there is evidence that they can have "spiritual experiences". (Last part debatable, still need more research: http://news.discovery.com/animals/animals-spiritual-brain.html)

Out of character for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33911660)

I just skimmed your past post, commodore64_love, and it seems you don't usually troll like this.

Maybe you didn't realize this post was trolling? I could see how you might be unaware of the technical definition of "sentient," and further how you might be using the word "intelligent" in a Cartesian-esque Boolean sense (rather than any meaningful sense), and further how you might share the common human need to justify our position at the top of the food chain by saying that all the animals in the world have a category of fundamental inferiority that makes them little more than soft robots themselves (unlike us, of course)...

but even so, you MUST know how strongly people feel about their dogs, and how commonly dogs are considered to be members of the family, and how your post will necessarily elicit a whole train wreck of angry responses.

So, good troll.

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (1)

c6gunner (950153) | about 4 years ago | (#33911810)

If you think a dog is sentient, then you must be as dumb as one. ;-) Dogs are no smarter than a mouse, or turtle, or any other animal. They simply react to rote repetition. (Run a can opener - they salivate. Pavlovian response not intelligence.)

This raises the obvious question: is a person with a severe mental handicap sentient?

If your answer is yes, then the requirements for sentience which you've listed here are irrelevant, and you're operating off some other definition. If your answer is "no", then you're internally consistent, but I'm not sure I agree with your definition of sentience.

Also, it's worth pointing out that dogs have about the same level of intelligence as a human child early in it's developmental cycle. Is a 6 month old baby sentient? How about a 1 year old? 2 years? When exactly do we achieve sentience?

Re:How does this differ between humans and animals (4, Funny)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 4 years ago | (#33911464)

Do they think the dog is sentient?

Initially, yes. Interestingly, when our toddler was developing her language skills, she practiced three sets of sounds - English language sounds that she heard her parents speaking, Spanish-language sounds that she heard from her nanny and grandmother and growly barky sounds that she heard from the dog. Eventually she realized the dog was a lower-order being and stopped trying to speak dog.

Correction (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 4 years ago | (#33909762)

Correction: Should read "Babies behave towards things the same way they observed adults behaving towards them". The babies in the study didn't behave as if the robots were sentient unless they had watched an adult treat the robot as if it were sentient. Only if they watched an adult 'play' with the robot like a human child did the babies respond as if the robot were alive, even though the robot was programmed with the exact same movements in both set ups. This says a lot more about how children learn from adults than it does about how children perceive robots.

Re:Correction (1)

MichaelKristopeit 12 (1916012) | about 4 years ago | (#33910088)

if there wasn't a lie or false implication in the summary, samzenpus wouldn't post it.

slashdot = stagnated

Re:Correction (2, Funny)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | about 4 years ago | (#33910852)

Studies show that babies know that slashdot editors behave like robots.

Exactly (5, Interesting)

snspdaarf (1314399) | about 4 years ago | (#33910110)

Their beliefs are based on limited experience. When I was little, I watched musicians doing a live radio show. For a while after that, I thought that all music on the radio was performed live. It's the same kind of thing.

Re:Exactly (3, Insightful)

Monchanger (637670) | about 4 years ago | (#33910456)

Exactly. And likewise there's no genetic reason for babies to understand the concept of robots.

The whole question seems silly. Considering a decently life-like device, the wiser and more perceptive (read: older) a human needs to be to distinguish robotic from organic.

Re:Exactly (1)

eln (21727) | about 4 years ago | (#33910542)

Exactly: Babies are stupid. [demon.co.uk]

Re:Exactly (1)

boristdog (133725) | about 4 years ago | (#33911776)

I am SO glad I'm not the only one who thought there was always a band in the radio studio when I was a little kid!

Re:Correction (1)

QuantumG (50515) | about 4 years ago | (#33910336)

What's truly incredible about all this research is that for decades now we've known that infants can form stories about what a person is doing by observing them - even though the infant is incapable of performing the same activities, has never participated in those activities, etc.

Coming up with the experimental technique to reach this conclusion has been an education in itself.

Re:Correction (1)

sempir (1916194) | about 4 years ago | (#33910566)

Baby, watching dog take a crap.........hey......I can do that!

Where the hell is Rosie? (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about 4 years ago | (#33909782)

Seriously, where is she? [youtube.com]

Though, sometimes she is a little bossy.

Re:Where the hell is Rosie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33909980)

George mistook her for a RealDoll.

These are not the humans you are looking for (2, Funny)

Tr3vin (1220548) | about 4 years ago | (#33909792)

Hopefully, this same trick will work on robot babies. We must start at a young age and show them that we are robots. It is the only way to protect our species.

Re:These are not the humans you are looking for (4, Funny)

melikamp (631205) | about 4 years ago | (#33909984)

Who cares about robot babies? I am more concerned about robot babes.

Re:These are not the humans you are looking for (3, Funny)

kalirion (728907) | about 4 years ago | (#33911336)

Do you want Planet Earth to be destroyed?

DON'T DATE ROBOTS!

No word on what evil robots are thought to be. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33909798)

No word on what evil robots are thought to be.
That is simple. They are known to be republicans.

Well... (2, Funny)

SudoGhost (1779150) | about 4 years ago | (#33909824)

I for one, welcome our new robot babysitter overlords.

viral video idea (1)

Punto (100573) | about 4 years ago | (#33909876)

the first scientist to upload video of a baby playing with a (friendly) robot wins 20 million youtube views (whatever that's worth). I'd watch.

Re:viral video idea (1)

falsified (638041) | about 4 years ago | (#33910770)

Maybe. It'd be pretty cool to have the baby's first words to be "ERR-OR! ERR-OR!"

Not surprising--babies are stupid (1)

willith (218835) | about 4 years ago | (#33909910)

Not at all surprising--there have been conclusive studies done in the past on just how stupid babies are [demon.co.uk] .

Re:Not surprising--babies are stupid (1)

Monchanger (637670) | about 4 years ago | (#33910346)

Not just babies. Set up a robot in any city in Kansas and watch them burn it at the stake.

what about Superman, Santa, Easter Bunny..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33909954)

I've know kids much older, like 10ish to believe Superman, Spiderman, Santa and the like are all sentient...

Re:what about Superman, Santa, Easter Bunny..? (2, Insightful)

dwinks616 (1536791) | about 4 years ago | (#33910930)

I've known humans much older who think their magic jesus in the sky to somehow be any more real than superman, spiderman, santa and the like...

fictional != non-sentient (1)

Comboman (895500) | about 4 years ago | (#33911018)

Those are fictional sentient characters.

Well the turing test was passed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33909982)

So I guess the singularity will arrive shortly (great, I've been concentrating mental pray beams to a deity in hopes for a meteor, singularity or something to fix earth's status quo).

" No word on what evil robots are thought to be." (1, Offtopic)

retech (1228598) | about 4 years ago | (#33910002)

Lawyers.

Babies just have a hard time saying the word.

Re:" No word on what evil robots are thought to be (2, Funny)

2names (531755) | about 4 years ago | (#33910518)

Oh, I don't know...I've heard lots of babies say, "poo-poo."

Re:" No word on what evil robots are thought to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33910728)

Funny how a lawyer marked this as offtopic. Any advertising is good is it not?

Maybe... (1)

thtrgremlin (1158085) | about 4 years ago | (#33910010)

this only proves that social construct theory is nature rather than nurture / environmental. People form social groups through the avoidance of annoying and hostile relationships. It does not seem far fetched at all to think that people would trend towards useful, interesting, non-hostile, non-living things. People, including babies seek stimulation for learning. A playful robot would hold my attention, and I might lose interest if I thought there was a good chance he robot was going to cause me harm.

This "study" would have been much more interesting if they had only released the video tape and not shared their opinions.

Babies think everything that moves is sentient (4, Interesting)

nbauman (624611) | about 4 years ago | (#33910062)

According to psychologist Paul Bloom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bloom_(psychologist) [wikipedia.org] , babies think lots of things are sentient.

If they show a movie to babies with geometrical figures, they assume that the geometrical figures are helping or hindering each other because geometrical figures want to.

He said this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, because it improves survival if you assume everything around you that moves might be out to get you.

He also says that this is an evolutionary explanation of religion, by finding sentient beings behind all of nature. If you see a storm, there must be a sentient being behind it.

Re:Babies think everything that moves is sentient (4, Informative)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 4 years ago | (#33910668)

NOVA (from PBS) had a three-part show called "The Human Spark" which was hosted by Alan Alda. In the shows, they examined what makes us human compared to the rest of the animal kingdom and how it relates to our brain.

During the show, they showed how babies (roughly 3 - 9 months old) could discern good from bad by watching colored blocks and how they behaved towards one another or how puppets played nice with one another.

One thing that came out during the show and made me say, "Hmmm" was the fact that if I were to point at something, without saying anything, you would look in the direction I was pointing.

Oddly enough, so do dogs. If you point at something, a dog will look. Here's the interesting part: wolves don't do this. Apparently, through the ages, as we've bred dogs to their current form, we have inadvertently bred this trait into them whereas wolves, ostensibly the originator of modern dogs, lack this trait.

To see the programs, visit http://video.pbs.org/program/1356407145/ [pbs.org]

or here:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/humanspark/tag/alan-alda/ [pbs.org]

In the second link, the second excerpt called Social Networks and the Spark, has the video of a baby choosing an inanimate toys who appears friendly/cooperative compared to one that isn't.

Re:Babies think everything that moves is sentient (2, Interesting)

nbauman (624611) | about 4 years ago | (#33911272)

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't watch much TV right now, but one thing I miss is some pretty good science TV programs.

Interesting about dogs. Oddly enough, chimpanzees won't look (as I recall). You can put a reward under a can, point to it, and they won't realize you're giving them a hint.

There's a reason why humans and dogs get along so well together. Our behavior has co-evolved for 10,000 years.

Re:Babies think everything that moves is sentient (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 4 years ago | (#33911554)

Oddly enough, chimpanzees won't look (as I recall).

You are correct. That was pointed out in the show also. However, something in regards to chimps that was shown, is that if you have a treat which requires two chimps to cooperate to get, they will do it.

Now, if one chimp wants the treat and the other doesn't, while the first chimp might help for a short time, it will eventually stop. It is at that point that the second chimp appears to "encourage" the first chimp to pull its load so the second chimp can get the treat.

I believe this portion is in the third part of the series. They show a b&w film from way back demonstrating this behavior.

Re:Babies think everything that moves is sentient (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33911488)

I recall reading about an experiment where someone tried to domesticate foxes by picking the nicest ones and breeding them. Within a surprisingly small number of generations they were basically domesticated. More interesting was the number of ways in which they resembled dogs, or more specifically, the bits of dogs that are different from wolves.

I think the study decided that it was likely a consequence of neotany. Which makes me wonder what would happen if they repeated the experiment with adult dogs and wolf puppies.

And I'm not sure where you're going with "ostensibly the originator of modern dogs". Wolves are the wild animals that share the most recent common ancestor with dogs, there's no "ostensibly" about it.

Re:Babies think everything that moves is sentient (2, Interesting)

bughunter (10093) | about 4 years ago | (#33911576)

If you point at something, a dog will look.

Not a cat. If you point at something for a cat, the cat will just look at your hand. At best. If they don't just ignore you.

What does that say about cats, then?

(On the other hand, I often use my cat to help me locate a strange sound, or identify whether a strange sound is a threat. Hear sound, check cat's reaction. If the cat shows interest, then it's a novel stimulus and may warrant my attention as well. If the cat runs away, it's probably a visitor or some other cat-threat. If the cat runs to the door, it's probably Mommy.)

Re:Babies think everything that moves is sentient (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 4 years ago | (#33910788)

>> babies think lots of things are sentient

Babies can be so fucking stupid sometimes.

Re:Babies think everything that moves is sentient (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33911128)

I know. I swear, most babies don't even know how to read!

Re:Babies think everything that moves is sentient (1)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | about 4 years ago | (#33911310)

So essentially we're hardwired for animism. I'm so glad we've finally settled that question.

Re:Babies think everything that moves is sentient (1)

nbauman (624611) | about 4 years ago | (#33911838)

Human sacrifice at 11.

newsflash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33910084)

babies are idiots

Re:newsflash (1)

memeplex (910698) | about 4 years ago | (#33910808)

People are idiots.

TMX (1)

snookerhog (1835110) | about 4 years ago | (#33910206)

Maybe this is why my 18 month old thinks tickle me elmo is so fucking scary?

Re:TMX (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 4 years ago | (#33910322)

I'm pretty sure your 18 month old is right. That thing is fucking scary. [wordpress.com] :)

Adults think their pets are human (5, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | about 4 years ago | (#33910218)

Adults think their pets are human, and humans of different colors are animals. People are generally not a good source of judgment.

Re:Adults think their pets are human (1)

teachknowlegy (1003477) | about 4 years ago | (#33911820)

Throughout history and in present day you will find evidence of these things. In fact, it's a violent crime to kill police dogs, but only a crime of passion to kill an ex. Of course, if the ex is a dog, and has ever been in law enforcement you have a dilemma.

Are babies sentient? (1)

speroni (1258316) | about 4 years ago | (#33910246)

What are the qualifications to be be considered sentient?

Re:Are babies sentient? (3, Informative)

kurokame (1764228) | about 4 years ago | (#33910400)

The qualification to be considered sentient is that it appears to have human-like intelligence to a human.

Re:Are babies sentient? (2, Insightful)

speroni (1258316) | about 4 years ago | (#33911178)

Are you thinking Sapient?

Sapient, Sentient, Conscious and Self-Aware aren't all the same?

I'd say: Babies are Sentient (Can feel and perceive), Marginally Sapient (can make basic judgments only), Conscious (aware that stuff is going on[when they're, you know, awake]) and not very self-aware (not much identity of self)

Regarding the dog conversation above, I dont think this is much different than a dog. I heard a line once "A kid is like a dog that grows up and learns how to talk".
(don't hate me, kids are cool)

The robot? It can perceive, it can act based on stimulus. Feel?- No. Sentient no not really. Then none of the other things either.

I'm not sure the Babies are human and therefore have human intelligence makes sense. A person in a persistent vegetative state is human, but not sentient.

Only robots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33910252)

Babies this the TV is sentient. Ask any parent.

Conversely... (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 4 years ago | (#33910260)

...the robot was not impressed.

Are you sure about that 18 months? (4, Funny)

Just_Say_Duhhh (1318603) | about 4 years ago | (#33910272)

I think there is strong evidence [wikipedia.org] that humans much older than 18 months cannot make a delineation between sentient beings and inanimate objects.

If the supplied evidence is not enough, try this [wikipedia.org] .

Unsurprising, really (1)

shogarth (668598) | about 4 years ago | (#33910338)

My daughter is almost three years-old. One of the most interesting things to observe is how she classifies her world. When she was 18 months old she would have classified a robot as sentient; she thought almost everything was alive (sort of a toddler version of pantheism). If it was a friendly robot, that would have put it in the realm of the three dogs and cat which she was already familiar with.

Is that news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33910392)

WTF? Some adults seem to think that computers are sentient so is it surprising that babies think robots are sentient?

Re:Is that news? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 4 years ago | (#33910464)

Define "sentient" please ...

Re:Is that news? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 4 years ago | (#33911426)

Something that can love.

(Yes, that was a joke.)

They are. (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 4 years ago | (#33910404)

Friendly robots are sentient. Friendliness is a quality that only sentient beings can have. If your robot is not sentient, then it is only simulating friendliness.

Touring Test? (1)

e3m4n (947977) | about 4 years ago | (#33910462)

I guess in the eyes of a 18month old.. we successfully created AI

Any advanced technology... (0)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 4 years ago | (#33910468)

What's the quote, Arthur C. Clarke, wasn't it... "any technology, sufficiently advanced, will seem like magic to those who don't understand it". Something like that.

I think "babies" fit the "don't understand" clause; interactive robots the "technology" one.

What's the next scientific study going to prove, that NASCAR crowds are wowed by nitrous funny cars?

Remember the Sirius Cybernetics Corp's definition (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 4 years ago | (#33910474)

"Your plastic pal who's fun to be with"

I have a 2yr old... (2, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 years ago | (#33910494)

I have a 2yr old and he thinks Train set is Sentient. So I don't really think this is any kind of breakthrough.

Sirius Cybernetics Corporation (1)

e3m4n (947977) | about 4 years ago | (#33910528)

The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation is behind it; this you can be sure of. They're a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes

WARNING! (1)

Stargoat (658863) | about 4 years ago | (#33910684)

Do not let the robot hold your baby! I have it on very good authority that this is a bad idea.

Gaze != Sentience (1)

smitty777 (1612557) | about 4 years ago | (#33910722)

I'm not debating whether or not the babies actually thought the robot was sentient or not (who knows what babies think?). But it's a logical leap to assume that "gaze following" equates to "sentience". It might be that the babies know enough about technology to know that even a robot can focus a gaze. Assuming that a baby is smart enough to know what a gaze is implies they're smart enough to know what a robot is.

implications for the church-turing test (1)

happyjack27 (1219574) | about 4 years ago | (#33910738)

...artificial intelligence already achieved?

So a baby said to a researcher... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33910904)

"I think that's a sentient being". Right. Even if a baby had said that, they might be kidding. Babies are so fucking sarcastic, it's hard to believe.

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33910918)

...Study shows Babies don't know what "sentient" means.

Some adults do, too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33910942)

Shit... I know *adults* who think computers, cars, and other new-fangled things are sentient. So what?

What about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33911006)

What about the robot in chief?

His head toggles like a metronome while reading off answers from remotely controlled monitors. How do babies rate him?

Identity (1)

Msdose (867833) | about 4 years ago | (#33911060)

The fetus considers the womb to be an extension of itself. This is the model for consciousness, which the newborn extends into the universe to create its sense of identity. Studies have shown that babies cannot distinguish between their mothers and themselves, they have to be weaned. So until then, babies see everything as sentient.

In related news... (1)

lazlo (15906) | about 4 years ago | (#33911428)

In related news, it was discovered that AI researchers thought sentient robots were friendly.

So robots have passed the turring test! (0, Offtopic)

nilbog (732352) | about 4 years ago | (#33911490)

Robots have successfully passed the 18 month old turring test. That's actually pretty cool.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?