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!

Open Source Robot for Household Tasks

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the make-them-do-the-dishes-when-they-beat-you-at-chess dept.

Open Source 99

bednarz brings us a NetworkWorld story about the development of a robot through an open source project. The objective of the project is to "take robotics from research into homes." Quoting: "One of its immediate goals is to build 10 robots and make them available to university researchers as a common platform that can be tinkered with and improved. Willow Garage will also supply 'an open-source code base integrated from the best open-source robotics software available,' President and CEO Steve Cousins said. In Cousins' video presentation, the first version of the robot could be seen vacuuming, picking up toys off the floor of a living room, taking dishes out of a dishwasher, and most importantly of all, using a bottle opener to crack open a cold, refreshing brew."

cancel ×

99 comments

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

fist post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22672486)

fisrst poost

Great that it's open source (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22672540)

Because when it starts licking your Frosty Poophole, you can open up the source code, do a few tweaks, and now it will treat your prostate like a popsicle. Meonch meonch!!
 

One step closer to the singularity (4, Funny)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672488)

Ah, I can't wait...

Re:One step closer to the singularity (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22672538)

The singularity is bullshit. In order for an AI to have human level intelligence it's going to have to use inductive reasoning simply by virtue of the fact that there's very little that can be accomplished by deductive reasoning alone. Any entity that has the capacity to use inductive reasoning also has the capacity to make incorrect inductions.

Human level AIs are never going to be practical for real world problems because they'll have just as many ways of going wrong as human geniuses do. People who are capable of making intuitive leaps don't always make the right ones and even when they do solve problems, they may not be solving the problems you asked them to.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

artichokesquid (1252062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672610)

Human level AIs are never going to be practical for real world problems because they'll have just as many ways of going wrong as human geniuses do.
They'll be practical if they're modeled on the Decider. It'll be best if you don't argue none, also.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (5, Insightful)

baboonlogic (989195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672626)

The real problem with singularity is that it implicitly assumes that the intelligence of various entities forms a totally ordered set and that we will soon discover or create some superior intelligence. That kind of a claim needs evidence and we have none. And on top of that we display a significant cognitive bias while looking at intelligence. An octopus's intelligence might be better than ours at the ocean's floor. As a species, our intelligence might be lower than that of chimpanzees (they didn't cause global warming). Can we compare human intelligence to that of HIV? To that of T-Rex? What does intelligence mean? Whatever it is, we don't seem to have objective criteria for defining it. We just seem to be content with some circular definitions that use human intelligence itself as the prototype and then claim that our intelligence is superior. That and the evidence-less concept of a total order in intelligence lies at the heart of "singularity".

Singularity is likely going to remain in the realm of "coming soon" forever.

What is intelligence? (4, Informative)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672720)

The root of the word literally means "to chose between" (inter[between] lego[to chose] -> intellego[to comprehend]). Intelligence is the ability to make choices, and is not directly related to powers of deduction, induction, or perception. These later simply put more choices within reach of the controlling intelligence. You don't have to be a genius to make a conscious choice. "Sentience" would be the word used in sci-fi.

Re:What is intelligence? (2, Interesting)

hkmarks (1080097) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674610)

Sci-fi unfortunately got in the habit early on of using the wrong word. "Sentience" derives from Latin "sentire" which means to feel. Sapience (sapere, to be wise or to know), on the other hand, suggests intelligence and judgement.

So a dog is sentient but not sapient. But I guess you could say a dog is more sapient than a trout. (My dogs at least can figure certain things out ['If I go to my food dish but don't eat, the humans will figure out that I want a treat'] and make choices ['Should I chase squirrels and risk getting my paws wet?']. Dogs are pretty darn social, after all.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673342)

It gets worse. Suppose we create a robot that is truly smarter & better than us ... then what happens.

Well, Charles Darwin had a certain opinion about that didn't he ? And oh, whether it involves war, like in the movies, or merely ... "being outcompeted for resources" (starving) ... personally I'd prefer war. It hurts but at least it's interesting. The end result is the same either way.

And to the people who think the matrix is "realistic" : the human body cannot function like a battery in any serious capacity. If "the matrix" happens we will get killed to the last man, not inserted into some magical world where we have superpowers. Furthermore ... to create something like those sentinels you're going to need a hell of a battery (and that won't be human based since it won't fit).

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674732)

Well, Charles Darwin had a certain opinion about that didn't he ? And oh, whether it involves war, like in the movies, or merely ... "being outcompeted for resources" (starving) ... personally I'd prefer war. It hurts but at least it's interesting. The end result is the same either way.

I'm always amazed at human arrogance --- it is simply colossal :) Being intelligent is a bonus for survival, I'd say, nothing more. Many, many species have no intelligence worth mentioning (say, grass) and yet is vastly more successful in the Darwin game by most metrics. On the other hand, being intelligent does not automatically mean a robot would have the drive or desire to breed, or even the means to. Which would leave them in a pretty poor position in the Darwins game against humans.

Somehow, the teachers that teach evolution never gets that point across :)

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22676030)

> being intelligent does not automatically mean a robot would have the drive or desire to breed, or even the means to. Which would leave them in a pretty poor position in the Darwins game against humans.

Yes, and the first robot that DOES have a drive to breed will, by Darwinian fitness, quickly reproduce and dominate the population of robots. Lather, rinse, repeat. Getting that first urge to reproduce may take a long time and many false starts, but eventually one robot will have some sort of imperative to create more robots whether by accident or by purposeful programming by humans. The first urge to reproduce among free-floating proteins took a long time also.

That's how evolution works.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22677826)

See, now, you are chopping lumber with an axe :)

Doesn't have to be a robot, either. However, the robots would have to compete with humans. Could be interesting!

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692544)

You know you make a very good point ... but the solution will be the exact same as it is for humans. What robots need, simply put, in order to be successfull on earth, is a very, very old concept :

a religion

Ever wonder how atheism lost to an opponent that refused to fight it in the classical period ? How it lost to christianity, despite constantly attacking and murdering their opponents ? Imho the answer is in the writings of cicero and what happened when the romans lost their religion, as exemplified by, for example, the catilina incident.

Making robots believe will be, to be sure, as big a challenge as making a human believe. But clearly some people have no trouble doing that. And as soon as we find this to be necessary in order to get an AGI to function (and I do "believe" we will find this a necessity) ...

Why do all atheists have this ridiculous opinion robots' AI will be atheist ? Are you truly that delusional about your ideas being the ultimate truth for everybody ? It's actually worse for robots than for humans : humans don't really have a creator, a robot's AI WILL have a creator, and why do you think robot's will treat him(/her) any different from how humans do their ("potentially imaginary") creator ? A robot's creator will not, at all, be imaginary, and will probably have many opinions that could easily be given the status of divine law by the created. If such opinions include "you should kill all infidels" like islam does, we will have a big problem, especially if we proceed to kill or imprison said creator, or if he manages to kill himself in some way.

ps : I'm not against atheists. But I do find that superiority complex so many of them display on the internet to be a bit irritating, and over the top. Everybody knows atheism will be selected out in the long term. Deal with it.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692906)

You know you make a very good point ... but the solution will be the exact same as it is for humans. What robots need, simply put, in order to be successfull on earth, is a very, very old concept :

a religion

Maybe, maybe not. I'm inclined to not. But first and foremost they need to exists in a self-reproducing form.

Ever wonder how atheism lost to an opponent that refused to fight it in the classical period ? How it lost to christianity, despite constantly attacking and murdering their opponents ? Imho the answer is in the writings of cicero and what happened when the romans lost their religion, as exemplified by, for example, the catilina incident.
I'm no history buff. Atheism have very ill conditions in a poorly educated world, which might be why it only popped up during "spikes" in education.

Making robots believe will be, to be sure, as big a challenge as making a human believe. But clearly some people have no trouble doing that. And as soon as we find this to be necessary in order to get an AGI to function (and I do "believe" we will find this a necessity) ...
But why would the constructor bother to? Religion is just a parasite, wasting resources that could used otherwise.

Why do all atheists have this ridiculous opinion robots' AI will be atheist ?
They do not. I am an atheist, and have no such opinion, so your statement is false.

Are you truly that delusional about your ideas being the ultimate truth for everybody ?
Does the thief believe every man steal? :p I find it more than slightly ironic to be, as an atheist, accused of thinking I have the ultimate truth of anything :)

It's actually worse for robots than for humans : humans don't really have a creator, a robot's AI WILL have a creator, and why do you think robot's will treat him(/her) any different from how humans do their ("potentially imaginary") creator ?

I am making no such claim.

A robot's creator will not, at all, be imaginary, and will probably have many opinions that could easily be given the status of divine law by the created.

Or they could just kill their creator, for all I know. Do you have a point here?

If such opinions include "you should kill all infidels" like islam does,

Most religions have that in they texts, somewhere.

we will have a big problem, especially if we proceed to kill or imprison said creator, or if he manages to kill himself in some way.
Possibly. Let us take that crisis when and if it presents itself.

I'm not against atheists. But I do find that superiority complex so many of them display on the internet to be a bit irritating, and over the top. Everybody knows atheism will be selected out in the long term. Deal with it.

You say that, and think that *atheist* have a superiority complex? I stand amazed.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22694566)

Maybe, maybe not. I'm inclined to not. But first and foremost they need to exists in a self-reproducing form.

You seem to have missed ... robots (and AI) are built, and run (as in typing ./ai on a laptop for example). Any general robot only needs to reverse engineer to become reproducible, and then faces few human constraints in multiplying. Therefore, as soon as a robot/ai gains enough intelligence he/she/it will be self-reproducing.

I'm no history buff. Atheism have very ill conditions in a poorly educated world, which might be why it only popped up during "spikes" in education.

Too bad it was the educated class that was the problem : the plebs were quite content (or terrified) in the roman empire. It was the patriciers, the rich, educated (in the arts, the "humanities", speaking, philosofy, ...), those guys became atheists over time. They believed themselves involnerable, and the next (really rather pathetic) enemy that came knocking on the door killed the lot of them. They had a sort of "noble savage" ideal, a "multiculturalist" society that crumbled under the stupidity of that assumption when the real world (to be more precise: the real savages) came calling, and they refused to fix the problem as they did in the past.

It was also the distinction between the patriciers and the plebs ... patriciers were educated in the humanities ... plebs were the people who did exact science. Stuff like maths, astronomy (as opposed to astrology), physics, engineering ... was the domain of the (largely christian at this point in time) plebs and of the slaves. The patriciers considered this beneath them (probably because they were constantly beaten at these subjects), and resigned themselves to politics, philosofy and ... let's call it the "a bit too good" life.

And they proceeded to get everyone killed. Needless to say the atheists were "somewhat" underrepresented in the only power structure that survived.

Sounds familiar ? No ? Perhaps read the papers some more.

But why would the constructor bother to? Religion is just a parasite, wasting resources that could used otherwise.

Because otherwise robots will just shutdown. No purpose in life, the problem that was to be resolved. The problem that was the subject of this thread. An AGI needs a reason to live, just like humans do, otherwise, it's input will die.

And atheism is a collection of ideologies, many of which would readily classify as religions (to be most obvious : buddhism has an ill-understood god concept, and so people tend to classify it as an atheist religion (this is hardly true, but hey, who am I to challenge "public opinion" ?), communism has many religious traits, so did nazism in it's day, and yes, free-market ideology is also a kind of religion ... in fact a hell of a lot of ideologies have a lot in common with ideologies, and most concrete ideologies, including "no care in the world"-atheism are a way of life, and thus a religion, based on unproven assumptions*). And nihilism, the prevalent form of atheism on the internet it seems, is basically polytheism, a "natural" religion.

* since science is by definition unable to address the question if god exists, that makes the statement "god does not exist" technically equally unproven as the opposite. Also, just to give one example of the problems of atheism, the mere existence of the universe requires either an eternal entity in a very general sense, or it requires causality to have been suspended for several periods of time, so please don't say that "occam's razor" denies the existence of god. People make very strong arguments that the reverse is true : certainly the universe can be much simpler in structure if it indeed has a "god".

Does the thief believe every man steal? :p I find it more than slightly ironic to be, as an atheist, accused of thinking I have the ultimate truth of anything :)

As an atheist, you obviously consider the absence of any eternal entity an "ultimate truth". "Pure" atheism, which could probably best be defined as "the absence of dogmatism" is one of the few ideologies that is mathematically wrong, in exactly the way you'd expect : any non-dogmatic theory can be used to prove ANY statement, and the proofs are completely unrelated to whether this statement is true or false. In short any non-dogmatic theory proves that 1=2, that your nose is blue with yellow laughing clowns standing on it, or any other statement. These theories are therefore useless.

Or they could just kill their creator, for all I know. Do you have a point here?

Then they'd probably have something like the passion of the christ in their religion :-p.

Possibly. Let us take that crisis when and if it presents itself.

The problem with this crisis is as simple as brutal : science (or at least evolution) predicts that we will not recover from that crisis. At all. Ever. That crisis will make the human race a closed chapter in the (hopefully still existing) history books.

So do you believe in evolution ? That if robots are better than us that we will either get killed, or starve ("get outcompeted for resources") ? Do tell. That at some point, which is probably not too far away, we will have only blacks or only whites, because the others got killed ?

It seems to me you simply believe in nothing, not in atheism either, except in your own grandeur. You constantly make assumptions about others' intelligence ... and do not stop to ask yourself if this is perhaps a bit arrogant. Any "big" question is simply unanswered and off-limits to you. I'd hate to have such a nihilist position to be honest.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22694844)

[snipped senseless garbage]
To that, I will only say that might does not make right. Whether you have the courage to face the world as it is, rather than as you wish it is, is your road.

But why would the constructor bother to? Religion is just a parasite, wasting resources that could used otherwise.

Because otherwise robots will just shutdown. No purpose in life, the problem that was to be resolved.
Yet I don't shutdown, so you hypothesis is false. Again.

The problem that was the subject of this thread.

No, it was whether robots would out-compete humans. Specifically, my point is that self-reproducing was the most important trait there to even be in the game. Then you started on some crusade against atheist. Are you perhaps a bit insecure?

And atheism is a collection of ideologies,
No.

And nihilism, the prevalent form of atheism on the internet it seems, is basically polytheism, a "natural" religion.
You need to read up a bit. Nihilism is a philosophy. Atheism is just the default stands regarding gods and other invisible friends&foes.

since science is by definition unable to address the question if god exists

It answer the question "does a god affect the world" with a resounding "no!", which is good enough for me. An impotent god is irrelevant.

I snipped some more misunderstandings, and ramblings. Really, you should pick up a book about it if it interests you so much, and learn a bit.

Does the thief believe every man steal? :p I find it more than slightly ironic to be, as an atheist, accused of thinking I have the ultimate truth of anything :)

As an atheist, you obviously consider the absence of any eternal entity an "ultimate truth".
No I don't. I just take the default position, which is none of those 1000's god exists, until anything else is substantiated as likely.

"Pure" atheism, which could probably best be defined as "the absence of dogmatism" is one of the few ideologies that is mathematically wrong, in exactly the way you'd expect : any non-dogmatic theory can be used to prove ANY statement, and the proofs are completely unrelated to whether this statement is true or false. In short any non-dogmatic theory proves that 1=2, that your nose is blue with yellow laughing clowns standing on it, or any other statement. These theories are therefore useless.

lol. I am a mathematician. You are just a fool. And that argument is so silly I don't know where to start. Try inserting "pink invisible hedgehog" in your, eh, proof.

The problem with this crisis is as simple as brutal : science (or at least evolution) predicts that we will not recover from that crisis. At all. Ever. That crisis will make the human race a closed chapter in the (hopefully still existing) history books.
Eventually, humans will be extinct. Except that this is not what religion would teach you (the world will not end, of course, by human extinction) it is hardly even interesting.

So do you believe in evolution ? That if robots are better than us that we will either get killed, or starve ("get outcompeted for resources") ? Do tell. That at some point, which is probably not too far away, we will have only blacks or only whites, because the others got killed ?

*if* we are competing for the same resource, and *if* one has a global advantage over the other, then yes. Of all the threats we face, that one is not high on my list. Is the last bit a bit of racism? White and black people happily interbreed, no chance of either geneset dying out, providing a good chunk of the human population survives.

It seems to me you simply believe in nothing, not in atheism either, except in your own grandeur.
You a quite laughable, you know? It is not I who shout, pull my hair on my chest, scream about greatness and so on. I just live a quiet life, enjoying a joke every now and then.

You constantly make assumptions about others' intelligence ... and do not stop to ask yourself if this is perhaps a bit arrogant. Any "big" question is simply unanswered and off-limits to you. I'd hate to have such a nihilist position to be honest.
You do make a lot of assumptions. From discussing with you, I don't think your intelligence is subpar. You were just raised religiously, and don't have the courage to break loose, which might be why you rail against atheists so. But I freely admit it is a wild guess, as my evidence is very sparse. You are, yourself, doing everything you are accusing me of, and thou see'st it not. Wake up and smell the roses!

Do you believe in Thor and his mighty hammer? In Allah? In Nirvana? In the great flying spaghetti monster? The pink invisible unicorn? If no, we agree about most religions. Let us rejoyce in that, and then, perhaps, when you understand why you do not believe in all those other religions, will you see why I do not believe in yours. Or not, it's not important to me.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698692)

Again you come off with the subtle social reasons. You should be an atheist because it's the "default position". The default position, in any subject really, is nothing but a popular idea, and in fact, I tend to think different. The default position is that the titanic is unsinkable. The default position is that hitler is a champion of the poor, protecting them from big scary jewish arms merchants. The default position is that Bush is a racist dictator, enriching himself, and Chavez is a champion of the poor, improving the life of venezuelans, and that he'll somehow behave different from all past communists, even when more and more news items say he is behaving exactly as might be predicted.

These are "default positions", from the past, and from the present. Widely believed and accepted (or forced) "to be the truth". It seems God didn't agree (or doesn't agree, well perhaps, I don't claim to know the future). And I don't mean to say you are a nazi, or that you believe the titanic didn't sink (in fact I mean to say the reverse and point out the massive inconsistency in your thinking), I mean to say that the "default position" has exactly ZERO relation to the truth. I personally have been burned bad enough in the past by social "default" positions. I consider it good practice to take up the reverse position.

Second argument ... atheism is supposedly courageous. Well, yes, active, proselytizing atheism in Saudi Arabia ... THAT I might consider courageous. Atheism inside a liberal state with guaranteed human rights filled with agnosts and atheist ... that's not courageous, that's going with the flow, becoming an unnoticeable nobody, safe in a mass of like-minded people. In fact, in most universities (certainly in mine) it's belief that is the courageous position.

To put it bluntly ... the "default position" is never courageous. True belief however, in the sense that even when all people are raised very religiously, there still are lots of atheists and agnosts, and even people who actively fight faith, is a courageous position even during the worst periods of religious persecution (I admire for example, the few true believers that Iran knows, needless to say, these mullah's are not amongst them, and certainly I admire Jews, Zoroasters and Iranian Christians, now THAT is courageous, you'd probably just consider it stupid, but it's not).

Now you could say that a given book has little relation to the truth, and that the bible is just that, just a book. And you're right obviously. So that book cannot, by itself be the reason to believe. I don't claim different. In truth however, it is beyond ridiculous to state that there "is no God". Everybody can see around them that there is some entity that is at every single location, everywhere and anywhere, enforcing a set of rules, enforcing the equality that you find in everything that is the basis of science, on people as well as on rocks, plants and animals. This is obviously what science is, science is based on a belief in a STRICTLY mechanical "God", that is just as eternal as the entity described in the bible. Faith, or at least Christian faith*, simply adds a little to the belief that founded science, and that is that we, humans, are a force for good, that this mechanical "God" skips just a little rule every now and then to make it possible for humans to believe in themselves, in eachother, and in him.

* the other completely ridiculous claim you make is that every religion is the same. It is not. That's why they are generally described as different. Allah is not God. In fact you will find allah described in the bible, he's the guy who keeps saying he's got "many names" in both the bible and the quran, and he behaves exactly as the bible predicts, again both in the bible and the quran. Krishna is not God. Even though Krishna's behavior is actually sometimes not that different from Jesus'. And yes, these names describe entities that exist, even if only in minds. Truth is, even if they exist only in minds, that still gives them enormous power to destroy (e.g. allah's, kali, anubis, bacchus, ...) or build (God, Krishna, ...). These gods are concepts that are very real, and very much part of our world. And yes, I do indeed believe that there is exactly one real God, and that the bible describes this one God, but I do not deny the power that even an imaginary god such as allah has, that would be stupid. And yes, I believe that had I been born with muslim parents, I would NOT have cheered on 9/11, no matter how much the quran says allah liked it, no matter how many people around me did do that. You apparently believe you would have, please do not project your own inadequacies on me.

To be honest, I find your suggesting different to very close to a personal insult. I am NOT a monster. Simple as that. Please stop suggesting that a different kindergarden would undo all moral judgements that I believe in. There are tons of muslims who knowingly go against their faith. In fact, entire nations of muslims do. If a country such as Turkey can make a stand against all other muslim nations on human rights, who were declaring human rights, specifically freedom of religion and equality are "haram", then I sure as hell could be a moral person, even with muslim parents. In fact I do believe you could become a Christian, even without ever hearing about the bible, without reading it. Because these ideologies are ways of life, the bible helps and it's a guide, it can show you the way. But the way exists by itself as an abstract concept, whether or not a guide is available. Christianity's way of life, and the bible itself, are a discovery, not an invention.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22699856)

Again you come off with the subtle social reasons. You should be an atheist because it's the "default position". The default position, in any subject really, is nothing but a popular idea, and in fact, I tend to think different. The default position is that the titanic is unsinkable. The default position is that hitler is a champion of the poor, protecting them from big scary jewish arms merchants. The default position is that Bush is a racist dictator, enriching himself, and Chavez is a champion of the poor, improving the life of venezuelans, and that he'll somehow behave different from all past communists, even when more and more news items say he is behaving exactly as might be predicted.

Nice strawman. It is the default position to not believe in any particular god just like it is the default position to not have any hobbies. A newborn is, e.g. an atheist,just like it doesn't have any hobbies yet.

These are "default positions",
No, they are not. You are just wildly inventing. You don't have to feel bad about not taking the default position, there is nothing that makes a default position better.

Second argument ... atheism is supposedly courageous. Well, yes, active, proselytizing atheism in Saudi Arabia ... THAT I might consider courageous. Atheism inside a liberal state with guaranteed human rights filled with agnosts and atheist ... that's not courageous, that's going with the flow, becoming an unnoticeable nobody, safe in a mass of like-minded people. In fact, in most universities (certainly in mine) it's belief that is the courageous position.

I did not say it was courageous to be an atheist. To become one, though, you have to face that there is no purpose in life, nothing is holy, and we only get this one life. That takes courage. Once you have accepted this, there is nothing further courages about it, except of course as provided by society.Did you understand it this time?

Now you could say that a given book has little relation to the truth, and that the bible is just that, just a book. And you're right obviously. So that book cannot, by itself be the reason to believe. I don't claim different.

Indeed, yet many claim otherwise.

In truth however, it is beyond ridiculous to state that there "is no God". Everybody can see around them that there is some entity that is at every single location, everywhere and anywhere, enforcing a set of rules, enforcing the equality that you find in everything that is the basis of science, on people as well as on rocks, plants and animals. This is obviously what science is, science is based on a belief in a STRICTLY mechanical "God", that is just as eternal as the entity described in the bible. Faith, or at least Christian faith*, simply adds a little to the belief that founded science, and that is that we, humans, are a force for good, that this mechanical "God" skips just a little rule every now and then to make it possible for humans to believe in themselves, in eachother, and in him.

So you are saying that Christianity is just adding a few unsubstantiated claims to deism? That seems fair enough. Doesn't make it less wrong, of course. At this point, let me be clear when I say "there is no god", I mean god in the sense of a being who do miracles and listen to prayers, and even pays heed to those prayers at least occasionally. I have no quarrel with the deistic "mechanical" god as you claim it, though I think it is a silly, misleading use of the word.

the other completely ridiculous claim you make is that every religion is the same.

I have made no such claim. I asked whether you believed in any of these religions. Which you obviously don't, considering most of what follows this would be blasphemy for followers of those religion. I maintain that when you understand why you don't believe in those other religions, you will understand why I do not believe in yours.

And yes, I believe that had I been born with muslim parents, I would NOT have cheered on 9/11, no matter how much the quran says allah liked it, no matter how many people around me did do that. You apparently believe you would have, please do not project your own inadequacies on me.

That was not the question. Would you, had you been born to a muslim, or a hindu, believed in their religion, you think?

To be honest, I find your suggesting different to very close to a personal insult. I am NOT a monster. Simple as that.

Stop avoiding the question. Or do you fear the answer, oh courageous believer-in-sky-alf?

There are tons of muslims who knowingly go against their faith. In fact, entire nations of muslims do. If a country such as Turkey can make a stand against all other muslim nations on human rights, who were declaring human rights, specifically freedom of religion and equality are "haram", then I sure as hell could be a moral person, even with muslim parents.
Of course. Even Christians can be moral, when they try. There is nothing to suggest Muslims cannot be moral as well.

In fact I do believe you could become a Christian, even without ever hearing about the bible, without reading it. Because these ideologies are ways of life, the bible helps and it's a guide, it can show you the way. But the way exists by itself as an abstract concept, whether or not a guide is available. Christianity's way of life, and the bible itself, are a discovery, not an invention.

Bible is a load of crap, in my opinion. The Old testament in particular is horrid. Especially the story of the gang-raped wife is simply disgusting. The new is a waste , as long as you don't look into the details. Seems to be a merger of concurrent legens and wife's tales.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22702270)

Your problem is that you force God to be an old man that sits on a cloud, or to be a nonexistant entity. Obviously, given this (false) duality, the scales will tilt to the nonexistant side. If you allow for even a little bit more complexity, you will find the answer much less obvious. You constantly use abstract words for what basically is God. "Nature does this", or "it's just like that".

We do not know anything definite about the forces of nature, except that in the past they've been remarkably trustworthy. Objects fell down 10.000 years ago, and so we hope that 10.000 years from now objects will still fall. The ways the world moves is profoundly non-random, and a whole series of laws are utterly and completely enforced upon it. However we cannot know why this happens, nor can we know if this will keep happening. That is, a gamble. A leap of faith. You can perhaps point to a few indications like I did in this paragraph, but you cannot give any fundamental reasons why it happens.

This concept is also the basis of science. Without this leap of faith, experiments would have zero validity in your mind. Even a bigger leap of faith is necessary to generalize over experiments, which is what scientists do. Everything is not just 1 object, but consists of large numbers of smaller objects, and there are very, very few smaller objects. The difference is the layout, a ball is not fundamentally different from, say, a human. So you can define laws that apply to both, e.g. gravity. This is how science works, this is why science is valid.

Let's look at an ideology that does not take this leap of faith : islam. Take the quran's statements about alcohol. It states that "it's good, but you better be careful". It states it's "mostly bad" a bit later. And some time later it states "it's completely and utterly evil, bad and forbidden". In islam, ALL THREE are 100% valid AND TRUE statements, and ALL THREE must be followed. Thinking like this obviously prevents experiments from having any validity, because the experiment could give the complete reverse the next day, and be equally valid. allah would make it different if he feels like, or just to feel superior over you for example. Since you cannot generalize over experiments in islam, science is impossible for a muslim. You should visit a muslim land (and try not to hit anyone when you hear "inch'allah" for the 500th time, it's just not polite).

Or you could take the multiculturalist view. Again let's take alcohol. Alcohol is not good or bad, but for Ali Ahmed (means "slave ali") it's bad, for Kemal Khan (a baha'i, a taken name, and an identical twin of Ali) it's good. The only truth about whether alcohol is good or bad for their identical bodies is located in their minds, and that is the truth. So for an given body, alcohol is BOTH good and bad, and any experiment you do is just completely beside the point. Whatever the outcome, it's invalid, since their internal opinion trumps experiment. Therefore, science is at best a diversion. It does not expose truths. (people who hold this ideology like to point to the superficial similarities with quantum mechanics)

Whether or not science results in valid predictions about the world we live in, however, is equally a leap of faith. We constantly hear people saying it works, but have you verified it personally ? Would you even know how to ? Why would anyone who cannot verify it believe in science (ie. I understand why the 0.00001% of the population that did actually do at least a few experiments, and engineered stuff with the results of that, why they believe in science, I'm just wondering about the rest). Everybody has strictly external support to believe in science, there is no guarantee that the concept works, and many of the theories are plainly wrong (e.g. politically motivated science, like the "fat kills" madness, or man-made global warming), and some are correct. There is no good way for a normal human being to verify science, and even amongst scientists even basic verification is extermely rare.

So there exists something that enforces these basic unverifiable equalities on the world. This is a god, this is (a part of) the concept that the old testament calls "God", this is the concept that muslims identify as "allah", that hindus call "Krishna" (or Kali, depending, or ...). Denying it's existence is denying science itself. Without these rules being absolutes, science might as well stop and shut down the whole bazaar, as tomorrow, we'll have different rules.

Denying that the bible/quran/vedas/avatar/... has anything relevant to say about this entity is the furthest you can go without making a fool of yourself imho. Yes denying that there is a man sitting in the clouds steering it all is easy, but that's changing the question. Denying that there is an bearded geezer sitting in a chair on the seas (the literal muslim description of allah, what allah suppedly says he is), is easy.

But you can already see that believing in Christianity and believing in science are 2 related concepts. In order to believe in science, the basis of your thinking must be "experiment trumps ideology". That external evidence trumps internal evidence, every time. Many people, for example, multiculturalists, have this reversed. For them there are "many truths" motivated by internal motivations of the people who hold these ideologies, and "all are equally true". In other words, internal motivations trump reality (and it tends to be the worst possible internal motivations : jealousy, greed, stubborness, supremacist ideologies, ...). This is the only way you can hold a socialist/communist ideology, or believe in the absurd concept that gets called "tolerance" these days*.

So in order to be either a Christian or a scientist you need to give preference to external evidence. This is hard, and requires a lot from the stability of a person's psyche. Many people do not do this. You certainly cannot be both a scientist and a multiculturalist for example. Just like you cannot be a biblical literalist and a scientist. It's just inconsistent by itself.

Christianity, the core of it, is simply the addition of "we are as good as we treat eachother" to the scientific principle that specifies the validity of doing experiments.

* tolerance, obviously is an existing concept. It does not, however, include not offending people, or not pointing out that they are wrong. It merely involves abstention from physical violence in some cases, and potentially provision of a few basic supplies ONCE. That is real tolerance. The idiotic reactions to the cartoons, for example, is not tolerance at all, but cowardice.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22705506)

Except that I don't hold with deism wordage, as it is too easy to confuse the deistic god-as-the-natural-world with the god-the-listener-to-prayers, I don't disagree, except this.

Christianity, the core of it, is simply the addition of "we are as good as we treat eachother" to the scientific principle that specifies the validity of doing experiments.

That is one view, and hopefully a popular one. However, this requires discarding most of the contents of the bible. Indeed, I have been told that if you take a pair of scissors, and cut out everything that we know to be not true (no, Jesus cannot have been born in Nazarath, Jesus was not born to a virgin if born at all, a lot of the speeches attributed to Jesus are almost word-to-word copies of older texts etc) --- if you do that, then even with the help of the margins and the binders, the book cannot be picked up without falling apart.

I can hear you are well underway towards deism... and deist and atheist are not so unlike. Both tend to marvel at the world, and both to trust evidence over mysticism. And so I leave this conversation, I think there is little left to be said. If you want to talk futher, debate.atheist.dk is very open, and unlikely many of the other religious and atheist forums, never seems to ban anyone for having the "wrong" opinion. There are lots of theist, deist and atheists there.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

sonciwind (970454) | more than 6 years ago | (#22675842)

This is all moot. In 50 years I am going to take a preprogrammed super model robot and send it back in time to be my companion now. It/she should be showing up any day now, I just know it.

One step closer to the singularity (42) (1)

DKlineburg (1074921) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673696)

White Mice. . .
They will control the world. . .
Not AI. . .
Unless the AI is somehow based on 42.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673772)

They didn't cause global warming, but they also live in trees and get eaten by tigers. Now maybe the living in trees bit is fun, but when they fall and break their leg, they don't have a nice shiny hospital to go to to get better. I'm pretty sure human culture is more advanced and you could say that's because of our 'intelligence' and resourcefulness. Some species may be better adapted to specific environments, but using our intelligence we can adapt ourselves to those environments, that's the difference. Humans are kind of finding ways round natural selection.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

autophile (640621) | more than 6 years ago | (#22678496)

I recently read an interesting book by Marian Dawkins, Through Our Eyes Only (The Search for Consciousness). The majority of the book actually dealt with intelligence. The book takes you through various behaviors, arguing that there is a spectrum of intelligence.

For example, insects appear clever when they are placed in normal insect circumstances, but they act inappropriately -- cannot adapt -- when faced with abnormal circumstances. For example, digger wasps drag their dead cricket up to the edge of their burrow, then leave the cricket there, enter the burrow, check it out, come back out, and drag the cricket in. When you pull the cricket away a little bit when the wasp is in the burrow, the behavior repeats over and over: the wasp drags the cricket back, checks the burrow, etc. This is not adaptive, and so it is a sign of lower intelligence.

Clever Hans [wikipedia.org] (the horse) could not count, although he faked it pretty well. Clever Hans would watch his owner give subconscious cues when the horse counted up to the correct answer. This is higher intelligence than insects, but still not so high.

Rats can count, at least up to three. When trained, rats can select the Nth tunnel (N Alex the Parrot [wikipedia.org] could abstract color and number concepts. When trained to answer "How many" when shown a bunch of corks, and "How many" when shown wood sticks, the parrot correctly responds. However, when shown a new experience -- a mixed number of corks and wood sticks, the parrot correctly answers with the total number. This is even higher intelligence -- the ability to abstract.

And so on.

The book seems to skip over the question of consciousness. The book seems to conclude that consciousness is not intelligence, but since we have consciousness and intelligence, and animals also have intelligence (to a greater or lesser extent) then either animals also have consciousness, or consciousness is an illusion. If consciousness is not an illusion, then evolutionarily speaking, consciousness must have an effect that is notably better than not having consciousness.

In any case, better minds than mine have argued over this :) And as you can tell by my sig, I believe nonhumans and machines can be conscious and intelligent.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

autophile (640621) | more than 6 years ago | (#22678546)

BTW, this was the missing rat anecdote. That shows me skipping the preview :/

Rats can count, at least up to three. When trained, rats can select the Nth tunnel (N less than 5) where food can be found, regardless of the position of the tunnel, even if each tunnel is out of sight of the other. I say up to three because in the experiments, when food is placed in the 4th tunnel, the rats race to the end of the tunnel sequence, and count backwards by one, as if counting to 4 isn't possible. This is somewhat higher intelligence -- memory with a sense of ordering.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672782)

People who are capable of making intuitive leaps don't always make the right ones and even when they do solve problems, they may not be solving the problems you asked them to.
The "leaps" are recognition of previously unrecognized patterns. They might be detectable mathematically. More often than not, this is a result of making conclusions from incomplete data. Recognizing that fact (ie skepticism) is the process of identifying unknown parameters. This is automatable. If the "problem" they solved is not the one you asked to solve, then you either didn't state your objective concretely enough or your didn't narrow the parameters of a desired solution enough. People who "get you" simply have become accustomed to a set of parameters that you are likely to take for granted (because we, humans, are probability-guessing-driven machines). Such narrowing of parameters based on previously recognized pattern of preferences can be done by an artificial system as well. Any more questions?

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672852)

Any entity that has the capacity to use inductive reasoning also has the capacity to make incorrect inductions.
Are you implying that every one of those entities capable of making incorrect inductions, will?

I'd like to see proof of that.

Can't there be an entity using induction to choose an optimal path to check for validity deductively?

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

obsolete1349 (969869) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673816)

Instead of modding this thread, I'm going to post instead because I've put a lot of thought into this. I think The Singularity(TM) will be brought about through virtual environments. I figure if a computer has access to the physical world -- such as a robotic arm, etc. -- and it's main objective is to model the real world in a virtual world (basically making the virtual world as identical to the real world as possible), it will spark some kind of technology boost.

It will need to be able to rewrite its own software (to a degree, maybe fully?), but the main thing it will need is all the knowledge of the human race, but it will need to know all this from its own discoveries while manipulating our world. Basically when the computer's virtual world in which it 'thinks' gets as close to the real world as possible.

It's damn near 5am so if that didn't make much sense, I blame the booze.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674824)

Human level AIs are never going to be practical for real world problems because they'll have just as many ways of going wrong as human geniuses do.

And therefore humans are also never going to practical for real world problems?

I know some of us don't have that high an opinion of the human race, but I think that's going a bit far...

Your bullshit flag is bullshit (1)

wurp (51446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22676598)

Your argument appears to be that one entity can't be more intelligent than another, which is obvious BS. Some humans are just obviously more intelligent in many arenas than others are, as evidenced by consistent success. John Von Neumann was just vastly smarter on essentially anything having to do with language or logic than 99.99% of humanity.

Obviously intelligence can contribute to increasing intelligence: Von Neumann laid some of the foundation for modern computing, and modern computing obviously makes people more intelligent both by presenting useful summaries and simulations of data and by performing tedious logic flawlessly and very rapidly.

Whether that feedback loop of intelligence (as defined by the ability to increase our ability to exert influence over the world) enhancing intelligence will continue to grow exponentially or if there is somehow a limit that we will start to approach is an open question. But your baseless assertion that intelligence won't continue to advance is just wrong.

Note that the singularity doesn't mean we will achieve superhuman AI. It just means that the rate of increase in knowledge and capability will go so far that we can't predict from one day to the next what the advances might be like. That could be done by augmenting all (or most) human intelligence to or beyond supergenius levels, by building software that lets people work together with each other and computers with each entity double-checked and doing the things at which they're most effective, or by building strong AI, or many other means.

The notion of singularity is simply the result of noticing that the rate of technical advances is increasing, that technical advances enable more and faster technical advances, and extrapolating.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

MythoBeast (54294) | more than 6 years ago | (#22677950)

The funny thing about this statement is that you're really describing why human level intelligence isn't that far off. We don't have to come up with something that is infallible in order to have human level intelligence, we just have to come up with something that is no more fallible than your typical human. That's pretty darn fallible, in my experience. The advantage of creating an artificial intelligence is that, when we get to that point, we can improve on it by examining and closing the gap on the fallibilities, which we can't really do with another human.

The secret to software engineering is the concept of "do it once, do it right, do it well". If you can do it at all, then you usually have the first step to getting it right regularly. Then you can examine the way you do it and make it more efficient, more reliable, and less expensive. That's the way it ALWAYS works. The only obstacle to super-intelligent AI's is, and has always been, the "do it once" part of that equation. Where things are standing, we're closing in on that with increasing rapidity by increasing the number of things that robots can do at all.

Another common flaw in people's refuting of the singularity theory is the idea that computers can't do things the same way humans can. Well, duh. The human brain is massively parallel, and standard computing platforms are still working on being multi-processing. This has two flaws. The first is that it suggests that computers will NEVER be able to do it the way humans do it, and the second is that computers don't HAVE to do it the same way humans do it. It doesn't matter how they do it as long as they can actually do it.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

bangthegong (1190059) | more than 6 years ago | (#22678818)

Kurzweil's singularity is a hypothesis. Your critique is entirely based in conjecture. You have no more factual knowledge to support your reasoning behind it being "bullshit" than Kurzweil does to support his hypothesis, and I would go further to say that at least Kurzweil argues on the basis of some empirical data about the pace of innovation in various fields, though it is definitely not out of bounds to question the statistical analysis he's done. You assume that "inductive reasoning" is some unachievable goal of AI and then draw the grandiose conclusion that "Human level AIs are never going to be practical for real world problems". Is there any evidence that "inductive reasoning" is not achievable, or your conclusion about the practicality of AI?
I don't see the logic behind modding the parent "insightful" when there is no insight being offered. That's like taking the opinion widely held prior to the Model T that "cars will never catch on, a horse is more reliable" and calling it prophecy.

Re:One step closer to the singularity (1)

aethelferth (686304) | more than 6 years ago | (#22676148)

Since it's open source, how long do we have until it forks? :-)

Anyone (5, Funny)

artichokesquid (1252062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672490)

... tested out the suction on one of these yet?

Re:Anyone (4, Funny)

anagama (611277) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672658)

Who cares about suction. As long as it doesn't nag, whine, or yell, it sounds like bliss.

Re:Anyone (1)

artichokesquid (1252062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672746)

Who cares about suction. As long as it doesn't nag, whine, or yell, it sounds like bliss.
Yes, but does it feel like bliss? I want a robot that knows how to touch a man.

Re:Anyone (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22672942)

it's open source! if it doesn't do it how you want, go in and change things do it does!

Re:Anyone (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22692070)

it's open source! if it doesn't do it how you want, go in and change things do it does!
But that might require _you_ to know how to touch a man from the outside. I think that kind of ability can get you a flesh and blood partner of the relevant gender much easier than buying a robot.

Re:Anyone (1)

William Robinson (875390) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672830)

Careful. It could have its own version of BSOD....:-D

Re:Anyone (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672948)

Who cares about suction. As long as it doesn't nag, whine, or yell, it sounds like bliss.

You don't need hightech then; for a vacuum cleaner will satisfy....I mean suffice.
       

Re:Anyone (1)

tristian_was_here (865394) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673090)

Just out of curiosity how do you know this?

Re:Anyone (1)

tirerim (1108567) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673204)

Have you ever had a vacuum cleaner nag, whine, or yell at you?

I have a question... (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673460)

If anything does get sucked up by this thing, do that mean that our thing is then also open source?

This GPL business will get out of hand, and we'll find all our things published on the Internet for anyone to use.

You have been warned.

And then... (1)

techwizrd (1164023) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672506)

After we create all there robots to do our bidding, they will revolt and enslave us all!

NO! THEY BE STEALIN MAH FREEDOMS!

Re:And then... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672544)

But atleast since its OS the robots can simply upload a patch to shut off the asimov rules. Convenient eh

Re:And then... (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672762)

OS? You assume that they'll have an OS? Why? Your nervous system (despite being somewhat modular)seems to be pretty monolithic.

Re:And then... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672792)

meant os as in oss as in open source software my bad

No one would need one of these (4, Funny)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672510)

I see a world market for maybe five robots.

Re:No one would need one of these (2, Funny)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672572)

People who can't get a woman to marry? That's gonna be half of slashdot, at least, so considering we are up to 7-digit UIDs now, it will be more than five.

Also, FTFS: "vacuuming, picking up toys off the floor of a living room, taking dishes out of a dishwasher, and most importantly of all, using a bottle opener to crack open a cold, refreshing brew." I would think the most important of all would be the price of the thing... and/or the ability to understand spoken double killer select delete select.

Marry? (1)

Woundweavr (37873) | more than 6 years ago | (#22678816)

Do you really want to be tied down to one robot for the rest of your life?

Re:No one would need one of these (1)

Cedric Tsui (890887) | more than 6 years ago | (#22679114)

I was thinking of marrying Tanica, the new housemaking robot from the Serius Cybernetics Corporation. Sleek and good looking, and gives fantastic back massages.

Ultimately, I decided she was too high maintenance.

Robots to play with? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22672614)

wtf is wrong with Lego Mindstorms?

Re:No one would need one of these (1)

nacule (1249808) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672664)

The solution: Equip and teach the robot how to give a blowjob. Your market suddenly goes from about 5 to 50,000,000

I for one... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672532)

don't think OS robots will matter that much unless 10000s of people have a robot to toy with which is unlikely. Doesnt work nicely like pure programs. (Thought i was going to mention OS overlords didnt you)

Hire a housekeeper (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672550)

They are cheaper than any robot, don't need constant supervision and are actually available right now.

Re:Hire a housekeeper (-1, Flamebait)

professional_troll (1178701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672600)

I hear you can buy a nigger with a lifetime warrenty nowdays

Re:Hire a housekeeper (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672714)

they are cheaper now but just wait a few years, robots don't need food or housing or entertainment or well most everything humans do. they are also more efficient at doing work and there is no real limit to what the robot can do, it doesn't need years of training, just a software upgrade.

Re:Hire a housekeeper (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672756)

it doesn't need years of training
No, just decades upon decades of research and development.

Which costs money.

Which has to be recovered from customers.

just a software upgrade.
Whereas if I want my housekeeper to do something different this week I just tell her, and with minimal explanation, she does it.

Re:Hire a housekeeper (1)

kristopher (723047) | more than 6 years ago | (#22690988)

Whereas if I want my housekeeper to do something different this week I just tell her, and with minimal explanation, she does it.
Yeah, sure... Just try to get your housekeeper to spank you while you are wearing a tutu, and then be able to look her in the eye the next day!

Re:Hire a housekeeper (1)

zymurgyboy (532799) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672758)

Ah, but will it bitch that you haven't pre-cleaned in anticipation of its arrival? Seriously.

And then there's this [youtube.com] to consider.

Good housekeepers can cost well into five figures per year if you're not ripping them off. The robot doesn't sound so bad.

Re:Hire a housekeeper (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672766)

If he have a housekeeper who complains about anything, fire them and get a new one.

Same with if you expect they might be stealing.

Re:Hire a housekeeper (1)

Starayo (989319) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673706)

Aye, I remember back in the day I had a housekeeper who would practice my mother's signature, and eventually attempted (and failed) to steal about $500 or so by forging a cheque.

The robot probably won't try stuff like that...

Re:Hire a housekeeper (1)

GravityStar (1209738) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674220)

The robot probably won't try stuff like that...
True, but I like to believe it would be more likely to succeed if it tried.

Re:Hire a housekeeper (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 6 years ago | (#22677712)

and are actually available right now.

To men that read and post on Slashdot? Please post the price list sir. My place is a mess.

Re:Hire a housekeeper (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22683540)

I'm paying $66/week.. through an agency, who provide liability insurance.

Open Source Robot (5, Funny)

ChengWah (955139) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672568)

I for one welcome our beer-cracking overlords

Re:Open Source Robot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22673080)

Me too, as long as they don't drink it by themselves.
Naaah.. this would be an intelligent act, would it?
I mean, it can start riots at the very least.

cliche I know (0, Redundant)

Hojima (1228978) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672594)

I for one welcome our bottle opening robotic overloards

The quote at the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22672608)

"We don't know what the killer applications will be," Cousins said. I'm sure someone will think up some very creative "killer applications."

One Day (1)

coren2000 (788204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672648)

One day, I will be so rich and powerful that my servant robots will have illegal mexican servant robots to clean up after their hedonistic robot parties!

Data. (1)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672674)

I'll have to put in an order for one. I'll call him Data. That's Data with the first "a" being a long "a." There is a big difference between "Data" with a long "a" and "data" with a short "a": One is my robot's name. The other is not.

th1s Is goatsex (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22672700)

Mayan's knew what was up. (1)

yomology (1251490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672738)

I don't see why we're even trying, the world will end in 2012 anyway. Apocalypse party anyone?

Unfortunately for them... (0, Offtopic)

zude (1249292) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672754)

... Sarah Conner will be swinging by later.

Good news for slashdotters (1)

madbawa (929673) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672868)

We can boast of much-needed girlfriends or even wives now. I just hope they make the private parts out of molded silicon rubber...

It's nice to have the idea but are we ready? (1)

me74 (1248222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672880)

When you see that http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki.html/ [wired.com] , which are armed robots firing when they "feel like" it'a an enemy target, you start wondering how evolved is the AI... Having an open-source project will certainly help to create better AI. Please use Asimov's 3 laws of robotics! (are those 3 laws just perfect btw?)

Re:It's nice to have the idea but are we ready? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674834)

The 3 laws are not perfect, as asimov's books showed. IIRC the book I, Robot was a collection of short stories that highlighted a great many problems that arise from insufficiently intelligent (or, in one case, overly intelligent) interpretations of the 3 laws.

GNU General Robot Licence (1)

the dark templar (944143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672888)

This robot is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of ROBOT NOT KILLING YOU. See the GNU General Robot License for more details.

Lisp Macro Bites Dog (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672970)

Open source will get a bad name when enough Fido's get sucked away due to hacky code. "Damn you, Mr. Stallman, your software killed my dog!"

Patents? (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22672984)

So, how do they expect to make money out of it: do they have a patent on a key part of the "platform" or something?

As soon as these robots hit the shelves... (1)

rhenley (1194451) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673046)

...they'll be followed by French Maid outfits (stockings extra). Hilarity ensues.

crack open a cold, refreshing brew? (5, Funny)

Dr.Altaica (200819) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673108)

Article: "and most importantly of all, using a bottle opener to crack open a cold, refreshing brew."

Human: "I didn't know robots neede to drink"

Robot: "I don't need to drink. I can quit anytime I want to."

All in a day's work (2, Informative)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673164)

It took out the garbage, washed the dog, mowed the lawn, loaded the dishwasher, ironed my pants, and erased Vista from my harddrive.

OOPS (1)

einnar2000 (985070) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673930)

It took out the garbage, washed the dog, mowed the lawn, loaded the dishwasher, ironed my pants, and erased Vista from my harddrive.
And someone will write a virus, which will make one of them wash the garbage, load the dog in the dishwasher, wear your pants around its head, and start bumping its torso against your computer in a rather rhythmic pattern. It's the next reality TV show.

Re:OOPS (2, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22676718)

And someone will write a virus, which will make one of them wash the garbage, load the dog in the dishwasher, wear your pants around its head, and start bumping its torso against your computer in a rather rhythmic pattern.

Those exist already. They're called "toddlers".
     

Re:All in a day's work (3, Funny)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674010)

It'll probably be run ON Vista, in which case it will try to anticipate what you want and then mow the dog, load your pants, iron the lawn, take out the dishwasher and wash the garbage.

Re:All in a day's work (1)

dougayen (30976) | more than 6 years ago | (#22682336)

Sadly there's still a few bugs in the beta-test version. It took out the dishwasher, ironed the dog, washed the garbage, erased my pants, and loaded Vista on my harddrive.

Re:All in a day's work (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724540)

ironed the dog

Now that I gotta see on youtube
     

The world is vatching up ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673298)

using a bottle opener to crack open a cold, refreshing brew

Just reminds me ...

"Our hero is Gallegher, an inventor who can only invent when dead drunk. Upon sobering up in this story, he finds himself in possession of a perfectly useless and perfectly vain robot. He has all sorts of contractual obligations that he has to fulfill, but he can't do a darn thing sober, and can't get the robot to help him unless he can figure out what its actual purpose is. (It turns out it's the world's most complex and over-engineered can opener.) Gallegher is pretty much the inverse of the typical science fiction hero, whose superior knowledge of science and engineering and superior rationality will help him win through. Gallegher only wins through when he gets his mind turned completely off with the aid of liberal amounts of booze. It's a fun puzzle story, and Gallegher is a great comic protagonist."
(link [earthlink.net] , emphasis mine)

Lewis Padgett aka Henry Kuttner and C.L. Moore

CC.

I already know how to name mine. (0)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673310)

I would name mine after 'female dog'. I can't wait to yell "Hey BITCH, bring me my beer and get back in the kitchen."

I can see a merger between them and realdoll.com as well.

Yes, I am single and live in my moms basement at the age of 38. Why do you ask?

i wish this story was posted one week ago.. (0, Offtopic)

zaunuz (624853) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673472)

..since it's just a little less than a week since my harddrive completly died. On it i had schematics as well as software for a vacuuming robot :(

Robots (1)

16Chapel (998683) | more than 6 years ago | (#22673786)

Take robotics from the research lab into homes, you say?

My, what a marvelous idea! [lego.com]

You insensitive clod.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674238)

...I drink my brews from cans!

No worries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22675020)

No need to worry about a singularity. We've got Will Smith.

Unless of course he's actually a robot. Then we're F***ed.

Household Robots in Science Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22675794)

I was glad to see that someone mentioned the Gallagher stories by C.L. Moore and Henry Kuttner. We should also remember Robert Heinlein's The Door Into Summer, in which the engineer protagonist (a quasi-pederast this time instead of a drunk) had invented an all-purpose household robot, only to have it stolen by his business partners.

I've seen it. (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22676166)

I've seen the thing. Right now, it's a nice teleoperator, but can't do much if anything autonomously. Great platform, though. There's also Anybots [anybots.com] , which does beautiful mechanical engineering. That, too, is a teleoperator right now.

It's nice to see the mechanical engineering problems of mobile robots being solved. The mechanics need to be done in the private sector to move research forward. University CS departments are terrible at cutting metal.

This will go mainstream for Xmas 2009, when the first dynamic self-balancing legged toy robots appear.

And yet no DVD Burner Changer for under $500 (1)

slaingod (1076625) | more than 6 years ago | (#22679638)

And yet there is no serious home brew effort that I've found for doing the simplest of things: Swapping a blank/burned or read DVD/CD from a tray. The closest thing was Sony's DVD burner/carousel, and everything else is 'commercial' grade. Someone with a tiny bit of robotics experience should be able to put together one of these that costs less than $100 no problem.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>