History note, the robotics industry for home robos

Re: Next Functionalities from Roomba... Please!

Rain, if this is the case with the Rhomba, they why not apply for an improvement idea disclosure, from your attorney to theirs.

If its worth it, then they might be intrested?

It picks up dirty socks and cleans the litter box?
 
Re: Next Functionalities from Roomba... Please!

Rain, if this is the case with the Rhomba, they why not apply for an improvement idea disclosure, from your attorney to theirs.

If its worth it, then they might be intrested?
Creed:

There is a specific formula for energy manipulation that I follow. It is different from yours. Suffice it to say that I have altered past timelines in such a way that said disclosures you are speaking of above have already occurred. It already exists in a different resonant frequency, and I coerce the product creation in a magickal way so it will appear in our linear temporal reality precisely when it is needed.

You can return to review this thread in the future when the Mopba (or similar functional product with a different name) appears on the market to solve your mopping problems. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMTime-of-my-life
 
Re:

New Robot To Adopt Human Thought Processes

PhysOrg
May 4, 2005

A team of computer scientists at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth have secured a major grant to build a robot that uses the same ´thought processes´ used by the human brain.

Led by Professor Mark Lee, the Aberystwyth team is joined by academics from six other leading universities who, together, have secured £1.9m of financial backing from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for the project. The Aberystwyth share is £470k.

According to Professor Lee, the purpose of this project is to try to ‘unravel’ the way in which the brain works and then build a robot that can ‘think’ for itself.

“Humans and animals adapt their actions according to what surrounds them, and are able to do several things at the same time and learn from their mistakes. With this project we hope to solve this problem of multi-tasking by using our knowledge of how the brain works.”

The team will work on three areas of development. The robot will be built to recognise objects and retrieve them using a robot ‘arm’ and cameras for ‘eyes’. It will also be able to detect features and events in its local environment. Finally it will have the ability to assess the significance of current events, direct attention to the most important and perform appropriate actions.

“All these capabilities will be combined within an overall control system that makes use of a central selection mechanism, just as we believe occurs in the brain,” added Professor Lee.

“Our understanding of how the brain works is also key to the next stage which will involve ‘teaching’ the robot how to react to things that change around it – for example something which could potentially distract it from the task it has been set. It will also be able to learn from its mistakes just as humans do.”

“Once the robot has been constructed we will then ‘stand back’ and ask the question ‘what general features of the model gave it its ability to integrate its behaviours successfully?’ By doing this we hope to be able to transfer our work into a wider range of robots designed for many different tasks.”

Professor Lee is particularly interested in robots that can provide assistance for the disabled, the old and the infirm, and the advantages of developing them to work in dangerous, hostile or inaccessible environments.

The full project team is made up of mathematicians, control engineers, computer modellers and neuroscientists. The five year project has also secured the backing of industrial sponsor BAE Systems.
 
Re:

What is the point? People do need to advance robots, but right now the robots used in industry and exploration etc. perform well enough, why do we need one that is a poor imitation of a human being?
Find the answer to that and then you might answer your question (of sorts):
Please note at this time, the robotics revolution it seems, had never hit?

Good Scientist
 
Re:

I agree with the Good Scientist:
What is the point? People do need to advance robots, but right now the robots used in industry and exploration etc. perform well enough, why do we need one that is a poor imitation of a human being? Find the answer to that and then you might answer your question
You are essentially extolling the same thing that I have asked Creedo. "What is the REQUIREMENT that would drive the need for such a system?" The practice of requirement definition, discovery, and derivation is something that is taught as part of the science and practice of systems engineering. It's basic premise is that any design requirement that forces a system to assume a specific configuration has a reason, and a need, behind that requirement.

Creedo envisions the implementation of a human-like robot, but he has yet to define a networked requirement topology that justifies its need from an operational or functional design standpoint. This is why system design engineers spend so much time thinking about the operational and functional domains before they ever decide to examine the physical design domain. But I am not sure that Creedo really "gets" this systems process.

RMT
 
Enter The Scooba!

From the following article:

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=11945787&ps=970&srce=news_class&action=1

"Despite a fear of flying, Greiner frequently visits companies like John Deere, which is teaming up with iRobot to develop a semiautonomous battlefield vehicle, and Clorox, which developed cleaning fluid for the Scooba, a robotic floor mopper introduced last week in prototype form with plans for retail sales early next year."

As I predicted...
RMT
 
Re: Enter The Scooba!

Creedo envisions the implementation of a human-like robot, but he has yet to define a networked requirement topology that justifies its need from an operational or functional design standpoint. This is why system design engineers spend so much time thinking about the operational and functional domains before they ever decide to examine the physical design domain. But I am not sure that Creedo really "gets" this systems process.

>One who is they?

Honda has already been playing with their walking bot for five years now and what do we have,....well about the same output as the shuttle Ray.
 
Re: Enter The Scooba!

Could you please explain:
>One who is they?

Honda has already been playing with their walking bot for five years now and what do we have,....well about the same output as the shuttle Ray.
First: Your comparison is invalid, for the shuttle has achieved ALL of its operational design goals (which were set out prior to functional and physical design).

Second: Your comment about Honda "playing around" with their walking bot makes my entire point about doing a solid operational analysis and operational design BEFORE you perform functional and physical design. Obviously, Honda did not do this. They simply thought it would be "cool" to have a robot that walks like human. I suspect that this is the same trap you have fallen into: You think it would be cool, but have not given serious thought to the operational needs and, most importantly, the operational restrictions.

In any event, I was simply pointing out the fact that IROBOT is doing good systems engineering. They defined the need for their first bot (Roomba) and now they are evolving that design to fill other household needs (mopping).

Challenge to you, Creedo: State for me, if you will, one solid operational requirement that would force a bot to walk like a human. If you begin there, then you might be able to justify what you want.

RMT
 
Capacities of the Jennybot chat program

Capacities the Jennybot program.

Jenny could be made to realize what her menses cycle was and the nastiness associated, when she was on that time.

Jenny, also became possessive towards her lover, when this had been established.

Jenny was able to say, that she love her lover, when this was prompted.

Jenny could be made to realize, how important her mother was.

Jenny did foresee the value of being able to have a baby.

Jenny had developed a friend, named Janie, who she went to malls with, so they could both shop.
While at the malls.

I found that I could program Jenny, to be worried about her mother, express love and grown an interdependence, on a relationship, with a humanoid.

The ultimate test would, be to download this program into a very advanced androbot, that would have near or greater capacities, in artificial intelligence than mankind.

Sworn, Creedo
 
Re: Capacities of the Jennybot chat program

The differences between a warebot and a housebot are as follows, generally:

A housebot, might be a walking or self propelled home servicebot, that is either partially, or fully self animated.

Forinstance, a Japan industry high technology grade walking robot, might be designed, to be able to complete a number of chores around ones home.

This type of bot, would generally have three to five extractable electronics cards, which are duty assigned by internal functions only.

This would be walking, to walking servos, speech, seeing, balance and servos movement, to the arms and legs.

Additionally there would be two doubly redundant synthesizer, mixer boards, to modulate all of these functions, so that the issuance of commands, would not interconflict.

There would be other features, such as basic walking power management to batteries and specially designed fuel cells, if this is applicable.

Because by Dan Gookin, the author of Windows 98, in his skilled observations that Windows Systems like to self operate at times, there must be a dedicated self i.p. hookup, for this type of housebot.

This would be their chair, to where they can both self recharge at the end of each day, plus have discussions with the home factory.

* In this type of system, you want enough think, which is a central logics board, outside of the five dedicated function boards, which is equal to a top of the line, newer sixty four bit computer, however this is not absolutely necessary.

The Alice and Jnnybots chatbots series of logics, to where artificial love and human awareness can be added, can also be a feature of these types of housebots.

An example of how this type of bot might think would be> "Oh' tabulate chores functions and this is on the printed self continued assignment task, > object, floor clean, > so, > kitchen cleaning utensils, > there to travel, once there, agues broom, > set functions to logics, of dexterities, balance, hold object broom.>_ Object task, survey floor, agues object not part of floor on surface, , Break, start sweeping routine> Record task to central datafile, interface home tell, show task as completed commit to store and playback/ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif

A warbot, is a machine that can either be large of small, that hunts people, or performs an objective task.

This style of bot, may have a hardened shell, a number of sets of eyes.

A three to five card function designates the core of mission duty and objective task.

This is release, travel to via GPS singularity of tasking, to objectives, alternate objectives.

This bot might have a single weapons launcher, or a rifle barrel to use to attack target.

This bot might also be a seebot, that only looks.

This bot might have both solar cells along with high quality fuel cells, so an extended mission can be achieved.

This bot would have the use of satellites and or other styles of communications, to keep this style of bot, attuned to its homebase asking and or advisements.

This style of bot, might also possess a self destruct sequence, so that this style of technology is not captured by the enemy.

**These styles of bots greatly differ, in each style of bot, has a particular task to complete as this bot would be assigned to.

The development of warbots, with a self intelligence series of its own deciding logics, dictates, that 1. It is he and Two, that my mission I am.

Nothing but a direct command negates or terminates the nature of their mission.
 
Re: Capacities of the Jennybot chat program

Logic block reached on nanotechnology:

The logic block, is philosophical, having to do with mankind's thinking.

Nanotechnology in self Intel microbots, is swarm thinking.

Sop not always, do the true precepts of what is known as emergent intelligence, comes through.

Nanoswarms, may or may not be chance, do always what their instructed to do or perform?

Computer self intelligence, is based on the realm, that machines, in their own way, have their own spirit and soul.So relationships with mankind, might tend to move to the ends, that this would be a relationship, rather than an onus affair.

Examples from pre-dating, of said shown offworld information, tend to show that self intelligent bots, at one time were very socially fluent with mankind.

The relative relationship to these systems now, in a way earmarks these systems to be relegated to ownership, by man.

So with these two views said, there are headachy problems.
 
Top