Robots, Robots, Robots 76
destructor writes: "It looks as though robots can answer the questions of life and capitalism through robotic soccer simulations. I found this article over at megarad.com that tells us about Dr. Balch's experiments with soccer robots [NYT, free reg, blah blah]. For now, it is purely a computer simulation, but I guess it will be turned into a physical environment rather soon."
Additionally Shabazz writes: "The SF Weekly has a story about a band called 'Captured! by Robots' that started by Jay Vance (who some may recognize from Skankin' Pickle) and several robots that he created. The band is a bit out there, but something that any true geek can appreciate. Maybe this is the start of something great!" Additionally Phred noted that the Oregon Robotics Tournament being held this Saturday (December 1).
Aibo is there too (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Aibo is there too (Score:1)
The short story is, everyteam need to code a whole bunch of difficult but fairly independent modules. The worse constraints were cpu power and noise. Oh so much noise, from all the jitering jump shaking of the walking. Loads of noise the wheeling robots (in the other categories) didn't have to deal with.
- Vision - Very small pictures, 80x60 pixels. Fluorenscent-color-coded object to detect : expect they fill 10 pixels, and 4 of them is glare, 3 of them is shadow. Across the teams, little creativity was seen here : training huv->class, the more or less arbitrary function to get rid of the noise. We had something baysian and iterative.
- Localisation - Noisy sighting of the corners comming in, decision which way to turn to see the target goal comming out. More variety here than in the vision, with various successes. Monte carlo was too heavy and had-oc method weren't good enough. But the best teams of 2000 could track properly.
- Odometry - some team could infer their movement on the field geometricaly, by traking the angle of the joints - minus all the sliping.
- Walking - walking was made up by hand more or less, with various amount of creativity, of mathematic and of success from each teams.
- Decision - decision making was rule based pretty much everywhere. If you don't see the ball, find it. If you see the ball then run on it. If you are close enough, then line up with the target goal. If you are lined up, run in.
In 2000 the system began being barely good enough of attempt some cooperation : if you both see the ball and a team mate, back off so to not get in his way.
Winning team were those that could execute this the most reliably, and who walked the fastest. Fastest without falling over all that is, for there was lots of nucking and elboying between the robots, and few could had vision good enough to see each other.Re:Aibo is there too (Score:1)
THL.
Robot (Soccer) World Cup (Score:2, Informative)
From the BBC's web site from August this year:
Robot world cup kicks off [bbc.co.uk]
Sportbots... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sportbots... (Score:2, Funny)
Unfortunately Aibo was found to be using performance enhancing transistors.
He argued that they were purely for recreational purposes but the judges ruling was final.
Why are people so unkind? - Kamahl
Logical v. Illogical Actions (Score:3, Insightful)
If you look hard enough at anything, you will find what you are looking for.
Remember a scooner is a sailboat and there is no Easter Bunny.
Re:Logical v. Illogical Actions (Score:3, Insightful)
You observe human behaviour and have the idea that
the behavioural pattern is based on certain stimuli and rules. If a robot with the same stimuli and assumed rules shows the same behavioural pattern you'll have good reason to assume that those rules and stimuli are the cause for the behaviour.
It's similar to Neuronal Networks. How can they teach us about real neurons?
We try to reduce the complicated interaction of neurons and try to reduce it to its bare functional minimum, which let us understand the functioning of (some) real neuronal networks.
It's not about the car assembling robots, but about behaviour simulating robots.
Re:Logical v. Illogical Actions (Score:1)
What a non sequitur. From "humans are complicated" it follows that nothing can be learned from simplifications? Kinda refutes 400 years of scientific progress, huh? The whole point is that nature is complex, and that only by isolating subphenomena can we attempt to undersnatnd their individual operations. And finally, we can re combined the isolated parts to being to understand the holistic interactions and interdependencies.
2. Humans are so much more complicated than capacitors, circuits and processing units. Without meaning to trigger another flame war between the AI camps, this statement is observably false. Humans are instantiated as physcial objects, subject to the same physics as other collections of electrical, emchanical, chemical processes. The interesting distinction arise from level of complexity.
Re:Logical v. Illogical Actions (Score:2)
Ultimately, human beings are the sum of a very complex network of capacitors, circuits or processing units. Which depends on what level you choose to examine us on. It is the interaction of all of these and how they organize which makes simple neurons able to produce intelligence. Robot research is an attempt to find the minimal level which can emulate intelligent behaviour.
Complex? Yes. Incomprehensible? No. Irreplicatible? We're working on it!
Quantifying behavior (Score:1)
This is one of the basic ideas of modern artificial intelligence.
Why soccer? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why soccer? (Score:2, Interesting)
Training an algorithm to react in a fast changing environment is much harder and realistic.
If we can put robots to work as a team in an hostile environment (such as a soccer game), we could also have autonomous robots working on mars and reacting in realtime to their surrondings.
M
Re:Why soccer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I think SKIING would be an excellent test of bots. And it would enable bot builders to justify funding for trips to the alps every now and again.
Ever changing scenario, quick responses, weight balancing, gates to get through in difficult visual conditions. Different disciplines - Jumping, Downhill, Boarding etc...
Admitedly balance element would be a limit at the moment - but given time this could be hugely entertaining stuff to watch when they lose their footing!
Re:Why soccer? (Score:2, Interesting)
It will make the organisers happy just like the IBM developers with Deep Blue.
Here is the motto from www.robotcup.org
By the year 2050,
develop a team of fully autonomous humanoid robots
that can win against the human world soccer champions.
I don't really think it will take up 49 more years. If I were a professional (human) soccer player, I will run for life once the walking robots appear in the field (esp for the alpha/beta versions). That's not so funny to see big robots on rampage.
-- From the perspective of a survivor who got nearly run down by an out-of-control 100kg research robot. ;-)
OK, you can't get away that easily :) (Score:1)
(Yes, this is off topic)
Re:Why soccer? (Score:1)
puzzeled ... (Score:1)
Why simulate algorithms already created, when it's possible to predict it through calculations? The only reason I can think of is fun. But simulating something is just visualising something we already know.
Close to luck (Score:3, Interesting)
This is NOT the simulation of algorithms already created always, its often the creation of totally new algorithms, which can be extracted after development - a learning approach.
How? Straight statistics, support vector machines, decision trees, neural networks, fuzzy logic, and simulated annhealing are all common techniques to lead towards the goal. Who knows what they actually use.
IIT Bombay has a Robotics fest. (Score:1)
IIT Bombay has a robotics festival called Yantriki.
They've had games like TUG-O-WAR in '94, moving on to SOCCER, BASKETBALL, BUNNY WARS, CARROMINES, SUMO WRESTLING and WATER POLO, since it's beginning in '94.
Re:IIT Bombay has a Robotics fest. (Score:1)
Robo-Kabadi
The best game ever invented.
Alas the 'always be breating out' (saying 'kabadi') aspect doesn't translate directly into the tobotic domain...
THL.
Re:IIT Bombay has a Robotics fest. (Score:1)
Robo-Kabadi"
Damn good idea, if I say so.
How would you spell fun? Oh, that's right, Robot-Kabbadi.
"Alas the 'always be breating out' (saying 'kabadi') aspect doesn't translate directly into the tobotic domain... "
Well, you could have robots with software for sound, infinite loops,
{
say "kabaddi"
repeat
}
:)
Replacing stuff with robots (Score:5, Funny)
I think this experiment could teach us allot about stupid people, and how they behave in packs.
Re:Replacing stuff with robots (Score:1)
Re:Replacing stuff with robots (Score:2, Funny)
My mother ordered 2 of them.
- Woody Allen
Interesting Article but somehow flawed.... (Score:1)
I found the article very interesting in so much as you got more diversity when the team as whole was rewarded/punished but I really don't agree that the way the the robots played has anything to do with capitalism.
I would also strongly disagree with the idea that capitalism is just about individuals seaking one goal (to obtain wealth) when in practice it is groups of people working together to obtain that goal. For example in a company (of any size) nothing works if people are just blindly following their own goals, but it does work if people are all working for the greater good of the company. People do not just sit there thinking about whether a decision is going to be benfical to them based on "My Wealth" vs. "Company Good", because if that was all that they did they would obtain neither since their capitalist ideal is at that point linked with the success (or not) of that company.
Of course there are exceptions to this... But IMO the essence of capitalism is that people as a collective, not just as individuals, can strive towards those goals of accruing wealth, and it is this that the robots are doing. The team that works as a team is the one that is consolidating its wealth and is the one that I think is being more capitalist simply because if they do well as a team then they are doing well as individuals in a team (For example if there are 5 bots and they get 10 goals then each of the bots is 'worth' 2 goals)
Out of interest I looked up capitalism also. The definition that I got from Websters [websters.com] is as follows:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
I don't see anything in that that says that capitalist is just about getting rich....
Re:Interesting Article but somehow flawed.... (Score:1)
Capitalism has nothing to do with accruing wealth, or working hard, or working together, or making your own way in the world, or business - these things are ancient and all this crap is mainly out of business propaganda from the last 30 years. Capitalism is about 150 years old if that. Capitalism has to do with accruing property, and it requires a system, laws and bureaucracy that allows individuals to accrue property.
And since my boss owns everything I and my co-workers produce, I hardly consider working for the company to be a collective goal.
You say "the essence of capitalism" is people striving collectively to achieve wealth - this could not be less true. You are describing the opposite of capitalism.
Re:Interesting Article but somehow flawed.... (Score:1)
Hernando de Soto has a great book, "The Mystery of Capital," that postulates the biggest barrier to growth in the 3rd world is that as much as 90% of all property is not "legally" owned so it can't be used as capital. Thus 90% of the wealth in these companies is stagnant wealth.
Re:Interesting Article but somehow flawed.... (Score:1)
Re:Interesting Article but somehow flawed.... (Score:1)
I'd pit a capitalist robotic team trained on that basis against his egalitarian socialist team any day.
soccer player robots (Score:1)
[uni-stuttgart.de]
Robocop
This is Multiagent theory in the context of AI.
Re:soccer player robots (Score:1)
the software runs on LINUX!
Not news. (Score:1)
Robot Emotions (Score:3, Interesting)
Robot emotions play a much larger part than most people know. In fact, any serious researcher into AI would know that emotions are nothing but another decisive factor, except that they are not well understood.
I'd seriously advice looking at Arthur T Murray's research into this area available here [scn.org]. It has a lot more to it than mere `entertainment` value.
And if you really are worried about robots having souls or a conscience, you should read this! [sourceforge.net]. It is a pretty insightful article into what robots may have to do to qualify as humans.
Capitalism analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that group performance as well as individual reward should be rewarded, and in most large companies it is. Annual bonuses are often based on company performance multiplied by individual performance. Rewarding a small group/division is useful where its possible.
Soccer is individualistic. You will make more money (or receive more fame if amateur) as a striker than as a defender, so if you have the talent, that's the position you want. Economics also alow for people to realize that their talent level may be better suited to being a defender.
The robot social system may also evolve into letting better robots be the strikers, but its incidental. The motivations of individual fame and wealth are not being accounted for, but is what causes teams and players to stabilize into their positions.
No reg. (Score:3, Informative)
-J
Errrrr..... (Score:1)
The results may be surprising to those who believe that the pursuit of individual rewards -- as in capitalism -- encourages people to develop a diversity of ideas, points of view, goals and strategies to achieve them.
To summarise quickly - he says when robots are only rewarded for scoring, they all go for goal, whereas when all on a team are rewarded when one scores, they work effectively as a team.
Now - last time I checked, when my team (company) scores (gets a good deal), we all benefit, not just one of us. So it's a bad analagy, which the guy can stick up his arse (or ass, if we're in socher-land).
Do they simulate brawls as well? (Score:1)
Take the analogy with a bag of salt (Score:1)
Note that Balch himself is much more cautious (than the journalist) about the applicability of his findings to human interaction. Who knows, he may even be correct that using artificial agents could be useful in testing social hypotheses -- at least they're controllable and repeatable, though of course that's both good and bad when it comes to trying to model humans. But you'd be crazy to conclude anything about the properties of capitalism or socialism based on individual vs. global feedback schemes.
Bio bugs? (Score:2, Funny)
"Soccer"? (Score:1)
Troll (Score:1)
Re:Troll (Score:2)
Re:"Soccer"? (Score:1)
He needed a simulation for this? (Score:1)
"Under the first scheme, a reward signal is sent only to robots that score a goal. As the match progresses, every team member ends up learning the same sequence of behaviors -- going after the ball in a solo effort to score. As a result, the circles on the screen bunch around a single point -- wherever the ball is -- leaving the rest of the field open to attack."
Apparently this guy has never watched six year olds play soccer with Mommy and Daddy cheering from the sidelines for them to "kick it!"
capitalism (Score:1)
Main Entry: capitalism
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
There is nothing in that definition that says only one individual may benefit. Indeed, it's already been pointed out that private individuals in a capitalist system already voluntarily cooperate for their mutual benefit. Capitalism just means that individual decide rather than the state.
A better political comparison would be between a robot team where each robot has control over its own robot body, and a robot team with a central master control, telling each robot what to do. Indeed, its interesting that his robots evolve individually where there is a sort of distributed intelligence, rather than under some central authority as in socialism or communism.
Just for comparison,
Main Entry: socialism
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxest theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I think its interesting that the third definition allows for unequal distribution of goods and pay.
Also look at http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/docu
Obvious Result (Score:1)
It is somewhat interesting that rewarding the whole team when goals are scored produces some robots specialized for defense, but really, that result is obvious too. Basically, what you are saying with the reward is that whatever position that robot was in, or sequence of actions they were taking at the time of the goal was a good one. If they were in a defensive position at the time of the goal, they'll become slightly more predisposed to defense (assuming that's more or less how their programming works). In other words, it seems to me that all these experiments demonstrate is that their algorithms work.
So... (Score:1)
Cooperative Learning (Score:2)
As someone who dropped out of high school because of stupid ideas like cooperative learning and "team teaching" and block scheduling which were the antithesis of learning, I'm so tired of seeing this drivel being accepted and put into practice.
The Article quotes a 'cooperative learning' researcher extolling the joys of diversity that it produces. It doesn't mention that while kids are learning diversity, they're not actually LEARNING anything.
Group work in a school setting produces smart students who don't excel because they're holding up the rest of the group, mediocre students who can slack because the intelligent ones will do the work for them, and slow students who never get the attention they deserve.
I'm tired of these education theorists taking their insane pet theories and putting them into schools. And its even worse when they use some sort of silly robotic experiment to back them up. Isn't there some way to stop these wackos?
Re:Cooperative Learning (Score:1)
you forgot smart students who don't excel because they forsee the pointlessness of school in general.
even if they guy who implimented the experiment doesn't think it should be used as a model for how people work, someone dumb down the line will. Its crappy to see things like this implimented, especially in a public type setting (like school). home schooling for everyone! =)
Re:Cooperative Learning (Score:2)
If there's one thing I can suggest to smart but frustrated high school students, it's this simple message: Get out now. Run, don't walk to take the GED. Just get away from the poison of school.
individual vs grouping behaviour (Score:2, Insightful)
More 6-year-old style soccer (Score:1)
AI Olympics Sockey [mit.edu]
(note: this applet was written independently of the Robocup tournament and doesn't share the same rules or physics.)
Will the Robots throw their shit, or run the maze? (Score:1)
The author of Logical v. Illogical Actions addresses some interesting points concerning the relevance of using robots to test human-based theories. To continue rmo6's statement, it's important to remember that in the field of nonhuman studies applied to human research, the general rule of thumb is that, as you go up or down the evolutionary tree, you usually end up trading control for relevance (and vice versa). That is to say, rats will do just about anything for the pellet, and monkeys will throw their shit at you. I'd love to follow where and IF robots fit in that scheme. GodSpiral brings up a rather Skinnerian Complaint - that individual performance should be focused on; yet, to answer that, aren't groups composed of individuals? The designers seem to be saying that robot behavior possess tremendous relevance, especially within the field of industrial psych, but like halftrack points out, how do these robots end up going along these paths - serendipity or predilection?
Also, if you want a fascinating survey of AI development (through communication, technology, industrial, etc) try Janet Murray's "Hamlet on the Holodeck."
Cooperation and the Handicap Principle (Score:1)
Taking risks (cooperation, a big flashy tail, antelopes 'stotting' in front of cheetahs, etc.) proves genetic fitness to potential mates.
So cooperation is really a form of 'persuit of individual rewards.' A roboticist can simply choose the reward parameters they like for their experiments, but in nature, reward systems are products of evolution favoring winning strategies.
Cooperation is a better strategy than selfishness because the chicks dig it, and it might help your relatives pass on more genes.