The Robot Diaries 81
I enjoyed reading the robot diaries which are an account of building some BEAM [?] robots from kits. BEAM bots are interesting in that the design sense behind it is much more building from the ground-up (IE, build a robot to resemble an insect) rather then trying to build from the top down. Basically a more evolutionary approach to things.
One thing (Score:2)
I Wonder... (Score:1)
Robot Diaries (Score:1)
Robot Diaries.... (Score:2)
http://www.robotfrank.com/Diary.html [robotfrank.com]
GO ROBOT RON!
I Don't Think It's a Good Idea (Score:2)
I don't think I'd want a robot baby-sitting my kids, The whole time I was reading the article I just kept thinking AI and the matrix.
"They will run factories and fight in wars."
So we teach 'em how to fight then let them baby-sit. Good idea? I think not. And would there be MS robots I'd hate for us to lose a war because the robot blue screened.
Movie tip (Score:2)
--
Do we want robots to evolve? (Score:2)
If they're evolving, we may not be able to control what they want to do. If we design robots ourselves, we can add safeguards to protect humanity (like Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics). If htey just evolve, who know what may happen, they may decide we are competition for resources and get rid of us.
I think Bill Joy made quite a few good points about this.
BEAM Robots and Battlebots. (Score:5)
I can see the next breed of Battlebots planning for this escapade. They'll all install forward facing halogen lamps. No BEAM bot can resist the light.
-S
Scott Ruttencutter
an excellent approach (Score:3)
the main idea is that intelligence is something that *emerges* from the combination of the various behaviors. There is certainly some truth to that. But I am not altogether convinced that this is the full picture.
I recall some articles about the potential data density of the brain. For example, the brain has an extraordinary high level of magnetite (?) in the cells. This makes the nuerons sensitive the magnetic fields. Since there is a high level of electic activity in the brain, this raises all kinds of subtle questions about the influence to nuerons of magnetism.
there are a number of similar questions in the field of nuerology, but I do not have them at my finger tips
Re:One thing (Score:1)
I don't believe it. (Score:5)
For anyone interested in this, especially if you have been discouraged by trying to build other forms of robots, please look into BEAM. While it isn't always as cheap as they like to make it seem, it's much more rewarding than typical CPU-driven robotics.
If you would really like to learn more, you could try Solarbotics [solarbotics.com] and get a kit, or just build your own from scraps. (It's much cheaper that way.
But don't be fooled.. even though they are reasonably easy to build, they are worthy of the title "Research Platform". The analog loops that Nv neurons produce can form some strikingly natural paterns. And people tend to like BEAM bots a little more than CPU based versions because they move much more quickly and naturally.
Above all, of course, have fun.
Re:I Don't Think It's a Good Idea (Score:1)
Oh joy! (Score:1)
First typographical error! (Score:1)
IE? What the hell? "IE" implies "Internet Explorer". You probably meant to say "i.e." instead.
Re:One thing (Score:2)
Re:8 year old British lad beats inbred Yanks (Score:1)
Re:I Don't Think It's a Good Idea (Score:1)
That does it. Please excuse me while I kill myself.
Great idea (Score:1)
AI? (Score:1)
Great. *applause*
Re:There are tons of good beam sites (Score:1)
What is it with you people?? You think a photo of someone trying to turn themself inside out is funny? Apparently it wasnt funny enough since someone took the time to create a nice little JAVA applet that would open MANY MANY copies of the photo and make them dance around the screen!!!
Some of us read /. from work and that kind of shit would get us fired if the wrong person saw it.. idiots...
There should be an IQ filter set up for getting an account to post messages to a discussion board, at least it would prevent inbreds like you from clogging my bandwidth with that kind of useless crap.
Re:Do we want robots to evolve? (Score:1)
If robots are to even slightly resemble computers, they're not going to evolve at all unless we apply 6 bug-fixes and 4 patches, only to find out we'll have to do all the coding again just because RobotSoft(tm) 2010 just came out...
Re:BEAM Robots and Battlebots. (Score:3)
The way you get these robots to do what you want them to do is by giving them sensors in the right places. Light, sound, heat, whatever.
So my idea is to have a few predators and a few prey on the field. Each predator has a beacon that the prey naturally runs from. Each prey has a beacon that the predators naturally run to. And each has certain mechanisms which, when employed, do harm to the others.
It would be interesting to see what happens. Does the predator or prey, assuming they have equal weapons, win?
ahhh, not enough time in the day...
Re:One thing (Score:1)
Moderator burn this one! (Score:1)
Re:There are tons of good beam sites (Score:2)
They must get a kick out of it... I browse with Java/JS off, except when I need it on (espn, financial sites).
There's something that I wish I had - if Netscape let me selectively enable Java/JS for particular domains, or even if I turned it off in one window, it shouldn't affect the others I have up, and vice-versa... hmmm...
--
Reminds me of BOIDs... (Score:3)
Every object in the worldspace updated in its own independant cycle; the trick was to adjust the bird's forward angle to move towards other birds only if the distance between them was outside a set of bounds (if its too far, move closer; if its too close, turn away)
The result? Flocking behaviour. Another example of a seemingly complex natural system reduced to a small set of rules.
-- Scott
Robot's self diary (Score:2)
Someone posted a diary [63.201.62.140] that his Aibo wrote. His Aibo is still a baby so the entries are very basic. It's still interesting.
Re:Do we want robots to evolve? (Score:2)
Re:Great idea (Score:1)
I live in an older home and paying for an exterminator seems stupid when I could just spray myself. But for the entertainment value, I would love to have a few little robots that "wandered" around the house and kicked the shit out of the real insects. I'm not sure what the wife would think of that though.
Re:Robot's self diary (Score:1)
This is the right link [63.201.62.140]
Re:Robot Diaries.... (Score:1)
--
i never thought beam would get on here (Score:1)
Too much matrix... (Score:1)
Re:AI? (Score:3)
That started out as just a sarcastic comment, but now I see some sense to it. If uninformed people would take some time to learn about the problems that AI currently faces, as well as the restrictions we can put on it, as well as the benefits that it can provide us, would this irrational fear still exist? One of the best applications that I have ever heard for an AI application is a "diagnosis machine." An expert system, always ready, always alert, that you describe your symptoms to and it will tell a hysterical mother at 3 in the morning to give their child some asprin, burp them, and put them to bed, or justify their fears and tell them to get the ailing child to a hospital.
This seems to me to be just another case of fear of the unknown. It has parallels to every technology issue unfairly being given bad light in the media. Compare fear of AI to fear of hackers (used in the benevolent sense). John Q. Public does not understand their motives, their methods, or their limitations. Begin fear mongering now.
I wonder how much saner the world would be if people were required to understand things before judging them. Wow! I just independantly stumbled upon the Heinlein concept of grok... That's eerie.
BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:2)
BEAM robotics are interesting from nothing more than an analog circuit perspective. I'll give you that. They are not solving any problems that real robotics professionals and researchers are trying to solve. I do not consider Mark Tilden to be a robotics researcher any more than I consider a computer technician to be an electrical engineer. Until I can see a BEAM robot that does more than scamper around... until I see a BEAM robot that can play soccer... until I see a BEAM robot that cooperate with another BEAM robot... until I see a BEAM robot walk into a volcano, drive on mars, navigate a hospital, retrieve books in a library... I don't want to hear about BEAM
Maybe I'm closed minded, I have seen alot of stuff in my days but I will not be a believer until Mark Tilden can demonstrate more useful functionality. BTW did you all hear that Tilden is moving to software control? He's retreating from the "robustness" of his analog core and realizing how limited it is without higher level control. A reactive low-level is almost universally accepted as a standard part of robot architectures but useful work often needs the upper level control.
Re:Robot Diaries....holy hell batman (Score:1)
Re:There are tons of good beam sites (Score:1)
My point was that some people just have too much free-time and no moral obligation to think before they post something. I'm not easily offended (I put up with a lot actually) but seeing that ugly photo one too many times just put me over the edge.
1949 robot technology (Score:4)
Rod Brooks picked up on this idea, and did some good insect robot work. But then he got hubris, started doing TV interviews, the "Rod Brooks World Tour", T-shirts, and Cog. [mit.edu]
When Brooks first gave a talk at Stanford on his plans for Cog, the general idea was to try for human-level AI by building a seated robot body and throwing about 30 MIT PhD theses at the problem. It hasn't worked. I asked Brooks "Why don't you build a robot lizard or mouse?", that being the next step up from the insect work. He said that "he didn't want to go down in history as the guy who built the world's best robot mouse".
This is a classic problem with AI researchers. They get a halfway decent idea, and they start thinking human-level AI is just around the corner. AI goes through one of these enthusiasms every five years or so, some of the main ones having been search, rules, theorem proving, neural nets, and genetic algorithms. All of these are useful, and all have hit a ceiling beyond which further work doesn't produce much improvement.
I tell people we're probably going to have to claw our way up the evolutionary ladder, and the next step is the lizard brain level of intelligence. This is happening, amusingly, in the game world, where opponent control AI has to solve the basic problems of life: not falling down, not bumping into stuff, and back-seat driving the machinery that controls those tasks into getting something done.
Re:Too much matrix... (Score:1)
Great Article (Score:1)
I like the idea of giving everyone a chance to get in to robotics on any level. This will build interest in creating them, thus creating a larger amount of people developing advancements in robotics. Building blocks for some thing further down the line.
In the terms of enabling artificial intelligence, it's hard to comprehend the implementation of an organic process with the concepts of mechanics. If there is a way to fuse the two, the results, if handled properly, could yield amazing results.
Re:Great idea (Score:2)
Me too?
But then a robot looking like bug would come travelling in time, to protect the eggs, sent by the cockroaches who survived the nuclear holocaust.
Re:1949 robot technology (Score:1)
hmm.. pray tell, how did they do more? I have trouble seeing how those could do more than the current BEAM bots. Of course, if you're just talking about solar speeders or photovores, then you might be right. But you probably don't realize that BEAM also has walking robots in it's ranks. Walkers, especially those with more than two motors, are extremely versatile and interesting.
Please post more info, if you don't mind.
Re:BEAM Robots and Battlebots. (Score:1)
--
Re:BEAM Robots and Battlebots. (Score:1)
--
I would have been more impressed... (Score:4)
Instead, she intones that her boyfriend and her roommate ended up putting them together, and the roommate was the one actually soldering - what, was the boyfriend there for moral support (apparently so, she says later on one goes home after the racer did not immediately work, which could only mean the boyfriend, since the roommate is at home)?
Instead, she says she served drinks. Then, the rest of the article goes into really inane observations of the machines "at play". The only fun observation was of the photovore avoiding a grape, and getting to the lamp.
All this individual ended up doing was writing an article. I would have been more impressed had she tackled the soldering iron, made a few mistakes, learned how to solder, and build the racer. Even if it didn't work right, it at least would have shown that she tried to learn something completely new - instead of passively letting life go by.
Furthermore, she doesn't feel these devices are really worth the effort put into the building of them. You can tell by the tone of the writing. She talks about setting up an environment filled with various knick knacks and things. Why doesn't she get it about BEAM - hobble the damn thing! Put tape on one of the photovore's motors, see how it works around this "impediment"! Geez, is experimentation that difficult?!
People, if you want to know more about BEAM, and want to play with it yourself, avoid this article. Here are a few links to check instead:
http://www.solarbotics.com/ (she could've at least provided this link!)
http://www.nis.lanl.gov/projects/robot/
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:3)
Here's [space.com] something to think about if you really don't think a BEAM bot can do anything useful.
Now on to your accusations..
A BEAM robot can walk into a volcano, it can drive (or walk) on mars, it can navigate a hospital. That's the whole point of BEAM... to make a robot that doesn't have to be watched all the time. One that doesn't rely on it's CPU to do anything, one that doesn't need a satellite uplink, one that doesn't need stinking GPS. One that adapts to its environment.
I'd like to see a traditional CPU driven robot survive outside (pick a place) for a month. It should be mobile. It should not be tethered. It shouldn't be so large that it's presence is obtrusive. Can you deliver?
BEAM already has.
Now, as far as retrieving a book from a library goes... well, yes, you'll need some digital logic most likely. And the point is? BEAM has never been about performing mundane tasks such as this. BEAM is about analog circuits that are as closely connected to their environment as possible. They aren't meant to be preprogrammed for a certain action. And hence, you'll never see anyone in BEAM try, because it would be a waste of time.
BTW, you seem to assume that BEAM roboticists are anti-CPU. That's incorrect. We just understand the best place to use a CPU. Unfortunately, most roboticists think that every little detail has to be programmed... I personally feel that that is the wrong view to have.
Re:I Don't Think It's a Good Idea (Score:1)
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
You can sit on your high horse and give uneducated opinions for the rest of your life or you can come down here and actually DO something and find out for yourself.
"Until I can see a BEAM robot that does more than scamper around... until I see a BEAM robot that can play soccer... until I see a BEAM robot that cooperate with another BEAM robot... until I see a BEAM robot walk into a volcano, drive on mars, navigate a hospital, retrieve books in a library... I don't want to hear about BEAM"
The biggest hinderance to science is scientists.
"I have a graduate degree from doing robotics research at a very well known university"
After all, as far as the scientific community knew, the earth was flat.
"They are not solving any problems that real robotics professionals and researchers are trying to solve"
It took a person who was able to look at the world without the blinders of "fact" to get the job done. Check your history...REAL advances are made by REAL scientists, not naysayers!
Do the work first and then if you can't do it, you can email some of the BEAMers (most under 18!) and they can tell you how to make it work.
Richard Caudle
BEAMer since 1998
More BEAM (Score:1)
http://home.earthlink.net/~elspike2/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~elspike2/wsn562A.htm
Dave Pike uses gourds for the 'bodies' of some of his BEAM bots, they are quite unique.
Re:Too much matrix... (Score:1)
I searched all afternoon and can't fnd anything but broken links and pop up windows.
Thanks
The parent post is lousy, here's why (Score:2)
This has become a rather cliche statement on slashdot. Why should we care if you remember seeing these things before? Neither the slashdot blurb nor the article make any claims of these robots being invented last week or anything. This is just another silly and pointless proclamation of, "been there, done that." This practice is all too widespread on slashdot. I don't know what anybody is expecting to acheive by doing this. What do you expect readers to think by saying this? "Wow, this dude has seen this before, he must have a giant cock!"
You shouldn't need to summarize. We can read the article and understand this.
Why should we care what you think? Are you an AI expert? Why aren't you convinced?
This whole paragraph is utterly pointless. Yes, it does contain a few random factoids, but it doesn't go anywhere with these or have any real purpose.
Are you a nuerologist? Why do you think it is so important to point this out?
Re:1949 robot technology (Score:3)
Walkers are interesting, sure; but so are the sort of mechanical puppets which so delighted the victorians. Legs or wheels is not the point. Sensing the environment and making use of the sensory data is the point. Grey-Walters animats did this very successfully. Brooks subsumption architecture robots did likewise, and with more cash spenbt on them, had more sensors, more end-effectors, did more ... advanced the technological implementation ... but ... philosophically ... did they move the state of the art on much? Arguably not.
What Brooks did successfully do is challange the heavy AI brigade, who wished to model the world and provide a priori plans to their robots; (again, arguably) much of their work sunk without trace (though there are idiots still labouring under the delusion - step forward Kevin Warwick [kevinwarwickwatch.org.uk]). Brooks, after Walters, was more about reacting; not modelling; not planning; and as other posters have stated, getting emergent behaviours out of a set of simple behaviours. (And on that subject, I highly recommend a book by Braitenberg - Vehicles - Experiments in Synthetic Psychology [amazon.com] which is a 150 page though experiment taking you through the sort of "emotions" that can arise out of simple combinations of sensors, wiring and end-effectors - including fear, love, hate, &c. Very powerful stuff.)
I remember a great deal of Behaviour based robotics stuff going on the mid to late 80's. Owen Holland, who rescued Grey-Walters animats, recalls behaviour-based robotics of the 50's. Here we are in the 00's, and, what we have are Lego Technics, BEAM, Sony's robots; the Sony and Toshiba walking robots ... furbies ... excellent technology ... apparantly no nearer being able to make sense of their environment that the animats.
overhyped? (Score:2)
"Nothing would be preprogrammed"? This is untrue. The programming is done through careful design of the analog circuitry.
I don't see tilden's approach as scaling to even true insect like intelligence.
If I only had a brain (Score:2)
You know, there's a school of thought that says this is how the brain was evolved in the first place. Ever wonder why every creature with a complex nervous system keeps the central node of that system in such a vulnerable place -- the head? One theory is that our wormlike ancestors, crawling blindly through the primeval muck, gradually evolved their frontal cells into things that could react to whatever they were crawling into. A structure for providing simple response to physical stimuli gradually evolved into a general-purpose organ for complex response -- the brain.
__________________
Do you know how silly that sounds? (Score:1)
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
Talk the talk, walk the walk, eh? Where are applications of Tilden's robots where the primary task is not accomplished by wandering. His "land-mine finding robots" do just this, walk until they're blown up. His moon dust pushing robot does this just wanders and moves/picks up dust as a side-effect. His lawn mower just wanders around with a cutting blade. This is getting pretty monotonous.
In case you haven't heard since you're not involved in the general robotics field, there's a whole area of robotics called autonomous robotics. Autonomous basically means self controlled. You create it, put it somewhere and it just does what it's supposed to do.
You ever hear of the expression never get into a pissing contest with a skunk? My research in fact was autonomous mobile robotics using robots we designed within our university group. They were small... under 125 cubic centimeters. They could act independently or cooperatively. They could also communicate with a homebase CPU if necessary to upload sensed data. I and plenty of others can deliver. It's not that hard.
The way BEAM delivers is like if I went to a toy store, found a toy car with motors, added a solar cell, added a few components to charge and discharge the capacitor to drive the motors and tada! I have suddenly have a BEAM robot that can do anything! It can drive into a volcano... it can drive on mars... it can drive around a hospital. Give me a break.
So now since you say BEAM is not about performing mundane tasks (have you ever seen the etymology of the word robot?)... what kind of tasks (specific examples) is BEAM about and for extra points, what kind of tasks has BEAM been used for?
I think you don't know most roboticists and you have not read enough about the many very well known robot architectures. It is VERY well known that there is a spectrum of robot architectures from the most reactive (Brooks or Tilden) to the most computational/case based. To say that every little detail has to be programmed it is clear that you also have NEVER programmed a robot.
More impressed... Yes, but... (Score:1)
What is interesting here (and I think the writer knew that) is actually the way she reacted to the 'bots, not the way a kind of 'advanced' electronic gadget is avoiding grape.
My wife just called me because the 8mm video recorder "does not want to give back the tape".
With apparition of pet'bot's and walking prototypes, the age-old sci-fi dream of domestics robots is maybe a lot closer than we think. And the designers of those robots might have ot read more that asimov to forecast the way people are going to react.
After all, I already met someone that tought is computer despised him because some 'essential' icon vanished from its desktop !
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
I have been reading about BEAM for many years. I have read plenty of articles about Tilden, gone though many of web pages from BEAM hobbyist and talked to many people. I am still not convinced.
You ever hear the phrase "Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof?" I and thousands of other scientists are waiting for the proof. I know what the robotics community at large can deliver. I've seen much of it and have been involved in it myself. Now I'm waiting to see if Tilden can do better. Brooks with all his media attention and outspoken views and brilliant students could not.
REAL scientists ARE naysayers until they are proven wrong. I dare you to prove me wrong.
I have seen the core circuit of many BEAM robots. How many of the BEAM hobbyists really understand the circuits versus how many copy and then tinker?
Re:I Don't Think It's a Good Idea (Score:2)
Re:Do we want robots to evolve? (Score:2)
Re:Robot's self diary (Score:2)
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:2)
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
BEAM can potentially do anything given a sufficiently complex reactive system. "What have they done?" is the question that I have been posing but have yet to get a serious response. And so given the current state of BEAM, what does it have that will allow it to advance more than normal layered architecture autonomous robots?
What does Tilden have that Brooks failed to deliver on?
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:2)
Re:overhyped? (Score:2)
It sounds like you saw some of what might be called "entry-level designs" (which, to be fair, constitutes the vast, vast majority of what is easily availible on the net about BEAM). Remember - BEAM includes robot designs that 12 year old kids can build, and those designs are far more popular and widespread than the advanced stuff, which can require a pretty esoteric mix of biology and electronics expertise and tends to be discussed and developed in much less prominant groups.
Generally, I ignore Tilden though. I think part of his job is promotion, 'nuff said.
I don't see tilden's approach as scaling to even true insect like intelligence.
Ignoring Tilden and talking about BEAM, I would hesitate to say that. The problem, as I see it, is more that so few people have the mechanical aptitude and resources to build, say, six highly articulated legs. That tends to be a bigger challenge than scaling the "brains".
Unfortuantely, no technology can produce a body of the sophistication of today's highly evolved insects, so no matter how advanced BEAM (or any other approach) was, producing anything equivalent to an insect is ruled out before you even decide what robotics philosophy to use...
I've seen some pretty cool advances in BEAM tech over the years. (Mostly, I participate because of the Neat Tech with alternative applications that comes out of it - much of the innovation is the improvement of old designs, which might not be the best thing for the advancement of BEAM, but has resulted in some simple circuits that do interesting and useful things and only draw micro-amps to do it...)
Re:Great idea (Score:2)
On a BEAM mailing list, someone posted a link to an article about a gastro-robot that someone (or some institute) had developed - you feed it food, and a chemical (and probably micro-biological) processor used it to recharge the batteries.
I have thought about making an insect killer robot, but I kept refining the idea, and eventually, arrived at a design which, while effective, was more like a static trap, which doesn't have the exotic flavour of a roaming insect terminator, so I never bothered to attempt it
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
I am personally impressed by any robot that can accomplish the AAAI robot competitions. But for a very specific and simple example, let's see a robot that given a map of a building (one floor is sufficient), can deliver an item from room A to room B. If it can identify room A when it reaches it and room B when it reaches it can even produce its own map.
My personal opinion of Tilden is that he has been very successful in bringing hobbyists back into robotics but Tilden's evolutionary approach to robotics however has yet to demonstrate that it will be significantly different than current architectures once he demonstrates the ability to do tasks similar to what current robots do. BEAM seems to be missing results demonstrating what works and what doesn't. I'm not talking about circuit cores... if Tilden is correct, he will demonstrate that his analog circuits have in fact nothing to do with robotics. He will be able to produce a general theory of robotic control and architectures that can be implemented in arbitrary ways. How are we (as robotics researchs and professionals) to expand upon something that is so lacking of a firm and rigorous foundation.
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:2)
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
One of my best friends who is still finishing his Ph.D. did work with potential fields while an undergrad and demonstrated a way to get out of problem situations. The method works basically like you would think a BEAM robot would to get out of the situation. For example, if no progress is made, charge some cap that eventually makes you run away from the beacon. Of course his solution was far more effective because the robot knew if it was making real progress or getting stuck in the same location. It would never get stuck in the same location again and again.
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
um, that makes no sense. I think I know what you mean though. The problem with that argument is that the closer a BEAM robot gets to an obstruction, the more likely it will be to turn away. And it will eventually find it's target. I've never heard anyone in BEAM say that a BEAM robot had the ability to 'pathfind'. They simply aren't designed to do so. Why is that so hard for you to understand? For example...
Let's take your 'find the beacon in a building' robot. Can it lift off of the ground, land somewhere, retrieve a beacon, and then return to it's original location? Well, if it can't, it must not be a real robot. What a fool you are.
The point, obviously, is that one type of robot is not meant to perform the actions of another type. the end.
You keep jumping around with different arguments, none of which have an extremely solid basis. You keep saying that BEAM sucks (basically), and yet you backup to mention that reactive robotics works and is proven to work. You insist that a BEAM robot can't do anything useful, and refuse to recognize the usefulness that has already been mentioned. And then you compare two seperate robotic fields, expecting that the comparison will save your argument.
As I said in my first comment, you are close minded. Obviously, there will be no changing that.
goodbye.
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
most. those that don't, don't stay around for long.
Re:One thing (Score:1)
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
Are you just stupid? You don't understand a beacon that can be seen anywhere within a building? There's a nice law of electromagnetics that says the field intensity decreases with the square of the distance away from the source. Close to beacon... strong signal. Far from beacon... weak signal. Got it? You seriously have no clue about BEAM robotics from what I am hearing.
Where are you getting this bullshit? Again it does nothing more than wanders. Why is this better than normal robots? Now you are arguing like this... "No, no, no.. you just don't understand. BEAM robots don't do path planning, see, they just work." They what the hell are they good for? Tell me! I am asking you do demonstrate what they are good for? You in your two pointless comments have not told me. You know I'm not impressed by dust pushing robots or light avoiding robots so let's go... find something I'll enjoy. What are you mumbling? I'm talking about tasks that current robots can do. Actually your task is not far from state of the art. There are many of autonomous helicopters that do very similar tasks. I'm directing you to International Aerial Robotics. Competition [gatech.edu]. I've been asking for a demonstration of something a BEAM robot can do without doing as a side effect of wandering and while I have given you plenty of information you seem to just want to argue and say I'm wrong. Show me! Show me something that BEAM robots do that normal layered architecture robots cannot do. Lets go one argument at a time then. Give me the first to talk about. I said that reactive robots have the potential to do anything given sufficient complexity. If you had half a brain you would realize this means a far more successful architecture will take reactive control as far as it can go (without extremely high effort)and then add a higher level of cognition and use that higher level with the abstraction of the lower level. As for my saying BEAM robots don't do anything useful... sure cutting my lawn is useful. But current non-BEAM robots can do that. I am asking why are BEAM robots more useful than "normal" robots? Are you now saying that BEAM is in an entirely different class and cannot be compared with normal robots? If so... WHY? WHAT IS SO DIFFERENT AND GREAT AND SPECIAL ABOUT BEAM? I am asking someone, anyone to articulate their beliefs about BEAM.Another robotics/beam site (Score:1)
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:1)
As the owner of the little company that makes the robot kits that the original diary writer used, I think I'm qualified to give an answer...
I've been involved with BEAM-style robotics almost from their inception. I've built microprocessor-style as well (albeit not as complex as some projects I've seen...), and I see many advantages to each style (how non-committal can I get?). To say that BEAM is an entirely different class that can do things other robots can't isn't correct in the least. IMHO, It offers a comparatively simple and robust way to implement low-level behaviors that guarantee the survival of a robot device.
Additionally, it's been shown that BEAM can offer a relatively easy-to-implement walking capability to a robot, which frees up the processor for much more important duties, like navigation, mapping and obstacle detection. It's something we've been calling the "Horse and Rider" concept: tell the dumb horse which direction you want to go, let it deal with the minor inconsistencies of the terrain and trees shooting out of the ground, and let the "Rider" talk to a GPS, other robots, or take sensor readings. Using a micro to arrange the operational sequence of leg motions is (from my point of view) a terrible waste of computational power, which is easily handled by a few sets of discrete & analog circuits.
In short, BEAM makes short work of the lower-level capabilities needed in a robot, much easily and inexpensively than a microprocessor, as well as being able to withstand substantial variations in mechanics (I.e.: travel damage, wear and tear...). Leave the microprocessors for what they're good at: doing math.
As the owner of the little company that makes the robot kits that the original diary writer used, I think I'm qualified to give an answer...
Re:Great idea (Score:1)
MotoMannequin
"With all appliances, and means to boot!" - William Shakespeare
Re:BEAM Robots and Battlebots. (Score:1)
Three years ago at an exhibition they had a "BEAM Landscape" with BEAM plants, BEAM herbivores and BEAM carnivores.
They all basically worked on the same prinicipal, they would charge up via solar power and if they were touched in the right place by another robot with the right sensors and power levels they would discharge. If a herbivore touched a plant (pyramid shaped rocking thingy with solar panel sides) it would gain energy from it and the plant would lose energy. If the plant lost enough energy, enough to destabilise the "neural network" of transistors, it would die.
The same also applied to the herbivores and carnivores (who could be killed by poisonous plants)
It was all rather interesting (lots of green "animals" hopping, rolling and rocking around a field), albeit a little bit slow!
Bagpuss
Your friendly cloth cat
Re:BEAM is the Cold Fusion of Robotics (Score:2)
I'm sitting on the fence saying, well, I don't see much of a use for either class of robot. Which do I find more interesting? BEAM, because their electronics are simple enough that they appear to be similar to living things. Why is that good? Because we can study living things to figure out new ways to make robots. As for the task of delivering a box in a hospital, well I'm afraid I only know of one level of intelligence that can do than to any significant degree of efficency: human intelligence. Can you train a cockroach to deliver parcels? No, so why would you think you can build a robot to do it. I'd more be looking at things that we get dogs to do, like sniff out bombs and drugs. Can we make a robot with dog level intelligence. No, not yet, but at least it is something to aim for. The dream of domestic robots which vacuum your floor, this is something you could imagine that you might be able to train a dog to do. Not well, but it's not inconceivable.
Re:Great idea (Score:1)