Re: Turtles with trousers (WAS "robots forming, "etc]

[Nick Thompson]

John, and others...

Open, indeed!  Thanks for your concise statement of the problem.  

My deep suspicion is that the robots are smoke and mirrors.  That if one
needs spatial arrangements to make the model go ... as we began to suspect
that spatial arrangements might enhance our "MOTH" model of social
evolution ... than one need only write that into the net logo model.  That
NOTHING is gained by building the robot except robot building experience
and .... crucially ... public relations appeal.

The robots, of course, are "just" models, too.  They are models with more
"surplus meaning" than their net-logo equivalents: i.e., with the robots,
there is a much greater chance that one has unconsciously built in stuff
that affects the outcome but really is not very interesting.  

The reason that I raise all of this is that it seems to relate to the
little dust-up that we had vis-a-vis epstein a few months back.  What are
models for?  What does "verisimilitude" do for a model?  Do we put skirts,
trousers, and hats on our turtles or is it better not to?  And WHEN is a
robot something more than a turtle with trousers. I assume that people on
this list have firm opinions on this subject.  

Best,

Nick  

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/




> [Original Message]
> From: John Kennison <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>; The
FridayMorning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
> Date: 5/31/2009 8:42:27 AM
> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Robots forming human-like societies -
electronicevolution? // Current
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
> It seems to me that a negotiating model assumes that the robots have an
agreed upon method of communication, which includes transmitting of offers.
Also, it is assumed that we have a model of each robot's position, which
might be simplified to something like 'the robot moves to the place where
another robot suggested there was food'. As I read this article, the robots
have lights and light-sensors, an ability to physically move and to switch
lights off and on, and a program which determines how it does these things.
So methods of communication must evolve and decisions such as 'move to
where another robot indicated food' must be expressed as specific physical
motions.
>
> Two questions arise: Does the resulting evolution of the physical robots
reflect anything that would be suggested by examining models of negotiating
strategies. The answer seems to be yes, very much so. The other question is
whether all of the behavior exhibited by robots is predictable by such
models. Or is it the case that the physical set up has possibilities that
we would almost certainly overlook no matter how we tried to define some
negotiating entities. This still seems to be open.
>
> ---John  
>  
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
Nicholas Thompson [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 2:53 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] Robots forming human-like societies - electronic
evolution?    // Current
>
> Dear All,
>
> I guess my naive question here is, Were the robots, as such, necessary.
Is there anything you can do with robots that you can't do with netlogo
.... well, except have the scratch your back, or something.  Anything of
THEORETICAL significance?
>
>
http://current.com/items/90119924_robots-forming-human-like-societies-electr
onic-evolution.htm
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> Clark University ([hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>)
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:22:20AM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> The reason that I raise all of this is that it seems to relate to the
> little dust-up that we had vis-a-vis epstein a few months back.  What are
> models for?  What does "verisimilitude" do for a model?  Do we put skirts,
> trousers, and hats on our turtles or is it better not to?  And WHEN is a
> robot something more than a turtle with trousers. I assume that people on
> this list have firm opinions on this subject.  
>

In an evolving or learning system, environmental complexity is a big
factor. If you want to build a walking robot, then evolving a
controller in a simulated physical environment is not good enough,
although it makes an excellent starting point. There is the suspicion
that simulated environments are not good enough to evolve intelligence
(the "embedded AI hypothesis"). Similarly, there are some that think
that open-ended evolution is impossible in a simulation setting.

However much sympathy I have for these views, extending it to the
realm of models is just going too far, so I agree with you that adding
trousers to the turtles isn't worth it. A physical instantiation of a
model is only going to add additional confounding factors, which are
already bad enough.


Cheers
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 [hidden email]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[James Steiner]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> John, and others...
>
> Open, indeed!  Thanks for your concise statement of the
> problem.
> My deep suspicion is that the robots are smoke and mirrors.
> That if one needs spatial arrangements to make the model
> go ... as we began to suspect that spatial arrangements
> might enhance our "MOTH" model of social evolution ...
> than one need only write that into the net logo model.
> That NOTHING is gained by building the robot except
> robot building experience and .... crucially ... public
> relations appeal.

Here is where it might matter:

If there is lag or play between the software expression of a behavior
and the hardware expression of the behavior (that is, in the physical
actuators), and that lag is not modeled in the non-physical
simulation, then there may be an opportunity for complexity that the
non-physical model lacks. For example, an opportunity might be created
for the robots to unexpectedly "game" the rules by taking advantage of
that actuator lag.

(I am not saying that this is the case in the OA, just that it is a
factor to consider)

~~James.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Mark Montgomery]

On the topic of robots more generally, I come more from the theory of
practicability, particularly given the new light (albeit not unexpected) of
severely diminished earthly resources.

I've reviewed quite a few ventures attempting to emerge from the lab in
robotics, including full and partial.

If we voyage to the core mission of the robot, suppose automation for
manufacturing has been the most significant reason for being, relative to
economics and resource management. What has been missing in most I have
reviewed has been a productive purpose on the hardware side.

Some exceptions:

Defense: We all know of the common type- one uncommon proposal I reviewed
was for location and destruction of mines for non-military applications.
Medical: I expect that we have a long way to go yet in surgical procedures,
for example. We looked at many interesting medical devices applying IP
sourced from robotic R&D.
Transportation: One of my favorites given the potential, but public policy
is still struggling with sensors. I for one am ready for auto pilot for
commuting.
Agriculture: The first wave of the tractor displaced millions of farm
workers. The second wave could displace farmers.

The investment banker CEO might be the most valuable purpose for a robot,
but given the failure of the algorithms in 45-1 leverage for mortgages, a
close second might be their dep heads for risk management.

Seriously though, I've found that focusing on improving the productivity of
humans through higher functioning software and communications, particularly
in the area of learning and innovation, to provide the most bang for the
buck- intellectual and financial. We have vast areas of potential in the
wake of the proliferation of networked computing that have been ignored, or
avoided, but must be addressed.

Of course the argument for seeding human compatible planets with organic
robots is still valid, particularly given our track record for
self-destructive behavior, but then maybe we've already been down that path-
highly speculative.

.02- MM

Mark Montgomery
Santa Fe, NM
Founder- Kyield
http://www.kyield.com
[hidden email]



----- Original Message -----
From: "James Steiner" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>; "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Turtles with trousers (WAS "robots forming, "etc]



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Mark Montgomery]

Robots Rolling Toward Farm Revolution
New Scientist (06/01/09) Simonite, Tom
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17224-robots-rolling-towards-farm-revolution.html
(Noticed in ACM Tech News this afternoon)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Montgomery" <[hidden email]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robots reason for being (WAS "Turtles with trousers
"etc]

> On the topic of robots more generally, I come more from the theory of
> practicability, particularly given the new light (albeit not unexpected)
> of severely diminished earthly resources.
>
> I've reviewed quite a few ventures attempting to emerge from the lab in
> robotics, including full and partial.
>
> If we voyage to the core mission of the robot, suppose automation for
> manufacturing has been the most significant reason for being, relative to
> economics and resource management. What has been missing in most I have
> reviewed has been a productive purpose on the hardware side.
>
> Some exceptions:
>
> Defense: We all know of the common type- one uncommon proposal I reviewed
> was for location and destruction of mines for non-military applications.
> Medical: I expect that we have a long way to go yet in surgical
> procedures, for example. We looked at many interesting medical devices
> applying IP sourced from robotic R&D.
> Transportation: One of my favorites given the potential, but public policy
> is still struggling with sensors. I for one am ready for auto pilot for
> commuting.
> Agriculture: The first wave of the tractor displaced millions of farm
> workers. The second wave could displace farmers.
>
> The investment banker CEO might be the most valuable purpose for a robot,
> but given the failure of the algorithms in 45-1 leverage for mortgages, a
> close second might be their dep heads for risk management.
>
> Seriously though, I've found that focusing on improving the productivity
> of humans through higher functioning software and communications,
> particularly in the area of learning and innovation, to provide the most
> bang for the buck- intellectual and financial. We have vast areas of
> potential in the wake of the proliferation of networked computing that
> have been ignored, or avoided, but must be addressed.
>
> Of course the argument for seeding human compatible planets with organic
> robots is still valid, particularly given our track record for
> self-destructive behavior, but then maybe we've already been down that
> path- highly speculative.
>
> .02- MM
>
> Mark Montgomery
> Santa Fe, NM
> Founder- Kyield
> http://www.kyield.com
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Steiner" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>; "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Turtles with trousers (WAS "robots forming, "etc]
>
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org