Robot evolution

The walking talking robot seems to be a stereotype. The machines being used to kill people are not robots, they are drones. Admittedly some of them are very slow moving. The organization is not trying to outlaw killer robots but outlaw lethal autonomous weapons systems which includes drones and robots. Apparently a cruise missile with a predetermined preset target is a killer robot. The same cruise missile with a human operator is a fast moving drone. Even though a person programmed the destination, the cruise missile has to find the target using its own circuitry making its own decisions, which means it is a robot. One could say that robots have been around for 80 years, starting with the first missiles with guidance systems self directing them to their destinations. I wonder what the first machines were with self directing "guidance" systems, google seems to be tied up with the idea of missiles as the the first auto correcting machines telling themselves what to do. Arriving at a destination is a subset of accomplishing any kind of action with self correction abilities. Maybe self steering wind vanes were the first.
 
My physics lab instructor said he had worked with WVBraun at NASA and on the Apollo vehicles. Said there was an analog comparator circuit on the electronics that controlled the direction of rocket nozzles mounted on ball joints, that if two inputs differed, would switch to a third one. There was no fourth. 1:10,000-chance of mission failure.

Not quite a robot, but able to operate without human intervention.
 
Robert Zwilling said:
The walking talking robot seems to be a stereotype. The machines being used to kill people are not robots, they are drones. Admittedly some of them are very slow moving. The organization is not trying to outlaw killer robots but outlaw lethal autonomous weapons systems which includes drones and robots. Apparently a cruise missile with a predetermined preset target is a killer robot. The same cruise missile with a human operator is a fast moving drone. Even though a person programmed the destination, the cruise missile has to find the target using its own circuitry making its own decisions, which means it is a robot. One could say that robots have been around for 80 years, starting with the first missiles with guidance systems self directing them to their destinations. I wonder what the first machines were with self directing "guidance" systems, google seems to be tied up with the idea of missiles as the the first auto correcting machines telling themselves what to do. Arriving at a destination is a subset of accomplishing any kind of action with self correction abilities. Maybe self steering wind vanes were the first.
Click to expand...
And all this time I thought the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz was the first robot. :(
 
I went back and read some of this thread. I know this was posted awhile ago, but I must clarify something. Computer Engineering was my course in college.

mosaix said:
Not sure about that pm.

AI is based on computer technology. A computer can do the following: add, subtract, multiply, divide, perform input / output, compare two values and divert its program based on the result. That’s it. No more, no less.

Whatever it appears to be doing it’s just doing one of those things but incredibly quickly. There’s no function in there that allows for self recognition, self awareness or intelligence. It just remains an inanimate object appearing to do human-like things.
Click to expand...

There's kind of a big piece missing in this description of what a computer can do - memory. The above is true for the CPU for the most part, but CPU's have special instructions called interrupts. They can stash all the current job's info and jump to a new task, all the while keeping track of the spot to come back to. I don't mix the terms CPU and computer. The CPU is the little engine that does almost all of the 'computing', but where does the data come from that it is processing - memory. How does it get in and out of the CPU? There are layers of hardware and firmware (programmable hardware) surrounding the CPU on the motherboard dedicated to storing, retrieving, and releasing memory. Would this be part of any modern robot? I'd say definitely.
 
Last edited:
Now that this thread is about to be fifteen years old (tomorrow) let’s have a recap of 2022’s robot news.

spectrum.ieee.org

The Top 10 Robotics Stories of 2022

2022 was a huge year for robotics. Yes, I might say that every year. But seriously: This year trumped them all. So, please enjoy this quick look back at some of our most popular and impactful stories of 2022.
spectrum.ieee.org spectrum.ieee.org

Oh, that’s it. I was expecting every relevant site to do a similar thing.

Oh well, instead let’s see what 2023’s robots are like:


www.therobotreport.com

Editor's Picks: best robots of CES 2023 - The Robot Report

Robots were everywhere at CES 2023. Mike Oitzman highlights some of his favorite robots he saw in Las Vegas.
www.therobotreport.com www.therobotreport.com
 
What about cortex processors? More specifically a dule 2-3-3-2 or effectively a 4-6-6-4 combined cortex processor, where each cortex half has it's each own BIOS and Multi Level RAM for each hemisphere: (Logic and Creative) with the DATA BUS Line running down to a 1-2-1 BIOS and Multi Level RAM memory (Lower brain/Spine) A-Life/Digital-Analog mobile/power drive unit, be more organic in design? (For fun, let's call the RAM a Multi-Layer RAM)

With the two hemispheres knitted together with a dedicated BIOS and Multi-Layer RAM Memory acting like an artificial self-contained consensus, with its own instinctive programing, that is linked by way of the DATA BUS line to the 1-2-1 mobility/power-instinctive and learning Spine processor/ BIOS and RAM Memory for mobility, would that not be perceived as an A-Consensuses/A-Life onto itself as well as to its Human observers?

But in reality, it is still just a computer realistically acting/behaving like a human based on its Human programed and learnt programing? There-fore, not consensuses despite its perceived Human emotional interactions?
 
LordOfWizards said:
There's kind of a big piece missing in this description of what a computer can do - memory. The above is true for the CPU for the most part, but CPU's have special instructions called interrupts. They can stash all the current job's info and jump to a new task, all the while keeping track of the spot to come back to. I don't mix the terms CPU and computer. The CPU is the little engine that does almost all of the 'computing', but where does the data come from that it is processing - memory. How does it get in and out of the CPU? There are layers of hardware and firmware (programmable hardware) surrounding the CPU on the motherboard dedicated to storing, retrieving, and releasing memory.
Click to expand...
I was a Customer Engineer for IBM. The only reason I understood how a computer worked is because I bought a Heathkit H-8 computer.

IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1951. They never told me that either. I read non-IBM approved material.

It still annoys me to hear people call the CPU the brain of the computer since the registers are all the memory it has. But it is amusing that today the caches are much bigger than the memory in my H-8.

It is only Simulated Intelligence though. But that is what a lot of people seem to run on.
 
psikeyhackr said:
It still annoys me to hear people call the CPU the brain of the computer since the registers are all the memory it has. But it is amusing that today the caches are much bigger than the memory in my H-8.
Click to expand...
There some serious irony here - The amount of memory is way bigger, but the hardware is even smaller than ever.
 
THX1138 said:
What about cortex processors? More specifically a dule 2-3-3-2 or effectively a 4-6-6-4 combined cortex processor, where each cortex half has it's each own BIOS and Multi Level RAM for each hemisphere: (Logic and Creative) with the DATA BUS Line running down to a 1-2-1 BIOS and Multi Level RAM memory (Lower brain/Spine) A-Life/Digital-Analog mobile/power drive unit, be more organic in design? (For fun, let's call the RAM a Multi-Layer RAM)

With the two hemispheres knitted together with a dedicated BIOS and Multi-Layer RAM Memory acting like an artificial self-contained consensus, with its own instinctive programing, that is linked by way of the DATA BUS line to the 1-2-1 mobility/power-instinctive and learning Spine processor/ BIOS and RAM Memory for mobility, would that not be perceived as an A-Consensuses/A-Life onto itself as well as to its Human observers?

But in reality, it is still just a computer realistically acting/behaving like a human based on its Human programed and learnt programing? There-fore, not consensuses despite its perceived Human emotional interactions?
Click to expand...

Draw up the plans THX, and we'll get started. Can you secure some government funding?
 
OK, This is driving me nuts! I'm not talking about the modern cortex gaming CPU. But the experimental true cortex CPU from a documentry I saw some years ago. It had 4-8bit cpu's (IO/OP, 32 total input. cortexed (IO/OP) to 5- 8bit cpu's, cortexed (IO/OP) to 5-8bit, cortexed to 4-8bit cpu's (IO/OP, 32 total output. Thus, 4-5-5-4 CORTEX CPU. (It is a real thing that is in itself, self-learning.)

So, what I am talking about as far as a 3-4-4-3 Duel CORTEX AI CPU is this:
8input/output8input/output 8input/output8input/output
8input from Sensors8input/output8input/output8input/output *8input/output8input/output8input/output
8input from Sensors
8input from Sensors
8input/output8input/output8input/output BIOS8input/output8input/output8input/output
8input from Sensors
8input from Sensors
8input/output8input/output8input/output *8input/output8input/output8input/output
8input from Sensors
*
DATA BUS LINE
AND MEMORY
TO
PERIPHERALS
Thus, all of the cpu's are talking to each other in each of the two cortexes. Then again at the BIOS CORTEX where limits and conditions are programmed in before cross cortexing, then back and/or entering the data bus line to other peripherals. (The RAM type memory needed for this would be outrageous to say the lest.)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
T Boston Dynamics' New Humanoid Robot Science & Nature 0
TheDustyZebra Car accident, death, robots (androids?), memory wipes Book Search 4
M. Robert Gibson A “robot” should be chemical, not steel, argues man who coined the word SFF Lounge 4
M Further development of AI and robots for improving interaction with people with dementia Science & Nature 0
Jeffbert Study says a revolution in the sex robot industry is on the way-- (TECHSPOT) Science & Nature 3

Similar threads


Back
Top