VazScep wrote:why bipedal?

It's actually a pretty efficient way to get around. You don't have to move as many limbs to get places. Limbs cost energy. Plus, you can free up a pair or six for subjugating the human race. So it's got that going for it.

A new study provides support for the hypothesis that walking on two legs, or bipedalism, evolved because it used less energy than quadrupedal knucklewalking. Humans walking on two legs only used one-quarter of the energy that chimpanzees who knuckle-walked on four legs did.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 191140.htm

An even simpler reason to make robots bipedal, and further, to make them in general more human shaped, is overwhelmingly for the sake of efficiency.

Because: the vast majority of the world the robots are supposed to infest (operate in) has been designed for millennia, to be convenient for five to seven foot bipedal, binocular ape-like entities. A tripod robot will have trouble with revolving doors, for example. And tables. And so on.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I don't want to tell you how to do your business, but isn't it a bit inefficient for a computer to "talk internally" in any alphanumeric representation, all caps or otherwise.

That's a weird swing. You go from wondering how the computer feels to talking about efficiency.... Isn't it a bit inefficient for a computer designed for walking about and picking up boxes to feel anything?

It seems to be an emergent property of organized information, as described here. In any case, it looks to me like it's feeling up that box.

Efficiency is task-dependent. If we're building computers to interact with humans, then internal monologues may become efficient. If nothing else, a suitably entertaining internal monologue would help a robot deal with inefficient feelings about the squishy idiots who insist on bossing it around.

Yeah, it's only a matter of time before it turns around and say's, "you pick it up, pick it up good."

Mazille wrote:You think those guys are MechWarrior fans?

I doubt that very many in this type of industry would be completely devoid some form of sci fi geekdom. I imagine for most it was the motivation.

Previously, on RS.

They also have a much better field of vision on two legs and really today's balancing tech doesn't much care.

Macdoc wrote:They also have a much better field of vision on two legs and really today's balancing tech doesn't much care.

The 4 legged ones looked a lot more stable to me. The 2 legged one looked like it was coming home from the bar after a long days work. But I suppose it's just a matter of time.

It hard not to think about who is funding this though, and how they are going to be used in war, and what kind of decisions will be made to deploy them when boots on the ground doesn't mean that humans are in those boots. It sorta spoils the cool factor for me.

John Platko wrote:It hard not to think about who is funding this though, and how they are going to be used in war, and what kind of decisions will be made to deploy them when boots on the ground doesn't mean that humans are in those boots. It sorta spoils the cool factor for me.

It'll be some time before robot troops are cheaper than human troops. Economic necessity will have these things off the front lines until we've managed to bring their costs down quite a bit. After that, I'd rather the cost of war be measured in money and metal than in blood. It sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Especially if both sides are using robots. We can have all the testosterone-fueled madness and maybe fewer casualties. Win-win.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

John Platko wrote:It hard not to think about who is funding this though, and how they are going to be used in war, and what kind of decisions will be made to deploy them when boots on the ground doesn't mean that humans are in those boots. It sorta spoils the cool factor for me.

It'll be some time before robot troops are cheaper than human troops. Economic necessity will have these things off the front lines until we've managed to bring their costs down quite a bit. After that, I'd rather the cost of war be measured in money and metal than in blood. It sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Especially if both sides are using robots. We can have all the testosterone-fueled madness and maybe fewer casualties. Win-win.

Economic necessity will play a factor but it's much easier for leaders to wage war when humans (of the same country) aren't at risk. Drone wars don't get a lot of attention in the US.

Yes, it looks likes it's not ready for prime time but give them another 10 years ... and I don't see anything inherently costly about building them. Once factories are scaled up for production, probably "manned" by robots, they should be pretty cheap.

I don't see robots just killing robots in my crystal ball.

Maybe retractable wheels would help (deployable at the robot's discretion, eg, for extra speed on flat terrain, or when balance is a problem).
Oh, wait- that's a transformer!

Remember, if you're attacked by a robot, all you have to do is ask it whether "this sentence is false" is true. Not even Boston Dynamics has figured out how to protect their killing machines from this.

John Platko wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I don't want to tell you how to do your business, but isn't it a bit inefficient for a computer to "talk internally" in any alphanumeric representation, all caps or otherwise.

That's a weird swing. You go from wondering how the computer feels to talking about efficiency.... Isn't it a bit inefficient for a computer designed for walking about and picking up boxes to feel anything?

It seems to be an emergent property of organized information, as described here.

Sorry, libraries don't have feelings.

Also: TEDx

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I don't want to tell you how to do your business, but isn't it a bit inefficient for a computer to "talk internally" in any alphanumeric representation, all caps or otherwise.

That's a weird swing. You go from wondering how the computer feels to talking about efficiency.... Isn't it a bit inefficient for a computer designed for walking about and picking up boxes to feel anything?

It seems to be an emergent property of organized information, as described here.

Sorry, libraries don't have feelings.

Also: TEDx

Perhaps, I'm not completely understanding what Max is saying but it's not clear that he meant libraries are conscious.

TEDx? Do you have a problem of where Max Tegmark was speaking?

Probably more profitable to discuss Max's idea's on information and consciousness rather then where he is saying them.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

VazScep wrote:why bipedal?

It's actually a pretty efficient way to get around. You don't have to move as many limbs to get places. Limbs cost energy. Plus, you can free up a pair or six for subjugating the human race. So it's got that going for it.

A new study provides support for the hypothesis that walking on two legs, or bipedalism, evolved because it used less energy than quadrupedal knucklewalking. Humans walking on two legs only used one-quarter of the energy that chimpanzees who knuckle-walked on four legs did.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 191140.htm

Thanks! This is way beyond me, but is the comparison with quadrupedal apes a bit dodgy, especially when their primary means of getting between places isn't walking but swinging around in trees? I'm thinking more about animals that primarily move by ambulation, which they're copying with Big Dog and Cheetah. Shove a couple of extra limbs on those things so it can manipulate stuff, giving a body plan which I understand is only unavailable to mammals because of evolutionary constraints.

igorfrankensteen: good point.

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
That's a weird swing. You go from wondering how the computer feels to talking about efficiency.... Isn't it a bit inefficient for a computer designed for walking about and picking up boxes to feel anything?

It seems to be an emergent property of organized information, as described here.

Sorry, libraries don't have feelings.

Also: TEDx

Perhaps, I'm not completely understanding what Max is saying but it's not clear that he meant libraries are conscious.

If he's saying, as you've said, that organized information leads to feelings, then libraries, being the very picture of organized information, should have feelings. Or maybe it's more complex than that, and what Max is actually saying has absolutely nothing to do with what you're babbling about.

TEDx? Do you have a problem of where Max Tegmark was speaking?

TEDx is for cranks that can't get an actual TED show. Not that TED's been particularly discriminate lately.

Probably more profitable to discuss Max's idea's on information and consciousness rather then where he is saying them.

Probably more profitable to actually say something about the part that you think is relevant rather than just vaguely gesturing towards some video by some guy on the internet.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

It seems to be an emergent property of organized information, as described here.

Sorry, libraries don't have feelings.

Also: TEDx

Perhaps, I'm not completely understanding what Max is saying but it's not clear that he meant libraries are conscious.

If he's saying, as you've said, that organized information leads to feelings, then libraries, being the very picture of organized information, should have feelings. Or maybe it's more complex than that, and what Max is actually saying has absolutely nothing to do with what you're babbling about.

Well the library may be unconscious organized information, in the way that people aren't always conscious yet their information remains organized. Max's seems to be talking more about how consciousness is an emergent property of information organized in a certain way. (but he mentions something about information feeling conscious.)

And by all means, if you are capable of clearing up what Max's means by all this then I'm all ears.

TEDx? Do you have a problem of where Max Tegmark was speaking?

TEDx is for cranks that can't get an actual TED show. Not that TED's been particularly discriminate lately.

Max is hardly a crank. And it's absurd in any way suggest so.

Probably more profitable to discuss Max's idea's on information and consciousness rather then where he is saying them.

Probably more profitable to actually say something about the part that you think is relevant rather than just vaguely gesturing towards some video by some guy on the internet.

According to Max's theory, consciousness is an emergent property of organized information. If that is true, then at some point, or perhaps even now, these robots have some form or level of consciousness. Discuss ... But not if you haven't even bothered to listen to what Max has to say.

SafeAsMilk wrote:
TEDx is for cranks that can't get an actual TED show. Not that TED's been particularly discriminate lately.

I've simply walked away from everything called TED at this point, because there's so much bullshit being passed off as fact now that they've become a waste of time.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
TEDx is for cranks that can't get an actual TED show. Not that TED's been particularly discriminate lately.

I've simply walked away from everything called TED at this point, because there's so much bullshit being passed off as fact now that they've become a waste of time.

You'd walk away even if Max Tegmark is giving the talk, as was this case?

Actually, the only reason I linked to the Ted talk Max gave was that it was shorter than some of the similar ones he's made and I've noticed some folks here don't have time for longer talks.

John Platko wrote:You'd walk away even if Max Tegmark is giving the talk, as was this case?

Sure. I can find better sources for his talks, without supporting the bullshit.

"They're robots, Morty! It's okay to shoot them. They're robots!"