Design

Thursday Screening

Our final screening will be this Thursday at 7pm in Wohler Hall rm 24. Wohler is directly behind DKH.

We will be watching the documentary Love Machine by Peter Asaro and Doug Matejka. From the press release:

Love Machine considers the social and moral implications of building humanoid robots sophisticated enough to participate in social and emotional roles that are traditionally considered exclusively or even essentially human: friendship, sex and love. The film examines the actual technologies being developed in these directions, and discusses these issues with the people who are pursuing these technologies as well as those who seek to profit from them. It also confronts various social critics, commentators and philosophers of different perspectives in a effort to open a dialogue on what implications these technologies might have for human relationships in the future.

Among those interviewed are:

Roboticists:
Rodney Brooks, Director of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Hans Moravec, Carnegie Mellon University
Gill Pratt, Cynthia Breazeal, and Brian Scassellatti, MIT
Ken Goldberg, University of California, Berkeley.

Philosophers:
Daniel Dennett, Tufts University
Hubert Dreyfus, Univesity of California, Berkeley
Manuel DeLanda, Columbia University and Institute of Advanced Study-Princeton

Sex & Culture Commentators:
Carol Queen, Robert Morgan Lawrence and Lisa Palac
Ernest Green, Editor of Taboo Magazine

Childhood technology-use advocates:
Joan Almon, and Colleen Cordes

and the entrepreneurs building such products as the Sybian and Real Doll and others . . .

Course Stuff
Philosophy
Robots
Anthropomorphism
Design
Artificial Intelligence
Cyborgs

Comments (0)

Permalink

Video screening megapost


Click the link below to see all the videos shown during last week’s movie screening. Comments are appreciated!

Continue Reading »

Philosophy
God
Robots
Anthropomorphism
Technology
Design
Artificial Intelligence
Cyborgs

Comments (13)

Permalink

More evolved machines

Here’s a good, though old, Discover Magazine article about self organizing, evolved machines that is worth a read.

Evolving a conscious machine

Strangely, Thompson has been unable to pin down how the chip was accomplishing the task. When he checked to see how many of the 100 cells evolution had recruited for the task, he found no more than 32 in use. The voltage on the other 68 could be held constant without affecting the chip’s performance. A chip designed by a human, says Thompson, would have required 10 to 100 times as many logic elements—or at least access to a clock—to perform the same task. This is why Thompson describes the chip’s configuration as flabbergastingly efficient.

It wasn’t just efficient, the chip’s performance was downright weird. The current through the chip was feeding back and forth through the gates, swirling around, says Thompson, and then moving on. Nothing at all like the ordered path that current might take in a human-designed chip. And of the 32 cells being used, some seemed to be out of the loop. Although they weren’t directly tied to the main circuit, they were affecting the performance of the chip. This is what Thompson calls the crazy thing about it.

Thompson gradually narrowed the possible explanations down to a handful of phenomena. The most likely is known as electromagnetic coupling, which means the cells on the chip are so close to each other that they could, in effect, broadcast radio signals between themselves without sending current down the interconnecting wires. Chip designers, aware of the potential for electromagnetic coupling between adjacent components on their chips, go out of their way to design their circuits so that it won’t affect the performance. In Thompson’s case, evolution seems to have discovered the phenomenon and put it to work.

It was also possible that the cells were communicating through the power-supply wiring. Each cell was hooked independently to the power supply; a rapidly changing voltage in one cell would subtly affect the power supply, which might feed back to another cell. And the cells may have been communicating through the silicon substrate on which the circuit is laid down. The circuit is a very thin layer on top of a thicker piece of silicon, Thompson explains, where the transistors are diffused into just the top surface part. It’s just possible that there’s an interaction through the substrate, if they’re doing something very strange. But the point is, they are doing something really strange, and evolution is using all of it, all these weird effects as part of its system.

In some of Thompson’s creations, evolution even took advantage of the personal computer that’s hooked up to the system to run the genetic algorithm. The circuit somehow picked up on what the computer was doing when it was running the programs. When Thompson changed the program slightly, during a public demonstration, the circuit failed to work.

All the creations were equally idiosyncratic. Change the temperature a few degrees and they wouldn’t work. Download a circuit onto one chip that had evolved on a different, albeit apparently identical chip, and it wouldn’t work. Evolution had created an extraordinarily efficient, utterly enigmatic circuit for solving a problem, but one that would survive only in the environment in which it was born. Thompson describes the problem, or the evolutionary phenomenon, as one of overexploiting the physics of the chips. Because no two environments would ever be exactly alike, no two solutions would be, either.

Cases like this seem to justify Turing’s argument that ‘machines can sometimes surprise me’, though Turing was quite far from thinking along these lines.

Philosophy
Consciousness
Technology
Design
Artificial Intelligence

Comments (0)

Permalink

Intelligent Design

Going over the posts, there seem to be a lot of people still of the opinion that machines can only do what they are programmed to do. Maybe this will help to shake that bias. All the machines in this demonstration were evolved using genetic algorithms, which means that their design was not imposed by a human, but are the result of competition for survival by a number of different designs.


You can read more here:

Virtual Evolved Creatures
Genetic Algorithms (Wikipedia)

Philosophy
Robots
Design
Artificial Intelligence

Comments (18)

Permalink

R&L Open Thread: Artificial Intelligence

Respond to this thread by Tuesday’s class to receive participation credit for this week. Also, remember to read Searle’s paper in the course packet for Tuesday!

Prompts and Questions:

  • Haugeland suggests that the analogy to computers will solve the Cartesian problem of mind/body dualism. Are you convinced?
  • Haugeland lists a number of X-factors that cognitive science may be unable to account for, including consciousness, ‘original’ intentionality, and caring. Do you agree with any of these objections? If so, do you think this introduces a new kind of dualism?
  • Explain the difference between analog and digital, or between algorithms and heuristics, as Haugeland describes them. Are these differences fatal to the central thesis of cognitive science?
  • Turing’s imitation game is meant to give a behavioristic account of intelligence that avoids the problematic question, ‘Can machines think?’ Do you think the imitation game satisfies this worry? Why or why not?
  • Is Lady Lovelace’s objection to the Turing Test fatal? Are Turing’s responses satisfactory?
  • Turing’s final suggestion is to build learning machines. Do you think a machine that learns can be genuinely intelligent? Why or why not?

Philosophy
R&L
Design
Turing Test
Artificial Intelligence

Comments (25)

Permalink

Anthropomorphism

To continue from a previous thread, here are two more videos showing machines in an anthropocentric light.

Here’s another commercial by Wes Anderson you may have seen before:


This next video is very special to me. It’s by David Cronenberg, and I will probably show it again in a future screening:


Philosophy
Robots
Anthropomorphism
Technology
Design

Comments (7)

Permalink

R&L Thread: God

Respond to this thread by Tuesday for participation credit! Note: you aren’t required to respond to the prompts below. Feel free to speak your mind on any topic covered in class or in the readings. These prompts are just meant to stimulate discussion.

Prompts and Questions:

  • We went over three different proofs of God’s existence in class. Are these arguments valid? Are they sound?
  • Is Descartes’ solution to the mind/body problem satisfying? Why or why not?
  • Is Descartes right to claim that I know my own thoughts more intimately than anything else? Is this really an indubitable foundation for knowledge?
  • Is the will free? Does this affect our freedom?
  • Is the Argument from Design a strong argument? Is it better than Descartes’ arguments?

Philosophy
R&L
Descartes
God
Anthropomorphism
Design

Comments (32)

Permalink