What applications do you see for robotics?

[tbeltrans]

In CompSci circles, pure randomization is not considered possible. However, randomization within certain parameters can be applied to various generative algorithms to create the effect of what we might consider creativity. I suspect that as these areas continue to develop, there will be (if not in some areas already) a time when most people will not be able to discern the difference between human and machine "creativity".

In music for example, consider jazz improvisation. Though it can sound endlessly creative, the reality is that each musician has his or her own particular vocabulary of practiced licks that s/he pieces together in various ways, just as we all typically use a vocabulary of somewhere in the vicinity of 200 words in daily conversation. These practices can be recreated with a well designed randomization algorithm applied to a specific area of computer "creativity" because in human application, they are similarly limited to begin with.

This is not some idle conjecture, but instead based on my own practical and learning experiences in each of the areas I mentioned. Computer chess is different in that there are programmed book openings and end games, with the middle game largely dictated by a tree search across all the possibilities for those stages of the game. Some chess software has attempted the use of learning algorithms to "learn" a player's style and adjust to suit that, but most still use the materials I mentioned earlier.

Tony

 

[Don M.]

Wonder how long it will take until computers & robotics align to eliminate mankind?

The speed at which robotics and AI are becoming increasingly complex is Amazing. I worked on computers for 30+ years, and the complexity from when I entered that career, until I retired, was mind boggling. Now, after almost 20 years, my skills would be totally obsolete. It was several years ago that the IBM Watson supercomputer beat the best contestants on Jeopardy, and today that capability has probably increased many times over. I don't give it many more years before computers/robots can begin to "think" and make decisions on their own. When that day arrives it will add to the number of reasons why humanity, in it's present form, is going to have some major problems.

 

[peramangkelder]

I have a spinal cord injury (crushed not severed thankfully) and every day can be an uphill struggle
This probably won't happen in my lifetime but I would love to see lightweight full or partial
exo-skeletons made to compensate for any disability....the possibilities are endless for this application
Anyone who loses a finger or an arm or a foot or a leg and these exo-skeletons made to suit the individual needs
Paralysis from spinal cord injury could be overcome with these lightweight exo-skeletons
I could also envisage organ transplants with our own DNA so our bodies will not reject the new transplanted organ/s

 

[tbeltrans]

The speed at which robotics and AI are becoming increasingly complex is Amazing. I worked on computers for 30+ years, and the complexity from when I entered that career, until I retired, was mind boggling. Now, after almost 20 years, my skills would be totally obsolete. It was several years ago that the IBM Watson supercomputer beat the best contestants on Jeopardy, and today that capability has probably increased many times over. I don't give it many more years before computers/robots can begin to "think" and make decisions on their own. When that day arrives it will add to the number of reasons why humanity, in it's present form, is going to have some major problems.

I have known folks, such as yourself, who were long retired from the computer industry while I was still in my prime in the field. I noticed that a lot of people didn't want to hear these folks' ideas and stories of their experiences. However, to me, you folks got the ball rolling and laid the foundation for all that came afterward. In short, none of it could have happened without the work you folks did, that the rest of us benefitted from with great careers.

We do need to think about what we are doing in development and implementation so we might possibly avoid some of the problems you are foreseeing. However, the likelihood that we collectively do that is probably rather slim even though there are folks in the crowd who will.

Tony

 

[Knight]

I have known folks, such as yourself, who were long retired from the computer industry while I was still in my prime in the field. I noticed that a lot of people didn't want to hear these folks' ideas and stories of their experiences. However, to me, you folks got the ball rolling and laid the foundation for all that came afterward. In short, none of it could have happened without the work you folks did, that the rest of us benefitted from with great careers.

We do need to think about what we are doing in development and implementation so we might possibly avoid some of the problems you are foreseeing. However, the likelihood that we collectively do that is probably rather slim even though there are folks in the crowd who will.

Tony

Race to the moon to be the best at developing is probably the mentality to be the 1st. to create a thinking robot. Then create an army to control lesser advanced countries. The potential for mankind to eliminate itself via robotics IMO is in it's infancy

 

[tbeltrans]

Race to the moon to be the best at developing is probably the mentality to be the 1st. to create a thinking robot. Then create an army to control lesser advanced countries. The potential for mankind to eliminate itself via robotics IMO is in it's infancy

All of technology is in its infancy.

Tony

 

[asp3]

In CompSci circles, pure randomization is not considered possible. However, randomization within certain parameters can be applied to various generative algorithms to create the effect of what we might consider creativity. I suspect that as these areas continue to develop, there will be (if not in some areas already) a time when most people will not be able to discern the difference between human and machine "creativity".

In music for example, consider jazz improvisation. Though it can sound endlessly creative, the reality is that each musician has his or her own particular vocabulary of practiced licks that s/he pieces together in various ways, just as we all typically use a vocabulary of somewhere in the vicinity of 200 words in daily conversation. These practices can be recreated with a well designed randomization algorithm applied to a specific area of computer "creativity" because in human application, they are similarly limited to begin with.

This is not some idle conjecture, but instead based on my own practical and learning experiences in each of the areas I mentioned. Computer chess is different in that there are programmed book openings and end games, with the middle game largely dictated by a tree search across all the possibilities for those stages of the game. Some chess software has attempted the use of learning algorithms to "learn" a player's style and adjust to suit that, but most still use the materials I mentioned earlier.

Tony

I have a computer science degree and have been working with computers some way or another all of my career. I've programmed systems to do automated tasks and worked with systems which moved wafers through an inspection system so I'm also a little familiar with automating physical tasks. So I have a good basic understanding of what computers can do.

I do agree that computers can come up with randomized variations, but I don't think they can determine if they're aesthetically pleasing. Your example of improvisation in jazz is an excellent one to make my point. There are thousands of variations that can occur anywhere within a jazz performance. However jazz musicians have developed the skills to determine when they can and should be added and which ones to avoid. There may only be a few notes that would fit in a particular place. A computer would only be able to randomly pick the right ones based on the number of possible notes divided into the number of notes that would work. There may be some algorithms for which notes would work. But once again that would be based on a study of what jazz musicians have done.

One thing that I do agree could happen is that an AI with the ability to create things could churn out things and learn from what a human found pleasing or not pleasing. However it would be tuned to that one person or people like that person.

 

[tbeltrans]

I have a computer science degree and have been working with computers some way or another all of my career. I've programmed systems to do automated tasks and worked with systems which moved wafers through an inspection system so I'm also a little familiar with automating physical tasks. So I have a good basic understanding of what computers can do.

I do agree that computers can come up with randomized variations, but I don't think they can determine if they're aesthetically pleasing. Your example of improvisation in jazz is an excellent one to make my point. There are thousands of variations that can occur anywhere within a jazz performance. However jazz musicians have developed the skills to determine when they can and should be added and which ones to avoid. There may only be a few notes that would fit in a particular place. A computer would only be able to randomly pick the right ones based on the number of possible notes divided into the number of notes that would work. There may be some algorithms for which notes would work. But once again that would be based on a study of what jazz musicians have done.

One thing that I do agree could happen is that an AI with the ability to create things could churn out things and learn from what a human found pleasing or not pleasing. However it would be tuned to that one person or people like that person.

I agree that computers are not able to determine if what they create is "aesthetically pleasing". No argument there, and my post never stated that. Since you also have a Comp Sci degree (which I suspected and also that we work in similar fields), I figured you would get what I was getting at - simply that computers can be made to do things that many people might not be able to distinguish from a human creation.

You quoted my post saying exactly that" I suspect that as these areas continue to develop, there will be (if not in some areas already) a time when most people will not be able to discern the difference between human and machine "creativity".

Many people (certainly not all, or not even possibly most) people don't listen to music critically, so that it doesn't really matter whether what is being heard was generated by computer or human. My point was not aimed at those who critically listen to music, but just the general population for whom music is essentially just something there. I showed how algorithmically, this is already possible and there are even some programs available today that do that. Composers who use this software these days, typically use it to generate ideas they can build on themselves, but if one heard something generated by the software alone, those not listening critically might be hard pressed to say definitively that it was made by a computer as per the reasons I stated in my post.

I personally think (and maybe it is a matter of personal taste) that much of the mainstream pop music these days is formulaic enough that it could well be generated by computer. Have you ever heard backing tracks generated by Band In A Box (https://www.pgmusic.com/)? Put a singer over that and you have a very professional sounding tune. This software has been around since some time in the 90s and in recent years, has really come into its own for very realistic generated backing tracks. That is but one example. It can also generate solos in the style of a number of famous piano, guitar, and sax players. The software is especially popular with jazz musicians, since that is the roots of the software. Generating the solos is for study, so I don't believe anybody is trying to fool the public with it, but I would not be surprised if people are generating very good backing tracks to sing along with in professional environments as more musicians use software to eliminate the need for backing musicians.

While Band In A Box is commonly used and very affordable, there are far more expensive applications that are used by film producers and similar, though I am drawing a blank right now on specific examples since I don't use that software. If I come across it, I will make a follow up post because it can be interesting reading for those so inclined.

I think that where we do disagree, it is solely on interpreting the context in which we say the points we are making, rather than on the points themselves understood by writer and reader within the context in which they were intended.

Tony

 

[tbeltrans]

Here is an example of computer assisted composition software that can take snippets of various types of music and generate ideas that sound quite convincing:

https://www.cognitone.com/home.stml

This kind of software is a far cry from much of the applications available with a simple google search that claim to generate music. Much of that stuff sounds computer generated and I doubt anybody would think otherwise.

The software that interests me and seems to be developing in ways that I think will eventually be able to be not easily discerned as being computer generated is mostly used as either a learning tool (Band In A Box) or as a compositional aid (Synfire Pro).

To be sure, this stuff is not advanced AI research, but instead very practical software in use today for the stated purposes. I don't own Synfire as I am not in the market for that kind of thing, but I do own, and have used for many years, Band In A Box. Go to the jazz guitar forum and you will find threads among users sharing ideas for using Band In A Box, as well as third party vendors selling styles and Band In A Box files for practicing jazz, country, and pop musicians.

Tony

 

[Irwin]

The styles of paintings were created by humans not the computers. I consider what they're doing as rendering not creating. I don't know enough about the music being composed by computers to know if they essentially do the same thing, render music in a particular style or similar to a human musician.

With the CAD system the artist is still doing the creating they're just using computers to render their vision.

You and I must listen to different types of pop music, I doubt that a computer could write, compose and perform the music I enjoy without first using human created existing music to base it on. One could argue that today's musicians base their music on existing music, but they expand on it, personalize it and change the way it's made or sounds.

I'm not sure that AI's have the ability to do such changes. Even if they do are they able to validate what they've created sounds good? When a musician creates new music they are trying to make something that pleases them in some way. That is the filter that the music goes through before it's released to others. Some people might not like what the musician has created but they often find someone that enjoys it. I'm wondering if a computer is able to do that and how often their music is enjoyed as opposed to that of a human.

I don't think computers kill creativity they are yet another tool that can be used to express one's creativity.

There are also some mediums that I'm not sure AI's can work in. I doubt that computers would be able to do glass blowing beyond some standard forms. I also wonder how they would do with watercolors. I'm pretty sure they would not be able to come up with concepts for an installation.

I think the artist's medium contributes to creativity... or lack thereof, plus the artist lifestyle. Could you imagine Van Gogh doing what he did on a computer? I don't think so.

Some of the best works of art came from people living a bohemian lifestyle -- untethered to social norms. Working on a computer just doesn't fit as an artistic medium. In the digital age, whatever software application you're using is your "medium."

There's no romance in working on a computer. I don't think anyone loves working in Photoshop they way painters love working with oil paints or a sculptor loves modeling a figure out of clay. There's something about working with your hands that provides gratification and immersion or flow, which is pleasurable. Traditional artists would create art even if nobody bought any of it; it's what they do. They put genuine emotion into their creations.

Now, that's not to say that there isn't good art being produced on computers, but it's not the kind of thing you'd want to spend several minutes contemplating in an art gallery and keep coming back to like some of the great works of art. It's mere decoration. And that's fine. Most of us just want something to hang over the couch or put on the fireplace mantel.

 

[Nathan]

Robotics have a been doing tedious, hazardous(and well paying) jobs for...mmm I'd say 60+ years. Someday the human looking robots will be keeping old folks company, teaching children and maybe caring for animals.

About Mars: I really strongly feel that robots should be the first Earthlings to build a colony there. Get everything ready, setting up the infrastructure to produce air, water and food. And, having a pot of coffee prepared and waiting for when the humans arrive.
Science does not yet have a decent pain remedy, no cure for the common cold etc.; these things need to be ironed out before sending humans 63 million miles from Earth.

BTW, Sophia is cute...for a machine. Men are dogs, huh?

 

[Irwin]

Not necessarily. Computers have long been able to beat most, if not all humans at chess. Yet, humans still continue to play and enjoy chess. I see no reason the same couldn't be true for music and other arts.

Tony

Chess is a game, so playing against a computer isn't that much different from playing against another person. I used to practice tennis using tennis ball machines and it was still fun and a way to develop my skills.

Art is a completely different ball game, so to speak.

 

[Irwin]

Let's see somebody do something like this using a synthesizer.

I've listened to Bob Dylan's Blood on the Tracks dozens of times and still love it. I can't even listen to a computer generated song once all the way through. But maybe people just don't "listen" to music like we used to.

 

[Aunt Bea]

Somebody with too much time on their hands and a bone to pick with society will hack into the truck's navigation system and cause it to careen into other cars or go over a cliff.

It could happen.

I'm interested to see it go to the level of robots/AI replacing commercial pilots on regular flights. It won't be long before they have a room full of young gamers monitoring/assisting multiple flights from an office building.

 

[tbeltrans]

Chess is a game, so playing against a computer isn't that much different from playing against another person. I used to practice tennis using tennis ball machines and it was still fun and a way to develop my skills.

Art is a completely different ball game, so to speak.

Maybe I should try to explain myself more completely and then my comment will hopefully make more sense...

Regardless of what it is we task a computer to do and no matter how well it does the task, if humans wish to do it themselves, they will. Whether a computer can play chess much better than most humans, that does not mean that humans will suddenly give up playing chess. Whether a computer SOMEDAY really is capable of generating (not creating in a human sense) art in some form, that does not mean that humans will suddenly give up creating their own art. It doesn't matter whether we are talking art or chess or some other human activity, the point is that humans will continue to do what they do and appreciate it as much as they do today. If that is not true, then we are doomed to just give up altogether and fade away. I see humans as being more resilient than that.

By the way, I like your pun in that last sentence in your post.

Edit: I just thought of another way to try to explain my point. My primary hobby interest is arranging and playing songs (standards, show tunes, pop tunes that have a real melody, etc.) as instrumental solo pieces played fingerstyle on acoustic guitar. I have heard the sentiment expressed among guitar players when they attend a concert by a pro or hear a particularly amazing recording of a guitar player, that they feel like giving up altogether and throwing their guitar away. Fortunately, that is usually just a passing sentiment, but assume just for the sake of argument, that computers really did get to the point of creating fine art (i.e. I am not saying here that they ever will). Like with guitar players, I seriously doubt that people would just decide to give up making their own art or that other people would suddenly stop appreciating art created by humans. If anything, I would hope that such art created by humans would be especially revered, and those that create it will sense this and be inspired to continue.

Tony

 

[tbeltrans]

It could happen.

I'm interested to see it go to the level of robots/AI replacing commercial pilots on regular flights. It won't be long before they have a room full of young gamers monitoring/assisting multiple flights from an office building.

...and then we will see many more commercial flights going UNDER the Golden Gate bridge (hey, watch this!).

Tony

 

[Aunt Bea]

...and then we will see many more commercial flights going UNDER the Golden Gate bridge (hey, watch this!).

Tony

Hold my beer ...

 

[tbeltrans]

Let's see somebody do something like this using a synthesizer.

I've listened to Bob Dylan's Blood on the Tracks dozens of times and still love it. I can't even listen to a computer generated song once all the way through. But maybe people just don't "listen" to music like we used to.

Not a synthesizer, but instead sampled sound because it is a recording, as is the recording you are referring to. A lot of the music you hear for TV shows, movies, and commercials are all done on the computer these days using quite expensive sample sounds sets of real instruments. A synthesizer is intended to create new sounds, while sampling is essentially recorded traditional sounds. There is very little call for studio musicians for these things anymore.

As for a computer being able to generate something as good as the recording you are referring to, I agree for the most part with you. However, much main stream pop music is especially formulaic these days (maybe that is just another "old fart" talking, but that is what it seems to me ). See my earlier post on generating backing tracks, because that part is possible today.

There is still plenty of music that you have to seek out (i.e. not on mainstream equivalent of Top 40 radio and such) that is quite artistic and likely won't ever be replaced by computer, but the repetitive stuff that just pounds away, could easily be handled by computer. It seemed to me that in the 60s and part of the 70s, main stream music had quite a bit of originality to it that seems missing to me today. I am not saying there is very good music being made today, but it just seems to me that the mainstream stuff you hear everywhere today is rather formulaic and mundane by comparison. I know some folks who work in studios creating this stuff and they say the same thing, so I am not along in thinking this way.

What will be curious to me is whether computers will ever be able to come up with new musical styles the way humans do. We tend to stand on what was created before and synthesize that into something new. Think of the trail from Delta Blues through more modern blues and all its branches, to jazz and all its branches, through to rock and all its branches, etc. I don't know that computers will ever be able to take music in a new direction and make it attractive to humans. Time will tell, I suppose.

Tony

 

[tbeltrans]

Hold my beer ...

Reminds me of the joke...when somebody gets in your car as a passenger, you say "put on your seat belt and hang on, I saw somebody do this this in a cartoon yesterday...".

Tony

 

[Irwin]

It hit me a few minutes ago (while I was out playing fetch with my dog) why computers will never create satisfying art. It's because art is all about emotions (good art, anyway). We feel something when we experience good art. We can try to program emotions into computers but it will never be real and the only thing we're going to feel is how f'ed the world is.

 

[tbeltrans]

It hit me a few minutes ago (while I was out playing fetch with my dog) why computers will never create satisfying art. It's because art is all about emotions (good art, anyway). We feel something when we experience good art. We can try to program emotions into computers but it will never be real and the only thing we're going to feel is how f'ed the world is.

I fully agree with you. However, I do believe that computers could get to the point that the could GENERATE (not create) art that is passable and therefore, acceptable to many people as "casual" art (think of those velvet Elvis paintings that were popular in the 70s).

Also, I like the way this thread is going, how we can post an idea, do something else for a while and come back with still more thoughts. It becomes a real conversation.

Tony

 

[tbeltrans]

I think the artist's medium contributes to creativity... or lack thereof, plus the artist lifestyle. Could you imagine Van Gogh doing what he did on a computer? I don't think so.

Some of the best works of art came from people living a bohemian lifestyle -- untethered to social norms. Working on a computer just doesn't fit as an artistic medium. In the digital age, whatever software application you're using is your "medium."

There's no romance in working on a computer. I don't think anyone loves working in Photoshop they way painters love working with oil paints or a sculptor loves modeling a figure out of clay. There's something about working with your hands that provides gratification and immersion or flow, which is pleasurable. Traditional artists would create art even if nobody bought any of it; it's what they do. They put genuine emotion into their creations.

Now, that's not to say that there isn't good art being produced on computers, but it's not the kind of thing you'd want to spend several minutes contemplating in an art gallery and keep coming back to like some of the great works of art. It's mere decoration. And that's fine. Most of us just want something to hang over the couch or put on the fireplace mantel.

Funny you should say that. While this discussion has been going on, I was realizing that I still like to write out my arrangements for guitar, while still working on them, by hand. I use good old pencil, eraser, and staff paper (but, then, I can read and write standard music notation).

I would use a computer notation package if I needed to provide the arrangement to other people so that it is perfectly neat and readable, but that would be just to input what I had already created by hand. I feel as you do that there is not the "soul" in the creation process with a computer. for whatever reason, the pencil and paper approach just feels "right" to me.

Tony

 

[Gaer]

I'm wondering how far this could go. Husbands: Will robots take over all relationship issues to replace you in intimacy? If so, what activities will you persue? Will robotics take over all household activities? Will humans become dispensible?
I don't think common sense can be programmed. I don't think consciousness can be programmed. AS YET! the human soul, with it's aspects of qualities of the heart and functions of the mind of the soul; can they be duplicated? SPONTANEITY, naturality, impetuous reactions, tickling, a devilish, ornery spark in the eyes, particular things about humans which individualizes them; Can this be duplicated?
If intelligence can be increased in robots, will there ever be a time when anything in the relative state can be duplicated? Will they, without a soul, ever reach cosmic consciousness?, GOD CONSCIOUSNESS?
If so, They will no longer be servants of humans. They will surpass humans.

 

[Irwin]

I fully agree with you. However, I do believe that computers could get to the point that the could GENERATE (not create) art that is passable and therefore, acceptable to many people as "casual" art (think of those velvet Elvis paintings that were popular in the 70s).

Also, I like the way this thread is going, how we can post an idea, do something else for a while and come back with still more thoughts. It becomes a real conversation.

Tony

We've already reached the point where computers can generate unique works of art in any style programmed into it, and they're not that bad if all you want is something to hang over the couch. Computers can generate music.

Bleh. I'm glad I'm old. I don't want to live in a computer centered world. And I'm a software engineer!

 

[Don M.]

Can you imagine what someone from the year 1700, and earlier, would think if they were suddenly transported into today's world....they would probably think they had been transported to another planet. Technology is advancing at such a rapid pace that most of what we take for granted today was unknown 100 years ago. If this pace continues, life in the next century will be totally foreign to what we know today.

The problem humanity will have to face is the obsolesce of People.....and with ever soaring populations, this is going to create conditions of unimaginable chaos...maybe even in the latter years of this century.