Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!btaplin@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: Brad Taplin <btaplin@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: MIT Insect Robots
Message-ID: <1992Jun16.065514.2629@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 06:55:10 -0500
Lines: 55

tomk@seer.gentoo.com (Tom Kunich) writes:
>btaplin@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Brad Taplin) writes:
>>built like that, with said batteries and motors, from a factory that
>>makes wise use of robotics, ergonomics, and just-in-time inventories
>>marks a step up from the toys of fifty years ago. The components may
>>be the same in principle, but the principles were never flawed...
>All I can say is that you are incredably naive. Forgive me if that sounds
>rough, but the only way electric cars are going to make it is because
>expectations are going to be reduced, not because electric cars are
>going to be improved.

Actually, they will improve, but I guess I measure improvement
by the millimeter here rather than the mile. My original point
in bringing cars up was to illustrate that progress (should have
written "even minor") can change both the utility and the appeal
of a product currently unappreciated. Yeah, expectations might
fall, but that doesn't negate the real improvements or my point.

>Miata that you mention is one of the most deadly cars in a crash

Various sources would disagree. Its size is a factor, but it is
is miles ahead of anything like a Pinto in strength and safety.

>and we have yet to address the question of the toxicity and disposal
>problems of millions of such batteries since it is now plain that they
>won't last very long.

Agreed, although I think that we could, in a matter of decades,
learn to produce non-toxic high-yield batteries if we need to.

>This is the modern way of doing things: if you cannot meet the 
>expectations of a definition, simply change the definition and 
>then proclaim that you have succeeded.

Actually, robots in my understanding never have been required
to be truly intelligent in the strong-AI sense, just capable.
You are so cynical. My dictionary has four definitions, and
that leaning nearest your implied definition describes a device
that uses "what appears to be almost human intelligence." There
are other definitions, few of which suggest actual intelligence.

>Would you call an automobile a robot? Robotics implies an
>intelligence and I haven't seen much machine intelligence yet.

>There is the most important problem: in a world of cheap human
>labor, what is the economical justification for using robots?
>Can you not see that the development costs haven't been forthcoming
>because it hasn't been economically feasible? The technical

Development in this country is limited because we're myopic
fools. The Japanese have plans for 150 years down the line.
Of course it will take time. Time will justify my optimism.
-- 
btaplin@silver.ucs.indiana.edu or simply btaplin@ucs.indiana.edu will
appreciate your intelligent suggestions, anecdotes, comments & offers.
