From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wupost!udel!rochester!yamauchi Tue Jan 21 09:26:31 EST 1992
Article 2816 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wupost!udel!rochester!yamauchi
>From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Building Artificial Animals (was Re: Cargo Cult Science)
Message-ID: <YAMAUCHI.92Jan16220910@heron.cs.rochester.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 92 03:09:10 GMT
References: <92Jan15.175909est.14446@neat.cs.toronto.edu>
	<1992Jan16.061242.21335@news.media.mit.edu>
	<1992Jan16.190930.14079nagle@netcom.COM>
Sender: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Organization: University of Rochester
Lines: 52
In-Reply-To: nagle@netcom.COM's message of 16 Jan 92 19:09:30 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: heron.cs.rochester.edu

In article <1992Jan16.190930.14079nagle@netcom.COM> nagle@netcom.COM (John Nagle) writes:
>	 Thought for today: If we can build a low-end mammal robot, say
>a mouse-level AI, with the coordination, dexterity, and vision of a
>mouse, we will probably be most of the way to a human level AI, based
>on how long evolution took, how much the anatomy of the human and mouse
>cortices are similar, and how little the DNA of mouse and human differs.

	I share your enthusiasm for this avenue of research -- in
fact, this is the area I would like to pursue for my Ph.D. research.
However, I am wary of defining the difference in animal capabilities
on the basis of DNA encodings.  Building a robot mouse would be a
significant achievement, but going from a mouse to a human is
definitely nontrivial.

>	It's time to build a "slow mouse".  We have the compute power.
>We have a reasonable fraction of the techniques necessary.  NSF has
>some money available this year.  So let's get started.

	For a start, how about a discussion about the behavioral
capabilities that mice have that today's robots lack?

	First, there is the mechanical design of the mouse -- a very
lightweight and flexible design that seems to work well in a wide
variety of environments.  Then, there are the sensory capabilities --
vision, olfaction, taste, tactile sensing, etc.  Next, there are the
specific behaviors that combine sensing with manipulation and
locomotion -- foraging, predator avoidance, reproduction, etc.

	But, in my opinion, the most interesting of the mouse's
capabilities is the behavioral/motivational control structure that is
sufficiently robust and adaptive to allow it to survive and prosper in
an open field or a steel and concrete skyscraper.  When we can build a
robot that can also successfully forage for food (i.e. electrical
outlets, batteries, etc.) in a wide variety of environments, then I
think we will have made significant progress towards basic
animal-level intelligence.

	By the way, the JHU Beast research of decades ago seemed like
a good step in this direction, but I have been unable to find any
technical papers describing this work.  Does anyone know what sort of
sensing was used and how robust this system was?  Was this something
that would only work in the lab or would it work in any building with
level floors and accessible outlets?

	Another issue is whether we need to build real robots, or
whether simulation alone is enough.  In my opinion, a sufficiently
complex and realistic simulation can produce interesting results, but
the trick is deciding which simplifications you can make, and which
you can't -- without completely changing the problem.

	Finally, could you elaborate on the NSF program?  Is this
funding directed specifically at building artificial animals?


