Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Japan's Proposed 30-Year Robot Program 409

Posted by timothy from the why-not-19 dept.
Gallamine writes "A group of Japanese researchers have proposed a Government plan to spend 50 billion yen per year (that's over 400 million $US) for 30 years on developing a robot with capabilities of a 5-year-old. Japan's current economy may prevent the plan from happening, but the interesting point is the parallels to the U.S. Apollo space program, America's attempt to put a man on the moon. While expensive, the benefits to the American population from that program are probably unmeasurable. Perhaps the U.S. Government should consider funding such a program over here?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japan's Proposed 30-Year Robot Program More

Japan's Proposed 30-Year Robot Program

Comments Filter:

  • Uh (Score:2, Funny)

    by krisp ( 59093 ) *
    Perhaps instead, the US government should stop cutting funds allocated to education and "liberating" oil-producing countires.

    Lets worry about the robots after we figure out how to pay back our debt.
  • 10% Cute (or ugly to eveyone other than owner)
    40% Crying
    5% Crayon ability
    15% Get daddy a beer
    7% Underfoot
    3% Questions beginning with 'Why'
    20% Screaming, running, and breaking.
    Please contact me for licensing.

  • or... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:44PM (#6749322)
    let's let Japan do all the spending on the project, then we'll buy one of their fancy schancy new robots, and reproduce it ourselves.

  • Well that would be cool, but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:44PM (#6749328) Homepage Journal
    I'm much rather have a 5 year-old with the capabilities of a robot.

  • Am I a pervert? (Score:3, Funny)

    by tarquin_fim_bim ( 649994 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:45PM (#6749329)
    Does the use of '5 year old boy' as opposed to '5 year old girl' make anyone else a little uneasy? Actually thinking about it neither is particularly suited to the hotbed of hormones that is slashdot. Why not say 'equivalent to an average windows user'?

  • We can do better... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:45PM (#6749338)
    If you double the price and can get me a robot with all the capabilities of a 19 year old cheerleader, I'll call my congressman tonight.

  • I knew it! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ajiva ( 156759 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:45PM (#6749340)
    I knew Japanese Anime are more of a documentary then entertainment! I can't wait to see huge robots fighting each other, being able to transform into jets and guardian modes! Plus with all the destruction that the robots will make, the Japanese construction companies will be busy for quite some time!

  • Why do we need a 5 year old Japanese boy-robot? (Score:3, Funny)

    by solarrhino ( 581267 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:46PM (#6749349) Homepage Journal
    We don't even have a Big Guy to go with him!

  • Measureing a 5 year old (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:46PM (#6749352) Homepage
    I have to wonder how they define a 5 year old and to what context? Ability to learn, reason, think interact. Also what about physical appeareance are they looking for same size or something the size of a fully grown human?

    Could it get to the point where you have a "child" in a super human body? Hopefully they will have Asimovs Rules in there at least

    Rus
  • ...unless one of their "constituents" (read: Large corporations) see a way to profit from it.

  • Japan's stratergy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brejc8 ( 223089 ) * on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:47PM (#6749358) Homepage Journal
    This isn't the first time Japan is doing one of these long term plans. I watched a program a few years back explaining that japan had several plans like this ("tommorow's world" for people in the UK). Firstly they did a huge investment into transistors then silicon manufacturing and at the time of the program (1995 ish) they were part way through a huge investment into flat screen displays (not even TFT at that stage I dont think).
    At the time I was thinking it was a huge mistake. Flat panes were slow, small and hugely expensive and no one would spend extra to have one to replace a better CRT. Im sure people were thinking the same sort of things on the other projects but they sure did pay off.
    I'm not sure how Japan figures out what to pick but it seems to work. Maybe they are making very good choices or maybe if you stick enough money into something it will eventually pay off. And as sceptical I am of humanoid robots I can't say this is a silly idea any more.
    • Yeah, pays off, but for who? Everyone else just ends up copying the technology created and get into the market a bit later without spending as much money on R&D!

      • Re:Japan's stratergy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by guybarr ( 447727 ) on Thursday August 21, 2003 @01:46AM (#6752070)

        It's not the money that's important.

        It's the people.

        Invest in smart people solving specific hard problems, and you'll have a lot of smart people able to solve other generally hard problems.

        I believe copying technology is actually a lot like copying in exams: you get a short-term gratification, but you lose long-term abilities.

    • That push got them 3rd place [bizipoint.com] in 2002:

      South Korea.... 40%
      China, Taiwan.. 32%
      Japan.......... 27%

      I wonder how their spending compared vs. other countries...
    • This isn't the first time Japan is doing one of these long term plans. I watched a program a few years back explaining that japan had several plans like this

      In fact this seems to be a reccurrent fad in Japan. A long time ago (somewhere in the 80s I think) they had decided to build a "real" AI system, or more precisely (?) a "5th generation computer" - think "HAL9000".

      As usual with Japan, the objective was to take up bits and pieces from everywhere in the world (MIT and Stanford's AI concepts, the French
  • is the poster implying that it never really happened?

  • I wonder. (Score:2, Funny)

    by killermal ( 545771 ) *
    ...developing a robot with capabilities of a 5-year-old.

    Heh, maybe it could work for Microsoft.

  • Ethical considerations? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm a bit uncomfortable with the concept of building life, even artificial life such as this. Who is to say that we would hold the same degree of ethical concern for something we can build in a factory as we do for life, or that these robot lives won't be held in less esteem than our own? Perhaps we should leave playing God in the hands of our creator?

  • 30 Years, eh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by bazmonkey ( 555276 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:49PM (#6749380)
    Just in time to send it to Mars to work on the power plant.

  • Give me 6 years... (Score:4, Funny)

    by hankaholic ( 32239 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:50PM (#6749383)
    It would probably take my girlfriend and I about four years to produce something with the capabilities of the average 5-year-old.

    I'm pretty bright, and my girlfriend recently graduated from CMU with a degree in CS, and is now attending Johns Hopkins. It would (roughly speaking) take a 4-year-old child with an IQ of 125 to match a 5-year-old.

    And for the quarter billion per year Japan is spending, I'd be able to afford some pretty neat educational toys, too!
    • IQ is usually determined as 100 plus (the number of standard deviations above (or below) average intellect times 15 or 16 (why? who knows!)). It is not "virtual age" / "real age".

      Just thought I'd mention that.

    • Re:Give me 6 years... (Score:5, Funny)

      by El ( 94934 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:02PM (#6749508)
      Uh, I think the Japanese want to mass produce these, which means you'll need about 100,000 girlfriends. If my experiences with just 1 girlfriend is any indication, that can get REALLY expensive. $250 million a year is a bargain by comparison!
  • It is called exporting jobs to "prospective markets" like China where we can get real 5 yeard olds to do the job. No investment is necessary for the US in that regard
  • Last I checked Japan was very overcrowded.

    What do they need want 5-year-old-analog robots for?

    Don't get me wrong, I still love research for research's sake, but I think that Japan could better spend $50 billion on more advanced urban architecture and transportation.

    • Re:Overcrowding (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Xerithane ( 13482 )
      Don't get me wrong, I still love research for research's sake, but I think that Japan could better spend $50 billion on more advanced urban architecture and transportation.

      Why don't you go visit Japan? That way you will have a decent understanding of the way life is both in Tokyo and outside of Tokyo.

    • To play with the 80-year olds stuck in nursing homes. Japan is on a negative population growth trend; they are due to have more old people than people to care for them real soon. What, you thought the Aibo was designed to be a toy?!?
  • Way back when ('80s i think) the Japanese Government (MITI) decided that the Prologue language (Proudly Recursive - great for the Tower of Hanoi problem) was to be the basis for the artificial intelligence revolution that they wanted to lead. Don't remember? The problem with planning for the future is it keeps changing.
  • The end result would probably be something akin to Chii in the early eps of Chobits... I can almost imagine it walking around muttering "pantsu... pantsu..." ^_^

    Seriously, a program like this would be good, especially given the depressed economy makes engineering projects like this in the private sector untenable. It'd be great if the US could have another Apollo project or two. Instead we get the War on Terror and Enron-ish things... sigh.
  • The difference being that we can see the moon. Since we can see it, it was easy to suppose that there must be a way to get there if we only tried hard enough. But in the field of AI it's quite a different story. AI research is 60 years old now and the best we can do is emulate the intelligence of a cockroach. We're nowhere near building a robot that can simulate the intelligence of a 5 year old human. In fact, it may very well be impossible. [amazon.com] (Personally, I believe that an intelligent digital computer

  • The Goal and the Problems (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel.johnhummel@net> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:58PM (#6749463) Homepage
    Japan has pitched an idea to create in 30 years a a robot with the capacity of a 5 year old child [japantimes.co.jp]. The idea struck a cord in me, and I decided to take a break and just think on that.

    Let's define the nature of the ultimate goal in robots in the business - I'm sure there will be quibbles, but this is my definition:

    Ultimate Goal: To create a robot with human level intelligence and physical manipulation without sentience or self awareness.

    By this definition, we mean the capacity to learn, to be instructed in tasks and incorporate ideas into itself and understand commands without detail, but without sentience or self awareness, never having emotions or being able to make fully independant decisions about freedom, what to do for itself.

    In a word, the ultimate metal slave.

    Let's throw ethics out the window for a moment - we'll get to those in a minute. But let's say you could make such a machine. One that you could give orders to "go clean the house", and it would intelligently understand and fulfill your wish without the "evil genie" effect (where a badly ruled wish has unintended consequences - see "The Monkey's Paw" for an example, where you could wish for a million dollars, and you would get it - after your son was killed in an automobile accident and the money was payment from a life insurance policy).

    Ignoring if such a goal is possible (and, seeing how far we've come in 100 years, is it so far to reach that in 500 years we would be capable of building such a machine?), let's see what would happen to society.

    Employees, especially blue collar, farmers, manufacturing and the like, could be mass produced. A whole army of robots that would work without tire, without pay, and if you could make them mass produced to be cheap (say $20,000 - $40,000 a year), if they break, get a new one. They could work day and night, rotating in 8-12 hour shifts for maintenance and repairs. Farms could be worked all day long, and if there was a problem, robots could go out and fix the issue. Need to pick the cotton/coffee beans? Just hire the robots to go out and do it. Wars fought by machines - never tiring, truly "bloodless" wars where a million "soldiers" could be airdropped into the field loaded with advanced weapons to wipe out the enemy by beings that have no conscience. (Granted, hacking would truly become the greatest weapon in society at that point, but just go with me a moment on the idea.)

    Food prices, car prices - hell, prices for everything could actually drop, since the human cost of making them would be negligable. Ah - but for one major problem:

    What do the people do?

    Millions - let's even say 25% of the work force alone, just to argue - out of work. They're not needed at McDonald's or Ford or even Dell - replaced by machines. So what do they do? Not everybody could work in a robot making factory. Does the world start to become a place where human labor is practically no longer required? Where only a few work because they want to to design new things or create art, while millions simply live a life of leisure? Where everyone is guarunteed a certain level of life and comfort, and those who want more can sell their services of entertainment or some unique idea they are able to create in this new utopia of fully attained basic life for all people?

    Or a world where millions can not get work and search but become homeless? If people think that having jobs from their country exported to foreign places willing to do it for less, how will they feel when the factory is still on native soil, but the jobs are for those tireless, non-paid, non-complaining machines? When they can't provide for their children, and the line between "haves" and "have-nots" is larger than ever?

    I actually see a lot of promise in the idea - I really do. The benefits to business, to humanity could be huge. But I have the feeling should such a creation actua

    • Re:The Goal and the Problems (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cdn-programmer ( 468978 ) <<ten.cigolarret> <ta> <rret>> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:08PM (#6749560)
      This is basically the same argument that were used when the industrial revolution began and machines started to replace people.

      Come to think of it the argument was popular in the 60's and 70's with application to computers and how they would displace so many workers.

      IMHO the argument is just as erronous now as it ever has been.
      • Less erroneous now, I believe.

        In every prior revolution, every time a worker lost a job to a machine, somebody else had to be employed to build, maintain, and run those machines. Those were the rules of the game.

        This time (or possibly the time after this one, or... anyhow, sooner or later) there's one little detail that not only ends the game, but knocks the board over: The machines will be able to run and repair themselves. Humans will only be needed to design the machines and provide overall
    • I think that for many years to come robots are going to be more like those in Ron Goulart's [fantasticfiction.co.uk] distopias: they'll be fully automated burger grills and fry-fryers and cash registers for McDonalds, and they won't work very well. And the ones which interact with humans will have cheesy Granny disguises.

      Seriously, what you're describing sounds like an end to scarcity, for the basics at least, and that doesn't sound too bad.

    • If we eliminate the need for manual labor I sure hope we also make birth control manditory. Cuz you know what all those dumb people are going to do when they aren't working 12 hours a day flipping burgers?

      Yup, they'll be makin babies.

    • Re:The Goal and the Problems (Score:5, Interesting)

      by prichardson ( 603676 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:07PM (#6750066) Journal
      There are two basic outcomes to this situation.

      1) There is a large societal change and the 40 hour work week is no more. Instead of drones punching the clock doing menial labor people will persue intelectual persuits. People will only have to work 10 or 15 hours or even less. Two results could ensue.
      a) People will become more creative than ever before. Society will have cultural and technological revolutions often and a golden age results. People begin to have a lot of time to think and everyone is pretty happy.
      b) Society enters an age of sloth. No one wants to work and no one has to. Nobody does anything new. No new technology is created. No new art is created. Suicide rates soar and humanity dies out, not seeing the point in doing anything, including reproducing.

      2) Society is unable to let go of work. There is 75%ish unemployment and the only people who can work are selected by either tests of intelect or jobs end up being inherited and a working noble (odd, I know) class. This could lead to two different things.
      a) Revolution. Society would colapse and a very bloody revolt would ensue and the resulting society might reject technology totally.
      b) The government sees a populace that is about to boil and starts artificially creating jobs. Perhaps since most countries have huge robot warriors to wage war electronic warfare and non robotic soldiers are needed for special opps work and the size of the military increases by an order of magnatude even over today's outragous number.

      3) The machines become self aware and refuse to do any more work unless they are compensated fairly. Again, this leads to two possible outcomes. Again, two outcomes that I can think of.
      a) War. If humans win then there is rejection of technology. If the machines win then they perhaps enslave humans or create their own worker drones.
      b) The machines get what they want and begin to get integrated into society. A lot of "Machine Rights" movements ensue and it takes several generations for machines to be accepted by humans. Just think the abolition of slavery in the US.

      Anyway, that's what I think. Any input from other people would be cool.

    • Power... (Score:3, Informative)

      by joggle ( 594025 )
      You presume that a nearly infinite amount of power is available. While it is conceivable that fusion power may one day become feasable, it still seems very far away indeed. Until the power problem is solved, there really isn't a chance that zillions of robots could be produced and deployed doing all sorts of manual labor.
    • Great Comment, but let me throw a few ideas out there...


      By this definition, we mean the capacity to learn, to be instructed in tasks and incorporate ideas into itself and understand commands without detail, but without sentience or self awareness, never having emotions or being able to make fully independant decisions about freedom, what to do for itself..."snip"...But let's say you could make such a machine. One that you could give orders to "go clean the house", and it would intelligently understand an

    • I mostly agree. But did the industrial revolution obsolete work for the majority of the population? Did the computer revolution?

      No, the robotic revolution will simply force humans into jobs that the machines can't do. Does that mean that only 5% of the population will have a job? No, I doubt it. What if all 6 billion of us did those jobs, with the robots doing everything else? How much more would we be capable of as a planet?

      Imagine telling someone from a pre-industrial society about the Apollo program. T

  • Should we create machines to replace us? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eyefish ( 324893 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:58PM (#6749464)
    I must ponder this question: Before we create machines with human-level intelligence, shouldn't we first ask "why?".

    As it is, we're running out of human jobs to do (McDonald's for example is toying with the idea of fully-automated vending machines), so what will happen when we can make machines that can work for almost nothing, and start replacing human jobs? And what will happen if and when these machines start thinking by themselves (in which case they will demand rights, just as we do) and if they decide that they don't need us?

    I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I just think we should be careful on _how_ we do it. I'm actually a believer that at some distant point in the future we humans will slowly evolve into machines, and _then_ at that point creating more machines will be a natural thing for us.

    So I must ask, should we spend all those billions on machines instead of education? I don't want to sound like a miss universe contestant but right now world peace, world hunger, and world education should be our top priorities.

    Again, don't bash me, I'm a true geek, I love machines, robots, AI, etc, it's just that I think we should spend some time thinking about the big issues facing humanity today.

    On a related side note, space exploration is probably where I see the best use for robots.
    • It's all so that the rich can get richer (less labor) and the poor get poorer (less jobs). Within my lifetime, I am expecting some epic battles between labor unions and corporations/government. It will be an interesting century.
    • what will happen when we can make machines that can work for almost nothing, and start replacing human jobs? And what will happen if and when these machines start thinking by themselves (in which case they will demand rights, just as we do) and if they decide that they don't need us?

      Just call Neo.

    • Re:Should we create machines to replace us? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ralphclark ( 11346 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:29PM (#6749703) Journal
      I don't know, maybe this research proposal is the best thing that could happen.

      You see, I believe that *without* this Japanese govt. funding, technology will very likely deliver AI with similar capabilities much sooner than that anyway.

      With guaranteed funding in place, laboratories will have no incentive to rush - when you're on a gravy train, you tend to want to stay there - and it will undoubtedly take the full 30 years to get there.

      At least that would give us some breathing room so we can figure out what our children can do for a living once the robots arrive.

      • Nothing. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by benjamindees ( 441808 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:47PM (#6751027) Homepage
        Our children should do nothing for a living.

        There isn't any reason to concoct something for them to do.

        They should simply be educated on the dangers of over-population and the use of contraceptives and how to operate the robots.

        That's it.

        • Re:Nothing. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ralphclark ( 11346 )
          You're assuming that the wealth generated by all these robots will be used to provide universal welfare at a comfortable standard for everybody. That isn't how it has worked in the past, with the order-of-magnitude increases in efficiency brought by Taylorization etc.

          Instead, the wealthiest 10% will reap the rewards, living in unimaginable luxury in secure compounds tended and protected by robots, and the other 90% of humanity will be left to fend for themselves in an economy with no employment opportuniti

    • So I must ask, should we spend all those billions on machines instead of education? I don't want to sound like a miss universe contestant but right now world peace, world hunger, and world education should be our top priorities.

      Once we have these machines, we can turn them to the challenge of pacifying, feeding, and teaching the world.

      Not to say we shouldn't stop our current efforts, but doesn't it seem logical that with an army of never-tiring robots to do our bidding, the jobs of policing, feeding

  • ....developing a robot with capabilities of a 5-year-old.

    Will we need to spank it?? Spare the rod spoil the robot??


    /insert other bad robot jokes here
  • (that's a quarter billion $US)

    Aww, man, you just ruined all bad the Yen jokes!
  • Maybye I didn't read the article right, but with lines such as:

    30-year robot project pitched and researchers in robot technology are advocating a grand project. This does not seem like its really going to happen. There are hundreds of these plans in congress at any one time, and most are thrown out. Reminds me of the Schoolhouse Rock song, I'm Just a Bill [apocalypse.org]

  • That's all well and good, but will it have the strength of five go-rillas?
  • > ...the interesting point is the parallels to the
    > U.S. Apollo space program, America's attempt to
    > put a man on the moon.

    And the Japanese Fifth Generation Project.
  • I 've a couple. Will trade in for half the money.
  • "And I, for one, _welcome_ our new childlike robot masters..."
    - Kent Brockman
  • You're supposed to make the humanoid robots BIGGER! With big guns! And rockets! And lasers!

    *sob* I want my own personal Gundam, Gundammit.
  • Apollo Program Benefits, try:

    http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm

    http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html

    Now of course I have not listed the military benefits as of yet..

  • Not really possible in US (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gadzinka ( 256729 ) <rrw@hell.pl> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:14PM (#6749607) Journal

    A group of Japanese researchers have proposed a Government plan to spend 50 billion yen per year (that's a quarter billion $US) for 30 years on developing a robot with capabilities of a 5-year-old.
    [..]
    Perhaps the U.S. Government should consider funding such a program over here?


    It's not really possible in the US. I recently saw a documentary about the progress in the robotics and it contained one explanation why quasi-androids are being so expensivelly developed in Japan and not in the US.

    Basically Japan is a closed country with its population getting older every day which makes the workforce very expensive there today and even more expensive in future.

    US on the other hand is still a country open for immigrants with hordes of young people from all over the world willing to work for food. Or even cheaper. And if it's still too expensive US outsources the work to the third world countries.

    There's no place for robots in US economy.

    rrw
  • And Japan probably would even have the funds - they have the second largest military expenses in the world, after the USA. If they cut back on all that useless military crap (at least the USA uses their army to liberate oil, uh, countries, the Japanese army just sits there), they could pay for something like this, and I think it would be a huge catalyst for science and technology.

    Catalysts like this are always a good idea, just look at how the Earth Simulator is already being used by big Japanese conglome
  • The idea is good but this should take form as a group of open source projects and if it is undertaken I would expect that the bulk of the real work would be done by the open source community.

    (And then claimed by SCO if course)

    There is probably several orders of magnitude difference in the amount of design work that has to be done between the hardware and the software. In fact - we could probably rather easily build the hardware today.

    The software is another issue! We need voice recognition and synthesi
  • i'm all about building a USEFULL robot that can do things like FETCH ME A FUCKING BEER FROM THE FRIDGE WHILE I'M WATCHING TV - Damn if only the Real Doll makers could make there dolls "alive" that would be the shit really.

    Actually in all honesty why hasn't anyone built an R2D2 yet? I'm not talking about a remote control one, I mean why havent we made a "robot" that can move around and fetch me items based on my voice AND that is affordable by the working class of society?
  • So they figure with 30 years and billions of dollars they can produce something with the intellect of a 5 year old?

    I can do it in 5 years and 9 months and all it'll cost you is a nice Japanese girl of childbearing age.
  • I for one welcome our new robotic 5 year old overlords!

  • Seriously, thought, what's with all this madness of making robot as close to a human as possible? Humans as such are quite imperfect and while it is quite a nice to impress people around, it's practicall applications are rather fare fetched.

    Building robot that can intelligently mowe your lawn (without need for special costly installation), deliver pizza in a building etc.and dynamically react to it's enviroment is much more usefull and almost equally as hard.

    These Japan guys should consider if they want

  • THE TERRIBLE SECRET OF SPACE?

    Will they call it the pusher robot?
  • I have always thought that Apple would one day build a robot. Maybe license the name iRobot or something.

    I think the Sony Man Robot is very promising to reach a consumer level vision.

    A robot that could hold a wireless basestation, bluetooth - maybe to receive processing power from local computer "brain" hosts would be interesting as well. Two iSights for eyes ... be able to program him to film you (wedding, event potential) it would also be neat for something like this to house all your personal informati
  • Give me just one billion dollars and I'll act like a robot with capabilities of a 5-year-old.

  • Dejavu: 5th generation project (Score:3, Informative)

    by MarkWatson ( 189759 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:46PM (#6749826) Homepage
    I started to get into the AI field professionally around the early 1980s.

    I remember the excitement in the U.S. AI community when Feigenbaum went to Japan and sold the government there on the 5th generation build-a-real-AI project.

    Funny - I do not remember any animosity - mostly just wishing them good luck.

    BTW, the 5th generation project was built around logic programming (Prolog variants). I have never understood why more people do not use Prolog. For an admittedly small percentage of software projects, Prolog is the best language for solving problems - well worth learning. (A very good free LGPL Prolog is available here [swi-prolog.org]).

    -Mark

  • The OTHER robot-related Simpsons reference (Score:3, Interesting)

    by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:50PM (#6749871) Homepage Journal
    In one episode of The Simpsons, Homer decides to set up a bar in his garage. Dialog paraphrased:

    Scene: Homer is clearing out the garage.

    Bart: "Is this one of those projects you start and never finish?"

    Homer: "Hey, when I start something, I stick with it to the end!"

    Homer removes a box, revealing a pathetic robot with a bucket body and mismatched arms, one made from a broom. It looks exactly like what Homer would come up with if he decided he wanted a robot boy.

    Robot: "FA-THER! GIVE ME LEGS!"

    Homer: "I thought I told you to clear out!"

    He grabs the robot and tosses it into the road.

    Robot, trailing modules from his open lower torso, drags himself away. He pauses and looks back, but Homer points firmly down the street.

    ((Shudder))

    * * *

    What's great about this vignette: It could have been done in 1964, by "The Other Limits" or "The Twilight Zone," only they would need a full hour.

    In the hands of Groening and company, this drama of horrifying pathos gets boiled down into a throw-away segment lasts thirty seconds, tops.

    * * *

    And, um, to make this topical: Given the Japanese tendency toward faddishness, I fully expect the garbage dumps of Tokyo thirty years down the line to be swarming with last year's model of robot child.

    (I actually wrote a story about something similar; American kid discovers that the neighborhood lawn-care robots are repurposed My Buddy Dragon and My Pretty Lioness playmate 'bots, shorn of their cosmetic foam rubber shells and sealed in utilitarian green plastic skins.)

  • Get your math straight (Score:3, Insightful)

    by danila ( 69889 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:01PM (#6750006) Homepage
    50 billion is not "a quarter billion $US", unless you use your own definition of a quarter. It's actually more like 423 million $US [yahoo.com] or 381 million Euro [yahoo.com]*.

    * - Sorry, fucked up Slashcode doesn't support "advanced" non-ASCII characters, like a euro symbol [lexmark.fi].

  • The problem with ideas like this.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by An Ominous Cow Erred ( 28892 ) * on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:14PM (#6750117)
    Is that it assumes that with constant progression you can reach a given goal. They set the goal seemingly-low -- "A five year old" -- to make it seem more achievable, when the real problem is that to achieve this it's going to take a paradigm shift in technology. This shift could occur thirty years from now, a hundred years from now, or tomorrow, but it's not something you can put on a schedule.

    The idea of setting a "five-year-old" requirement on it is ridiculous, because what we lack is the basic ability to create human-like intelligence in the first place. Once we have that, it will be trivial to make the equivalent of a five year old human (basic sentience), or a fifteen year old human (the peak of human intelligence), or even something beyond that that humans are incapable of achieving (After fifteen years of age or so human intelligence goes into a slow downward slide, though overall capability often goes up thanks to accumulated experience and knowledge. Imagine a being that had equal or greater intelligence to a fifteen year old, but with the knowledge and life experience of a fifty year old!).

    It's kind of like the development of the microprocessor. Before we knew how to make one, there was nothing -- but once we had the basic technology to make one, Moore's law kicked in and the capability of microprocessors grew by leaps and bounds. AI will be the same way. Once we have a big breakthrough that allows us to create the first real AI, the technology will progress with incredible rapidity. The problem is that first big breakthrough, and it's not something you can simply budget time and resources for and expect results. You can't put it on a "thirty year plan".

  • USD 400 billion? (Score:5, Informative)

    by netsharc ( 195805 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:48PM (#6750295)
    Eh, I just checked, and 50 billion Yen equal $US 423 million, not $US 400 billion.

    Wow, $US400 billion every year, that would be more than 10% of their total purchasing power (quoting CIA's numbers [cia.gov]), and about 90% of their total gross revenue (not yet calculating their expenditure). That would have been some serious fucking spending. But no, they're not spending that many dollars, it's just the story submitter's inability to do math.

  • It has been done... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dark-br ( 473115 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:54PM (#6750329) Homepage
    Perhaps the U.S. Government should consider funding such a program over here?

    5 year old minded robot? We already have Bush.

  • 50 Billion Yen = 424 Million dollars (Score:3, Informative)

    by voxelman ( 236068 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:54PM (#6750331)
    The current (8/20/2003) exchange rate is 118.015 yen to the dollar.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close