Robot golem
The Rabbi goes upstairs to sleep and awakens to discover that the entire house is filled with water! The Golem continues dutifully fetch water until the Rabbi tricks it into leaning close enough that the Rabbi can erase the first letter inscribed on its forehead, thus changing Emet Truth, or Life to Met Death , whereupon the Golem turns into a lifeless mass of clay which crushes the Rabbi to death.
Again, harsh consequences for the creator. The rabbi's forgot to specify what computer scientist's call a "termination condition". The Golem went into an infinite loop due to a programming error. This suggests a subtle point: Consider the case of the Cornell graduate student Robert Morris, who in experimented with a program that could replicate itself over the Internet.
After such viruses technically, worms are detected, one way to prevent further spread is to 'inoculate' an uninfected machine so that it appears to be infected. To counter such defenses, Morris added a feature to his program that would, with some small probability, re-infect a machine which appeared to be already infected. It soon replicated to that point where many computers on the Internet were jammed with thousands of copies of this program.
Morris was arrested and expelled from Cornell. Although many embarrassed system operators advocated chaining Morris to a rock and arranging for an eagle to eat out his liver every day, he is reportedly now working quietly for the NSA.
I do think it is hubris, the hubris of rationality, which believes it will be able to foresee all the possible contingencies and prepare for them all.
It usually works along linear modes of thinking, and misses non-linear or synergetic effects, like Robert Morris did.
I feel this is a source of many difficulties. This brings us to the final component of the linkage, the Robot. I'd like to differentiate it from the Golem by defining the Robot as a purely mechanical and logical creature who's animation does not derive from spiritual, magical, or alchemical sources as is the case with the Golem. I characterize the motivation behind creating a Robot as pragmatic: But I would also like to point out that the Golem is "Emet", alive!
The Robot is not. Even Frankenstein's monster is made of flesh from other formerly living creature. Consider the origin of the term "robot" in Karel Capek's play, 'R. Consider the consonant German German "arbeit", which appeared as a grim example of Nazi humor on the gates of Auschwitz - "Arbeit Macht Frei" , Work will me you free. The etymology of this word suggests that the robot is a utilitarian creature whose primary purpose is to serve its human master.
This role is emphasized in Asimov's science fiction stories. The contemporary science of Robotics also emphasizes the utilitarian, although it carries a persistent thread on interest in virtuosic demonstrations of modern automata. By the way, Capek was from Prague. I wondered if he is Jewish, and familiar with the Golem story? Anyway, I like you connecting "rabotai" in Czech and "arbeit" in German. Is the goal of Robotics to create obedient slaves? That is an excellent question.
This raises some subtle issues. Certainly we want robots that do what they are told. But to lessen the burden of programming and the consequences of making software errors! But this capability opens a Pandora's box: In Artificial Intelligence, success is often declared at the moment when the program or robot is capable of surprising its creator.
In the 's a computer scientist named Samuels wrote a program to play checkers that was able to evolve its decision tables based on past games.
Eventually it was able to beat Samuels regularly! Similarly, a team of grad students at Carnegie Mellon University developed a chess-playing program that also evolved based on past games. It soon outstripped its developers and beat a few chess masters.
The grad students were hired by IBM which is putting its corporate resources behind the development of Deep Blue, which will take on the world champion Gary Kasparov. If you are capable of being a true human, then danger and the harsh judgement of existence on your thoughtlessness will help you become one.
Kirkegaard, The Present Age. Ken Goldberg with thanks to Ovid Jacob. I propose the following thesis: The event wherein the creator loses control of the creature is a necessary step towards the development of the creature.
The event wherein the creator loses control of the creature is a necessary step toward the development of the creature. There are some nice touches, like 3D-printed hands with living hinge fingers, each digit actuated by a metal-gear micro servo. It stores its power bricks in its shins. For sensors it includes a chest-mounted webcam and a laser distance sensor. The main design feature is the Android smartphone serving as its brains, and also — at least cosmetically — its eyes. Those eyes… might be just a teensy bit too Chucky for our taste.
What a nice project, a statement to the usefulness of RC servos. The hands are cleverly designed. Are there videos available yet? The head may deserve some extra details or remodeling, the rectangular shape of the head in combination with those pretty eyes are a little scary to me while the rest of the robot is very appealing.
Just wanted to say thank you for open sourcing the CAD files for this! This is just freaking awesome on so many levels! He who will find the secret of my life at his feet, him will I serve until beyond time.
He who shall evoke me in the seventeenth century, beware! For I cannot by fire be destroyed. He who shall evoke me in the eighteenth century, beware! For I cannot by fire or by water be destroyed. He who evokes me in the nineteenth century, beware!
For I cannot by fire or by water or by force be destroyed. He who in the twentieth century shall dare evoke me, beware! For neither by fire nor water, nor force, nor anything by man created, can I be destroyed.
This seems to be the physical construction only.