In a world of increasing automation,it's surprising that
robot autonomy is still the stuff of science fiction.Alun Lewis now,finds
out why,and looks at the latest research to try and make it more than a virtual
reality.
(Robot noises & music plays)
Alun Lewis : A small robot doing what modern small expensive robots
do so well,making whirring noises.Peering about with it's camera,a pair of
tiny spotlights providing illumination,in the darkness of a sewer.It's looking
for defects and blockages,that might require urgent remedial work,and we'd
like the electronic sewer rat,to go there and rootle around,looking for
problems,guided by it's own inquisitiveness.Without having a bored human
operator,sitting on the surface driving the machine by remote control.In
fact,this little experimental pipe crawler,can do that to a degree,but this
machine,clever though its computer brain is,could not be described as
"independent",it isn't autonomous,it needs all the human help it can get.Yet
for the last 20 years,computer scientists have been predicting that robots
would be able to operate safely and effectively without a constant watching
eye.When robots visit other planets,they need to be self determined,in many
tasks.It takes far too long for commands to travel back and forth.Well robot
autonomy has been predicted,but it clearly hasn't arrived,for a very simple
reason,according to Hans Moravec,of Carnegie Mellon University in Philadelphia.
Hans Moravec : The illusion that computers were powerful,was fostered
because of the tasks that computers were first set to,for practical
reasons,arithmetic,even the first computers were thousands of times more
powerful than human beings at arithmetic,but in hindsight we see that the
problem is not that computers were so powerful,but that human beings were
so pitifully inefficient doing arithmetic.A hundred billion neurones
straining,producing a few bits per second of actual end result calculation,but
then we from that got the impression that the computers were very powerful,and
in fact they're not.When we put tasks on them that human beings do very well,that
animals do very well,like seeing,moving around in a complex world,we found
that we couldn't duplicate the performance of a lizard.
Alun Lewis : And lizards are good at making decisions that affect
they're eating,mating and surviving,but they can't be trained to help us
in any useful way in our technological society.But rather than wait for computing
techniques to evolve from level lizard to the degree of a dog,researchers
such as Graham Parker at Surrey University opt to combine the best of human
reasoning,and decision making with the bits that robots do best.He wants
to make things happen now.
Graham Parker : Most of our work is in the area of augmented reality,in
which we are trying to carry out tasks in which we are looking at remote
scenes,sometimes hostile,and we wish to use,if you like,the interpretive
intelligence of the human to actually control the overall system. But then
to use the machine in an effective way as well.Now we believe that,along
with other researchers,that the use of overlays,graphical overlays,is a very
useful way of augmenting this sort of task.
(Commentary plays) "Here's Beckham on the far side,back to Neville,Neville
forward to York,York with Keene to his right,so to is Beckham,Beckham plays
the cross in first time,it's a....."
Alun Lewis : Think of a football match on the television,we turn
on after the game as started,we listen eagerly to the commentators
ramblings,concerning two halves,when the game will be over,and men with two
right feet,but when will the commentator mention the score.Well hooray for
augmented reality,for in the top left hand corner,there is the score line,which
tells us also which team is at home,and for how long the match has been played.
[It's somewhat ironic that Alun is mentioning this on the radio -LB] In rugby
matches we're beginning to be bombarded with exciting data,concerning the
amount of time spent in each other's territory,and if you watch American
football,well that's reality overload.But this is augmented reality as it's
used today.Graham Parker wants to use something a little more advanced.
Graham Parker : What we're interested in is going a little bit further
than that, and that is actually using the graphical overlay in a active sort
of way,so that tasks in the remote environment can be solved.
Alun Lewis : Let's just sort of get the idea of...we've got a robot
somewhere... somewhere remote,powered,moving around,or capable of doing
tasks,it's got a camera system on it,some distance away you've got a human
operator with something like a control stick to drive it forward,left,right,and
then to operate the various bits of it,and then there's a screen in front
of the operator,with pictures coming back from the camera,and what you're
talking about then is putting some graphics onto that picture from the remote
robot,to help the operator make a better decision quicker.
Graham Parker : That's correct,what,you've just described,is one
possible scenario for a man - machine interface,and that is probably the
simpler type of way of operating it.Yes indeed,the graphical information
can be used to actually augment the task.We all have heard,of course,of fighter
pilots,for example having head-up displays,again for the same sort of reason.
Alun Lewis : And the type and style of the of the graphic overlays
that will aid a robots controller would depend on the type of application.Well
the robot could be working in an unpleasant but mostly orderly world of a
sewer,in the highly organised but totally dangerous world of the inside of
a nuclear reactor,or even be struggling with the dangerous but very random
experience of a battle field.In the Surrey laboratories,Alison Wheeler and
her colleagues,are tackling the real and surprisingly commercially interesting
world of the sewer pipe,surveyed with a robot,and the graphic that they want
to produce,is a representation of the interior of the conduit,creating a
three dimensional model of the real sewer as opposed to the plans as they
go.
Alison Wheeler : Right I'm just going to....
Alun Lewis : Oh here we go,we're....
Alison Wheeler : ...scroll through my menu and select that option.
Alun Lewis : I'm watching the 3D picture over here as it's moving,and
in fact there's a pile of bricks in the way in front of us,and we're approaching
those,like a pair of bricks have dropped down to the top,and we're approaching
them quite rapidly,and the good thing is that your wire model,your graphical
representation is moving at the same speed.
Alison Wheeler : Yep,that's right.
Alun Lewis : That seems quite simple to do,was it?
Alison Wheeler : No,it's not at all simple,trying to get accurate,sort
of position information back from the vehicle in the sewer,is very difficult
and it's an ongoing problem that we're trying to solve.
Alun Lewis : So just the simple idea of putting on a graphical overlay
over a real picture and making them move together,that turns out not to be
a simple problem?
Alison Wheeler : No.
Alun Lewis : That in fact is a complicated engineering problem?
Alison Wheeler : It is very complicated.
Alun Lewis : Any computer-based decisions involving vision are hopelessly
difficult,whether it's splashing along a pipe or searching snowy wastes for
meteorites,doing a geologists job.NOMAD is a four-wheeled vehicle,about the
size of a small saloon car,that's been built to search for meteorites.It's
been given a technique for tracking back and forth across the snow in a pattern
that will cover all the ground in time.It's capable of handling the terrain
on the Elephant Lorraine in the Antarctic the site where it works,and it
can look at and handle the rocks from space which litter the polar caps.It's
job is not to bring back interesting looking samples,but to positively identify
meteorites,measure them and plot them and then leave them in place.To do
this it's been given a specially designed computer brain,by Dimitri
Apostolopolis, of Carnegie Mellon University.
Dimitri Apostolopolis : NOMAD's brain is an architecture,a software
architecture that handles all of NOMAD's function from the highest level,which
is explore an area in a certain pattern to the lowest level which is control
the camera to look at the specific rock.So when NOMAD finds with its camera
a very interesting rock,then it informs the highest level planner in it's
brain, which is called a "mission planner",that it has located a very interesting
rock,and asks the mission planner to modify the search,so that NOMAD can
drive safely at an effective distance from the rock.Effective meaning that
it would be within the reach of the manipulator arm which contains the science
instruments of the robot.
Alun Lewis : So really,when I called it an electronic geologist,it's
much brighter than the electronic geologist,because we all know that scientists
take one look and they say "That's interesting" and go straight for it,and
they probably fall down a crevasse,but here you've got a much cleverer
device,which is saying "I'll approach with caution".
Dimitri Apostolopolis : Well,that's correct,and we...NOMAD has to
approach with caution,because there is a great deal of processing first to
follow,and a careful procedure of following,for the robot to get to a location
without really hurting itself or getting into a situation which would be
very difficult to get out from.
Alun Lewis : Does it ever ring back to base,and say "Hey guys I'm
stuck,I don't know what to so here"? Can it do that if it really doesn't
know what to do?
Dimitri Apostolopolis : Yes,there are cases where it gets into a no
way out situation.The robot knows what to do in those situations,usually
it will stop,and back out,trying to follow the same path that led it into
the situation,but there have been a couple of cases where it gets...and this
is actually very interesting,that in some occasions the robot would see its
own shadow,which is projected very long in front of it,because the sun is
very low in the Antarctic, and the robot thinks those are obstacles,and then
it tries to avoid them and it stops continuously and tries to get out of
them,and cannot avoid its own shadow,until it changes its orientation when
then the sun disappears,it's behind the robot,and then it continues its path.
But there are situations where the robot actually will halt,if it cannot
do anything else,and then we'll have to intervene,but to the best of my
knowledge,I don't think there was any situation like that at the (indistinct
) Antarctica,last month.
Alun Lewis : This vision problem has dogged robotics researchers
for many years.We use as much as two-thirds of our brain to make sense of
what our eyes see,with far less computing power,computers struggle to interpret
the world around them.One of Hans Moravec's early autonomous robots,15 years
ago,tried to navigate unknown territory using only a simple 2-dimensional
view of the world,in which both a path and another object were defined as
a dark strip with converging edges.
Hans Moravec : The problems with earlier systems for instance one
of our robots trying to go down a road,in fact climbed a tree,because the
outline of the tree resembled the perspective outline of the road,was because
it had a rather simple model of the space in front of it,it was a 2 dimensional
model,it really was basically looking at a flat picture.If in fact it had
measured the distance to the portions of the tree,there would be no ambiguity
at all.It would not look the least bit like a road,it's in the wrong place,it's
going vertically.So 3 dimensional mapping,which does however take about a
thousand times as much computing as the 2 dimensional kind,I think will solve
these first tier problems,and allow us to build a machine whose intelligence
on a scale I have between nervous systems and computers,puts it about at
the level of a guppy! One of the smallest vertebrate nervous systems,but
still it's enough to basically get around. [But it's still algorithmic,and
logical,and perhaps we're not,and thus any computer is not capable of mimicking
out talents -LB]
Alun Lewis : But not to make the sort of quick and useful decisions
that we'd like robots to be capable of.In the laboratory at Surrey
University,Lindsay Hitchen is working with the electronic sewer surveyor
to give a human operator a more useful picture of the subterranean world.
Lindsay Hitchen : This is a virtual reality headset,it's got a special
sensor on it,that measures how much you've moved your head,to the left and
the right,and the up and the down,and if I just rotate it here...
Alun Lewis : Oooooh!
Lindsay Hitchen : ...you can look on the monitor....
Alun Lewis : Yes.
Lindsay Hitchen : ...that you were using before,and you can see how
the camera has moved in response to this.
Alun Lewis : So we don't have to use sort of pointers and joysticks
and everything else.Now to actually rotate the field of view,just by moving
this headset,but of course the great thing about these headsets is they've
got little television screens in front of each eye.
Lindsay Hitchen : Yes they do,so you get full stereo vision from
it and it's very intuitive to use,you move your head and the robot head in
the sewer,moves exactly the same amount in the same direction.
Alun Lewis : Right,prove it,put it on,it's no good saying "it will
do this". (Music plays) I'm just putting...virtual reality headset,so I'm
getting fairly common now,I'm just lining that up on my eyes,that's
perfect,tightening up the headband.Now then I was going to look back at the
monitor then! There's no need for me to do so,if I look to the left,I can
see the left side of the pipe,I can see a hole to the left of me there,that's
a joining pipe,look down at the end again, there's my bricks,the pair of
bricks that had fallen down,in very,very good 3D,and the great thing is,this
wire model,this graphical overlay of the inside of the thing,is following
my view around as well.There's a slight delay between the two,I shouldn't
move my head too quickly, but now I can adopt real manoeuvres.
Lindsay Hitchen : And that's ultimately what augmented reality is.At
the moment a professional system, that would inspect sewer,you're just looking
at a small TV screen.There's no movements,there's no ability to control it.We're
also looking at different user interfaces,wearing a head mounted display,gets
a bit tiresome.It's got a few kilos of electronics on your head,you feel
nice and hot.So we can use the 3D display that you talked about and use other
input devices,like 6 degree of freedom,mice,ordinary computer mice, keyboards
eye trackers....
Alun Lewis : Eye trackers?
Lindsay Hitchen : Yes,we're doing some work using an eye tracker,so
that as you look around the scene,with your eye,it steers the robot head.
Alun Lewis : Professor of Reading Cybernetics Department,Kevin Warwick,
claims that such headsets are only an interim step.He wants an even closer
relationship,with the robots creating cyborgs,a symbiosis of man and machine.
Kevin Warwick : I think cyborgs for all,depends how far we want to
go,having blind people with sonar information,or infra red information,extra
sensory information,may well be only 2-3 years away,I can't see it being
any further than that,as long as results that we achieve in the next 18 months
are how we think they'll be.So limited cyborg-icity,if that's the word,could
be there for some people,next summer,2001 [An auspicious date -LB].
Alun Lewis : But that is actually giving people robotic senses,feeding
it into them to help them.If we think of once again,I think what we tend
to think of as a robot,is a device powered separately,autonomous,it's out
there doing things,set it off,do a task,when it gets stuck,call you up in
some way.All very cluncky isn't it?
Kevin Warwick : Oh it's very cluncky,and I think really that's a different
vision of the future than I have.I see it in the near future of being much
more a shared thing.There are some things that we simply cannot do,that the
robot has to do,the machine has to do.So we see lots of applications now,in
production line machinery.Even sorting out how people think in terms of how
we buy products and so on,where the issues could be seen as much more complex
than just...why do you buy this and that and that,a machine can potentially
map out what you're thinking about and what you're likely to buy and so on,in
a way that a human can't,because we're thinking too simply,so I think,anything
that is pretty complex and we are dealing with it in 2 or 3 dimensions when
in reality it's not,it's many,many dimensions,that's when big advantages
for the machine,simply because we can't do it,but potentially we could link
together.
Alun Lewis : Long before we get robots directed by thought,we'll
be hoping they can carry out simple tasks,and out on Elephant Lorraine,polar
geologist,automat mark 1,NOMAD from Carnegie Mellon,has been working well.But
its performance on the glacier was the result of careful advanced programming,and
good teaching,because today's best robots,employ what's known as "adaptive
software",it modifies its behaviour,with experience,just like we do.
Dimitri Apostolopolis : NOMAD's ability to classify in the field in
a specific location,heavily depends on how well the robot learns about its
first finds in the specific location.Let me say a few more things about
this.Before we went...before NOMAD explored the various areas of Elephant
Lorraine last month,we had...the robot had been trained to recognise certain
features of rocks and meteorites,using samples that we placed in front of
the robot.We needed to do that in order to build the...what we call the
"database" of information that the robot has,before it starts searching for
the first time and classifying for the first time,however the problem is
that when you set a robot....when you do this in a controlled environment,like
a laboratory,the conditions are completely different from the ones the robot
will be faced with in the natural environment. So when NOMAD first started
searching for meteorites in Antarctica,it had to make this...make classifications
and tell whether rocks were meteorites or not,based on experiences it had
in different,very,very different environments,and so the first results that
NOMAD gave of its confidence of whether rocks were meteorites or not were
pretty low.Once we finished the specific phase of testing,then we retrained
NOMAD's classifier,with all this new data that the robot had taken at Elephant
Lorraine,and then so when the robot continued its searches it was much better
in identifying meteorites because it already had absorbed and analysed some
of the experiences that it had come across,in the specific location.
Alun Lewis : Dimitri Apostolopolis,being careful not to use the
anthropomorphic term "learn". Throughout our lives,we learn things,in one
environment and then have to apply them in the real world,it can be difficult
for us [Especially when our brains form working models of reality that are
not true,and we develop mythical views of how nature works -LB],and computers
don't have our brains intuitive reasoning power -yet. But will they ever?
Philosopher Alexander Fiske Harrison,doubts that day will ever come,though
computer control systems may seem to be thinking,by employing the sincerest
form of flattery.
Alexander Fiske Harrison : I think that they could probably mimic
with sufficient time and programming,most human things,but I think this will
always be simulation,never be reproduction of actual thought.Basically what
you have,it's like "does a calculator calculate?". People always say that
they do,but they don't.Calculators just follow the laws of physics [So do
we! -LB].You hit some things in and some numbers some out and they agree
with what a human would do if you calculated.The word "computer" as originally
used by Turing [Ref:Maths2:Turing.htm] actually meant "person who computes".
Alun Lewis : But,you say "simulate",will they do it in the way we
do it,in...which begs the question of actually "How do we make decisions?
.How do we make judgements?".[Ref:Hardie.htm]
Alexander Fiske Harrison : Yes,well,no I don't think they will do
it in the way that we do it.One of the big problems is that computers run
on algorithms .An algorithm is very well,some philosophers call a "moronic
procedure",a moronic procedure can be described by an algorithm,and there
are certain procedures which we do that cannot be described by an
algorithm.[Ref R.Penrose
"ENM"]
Alun Lewis : Why is that actually? I mean what is it that we do?
When we are making a decision,when we are making a judgement,isn't it pure
hard cold logic,[See fuzzylog.html] we like to
think it is,isn't it a bit mechanical?
Alexander Fiske Harrison : Oh certainly not,the biggest problem when
they program computers,I was involved with which were mimicking human
conversation,is that computers are innately logical,and so can appear completely
inhuman.For instance no computer would ever buy a lottery ticket, [Why ?
Because the odds make it pointless,it's only human desires for greed and
aspiration that defeat their own object.Buying tickets is like pouring money
down the drain,unless you win,and that's the point,a human can be fooled
by a big enough carrot,to walk in endless circles on a treadmill,like a donkey,a
computer is unlikely to have its decisions warped into making a wrong decision
with emotions of desire or greed.Whether something is "worth it" can be
calculated and the lottery isn't worth it -LB] but it's not just the illogical
things that humans do that can't be algorithmically described.There are actually
certain mathematical and logical matters which cannot be incorporated into
an algorithm, [This is why any digital computer is doomed not to achieve
our intelligence-AI can only work if the "computer" exploits our system -LB
(See qcomp1.html or
qcomp2.html] and there is a lot of debate at the
moment,on one side you have Professor Roger Penrose (See
bwave.html],the Professor of mathematics at Oxford
saying,"This is because of the nature of these logical matters",what they
call "2nd order logic",when you talk about rather than "the table is red",when
you start asking "what is redness?" [Or what is reality? -LB],"What is this
property?".Algorithms can't go near it.Other philosophers attempted..and
mathematicians,attempted to say,"Well one day if we get enough little algorithms
running,then maybe we'll discover,that we weren't doing this amazing thing
we thought we were",that actually it's just lots of little competing
algorithms,not one big algorithm describing it.But I certainly fall in with
Penrose's idea that computers won't do it, [So do I ,though I don't see anything
to outlaw the multi algorithm idea,except perhaps Quantum Physics,which suggests
that nature is inherently fuzzy,and this not able to be described by an algorithm
-LB] and I think that whole debate is a little bit silly,because,the computer
is acting according to the algorithm,it doesn't know that it's following
an algorithm. [But if we were many competing algorithms,we wouldn't know
either,we have "the illusion of freewill" as some contend.I say we have actual
freewill via QP -LB] It's based on this misconception that there's such a
thing as "information" without an informed entity,a mind, [This is why the
QP observer participance in some sense "creates reality".The observer is
required to decide what "is" -LB] by piling in information,but information
is only information to us.To the computer it's a series of electrons moving
through transistors and circuits. [Using
Pirsig's analogy we are privy to the
story line of the novel held on the word processor,the computer only sees
the 1s and 0s and never understands the novel -LB] You know,data this word
"data",data is data to humans,it isn't data to anything else.To everything
else it's the writing in the sand formed by the sea.One would never say,"if
you wrote enough in the book,eventually the book would be able to read itself
",so why say,"if you pour in enough data into this metal box,that eventually
the metal box is going to be a thinking entity"?
Alun Lewis : Hans Moravec on the other hand,is on the side of machine
intelligence.He's optimistic that the basics of computer intelligence can
be created and nurtured.
Hans Moravec : I think we will see a line of development in machines
that will parallel the development of vertebrate nervous systems of our own
brains. [They weren't created then Hans? No of course not,a Carnegie Mellon
University AI researcher has much more intelligence than to believe such
nonsense! -LB] Starting with quite small things,and we have to start small
because at the moment the computers are not capable of doing the big job,even
though for very narrow tasks,they can outperform us,overall they are vastly
too weak.But they should be able to do the job of an insect [See
langton.html -LB],and it would be wonderful to
know in advance exactly what we need to do,and in fact many of us have rough
road maps for what will be necessary,I have a 4 stage plan for robots from
where they are now to full human intelligence,that passes through forms that
have intelligence comparable to a lizard,a mouse, a monkey and a human,but
that is only a prognostication,and I don't have all the details.I expect
those to emerge however as the evolution actually proceeds. Then timing of
the whole developmental process is in fact set by the amount of computer
power that's needed for each stage,and that is progressing so steadily and
so reliably that it is predictable [In fact it will soon run into a brick
wall as the size of the elements of the processors are comparable with atoms,at
that level they experience quantum interference and cannot function reliably,the
only hope after that is a quantum computer (see Xoom)-LB],you know when things
will be big enough to host thing of certain intelligence,and the rate at
which the software is involving I think is compatible with the rate at which
the hardware is evolving [Watch at xoom for "Genetic Algorithms"-LB] Alun
Lewis : Well before then,Graham Parker's team at Surrey University,will have
their robots and others like it,working at limited tasks,using limited
capabilities.As well as employing senses,that we cannot use,because we simply
don't have them.
Graham Parker : Vision is by far the most important sense for a human
being,and certainly we'd anticipate that most machines would rely predominantly
on vision information.However there are other important senses,including
touch,feel,known formally as "haptic feedback",and indeed there's quite a
lot of work going on in this area and indeed we have done some work in this
area ourselves.It aids the realism of the application,and for example,it's
a particularly important one for surgical work as one could imagine,performing
remote surgery does require some extremely good sense touch and feel,and
of course one can add further realism through noise generation for example,and
indeed,where appropriate temperature.
Alun Lewis : New and exotic senses,perhaps a degree of
intelligence,though not on an animal scale.More experience and more subtle
control systems,put these technologies together in a commercially available
package,and you've got a machine that will.....well what? Do or help with
certain types of dangerous job.Explore remote and inhospitable locations,and
then there are the promises of the major white goods electronics
manufacturers,who claim we'll have autonomous vacuum cleaners,soon.Perhaps
even robots that can tidy up around the home [There is one that already cuts
grass unaided,and farm machinery that can collect crops -LB],is this the
vision of the potential power of robot autonomy? Expensive electronic
slaves,condemned to performing largely unnecessary tasks?
Kevin Warwick : Oh no I think that is humans thinking inside the box.I
think really we've got to look outside the box.There's a hell of a lot we
simply don't know about.We restrict our lives "we can't travel faster than
the speed of light",this is all boring crap to be honest (Alun giggles),based
on our meagre understanding of the world as we know it. [I think you need
some lessons in relativity theory Kev-LB] Let's get out there,let's
experience,the world...there's a hell of a lot more,let's look at the world
in many dimensions, let's sense it in all sorts of different ways,and in
all this business of travelling faster or slower,it will completely change.Humans
will take on a completely different form,that of being cyborgs,the world
will be a new oyster to us.
Chaos | Quantum | Logic | Cosmos | Conscious | Belief | Elect. | Art | Chem. | Maths |