Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02258
To: "Beam List (E-mail)" beam@corp.sgi.com, Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
From: Dennison dennlill@buffnet.net
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:01:16 -0400
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Beam genome
While it is a interesting idea, do you think it's really nessesary? People
are all still 'out there' building what they see fit. The offer a schematic
and we who are interested work from that. It does sound interesting, but in
reality, it's not very professional or academic sounding. I know that sounds
like a smack to the idea, but it's not. Look at some papers, tildens and
others, they don't describe things in terms of this 'genome' all the
circuits we are using have been used before and already have names. For us
to rename lots of things would seem redundant. They all already have names.
Dennison
>JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>> I guess the BEAM genome idea wasn't very popular. I got 5 responses from
the
>> list. One completely negative, two "interesting", and two corrections on
the
>> Z-bridge credit. So, out of 400 or so people I got two "kinda
interestings".
>
>I find the idea very interesting. I had not responded right away
>however, having
>been mentioned as one of the 'genome' developers (thanks by the way!).
>
>If we are going to 'evolve' a better robot control technology, we need
>to carefully
>preserve the evolutionary process for study.
>
>But we also need to be clear and what is new, and what is simply being
>claimed as
>being new. This is where misinformation and hype become major
>obstacles.
>
>> If this were one of Ian's polls, I'd say it went over like a lead
balloon. I
>> guess the idea occurred to me because the terms, genome, robo-genetic
stock,
>> and genetic algorithms are tossed around in Tilden's papers and this
forum
>> quite often. But, as far as my humble researching has discovered, there
is no
>> underlying structure to support those claims.
>
>Heresy!
>
>> I mean it's one thing to say
>> you are expanding the evolutionary adaptation of the automaton, but
without
>> specific examples of how those changes are occurring and what
characteristics
>> are being used to promote and document that change, then you can't really
>> speak in those terms. For instance, you can't point to a particular breed
of
>> dog and declare it a new more advanced breed without any means of
comparison
>> or agreed upon guidelines to support your claim of a new more advanced
breed.
>
>Exactly so! I totally agree. We do not even have a decent metric to
>compare
>the performace of the different solar engine circuits.
>
>We have all probably read how the 1381 SE is 'more efficient' than the
>FLED, yet
>I've got a FLED Symet that can beat the pants off a ver similar 1381
>based Symet.
>
>Even the Beam Olympics I'm aware of so not publish any meaningful
>performance
>metrics. The recent photovore contest was great fun, and it did
>directly bring
>about new BEAM technology, but I think that a photovore race or obstacle
>course
>might start to show us which designs were 'better', rather than
>'cooler'.
>
>> You are required to follow guidelines that prove the blood line of that
breed
>> and how contributors have changed it into a better beast. I guess my
point
>> was, that if you have no official terms for comparison, and you don't
>> incorporate a system by which you can show the evolutionary line that is
>> leading you to that living machine, then the terms are meaningless.
>
>Well, almost. We are not quite sure how Life began on Earth, but we at
>least have
>some criteria we use to recognise it when we find it. Because it has a
>clear
>definition, the term has a meaning.
>
>What we need are some specific defintions and measurable quantities.
>
>> They
>> simply are fluff added to more fluff to make what your doing sound cool
>> without any real documented approaches as are used to describe all other
>> genetic trees. Without those procedures you're just saying the words.
(Don't
>> get me started on what robot parks have to do with the Jurassic period of
>> prehistory, except for a cool blockbuster movie tie in.) I think that's
the
>> kernel at the heart of my musings. Tilden has presented his approaches as
>> being high science, and a practical method for evolving autonomous living
>> machines. But, there is no documented, scientific guidelines to promote
and
>> compare the evolutionary history of said machines.
>
>I beleive that one key issue here is the scientific was to MEASURE these
>things.
>
>Without measurments, science itself is impossible.
>
>> It also completely ignores those who have made some of those advances.
>
>We already ~know~ that answer!
>
>> I know I'll get flamed to death
>> over this. That's what happens when you look God in the eye. I also
realize
>> that at this point our critters are usually elaborate toys, but I think
many
>> of us consider the possibility that the techniques may one day lead to
very
>> advanced living machines. If you believe that, I would think a more
>> scientific approach would be the logical way to document that hypothesis.
>
>I beleive that BEAM construction and design methods will advance
>robotics, but
>I cannot accept the idea that Tilden's BEAM approach will ever comppete
>with CPU
>based robotics. The difficulty is designing and evolving a hardwired
>controller
>can only be justifiable if the end result is sufficiently superior to a
>CPU based
>design.
>
>This simply is not the case at all, a CPU can do everything a microcore
>can do,
>and then some. The first 'living machine', will have a CPU. Probalby
>more of
>them than the original Walkman has transistors.
>
>But there is more behind the lack of science here. Without measurments,
>we cannot
>test the basic concept behind BEAM at all. Just how does it compare to
>implementing
>a stim/response based network with a CPU?
>
>(No, a stimuli/response system running on a CPU is not "BEAM", just ask
>a lawyer.)
>
>As an engineer, I can tell you about the parts counts for each approach,
>and the design costs. Where do these issues appear in this field?
>
>> One more gripe here. I was leafing through the BEAM booklet the other day
>> (yeah, I kept it even though it is a waste of money) and on page 49 there
is
>> a description of VBUG 1.5 WALKMAN next to a terrible Xerox looking photo
of
>> same. The description is as follows: "Single battery 0.7Kg. metal/plastic
>> construction. Unibody frame. 5 tactile, 2 visual sensors. Control Core: 8
>> transistor Nv. 4 tran. Nu, 22tran. motor. Total: 32 transistors." It says
>> "motor" not 4 motors. I know the bot pictured has at least 4 motors. Is
it
>> any wonder Guinness got it wrong? I guess you could call it a typo, but I
>> don't think so. And if it was why wasn't it corrected in subsequent
>> publications (mine is the 4th issue)? Particularly when being documented
by
>> Guinness. You see, this kind of thing constantly crops up the more you
look
>> and it's very disheartening. It also delegitimizes Tilden and BEAM tech
in
>> the eyes of the robotic research community.
>
>That's not what delegitimizes BEAM technology in my opinion.
>
>Credibility comes from testable results.
>
>If we want to evolve a living machine, we need to adopt a standard
>platform.
>
>I think something along the lines of Terry Newton's PIC BOT II is a good
>starting
>point. Rather than have many people investing many hours into learning
>how to
>free form the same six transistors, we should invest time into
>developing new sets of behaviors for a standard platform.
>
>Of course we would also have to have competitions, to test which sets of
>behaviors were superior to other sets. Identical platforms with
>different behavior sets could be placed into an arena (not a park) and
>observed. Simple timed trials common in animal behavior experiments
>could be used similar to the firefighting contests.
>
>Has any BEAM design ever entered one of those? How did it do? How
>would we know?
>
>This is a much faster path to evolving a true living machine. It's the
>cold equations
>of modern technology. People stopped building hard wired controllers a
>long time ago because of the economy of production and design. We use
>CPU's now bacause they are superior in many respects to dedicated logic.
>
>We can turn this same economy of production and design into an
>evolutionary tool and develop a different form of living machine a lot
>faster than current BEAM evolution.
>
>And with measurable results.
>
>> I'm not a scientist or a
>> roboticist, but I know a scam when I see one.
>
>Wellll, I wound not go that far. Some of this long haired AI stuff is
>way out
>there when compared to a bug's brain.
>
>> By the way, when you do flame
>> me and if you're a teenager, please be tactful. I'm a little weary of
being
>> scolded by 15 year olds. I have children older than that and I would
dress
>> them down severely for treating adults in that way. And I bet so would
your
>> parents.
>> But fear not, God is still there, just don't look behind the curtain.
>> Jim
>
>Where is that little dog?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home