Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02420
To: JVernonM@aol.com
From: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 09:52:17 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Genome, CPU vs BEAM vs Hybrid, Copyrights,
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/16/99 6:37:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> chiumanfu@home.com writes:
> > For now I'm going to sidestep all the "other" topics cuz I
> > have a lot of brainstorming to do. I have to think of
What I'd like is:
> > "a contest aimed at promoting task-oriented innovation,
*With*
> > a clear winner criterion - like task performed and fastest"
> > How the hell do you do that without limiting the contest to
> > just the upper echelon of BEAMers...and over the net too?
I can imagine more than one contest, each being defined by a
certain easy to build `arena' and a task. Ideally there would be a
range of tasks, starting simple - like building a photovore which
has to reach the best lit part of a flat arena while dealing with
solid cylindrical obstacles. At the next level, the obstacles may
include less accommodating shapes and things like a sheet of
transparent material with a fairly narrow passage on one side, and
the way to the light may be literally an uphill struggle.
At other levels there may be targets marked in certain ways (balls
of conductive alu foil, for instance), which have to be gathered
and moved to the best lit corner. Tasks of the latter kind may be
performed by one robot, or by several working together; what counts
is speed and gathering *all* targets.
> The project should be done by the more advanced beamers.
I should hope not. Imho the idea of BEAM is that everyone can
participate in everything.
> As others advance, they could contribute as well. The contest
> should be task oriented, but WITH a clear criteria for winners of
> design, not winners who built them. Look, you have 5 advanced
> beamers build a common body and brain combination.
I don't believe in this common body/brain idea. The only things
defined should be the arenas and tasks. Participants should
innovate as they see fit, and not be obliged to use a fixed set of
modules or components, or serve to glorify others. The only
requirement is for each to build his/her own arena, measure
performance and report if it's any good. The new and old parts of
designs are so far generally obvious, and most builders state what
they borrowed from predecessors. That seems good enough to me.
> The "winning" designs are incorporated into the following years
> bots with another agreed upon improvement.
Agreed upon? Some designs will no doubt be immitated, but the idea
is to get more innovation. Performing a task faster is sufficient
indication of progress, better design elements will automatically
survive the failures. No need to formally agree. Evolution may be
lots of things, but bureaucratic it ain't...
Best,
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# sbolt@xs4all.nl # Steven Bolt # popular science monthly KIJK #
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home