Alt-BEAM Archive

Message #03625



To: beam beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Richard Piotter richfile@rconnect.com
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 14:10:03 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM and machine evolution


I for one built the Sun Eater II. It is the ONLY SE I ever got to
work!!! I commend Steven for his great designs! Now if someone could
just invent a force field to keep young relatives from knocking them to
the floor! Hehe! (:

JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/24/99 12:08:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sbolt@xs4all.nl
> writes:
>
> > BEAMer knowledge has difficulty expanding, because of the curious
> > accent on tinkering as opposed to design. For instance, there is no
> > way to get the various 2-transistor SEs `right', because there are
> > fundamental problems with that design, which no amount of tinkering
> > can solve. Hence these supposedly simple devices will forever be
> > a source of much frustration.
> >
> Actually Steven, I think there is another more important hindrance to BEAM
> knowledge expansion. In my opinion BEAM is a very tightly wrapped ball of
> biases. Your suneaters are an excellent example. Suneaters solve many of the
> problems with the S.E.'s, but almost no one builds them. You offer kits, but
> I would say you haven't sold many. You are not Mark T. or Dave H. so your not
> really BEAM. Even if you are, you aren't. The knee jerk reaction in the BEAM
> community to different, and even better ideas is to pounce with ferocity on
> the turf invader. Even if the ideas have merit, they are rejected as non
> BEAM, impossible, unimportant, or unnecessary. BEAM is a technology that
> revolves around the opinions of a small minority of people. They, through the
> use of certain bias, really control the flow of acceptance. Particularly on
> this list. Anything that deviates from the norm, even if sound and workable
> hasn't got a prayer if not accepted by that group. That's why people fiddle
> endlessly with FLED based poppers that barely work and completely ignore
> better options like the suneater. Evolution? I'm beginning to wonder. If, as
> Tilden suggests, robotics evolution is in us, then I'm beginning to wonder
> about it's viability. We don't accept better ideas unless they come from the
> perceived correct source. We shun better circuits and designs unless they are
> offered or accepted by the hierarchy. In truth, I'm beginning to think BEAM
> can't evolve. After all, BEAM seems to be simply a Tilden emulator. Most of
> us just want to copy Mark's designs, or Dave's designs, and pull them out
> every now and then to impress friends. I'm not so sure this is the way to
> robotic evolution. Perhaps Dave is right, BEAM is no more than a hobby meant
> to lead one to graduating to greater things. But, then there's that CPU bias.
> I'm really beginning to wonder if there is, or ever will be a high end to
> BEAM. I'm sorry guys, but when I saw Stryder shuffling across the screen on
> PBS last week, I couldn't help but remember what Tilden said about Cog at
> MIT. I mean, Cog is a very advanced system. It can recognize faces and
> expressions, and respond in kind. That sounds like serious research to me.
> But all Tilden could muster was that all it can do is barely keep from
> beating itself to death. And this bias filters down to the BEAM community as
> CPU's suck. Don't even look at them. As I watched Stryder stumble over one
> bot it didn't know was there and finally bump into another Symet that
> triggered it's leg tactile sensor, I thought, "This thing can barely walk."
> As far as I can tell, it only lifts it's legs a couple of millimeters off the
> table top. It's not even really walking. But, from Tilden's point of view, it
> has more merit as a precursor to robotic evolution than Cog. That inside out
> bias will forever limit BEAM to the hobby work bench. This attitude filters
> down until it becomes BEAM law. I know I rant on these things to much, and
> this is the last one. I am getting nowhere trying to explain what I perceive
> as destructive and limiting attitudes. If someone is hell bent on stifling
> their own creativity, there's nothing that will change it. I'm beginning to
> think BEAM will forever be the crystal radio. Fun to play with, easy to
> build, and a learning experience. But, it eventually has little to do with
> the radio industry as a whole. It's a shame really.
> Jim

--


Richard Piotter
richfile@rconnect.com

The Richfiles Robotics & TI web page:
http://richfiles.calc.org

For the BEAM Robotics list:
BEAM Robotics Tek FAQ
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bushbo/beam/FAQ.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications



Home