Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #10909
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: jester96beam@iname.com
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:38:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Bot of the Week Contest
A few points about this:
Too many people are going to win the weekly contest too many times. You don't want to have to interview someone more than once.
If you make it monthly, whoever sends their bots in first will probably win since it'll be there longer. You have to put them all in the RJP at the same time,so maybe have people send there bots in before the 1st of every month, and on the 1st you can put all the new entries in and update the winner for the previouse month.
I think weekly is too much. You'll get tired doing it after a while, but also after the first few weeks people aren't going to be able to pump out bots quick enough for you to have new bots every week.
If you do the weekly winner, but monthly winner gets the prize, have people vore on the 4 weekly winners to see who gets the monthly prize. Otherwize, if someone get weekly 3 times, they've been in the RJP longer than the most recent entries so it won't be fair - they won't have been in for long enough to get 3 weekly wins!
Other than that I think it'll be very cool. Just remember if you make it monthly, you'll get more bots for each contest. Also maybe you should have a few points about each robot in the RJP like what circuit they are using etc.
Is this going to be open to all bots, or just photovores? Or maybe all phototropic bots?
If there are walkers and rollers, the walker will probably win so if possible either have one or the other (maybe it can change each month) or have two sepaerate contests (you'd need another camera). There also aren't many walkers that can survice a month by themselves anyway.
Chris
---------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com
10910 Sat, 26 Feb 2000 12:01:51 EST [alt-beam] Re: Bot of the Week Contest beam@sgiblab.sgi.com JVernonM@aol.com In a message dated 2/26/00 11:42:55 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jester96beam@iname.com writes:
> I think weekly is too much. You'll get tired doing it after a while, but
> also after the first few weeks people aren't going to be able to pump out
> bots quick enough for you to have new bots every week.
This is a good point. I would go so far as to say that a quarterly contest
may be better. That's 3 months in the park and three months to build for the
next contest. This would allow time for more entries as well as ample time to
observe interaction. It would also allow for good prizes without bleeding you
or Solarbotics dry. I have a feeling that the contest will only last a couple
of months as building new contestants will get very involved, even on a
monthly basis, and entry numbers will drop off. Spread it out more so time is
on your side as well as the builders. I'd also like to see this done with
Aquabots in an aquarium. The little buggers are often forgotten, which may be
why their population is still so low. Besides, watching a few Aquabots flit
around in a tank is absolutely fascinating to watch. If done quarterly, the
contest could be revolved around different categories. Photovores, Walkers,
Aquabots, and Symets. This would make it more varied and interesting. A
builder could take a year to build a photovore for the next contest. I think
walkers may be a problem as most are battery powered at this point. They also
move around quite dramatically and forcefully, making a small park a killing
zone. Another criteria may be needed for them. Great idea. I look forward to
seeing how it comes out.
See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870
10911 Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:58:54 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization "Dennison Bertram"
>
> This is not true.
>
> CPU based robots are often programmed to gain experiance and have their
> behaviors altered by their environment.
>
> There is no advantage to analog robot controllers at all.
>
> People seem to be forgetting that Nv circuits simply do not scale like
digital
> logic does.
>
Ok, this is not true. Analog robot controllers do have advantages over
digital controllers. It's not hard to define what is an advantage either.
Almost anything can be, from the fact that 14 yearold can build a walker to
their pure analog nature. Look at the satallite that was put up while ago,
it used satbot techonolgy as it's backup controll system. One of the reasons
is because that sort of contorll system was just cheaper to build analog,
why? because analog systems are hardier in terms to the effect of radiation
on them.
> >
> > This is why I have been interested in BEAM, while not perfect, Nv/Nu
> > circuits can be affected
> > by the outside environment to a certain extent. What is needed is for
> > someone to develop
> > a VLSI chip containing large quantities of Nv/Nu circuits in which the
RC
> > time constants
> > can be electronically adjusted and the interconnection between them can
be
> > changed and
> > re changed to any configuration desired. Then I believe using a number
of
> > these chips, it
> > may be possible to see some very lifelike qualities emerging.
>
> Uhh, why not do this with a processor?
>
Because if everyone did everything with a processor then there wouldn't be
any innovation.
> >
> > To understand a little why I believe a-life is possible, here is a
thought
> > experiment:
> > If we were to take an electronic circuit that acted exactly like a
> > biological neuron
> > (scientists have done this), scale this down to the size and power
> > requirements of
> > the real thing and begin to replace the neurons in the human brain with
them,
> > when would we cease to become a living conscious entity?
> > Would it be after the first one, 50%, 99%,!00% ?
> > And I guess here is my main point, how would we be able to tell the
difference?
>
> Science has never made a reasonably close model of a neuron. In fact,
they have
> no idea how neurons form useful interconnections to other neurons.
>
A key word should be added into that scentence, "Science has never made a
reasonably close model of a neuron *yet*" The future is wide open as I'm
sure you know. I doubt it will be that much longer considering the
astonishing advances made by science every day.
One of the things I think your looking over is the time disparity between
the research periods for each technology. Neuron type work was cut short in
the 50's with the advent of the processor. So big deal. We've been useing
processsors for the last fifty years. Only recently have we started to use
neuron based analog systems again. What does it hurt to try to do it a
different way? innovation is always a good thing. Besides who is to say that
computer based control systems won't eventually benifit from this work. I
recently made some acquaintances up in the Parralel and distributed
intelegence center where I may work for the summer, and my advisor liked the
beam stuff, but kept asking, "why not do it all in simulation on a
computer?" And I'm like, "sure you can. But right now, I'm not." That's part
of the point, computers have their place, but they shouldn't just be assumed
to be 'the way'.
anyway
dennison
Home