“I worry that if kids grow up being taught by robots and viewing technology as the instructor,” said Mitchel Resnick, head of the Lifelong Kindergarten group at the Media Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “they will see it as the master.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/science/11robots.html
These words from Mitchel Resnick, a man who can't help but obey the commands of his master, anyone with a yardstick or piece of chalk.
Shortly after Mr. Resnick's comments the article goes on to mention "most computer scientists reply that they have neither the intention, nor the ability, to replace human teachers," which is a relief, because if all computer scientists said that I would have no hope for the future.
As I've mentioned before, I have a top ten list of jobs I think would be better suited for robots, "teacher" being one of them.
It's not that I don't admire good teachers, it's that I abhor lazy, ill tempered, opinionated teachers who become easily distracted from the subject they're teaching in order to go on tirades about some social political commentary they practiced the night before for their cat.
In other, less grimly mocking, words, some humans are better suited to act as an experienced adviser to train and counsel young people and some let their emotions and personal agenda get in the way.
Teaching is about coming across with the data and being able to recognise those who are having difficulty absorbing or computing this data. The robots mentioned in this article are in the early stages of pattern recognition technology that would make sure even the slightest flicker of doubt or confusion in someone's face will not go unaddressed.
Misanthropy aside, robots top humans in the ability to: store more information, retrieve that information faster, stick to the facts, not have emotions, recognise confusion faster, develop better teaching techniques, not choose favorites, not intentionally or unintentionally judge a child based on religion, race, who their parents are, etc.
If we had better teachers, perhaps we'd have less morons out there. Robot teachers are the key to a brighter future.
Showing posts with label emotion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emotion. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Saturday, November 15, 2008
If Then Do Emotions
(1) Why do humans have emotions? What evolutionary advantage did/does it give us, if any?
"We are all ruled in what we do by impulses; and these impulses are so organized that our actions in general serve for our self preservation and that of the race. Hunger, love, pain, fear are some of those inner forces which rule the individual's instinct for self preservation. At the same time, as social beings, we are moved in the relations with our fellow beings by such feelings as sympathy, pride, hate, need for power, pity and so on."
-Albert Einstein, 1950
The origin and advantages of human emotion –biologically, neurologically and evolutionary- is an undeniably longer and more complex explanation than the simplified interpretation I can give here, however, I will do my best to sum up with a few of the more amusing examples I could find by people who know more than I do.
Our emotions give us the ability to think in a certain way, while ignoring facts that might otherwise prevent us from executing a task.
Minsky makes some keen observations on love/infatuation:
"Hear our friend Charles attempt to describe his latest infatuation.
"I've just fallen in love with a wonderful person. I scarcely can think about anything else. My sweetheart is unbelievably perfect — of indescribable beauty, flawless character, and incredible intelligence. There is nothing i would not do for her."
On the surface such statements seem positive; they're all composed of superlatives. But note that there's something strange about this: most of those phrases of positive praise use syllables like "un," "less," and "in" — which show that they really are negative statements describing the person who's saying them!
Wonderful. Indescribable.
— (I can't figure out what attracts me to her.)
I scarcely can think of anything else.
— (Most of my mind has stopped working.)
Unbelievably perfect. Incredible.
— (No sensible person believes such things.)
She has a flawless character.
— (I've abandoned my critical faculties.)
There is nothing i would not do for her.
— (I've forsaken most of my usual goals.)"
Minsky's observations explain how emotions shape Ways to think by either adding or taking away mental critics. Without certain critics being shut off finding a mate would become even more of a challenge than it already is.
Also of note is how this emotional state coincides with the way popular locations for courtship include low lighting and alcohol.
Minsky is aware of, but doesn't mention norepinephrine, the hormone that produces the excitement that comes during the first states of love, because in doing so he would have to leave the structural understanding and begin a new chapter to explain the biological origins of emotion.
Humans developed emotions in order to distinguish situations and prepare ways to react to or think about what mood is demanded by or would best fit those situations.
Is this a predator? Is this a mate? Will watching Faux News make me angry?
When anger and fear shut off the critics that recognize another person as “human” we get results like the one seen in the Critical Mass video.
The amygdala perform primary roles in the formation and storage of memories associated with emotional events such as these, which leads us into the debate on whether or not robots will develop this type of response.
(2) Is it not possible/probable that robotic lifeforms will also develop emotions as their complexity develops? In other words, could not emotion be a inexorable byproduct of--or necessary component of-- abstract reasoning and creativity?
I’ve already taken up enough of your time, so I will try to keep this short.
Robots/AI do not have hormones, amygdala, limbic systems and other hardware the brain uses to process emotions. Instead a series of programs and sensors are used to interpret the world logically.
How would you explain to a robot what "cool" is?
Machines have a predisposition to logic but not necessarily common sense, and because I don’t believe in the ‘ghost in the machine’ I would have to assume that if emotions were to develop in Robots/AI it would be through complex programming, which isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
I would agree that emotions have a hand in creativity and imagination.
For instance, say someone was working late on a term paper and begins to fall asleep. This person might imagine a scenario where the class would have to be repeated due to the failing mark of an unfinished paper. The abstract thinking will stir emotion which will help keep this person awake.
A robot would recognize the low power level and simply plug into the wall.
Unique results in creativity and imagination don't necessarily come from emotion as much as they come from, to put it plainly, insanity:
Taking objects, ideas, scenarios, stories, and reconfiguring them, mashing them together, inverting them, and so on.
This behaviour is part chaos and random and part order, and also can presumably be replicated through complex programming.
"We are all ruled in what we do by impulses; and these impulses are so organized that our actions in general serve for our self preservation and that of the race. Hunger, love, pain, fear are some of those inner forces which rule the individual's instinct for self preservation. At the same time, as social beings, we are moved in the relations with our fellow beings by such feelings as sympathy, pride, hate, need for power, pity and so on."
-Albert Einstein, 1950
The origin and advantages of human emotion –biologically, neurologically and evolutionary- is an undeniably longer and more complex explanation than the simplified interpretation I can give here, however, I will do my best to sum up with a few of the more amusing examples I could find by people who know more than I do.
Our emotions give us the ability to think in a certain way, while ignoring facts that might otherwise prevent us from executing a task.
Minsky makes some keen observations on love/infatuation:
"Hear our friend Charles attempt to describe his latest infatuation.
"I've just fallen in love with a wonderful person. I scarcely can think about anything else. My sweetheart is unbelievably perfect — of indescribable beauty, flawless character, and incredible intelligence. There is nothing i would not do for her."
On the surface such statements seem positive; they're all composed of superlatives. But note that there's something strange about this: most of those phrases of positive praise use syllables like "un," "less," and "in" — which show that they really are negative statements describing the person who's saying them!
Wonderful. Indescribable.
— (I can't figure out what attracts me to her.)
I scarcely can think of anything else.
— (Most of my mind has stopped working.)
Unbelievably perfect. Incredible.
— (No sensible person believes such things.)
She has a flawless character.
— (I've abandoned my critical faculties.)
There is nothing i would not do for her.
— (I've forsaken most of my usual goals.)"
Minsky's observations explain how emotions shape Ways to think by either adding or taking away mental critics. Without certain critics being shut off finding a mate would become even more of a challenge than it already is.
Also of note is how this emotional state coincides with the way popular locations for courtship include low lighting and alcohol.
Minsky is aware of, but doesn't mention norepinephrine, the hormone that produces the excitement that comes during the first states of love, because in doing so he would have to leave the structural understanding and begin a new chapter to explain the biological origins of emotion.
Humans developed emotions in order to distinguish situations and prepare ways to react to or think about what mood is demanded by or would best fit those situations.
Is this a predator? Is this a mate? Will watching Faux News make me angry?
When anger and fear shut off the critics that recognize another person as “human” we get results like the one seen in the Critical Mass video.
The amygdala perform primary roles in the formation and storage of memories associated with emotional events such as these, which leads us into the debate on whether or not robots will develop this type of response.
(2) Is it not possible/probable that robotic lifeforms will also develop emotions as their complexity develops? In other words, could not emotion be a inexorable byproduct of--or necessary component of-- abstract reasoning and creativity?
I’ve already taken up enough of your time, so I will try to keep this short.
Robots/AI do not have hormones, amygdala, limbic systems and other hardware the brain uses to process emotions. Instead a series of programs and sensors are used to interpret the world logically.
How would you explain to a robot what "cool" is?
Machines have a predisposition to logic but not necessarily common sense, and because I don’t believe in the ‘ghost in the machine’ I would have to assume that if emotions were to develop in Robots/AI it would be through complex programming, which isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
I would agree that emotions have a hand in creativity and imagination.
For instance, say someone was working late on a term paper and begins to fall asleep. This person might imagine a scenario where the class would have to be repeated due to the failing mark of an unfinished paper. The abstract thinking will stir emotion which will help keep this person awake.
A robot would recognize the low power level and simply plug into the wall.
Unique results in creativity and imagination don't necessarily come from emotion as much as they come from, to put it plainly, insanity:
Taking objects, ideas, scenarios, stories, and reconfiguring them, mashing them together, inverting them, and so on.
This behaviour is part chaos and random and part order, and also can presumably be replicated through complex programming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
