Blog Assignment #4

A video of the Nao Robot, by Aldebaran Robotics, was uploaded on YouTube on 30 October 2008. It is an advertisement for the Nao robot, giving the audience information on the robot’s specification while showing the robot in action at the same time. Unlike some advertisements for other products, this video has a professional tone to it. The video doesn’t proclaim the Nao Robot as the newest innovative technology or what impact it will have for the people who purchase it. Instead, it simply gives a rundown of the robot’s basic functions and components. For example at around 1:47 in the video, a second Nao robot comes on screen and says “Hello Nao 75;” the first Nao robot then responds “Hello Nao 41.” Shortly after their introductions, we are given the information that the Nao robot contains Infrared Wi-Fi Voice communication. (“Nao Robot”, 2008, 1:40-1:50) This section of the video is a basic demonstration of the Nao robot’s communication system with other Nao robots. Only the Nao robots communicating and the info regarding how they communicate (the brief “Infrared Wi-Fi Voice” at 1:50) are shown. This pattern holds throughout the entire video, allowing Aldebaran Robotics to give a quick summary of their product without creating hype.

Artificial Intelligence is defined as “the science and technology that seeks to create intelligent computational systems…..that can mimic or duplicate the intelligent behavior found in humans and other thinking things.” (Sullins, 2005) The term “intelligence” is somewhat broad. It can be agreed upon that humans are intelligent beings and other animals have some level of intelligence as well. The question is what would make a machine artificially intelligent? If the goal of artificial intelligence is to create artifacts that hold the same intelligence as a human being, then there are many processes the artifact must be capable of doing. Just looking at ourselves reveals that our intelligence is a very complex thing. We are always learning new things for example, and even if we don’t know what is going on, we can create explanations using the knowledge we already have, and that’s just one part of the human mind! I wouldn’t consider the Nao robot to be truly artificially intelligent. The reason is because the Nao robot doesn’t appear to have the ability to question and experiment. For example, if it didn’t know what a rubber ducky was, it could’ve first made observations and asked itself questions like what happens if I squeeze it? But that is being a bit too critical for the Nao at this point in time.

Both the YouTube video of the Nao robot and the technical description presented in class give a brief run through the different components of how the Nao robot works, without creating any hype or bias. The technical description however has the advantage of going in depth with the components, describing how the Nao is able to do certain things along with pictures to show those components in action. The video however, being an advertisement, only gives a brief summary of the Nao’s specifications. But being a video has the advantage of showing us a Nao robot in live action. So while a short advertisement isn’t the place to describe the programs behind what we see, what we can see are what those components allow the Nao to do.

References

Nao Robot [Online Video]. (2008, October 30).YouTube. Retrieved April 27, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2STTNYNF4lk

P. Sullins, J. (2005). Artificial Intelligence. In Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics (Vol. 1, pp. 110-113). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved April 27, 2013, from the Gale Virtual Reference Science Collection database.

Blog Assignment #3

For this blog post I would like to share a little bit of information on the profession memo that was written recently. Before we go into detail, here’s an excerpt from my memo on Traffic Danger:

“In theory, analyzing what goes on in the Van Dam St intersection should help in finding a solution to the traffic flow, as the various issues with this intersection can be observed in other parts of Thomson Ave. Although pedestrian safety is the Traffic Safety on Campus Committee’s main concern, it would be wise to consider both pedestrian behavior and traffic flow when creating a solution, as they are both risk factors for accidents on campus.”

The Traffic Danger scenario was chosen because it is the one I felt I could contribute more to.  An overpass and underpass were talked about in the memo as two possible solutions for pedestrian safety around campus. These ideas were mainly inspired from general observations made around campus and elsewhere. For example, the overpass was based on observations of some Latin American cities, where overpasses are common along the main streets, which in addition to being heavily transited; tend to be of equal or greater width than Manhattan’s Park Ave. A similar observation can also be made by BMCC where there is an overpass over the west side highway that has access into Stuyvesant.   

I have to admit that research was a bit lacking in this memo. Most of what was talked about resulted from my own observation and analysis, which most likely weakened it a little bit. The feedback I received from peer review did help however. Thanks to the feedback, I was able to identify some errors in the structure of my memo, which led to a little trimming and reorganizing of the memo. Although not perfect in its final form, I was overall satisfied with the improvements.