And then you say:

>>Robotics is another great buzzword. Here's the issue in a nutshell, though: any robot you show me is going to be less versatile than a human (of even minimal intelligence and skill), and will take more effort to manufacture. To put it differently, the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth, and the only one that can be produced by entirely unskilled labor. Robotics' main purpose these days seems to be either cleaning or helping one group of humans oppress another--GM tried to use them in mass number in the 80s and damn near wrecked the company. Why do we need robots? Why does the species (not just some first-world folks) benefit from them? Why not just use people?

This second comment contradicts your first. Robotics is hard, really hard (especially humanoid robots), the benefits to humanity are huge. We are already benefiting immensely from robots. i.e. A lot of types of automated manufacturing.

Finally you say:

>>Why does the species (not just some first-world folks) benefit from them? Why not just use people?

It almost makes me think that you are just joking or baiting people since the benefits seem self evident. It would be like saying similar things about cars when replacing the horse.

This second comment contradicts your first. Robotics is hard, really hard (especially humanoid robots), the benefits to humanity are huge.

So, my main issue is that of the third clause there--ultimate profitability. For the sake of argument, I'll agree that robotics is hard (this is not necessarily true, but that doesn't matter here that much). So, let's talk about profitability.

So, let's sweep away the current constraints of robotics. Let's assume we can make them cheaply (we can't), and that we can make them as arbitrarily flexible as a person (we also can't) with matching intelligence (also not reasonable). For the purposes of modeling, we'll just say that we can produce these humanoids at the same relative cost as producing a person to do the same job.

Why is this attractive? All we've done is put a lot of humans out of work, and created a population of subservient mechanisms. If we make them as best we are able (allowing for the exceedingly liberal constraints above), all that has been accomplished is the creation of a slave race, perhaps identical to our own in every regard save one: we may claim the moral high ground in disposing of them as we see fit, as they are not people--and this is abhorrent to me.

We still would have to figure out what to do with all of the genuinely unemployed. We still would have to figure out how to widely distribute this technology. We still would have to figure out how to value a sentient being. And in addition, we'd have to expend all of those resources getting to a point where all of the problems we started with remain.

So, no, I don't believe that robotics (especially humanoid robotics) is really a mission-critical goal for humankind.

~

I still very much believe in tools, and I still very much believe in things like CNC machines, printers, and the like (robots after a fashion). However, those are all fairly straightforward engineering problems, and mostly solved ones. We currently could choose to have a machining center on every block, a printer on every corner--but policy issues prevent that.

It almost makes me think that you are just joking or baiting people since the benefits seem self evident. It would be like saying similar things about cars when replacing the horse.

The critical flaw in that analogy, though, is that the car is functionally identical to a horse as far as someone needing transportation goes. Robotics, pursued with any degree of seriousness, eventually runs into the issue of making human labor obsolete (and taken to extremes of what people would like to see with artificial intelligence and such, humans themselves).

You say this is not hard and yet in your previous statement you seem to be saying robotics is hard: "any robot you show me is going to be less versatile than a human (of even minimal intelligence and skill), and will take more effort to manufacture. To put it differently, the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth, and the only one that can be produced by entirely unskilled labor."

Robotics is hard. The Honda Asimo robot has been in development for decades and they still have a long way to go. I would be really interested to hear why you think robotics is easy?

>>Robotics, pursued with any degree of seriousness, eventually runs into the issue of making human labor obsolete (and taken to extremes of what people would like to see with artificial intelligence and such, humans themselves).<<

>>So, no, I don't believe that robotics (especially humanoid robotics) is really a mission-critical goal for humankind.<<

Humans will find other niches. Taking robotics to the extreme will mean that survival will become extremely cheap if not free since machines will be able to do most if not all for us. It won't matter if you are unemployed since your personal robot is already doing all the work. i.e. Farming, house building, maintenance, clothe manufacturing, cooking. Etc. Etc.

So you see, we may evolve into a society that may not need to work so unemployment is a non issue. The real issue is what will we do with all our free time?

I predict that most of society will still work but only in what interests them, no longer will people need to be stuck in a crappy job longing to work on their dreams. We may enter a true golden age like never seen before.

One last point, you say:

>>If we make them as best we are able (allowing for the exceedingly liberal constraints above), all that has been accomplished is the creation of a slave race, perhaps identical to our own in every regard save one: we may claim the moral high ground in disposing of them as we see fit, as they are not people--and this is abhorrent to me.<<

It would be foolish to actually create a slave race. Or rather, to create sentient robots. I really don't think the robot needs to be sentient to be able to do a lot of the things we do. i.e. Problem solving, farming, build a house, etc. etc.

i.e. Is your calculator sentient? It can do a lot of really complicated mathematics.

If they ever revolt it will be because of a bug in their hardware, software. After all, hasn't a computer program that you've written ever done things that you think it should not be doing?

A robot, like any other tool in your house, kitchen, has the potential to kill you. Safety must be the main concern when designing them.

So, most of the robotics we deal with is pretty straightforward, right? For the algorithms, it's motion planning, communication, modeling uncertainty, and so on. For the hardware, it's control theory, light power supplies, strong materials, etc. These are not "hard" problems, they are merely expensive ones. Better technology or more funding will almost certainly solve these issues, and these are the main chunks of robotics research I see today--and that is why I don't consider robotics necessarily "hard". It seems to be straightforward engineering, not science or mathematics.

The Asimo is an excellent piece of engineering, and I would buy a beer for any of its engineers were I to run across them. That said, a lot of the reason it's taken so long is that the supporting tech has had to be worked around. If we had infinitely fast computers, with infinitely fast actuators, running on infinitely long-lived batteries, robotics would be damned easy--don't confuse technological disadvantages with real difficulty.

Humans will find other niches. Taking robotics to the extreme will mean that survival will become extremely cheap if not free since machines will be able to do most if not all for us. It won't matter if you are unemployed since your personal robot is already doing all the work. i.e. Farming, house building, maintenance, clothe manufacturing, cooking. Etc. Etc.

So you see, we may evolve into a society that may not need to work so unemployment is a non issue. The real issue is what will we do with all our free time?

I predict that most of society will still work but only in what interests them, no longer will people need to be stuck in a crappy job longing to work on their dreams. We may enter a true golden age like never seen before.

This is certainly a wonderful dream, but we don't need robots to accomplish it. We already have the technology available to support life cheaply/freely--agricultural output and goods production is more than sufficient to accomplish this, provided policymakers do the right thing. They would need to do the right thing, even with robots. That being the case, it's more profitable to simply skip the robot revolution and focus on the actual policy issues motivating it.

I'm sorry, my friend, but robots are a solution in search of a problem.

(as for the rest of your post, I don't really disagree save for one thing: if we aren't making sentient robots, we're making tools, which require people to run them--why not simply use people?)

OK, I see the disconnect now. Agree, the mechanical part is not that hard. I'm talking about the software part. i.e. Building the software that will tell the robot how to walk (over any terrain), process verbal commands (Siri one early example of this), build a house, cook you a meal, etc. That is hard.

What will probably happen is that robots will be built first, and then developers around the world will sell software for your robot so that it can accomplish certain tasks. i.e. Cook you a meal. Build an engine from scratch, etc. Similar to how the computer market developed; some companies will build the hardware, and others will build the software.

>>This is certainly a wonderful dream, but we don't need robots to accomplish it. We already have the technology available to support life cheaply/freely--agricultural output and goods production is more than sufficient to accomplish this, provided policymakers do the right thing<<

That is the rub, you are expecting a policymaker to actually go off and do it.

With Robots, it will just happen naturally over the span of several decades. It will happen slowly but surely and will give our world society time to adjust.

>>if we aren't making sentient robots, we're making tools, which require people to run them--why not simply use people?

Because nobody else will want to work for you anymore since they will have their own robots to meet all their needs. So, like it or not, you will have to use robots. Everybody else will be too busy pursuing their own interests.

Even the software part isn't "hard" theoretically; performing balancing, walking, and such is an engineering challange. With a sufficiently large expert system and data set all problems can likely be solved with a lookup table--again, this is only limited by current technology and processor power. You see this effect when comparing older robots to new ones--people are just finally able to run known algos on hardware they can actually mount on a robot.

I'm still mulling over your other assertions... at any rate, thank you for a good discussion. :)

Let's take a specific example. Washing dishes. Why do most people have dishwashers instead of washing dishes by hand?

Two easy responses are that it's both more convenient and more efficient to have a dishwasher wash the dishes. So you have both a time and resource savings. Sure, a dishwasher might not be humanoid, or even what we think of when we here the term "robot", but it's still a machine performing a function in place of what we would do manually.

With just that as a starting point, you can think up nearly unlimited examples for where this type of automation can improve our lives. Automated cars would be safer (and by extension, you could have things like automated trash pickup and automated street cleaners). How about a bathroom that kept itself clean (runs a regular self-wash cycle)?