>>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.<<
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.
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.
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. :)
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.