Alan Winfield's Web Log

New experiments in the new lab

2012-01-11T15:20:00.003Z

Last week my PhD student Mehmet started a new series of experiments in embodied behavioural evolution. The exciting new step is that we've now moved to active imitation. In our previous trials robot-robot imitation has been passive; in other words, when robot B imitates robot A, robot A receives no feedback at all - not even that its action has been imitated. With active imitation, robot A receives feedback - it receives information on which of its behaviours has been imitated, how well the behaviour been imitated and by whom.

The switch from passive to active imitation has required a major software rewrite, both for the robots' control code and for the infrastructure. We made the considered decision that the feedback mechanism - unlike the imitation itself - is not embodied. In other words the system infrastructure both figures out which robot has imitated which (not trivial to do) and radios the feedback to the robots themselves. The reason for this decision is that we want to see how that feedback can be used to - for instance - reinforce particular behaviours so that we can model the idea that agents are more likely to re-enact behaviours that have been imitated by other agents, over those that haven't. We are not trying to model active social learning (in which a learner watches a teacher, then the teacher watches the learner to judge how well they've learned, and so on) so we avoid the additional complexity of embodied feedback.

In the first tests with the new active imitation setup we've introduced a simple change to the behaviour selection mechanism. Every robot has a memory with all of its initialised or learned behaviours. Each one of those behaviours now has a counter that gets incremented each time that particular behaviour is imitated. A robot selects which of its stored behaviours to enact, at random, but with probabilities that are determined by the counter values so that a higher count behaviour is more likely to be selected. But, as I've discovered peering at the data generated from the initial runs, it's not at all straightforward to figure out what's going on and - most importantly - what it means. It's the hermeneutic challenge again.

So, for now here's a picture of the experimental setup in our shiny new* lab. Results to follow!

*In November 2011 the Bristol Robotics Lab moved from its old location, in the DuPont building, to T block on the extended Coldharbour Lane campus.

Swarm robotics at the Science Museum

2011-12-05T09:57:00.018Z

Just spent an awesomely busy weekend at the Science Museum, demonstrating Swarm Robotics. We were here as part of the Robotville exhibition, and - on the wider stage - European Robotics Week. I say we because it was a team effort, led by my PhD student Paul O'Dowd who heroically manned the exhibit all four days, and supported also by postdoc Dr Wenguo Liu. Here is a gallery of pictures from Robotville on the science museum blog, and some more pictures here (photos by Patu Tifinger):

Although exhausting, it was at the same time uplifting. We had a crowd of very interested families and children the whole time - in fact the organisers tell me that Robotville had just short of 8000 visitors over the 4 days of the exhibition. What was really nice was that the whole exhibition was hands-on, and our sturdy e-puck robots - at pretty much eye-level for 5-year olds, attracted lots of small hands interacting with the swarm. A bit like putting your hand into an ants nest (although I doubt the kids would have been so keen on that.)

Let me explain what the robots were doing. Paul had programmed two different demonstrations, one with fixed behaviours and the other with learning.

For the fixed behaviour demo the e-puck robots were programmed with the following low-level behaviours:

Short-range avoidance. If a robot gets too close to another robot or an obstacle then it turns away to avoid it.
Longer-range attraction. If a robot can sense other robots nearby but gets too far from the flock, then it turns back toward the flock. And while in a flock, move slowly.
If a robot loses the flock then it speeds up and wanders at random in an effort to regain the flock (i.e. another robot).
While in a flock, each robot will communicate (via infra-red) its estimate of the position of an external light source to nearby robots in the flock. While communicating the robot flashes its green body LED.
Also while in a flock, each robot will turn toward the 'consensus' direction of the external light source.

The net effect of these low-level behaviours is that the robots will both stay together as a swarm (or flock), and over time, move as a swarm toward the external light source. Both of these swarm-level behaviours are emergent because they result from the low-level robot-robot and robot-environment interactions. While the flocking behaviour is evident in just a few minutes, the overall swarm movement toward the external light source is less obvious. In reality even the flocking behaviour appears chaotic, with robots losing each other, and leaving the flock, or several mini-flocks forming. The reason for this is that all of the low-level behaviours make use of the e-puck robots' multi-purpose Infra-red sensors, and the environment is noisy; in other words because we don't have carefully controlled lighting there is lots of ambient IR light constantly confusing the robots.

The learning demo is a little more complex and makes use of an embedded evolutionary algorithm, actually running within the e-puck robots, so that - over time - the robots learn how to flock. This demo is based on Paul's experimental work, which I described in some detail in an earlier blog post, so I won't go into detail here. It's the robots with the yellow hats in the lower picture above. What's interesting to observe is that initially, the robots are hopeless - constantly crashing into each other or the arena walls, but noticeably over 30 minutes or so we can see the robots learn to control themselves, using information from their sensors. The weird thing here is that, every minute or so, each robot's control software is replaced by a great-great-grand child of itself. The robot's body is not evolving, but invisibly its controller is evolving, so that later generations of controller are more capable.

The magical moment of the two days was when one young lad - maybe 12 years old, who very clearly understood everything straight away and seemed to intuit things I hadn't explained - stayed nearly an hour explaining and demonstrating to other children. Priceless.

TAROS lecture: The Ethical Roboticist

2011-09-20T21:51:00.004+01:00

Here are the slides for the IET public lecture I gave in Sheffield on 2 September 2011 on the final day of the conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems (TAROS).

Discussing Asimov's laws of robotics and a draft revision

2011-08-31T21:42:00.001+01:00

This is me discussing robot ethics with Dallas Campbell for BBC1's Bang Goes The Theory. I outline the five new ethical principles for roboticists proposed by the EPSRC/AHRC working group. Click here for the working group's full report, including a commentary on these draft proposals.

With thanks to Simon Mackie, senior content producer for the Bang Goes The Theory website, for the code to embed this video clip.

Robohype and why it's bad for robotics

2011-08-20T22:21:00.003+01:00

You are technically literate, an engineer or scientist perhaps with a particular interest in robotics, but you've been stranded on a desert island for the past 30 years. Rescued and returned to civilisation you are keen to find out how far robotics science and technology has advanced and - rejoicing in the marvellous inventions of the Internet and its search engines - you scour the science press for robonews. Scanning the headlines you are thrilled to discover that robots are alive, and sending messages from space; robots can think or are "capable of human reasoning or learning"; robots have feelings, relate to humans, or demonstrate love, even behave ethically. Truly robots have achieved their promised potential.

Then of course you start to dig deeper and read the science behind these stories. The truth dawns. Although the robotics you are reading about is significant work, done by very good people, the fact is - you begin to realise - that now, in 2011, robots cannot properly be said to think, feel, empathise, love or be moral agents; and certainly no robot is, in any meaningful sense, alive, or sentient. Of course your disappointment is tempered by the discovery that astonishing strides have nevertheless been made.

So, robotics is subject to journalistic hype. Nothing new there then. So why am I writing about it here (apart from the fact it annoys the hell out of me)? I write because I think that robohype is a serious problem and an issue that the robotics community should worry about. The problem is this. Most people who read the press reports are lay readers who - perfectly reasonably - will not read much beyond the headline; certainly few will look for the source research. So every time a piece of robohype appears (pretty much every day) the level of mass-delusion about what robots do increases a bit more, and the expectation gap widens. Remember that the expectation gap - the gap between what people think robots are capable of and what they're really capable of - is already wide because of the grip robots have on our cultural imagination. We are at the same time fascinated and fearful of robots, and this fascination feeds the hype because we want (or dread) the robofiction to become true. Which is of course one of the reasons for the hype in the first place.

But the expectation gap is a serious problem. It's a problem because it makes our work as roboticists harder, not least because many of the hard problems we are working on are problems many people think already solved. It's a problem because it is, I believe, creating pressure on us to over-promise when writing grant applications, so solid important incremental research grants get rejected in favour of fantasy projects. Those projects inevitably fail to deliver and over time funding bodies will react by closing down robotics research initiatives - leading to the kind of funding winter that AI saw in the 1990s. And it's a problem because it creates societal expectations on robotics that cannot be met - think of the unrealistic promise of military robots with an artificial conscience.

Who's to blame for the robohype? Well we roboticists must share the blame. When we describe our robots and what they do we use anthropocentric words, especially when trying to explain our work to people outside the robotics community. Within the robotics and AI community we all understand that when we talk about an intelligent robot, what we mean is a robot that behaves as if it were intelligent; intelligent robot is a convenient shorthand. So when we talk to journalists we should not be too surprised when "this robot behaves, in some limited sense, as if it has feelings" gets translated to "this robot has feelings". But science journalists must, I think, do better than this.

Words in robotics, as in life, are important. When we describe our robots, their capabilities and their potential, and when science reporters and bloggers bring our work to wider public attention, we need to choose our words with great care. In humanoid robotics where, after all, the whole idea is to create robots that emulate human behaviours, capabilities and cognition, perhaps we just cannot avoid using anthropocentric words. Maybe we need a new lexicon for describing humanoid robots; perhaps we should stop using words like think, feel, imagine, belief, love, happy altogether? Whatever the answer, I am convinced that robohype is damaging to the robotics project and something must be done.

Manifesto for a Robot Standard Interface Specification

2011-07-25T19:30:00.052+01:00

This blog post could well turn out to be to be the most boring I've ever written - but I think it's important. I want to write about something that robotics desperately needs: an industry standard interface specification (see I told you it was going to be boring).

Let me explain what I mean by talking about a fantastically successful standard called MIDI, that has without doubt played a significant role in the success of music technology. MIDI stands for musical instrument digital interface. It provides an industry standard for connecting together electronic musical instruments, i.e. synthesisers, computers and all manner of electronic music gizmos. The important thing about MIDI is that it specifies everything including the physical plug and socket, the electrical signalling, the communications protocol and the messages that can be sent or received by MIDI connected devices. With great foresight MIDI's designers provided in the protocol both standard messages that all MIDI equipped electronic musical instruments would expect to send and receive - and recognise, but also customisable messages that manufacturers could specify for particular instruments and devices. In MIDI each instrument is able to identify itself to another device connected via MIDI; it can say, for example, I'm a Roland synthesiser model ABC. If the other device, a sequencer for instance, recognises the Roland ABC it can then access that instrument's custom features (in addition to the standard functions of all MIDI devices).

Robotics needs a MIDI specification. Let's call it RSIS for Robot Standard Interface Specification. Like MIDI, RSIS would need to specify everything from the physical plug and socket, to the structure and meaning of RSIS messages. Devising a spec for RSIS would not be trivial - my guess is that it would be rather more complex than MIDI because of the more diverse types of robot devices and peripherals. But the benefits would be immense. RSIS would allow robot builders to plug and play different complex sensors and actuators, from different manufacturers, to create new robot bodies and new functionality. Imagine, for instance, being able to take a Willow garage PR2 robot and fit a humanoid robot hand from the Shadow Robot Company. Of course there would need to be a mechanical mounting to physically attach the new hand, but that's not what I'm talking about here; I'm referring to the control interface which would be connected via RSIS. The PR2 would then, via the RSIS connection, sense that a new device had been connected and, using standard RSIS messages, ask the new device to identify itself. On discovering it has a handsome new Shadow hand the PR2 would then install the device driver (downloading it from the cloud if necessary) and, within a few seconds, the new hand becomes fully functional in true plug and play fashion.

Industry standards, and the people who create them, are the unsung heroes of technology. Without these standards, like UMTS, TCP/IP, HTTP or IEEE 802.11 (WiFi to you and me) we wouldn't have ubiquitous mobile phone, internet, web or wireless tech that just works. But more than that, standards are I think part of the essential underpinning infrastructure that kick starts whole new industry sectors. That's why I think standards are so critical to robotics.

Maybe a Robot Standard Interface Specification (or the effort to create it) already exists? If so, I'd very much like to hear about it.

Machine intelligence: fake or real?

2011-05-31T20:14:00.018+01:00

A few days ago, at the excellent HowTheLightGetsIn festival, I took part in a panel debate called Rise of the Machines. Here was the brief:

From 2001 to The Matrix, intelligent machines and robots have played a central role in our fictions. Some now claim they are about to become fact. Is artificial intelligence possible or just a science fiction fantasy? And would it be a fundamental advance for humankind or an outcome to be feared?

Invited at the last minute, I found myself debating these questions with a distinguished panel consisting of philosophers Peter Hacker and Hilary Lawson, and law academic Lilian Edwards; Henrietta Moore brilliantly chaired.

I shan't attempt to summarise the debate here. I certainly couldn't do it, or the arguments of fellow panelists, justice. In any event it was filmed and should appear soon on IAI TV. What I want to talk about here is the question - which turned out to be central to the debate - of whether machines are, or could ever be regarded as, intelligent.

The position I adopted and argued in the debate is best summed up as simulationist. For the past 10 years or so I have believed our grand project as roboticists is to build robots that aim to be progressively higher fidelity imitations of life, and intelligence. This is a convenient and pragmatic approach: robots that behave as if they are intelligent are no less interesting (as working models of intelligence for instance), or potentially useful, than robots that really are intelligent, and the ethical questions that arise no less pressing*. But, I realised in Hay-on-Wye, the simulationist approach also plays to the arguments of philosophers, including Peter Hacker, that machines cannot ever be truly intelligent in principle.

Reflecting on that debate I realised that my erstwhile position in effect accepts that robots, or AI, will never be truly intelligent, never better than a simulation; that machines can never do more than pretend to be smart. However, I'm now not at all sure that position is logically tenable. The question that keeps going around my head is this: if a thing - biological or artificial - behaves as if it is intelligent, then why shouldn't it be regarded as properly intelligent? Surely behaving intelligently is the same as being intelligent. Isn't that what intelligence is?

Let me offer two arguments in support of this proposition.

There are those who argue that real intelligence is uniquely a property of living organisms. They admit that artificial systems might eventually demonstrate a satisfactory emulation of intelligence but will argue that nothing artificial can truly think, or feel. This is the anthropocentric (or perhaps more accurately, zoocentric) position. The fundamental problem with this position, in my view, is that it fails to explain which properties of biological systems make them uniquely intelligent. Is it that intelligence depends uniquely on exotic properties of biological stuff? The problem here is there's no evidence for such properties. Perhaps intelligence is uniquely an outcome of evolution? Well robot intelligence is now mostly evolved, not designed. Perhaps advanced intelligence requires social structures in order to emerge? I would agree, and point to social robotics as a promising equivalent substrate. Advanced intelligence uniquely requires, perhaps, nurture because really smart animals are not born smart. Again I would agree, and point to the new field of developmental robotics. In short, I argue that it is impossible to propose a property of biological systems, required for intelligence, that is unique to those biological systems and cannot exist as a property of artificial systems.

My second argument is around the question of how intelligence is measured or determined. As I've blogged before, intelligence is a difficult thing to define let alone measure. But one thing is clear - no current measure of intelligence in humans or animals requires us to look inside their brains. We determine a human or animal to be intelligent exclusively on the basis of its actions. For simple animals we observe how they react and look at the sophistication of those responses (as prey or predator for instance). In humans we look formally to examinations (to measure cognitive intelligence) or more generally to ingenuity in social discourse (Machiavellian intelligence), or creativity (artistic or technical intelligence). For advanced animal intelligence we devise ever more ingenious tests, the results from which sometimes challenge or prejudices about where those animals sit on our supposed intelligence scale. We heard from Lilian Edwards during the debate that, in common law, civil responsibility is likewise judged exclusively on actions. A judge may have to make a judgement about the intentions of a defendant but they have to do so only on the evidence of their actions**. I argue, therefore, that it is inconsistent to demand a different test of intelligence for artificial systems. Why should we expect to determine whether a robot is truly intelligent or not on the basis of some not-yet-determined properties of its internal cognitive structures, when we do not require that test of animals or humans?

The counter-intuitive and uncomfortable conclusion: machine intelligence is not fake, it's real.

*perhaps even more so given that such robots are essentially fraudulent.
**with thanks to Lilian for correcting my wording here.

Artificial Culture project at FET

2011-05-08T11:07:00.030+01:00

Here is the poster we presented at last week's excellent Future Emerging Technologies conference in Budapest:

Revisiting Asimov: the Ethical Roboticist

2011-05-06T10:20:00.013+01:00

Well it's taken awhile, but the draft revised 'laws of robotics' have now been published. New Scientist article Roboethics for Humans, reporting on the EPSRC/AHRC initiative in roboethics, appears in this week's issue (Issue 2811, 7 May 2011). These new draft ethical principles emerged from a workshop on ethical, legal and societal issues in robotics.

The main outcome from the workshop was a draft statement aimed at initiating a debate within the robotics research and industry community, and more widely. That statement is framed by, first, a set of high-level messages for researchers and the public which encourage responsibility from the robotics community, and hence (we hope) trust in the work of that community. And second, a revised and updated version of Asimov’s three laws of robotics for designers and users of robots; not laws for robots, but guiding principles for roboticists.

The seven high-level messages are:

We believe robots have the potential to provide immense positive impact to society. We want to encourage responsible robot research.
Bad practice (in robotics) hurts us all.
Addressing obvious public concerns (about robots) will help us all make progress.
It is important to demonstrate that we, as roboticists, are committed to the best possible standards of practice.
To understand the context and consequences of our research we should work with experts from other disciplines including: social sciences, law, philosophy and the arts.
We should consider the ethics of transparency: are there limits to what should be openly available?
When we see erroneous accounts in the press, we commit to take the time to contact the reporting journalists.

Isaac Asimov's famous 'laws of robotics' first appeared in 1942 in his short story Runaround. They are (1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; (2) A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law, and (3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Asimov’s laws updated: instead of 'laws for robots' our revision is a set of five draft 'ethical principles for robotics', i.e. moral precepts for researchers, designers, manufacturers, suppliers and maintainers of robots. We propose:

Robots are multi-use tools. Robots should not be designed solely or primarily to kill or harm humans, except in the interests of national security.
Humans, not robots, are responsible agents. Robots should be designed & operated as far as is practicable to comply with existing laws and fundamental rights & freedoms, including privacy.
Robots are products. They should be designed using processes which assure their safety and security.
Robots are manufactured artefacts. They should not be designed in a deceptive way to exploit vulnerable users; instead their machine nature should be transparent.
The person with legal responsibility for a robot should be attributed.

Now it's important to say, firstly, that these are the work of a group of people so the wording represents a negotiated compromise*. Secondly, they are a first draft. The draft was circulated within the UK robotics community in February, then last month presented to a workshop on Ethical Legal and Societal issues at the European Robotics Forum in Sweden. So, we already have great feedback - which is being collected by EPSRC - but that feedback has not yet been incorporated into any revisions. Thirdly, there is detailed commentary - especially explaining the thinking and rationale for the 7 messages and 5 ethical principles above. That commentary can be found here.

Comments and criticism welcome! To feedback either,

post a comment in response to this blog,
email EPSRC at RoboticsRetreat@epsrc.ac.uk, or
directly contact myself or any of the workshop members listed in the commentary.

*So, while I am a passionate advocate of ethical robotics and very happy to defend the approach that we've taken here, there are some detailed aspects of these principles that I'm not 100% happy with.

Ill robots might get a temperature too

2011-04-29T21:31:00.027+01:00

Just spent 4 days at the beautiful Schloss Dagstuhl in SW Germany attending a seminar on Artificial Immune Systems. The Dagstuhl is a remarkable concept – a place dedicated to residential retreats on advanced topics in computer science. Everything you need is there to discuss, think and learn. And learn is what I just did – to the extent that by lunchtime today when the seminar closed I felt like the small boy who asks to be excused from class because “miss, my brain is full”.

Knowing more or less nothing about artificial immune systems it was, for me like sitting in class, except that my teachers are world experts in the subject. A real privilege. So, what are artificial immune systems? They are essentially computer systems inspired by and modelled on biological immune systems. AISs are, I learned, both engineering systems for detecting and perhaps repairing and recovering from faults in artificial systems (in effect system maintenance), and scientific systems for modelling and/or visualising natural immune systems.

I learned that real immune systems are not just one system but several complex and inter-related systems, the biology of which is not fully understood. Thus, interestingly, AISs are modelled on (and models of) our best understanding so far of real immune systems. This of course means that biologists almost certainly have something to gain from engaging with the AIS community. (There are interesting parallels here with my experience of biologists working with roboticsts in Swarm Intelligence.)

The first thing I learned was about the lines of defence to external attack on bodies. The first is physical: the skin. If something gets past this then bodies apply a brute force approach by, for instance raising the temperature. If that doesn’t work then more complex mechanisms in the innate immune system kick-in: white blood cells that attempt to ‘eat’ the invaders. But more sophisticated pathogens require a response from the last line of defence: the adaptive immune system. Here the immune system ‘learns’ how to neutralise a new pathogen with a process called clonal selection. I was astonished to learn that clonal selection actually ‘evolves’ a response. Amazing – embodied evolution going on super-fast inside your body within the adaptive immune system, taking just a couple of days to complete. Now as a roboticist I’m very interested in embodied evolution – and by coincidence I attended a workhop on that very subject just a month ago. But I’d always assumed that embodied evolution was biologically implausible – an engineering trick if you like. But no – there it is going on inside adaptive immune systems. (As an aside, it appears that we don’t understand the processes that prompted the evolution of adaptive immune systems some 400 million years ago – in jawed vertebrates).

Of course while listening to this fascinating stuff I was all the while wondering what this might mean for robotics. For instance what hazards would require the equivalent of an innate immune response in robots, and which would need an adaptive response. And what exactly is the robot equivalent of an ‘infection’. Would a robot, for instance, get a temperature if it was fighting an infection. Quite possibly yes – the additional computation needed for the robot to figure out how to counter the hazard might indeed need more energy – so the robot would have to slow down its motors to direct its battery power instead to its computer. Sounds familiar doesn’t it: slowing down and getting a temperature!

Swarm robots with faults is something I’ve been worrying about for awhile and, based on the work I blogged about here, at the Dagstuhl I presented my hunch that – while swarm of 100 robots might work ok – swarms of 100,000 robots definitely wouldn’t without something very much like an immune system. That led to some very interesting discussions about the feasibility of co-evolving swarm function and swarm immunity. And, given that we think we’re beginning to understand how to embed and embody evolution across a swarm of robots, this is all beginning to look surprisingly feasible.

Why Slow Science may well be A Very Good Thing

2011-04-13T14:54:00.007+01:00

A few weeks ago I spent a very enjoyable Saturday at the Northern Arts and Science Network annual conference Dialogues, in Leeds. The morning sessions including two outstanding keynote talks. The first from Julian Kiverstein on synthetic synaesthesia and the second from David James on technology enhanced sports. Significant food for thought in both talks. Then Jenny Tennant Jackson and I ran an afternoon workshop on the Artificial Culture project (aided and abetted by 8 e-puck robots) which generated lots of questions and interest.

But apart from singing the praises of NASN and the conference I want to reflect here on something that emerged from the panel discussion at the end of the conference. There was quite a bit of debate around the question of open research (in both science and the arts) and public engagement. In recent years I've become a strong advocate of a unified open science + public engagement approach. In other words doing research transparently - ideally using an open notebook approach so that the whole of the process as well as the experimental outcomes are open to all - combined with proactive public engagement in (hopefully) a virtuous circle*.

So there I was pontificating about the merits of this approach in the panel discussion at NASN when someone asked rather pointedly "but isn't that all going to slow down the process of advancing science?" Without thinking I retorted "Good! If the cost of openness is slowing down science then that has to be a price worth paying." The questioner was clearly somewhat taken aback and to you sir, if you should read this blog, I offer sincere apologies for the abruptness of my reply. In fact I owe you not only apologies but thanks, for that exchange has really got me thinking about Slow Science.

So, having reflected a little, here's why I think slowing down science might not be as crazy as it sounds.

First the ethical dimension. Science or engineering research that is worth doing, i.e. is important and has value, has - by definition - an ethical dimension. The ethical and societal impact of science and engineering research needs to be acknowledged and understood by researchers themselves then widely and transparently debated, and not left to bad science journalism, science denialism or corporate interests. This takes time.

Next, unintended consequences. High impact research always has implications, and the higher the impact, the greater the potential for unintended consequences (no matter how well intentioned the work). Of course negative unintended consequences (scientific, economic, philosophical) almost always end up becoming a problem for society - so they too should be properly considered and discussed during a project's lifetime.

Finally the open science, public engagement dimension. I would argue that the time and effort costs of building open science and public engagement into research projects will reap manifold dividends in the long run. First take the open science aspect, openness - while it can take some courage to actually do - can surely only bring long term benefits in increased trust (in the work of the project, and in science in general). Second, running an integrated open science - public engage- ment approach alongside the research brings direct educational benefit to the next generation. And the additional real cost (in time and effort) has to be much less than it would be for an isolated project seeking the same educational outcomes.

Critics will of course argue that Slow Science would be uncompetitive. In a limited sense they would be right, but it seems to me important not to confuse commercialisation of spin out products with the much longer time span of research, nor to allow the tail of exploitation to wag the dog of research. Big science that takes decades can still spin out lots of wealth creating stuff along the way. Another criticism of Slow Science is to do with pressing problems that desperately need solutions. This is harder to counter but - perhaps - the unintended consequences argument might hold sway.

Slow Science: a Good Thing, or not?

*science communicator and PhD student Ann Grand is researching exactly this subject and has already published several papers on it.

Telling all on I'm a Scientist

2011-03-31T18:15:00.140+01:00

In future if anyone wants to know what I think - about almost anything scientific and quite alot else - all I have to do is point them to my profile and my collected answers on I'm a Scientist get me out of here. It's been a week now since IAS concluded and the winners announced and I've had time to collect my thoughts, catch up on the day job, and reflect on taking part in this most excellent event.

I'm a Scientist get me out of here is aptly named. By Thursday on the second week I was - on balance - more relieved than disappointed to be evicted from the virtual jungle clearing, called the Chlorine Zone, that I'd been sharing with four other scientists. (Beyond the eviction thing the analogy with I'm a Celebrity breaks down. We five were not required to undertake challenges designed to freak-out the squeamish nor rewarded with discomfort reducing morsels.)

No. I'm a Scientist is an altogether more civilised affair. It's a direct engagement with school children; meet-the-scientist on-line in which school children can ask the scientists questions on more or less anything they like. There are two types of engagement, chat and ask. The live chat sessions are booked by teachers and scheduled during school science lessons - a bit like having a panel of scientists sitting at the front of the classroom answering questions, except it's on-line. Ask allows the children to submit their questions through the web page for the scientists to answer in their own time. Both types of engagement are moderated by the good people who run I'm a Scientist.

Why then - if I'm a Scientist is so wonderful (which it is) - was I relieved to be evicted? Well, it's because after nearly 2 weeks the questions just keep coming and trying to keep up (especially given that we all have day jobs) became, if I'm completely honest, something of a test of endurance. Not counting the live chat school sessions I answered about 175 questions altogether. Other I'm a Scientist scientists who read this will scoff and say "pah, only 175!". And they'd be right - Sarah Thomas in my zone answered over 300 questions, and the awesome David Pyle in the potassium zone around 600! But even my paltry 175 questions took I reckon about 30 hours to answer, at an average 10 minutes per question (which is going fast).

But I'm not going to whinge here about my inability to keep up (although I do strongly advise future I'm a Scientists to set aside plenty of question answering time). I really want to reflect on the questions themselves. Firstly I was slightly surprised there were so few on my specialist subject of robotics. Only 22 out of the 175. But they were good ones! Here are some of my favourites:

Some of these will form the basis of future blog posts. But it was the general science questions that were the most interesting, for instance:

Brilliant - it was a kind of science soap box! I got to pontificate on life on Mars, the end of the world and human extinction, global warming, nuclear power, dreams, light years, my favourite animal, my favourite car, string theory, the Higgs Boson and dark matter. But the non-science questions make you stop and think - hmm how much do I want to reveal about what I think about antidisestablishmentarianism, my religous beliefs, resurrection or the meaning of life..?

By far the biggest category of questions was about doing science: why and how you do science, what's the best thing about being a scientist, what you think you have achieved, or will achieve and so on (and quite a few on what you will do with the prize money if you win). These are great questions because they allow you to explode some myths about science: for instance that you have to be super smart to do science, or that one scientist can change the world on their own. I was especially flattered by

You seem like the elder of the Science-Group - do you think knowledge come with experience?

If you're thinking of putting yourself forward for I'm a Scientist I would say yes go for it. It's hugely good fun and massively worthwhile. But (1) set aside plenty of time, (2) be prepared to answer questions on more or less anything and (3) be honest about yourself and what you really think about stuff.

Here are some great blog posts from other March 2011 I'm a Scientists:
Suzie Sheehy's Reflections on I'm a Scientist
David Pyle's I'm a Scientist: 600 questions later
Eoin Lettice's I'm a Scientist and I'm out of here

Dilemmas of an ethical consumer

2011-03-13T13:21:00.002Z

I have a dilemma and it is this. I'm torn between lusting after an iPad 2 and serious worries over the ethics of its manufacture.

There's no doubt that the iPad is a remarkable device (Jobs' hyperbole about magical and revolutionary is quite unnecessary). Several academic friends have told me that the iPad and one application in particular - called iAnnotate - has changed their working lives. Having seen them demonstrate iAnnotate there's no doubt it's the academic's killer iPad app. You see, something we have to do all the time is read, review and edit papers, book chapters, grant applications and working documents. For me that normally means printing a paper out, writing all over it, then either tediously scanning the marked up pages - uploading them to Google docs - then emailing the link, or constructing a large email with a list of all my changes and comments. What my friends showed me was them reviewing a paper on the iPad, writing all over it with a stylus, then just emailing back the marked up document. Amazing - this could save me hours every week.

But here's the problem. The iPad may well be a marvel of design and technology but - like most high tech stuff these days - it's profoundly unsustainable and it's manufacture is ethically questionable. Now to be fair to Apple, this is not a problem that's unique to them - and I'm prepared to believe that Apple does genuinely care about the conditions under which it's products are manufactured and is doing all it can to pressure it's subcontractors to provide the best working conditions for their employees. But the problem is systemic - the only reason that we can buy an iPad, or laptop, or flat screen TV, or any number of consumer electronics products for a few hundred pounds is that they're manufactured in developing countries where labour is cheap and working conditions are a million miles from what we would regard as acceptable. And I'm not even going to start here about the sustainability of those products - in terms of the true energy costs, and costs to the environment, of their manufacture during incredibly complex supply chains, or the environmental costs of their disposal after we've finished with them.

This may sound odd given that I'm a professional electronics engineer and elder-nerd. But I'm a late adopter of new technology. Always have been. (My excuse is that I was an early adopter of the transistor.) I also keep stuff for a very long time. My Hi-Fi system is 25 years old and is working just fine. My car is now 6 years old and I fully expect to run it for another 10 years - a modern well-built and maintained car can easily last for 250,000 miles. The most recent high tech thing I bought was a new electric piano. It replaced my old one, bought in 1983, which had become unplayable because the mechanics of the keys had worn out and I fully expect to keep my beautiful new Roland piano for 25 years. My MacBook pro (yes I do like Apple stuff) is now 5 years old and works just fine - not bad for something that's probably had 10,000 hours use. In short I aim to practice what's sometimes called Bangernomics - except I try and apply the philosophy to everything, not just cars. (I'm not exactly a model consumer.)

Maybe that's part of the answer to my dilemma - get an iPad and run it for 20 years..? But even applying Bangernomics still won't salve my conscience when it comes to the ethics or sustainability of its manufacture. So, what am I to do?

Making sense of robots: the hermeneutic challenge

2011-03-01T23:48:00.003Z

One of the challenges of the artificial culture project that we knew we would face from the start is that of making sense of the free running experiments in the lab. One of the project investigators - philosopher Robin Durie - called this the hermeneutic challenge. In the project proposal Robin wrote:

what means will we be able to develop by which we can identify/recognise meaningful/cultural behaviour [in the robots]; and, then, what means might we go on to develop for interpreting or understanding this behaviour and/or its significance?

Now, more than 3 years on, we come face to face with that question. Let me clarify: we are not - or at least not yet - claiming to have identified or recognised emerging robot culture. We do, however, more modestly claim to have demonstrated new behavioural patterns (memes) that emerge and - for awhile at least - are dominant. It's an open-ended evolutionary process in which the dominant 'species' of memes come and go. Maybe these clusters of closely related memes could be labelled behavioural traditions?

Leaving that speculation aside, a more pressing problem in recent months has been to try and understand how and why certain behavioural patterns emerge at all. Let me explain. We typically seed each robot with a behavioural pattern; it is literally a sequence of movements. Think of it as a dance. But we choose these initial dances arbitrarily - movements that describe a square or triangle for instance - without any regard whatsoever for whether these movement sequences are easy or hard for the robots to imitate.

Not surprisingly then, the initial dances quickly mutate to different patterns, sometimes more complex and sometimes less. But what is it about the robot's physical shape, its sensorium, and the process of estimation inherent in imitation that gives rise to these mutations? Let me explain why this is important. Our robots and you, dear reader, have one thing in common: you both have bodies. And bodies bring limitations: firstly because you body doesn't allow you to make any movement imaginable - only ones that your shape, structure and muscles allow, and secondly because if you try to watch and imitate someone else's movements you have to guess some of what they're doing (because you don't have a perfect 360 degree view of them). That's why your imitated copy of someone else's behaviour is always a bit different. Exactly the same limitations give rise to variation in imitated behaviours in the robots.

Now it may seem a relatively trivial matter to watch the robots imitate each other and then figure out how the mutations in successive copies (and copies of copies) are determined by the robots' shape, sensors and programming. But it's not, and we find ourselves having to devise new ways of visualising the experimental data in order to make sense of what's going on. The picture below is one such visualisation; it's actually a family tree of memes, with parent memes at the top and child memes (i.e. copies) shown branching below parents.

Unlike a human family tree each child meme has only one parent. In this 'memeogram' there are two memes at the start, numbered 1 and 2. 1 is a triangle movement pattern, and 2 is a square movement pattern. In this experiment there are 4 robots, and it's easy to see here that the triangle meme dominates - it and its descendants are seen much more often.

The diagram also shows which child-memes are high quality copies of their parents - these are shown in brown with bold arrows connecting them to their parent-memes. This allows us to easily see clusters of similar memes, for instance in the bottom-left there are 7 closely related and very similar memes (numbered 36, 37, 46, 49, 50, 51 and 55). Does this cluster represent a dominant 'species' of memes?

Also posted on the Artificial Culture project blog.

A sick robot dog called Max

2011-02-27T14:21:00.000Z

A friend has asked me to check out her Aibo robot dog, called Max. Here he is:

Cute eh?

He's an early ERS-210 model. Charges up ok, but there's no response on switching-on. Hmm. I suspect the programme memory stick might have become corrupted. This will need a deeper examination...

FIRA 2012 Robot World Cup to be hosted by the Bristol Robotics Lab

2011-02-21T09:32:00.007Z

We're all very excited because FIRA (the Federation of International Robot soccer Association), which runs an annual competition for robot soccer (and other robot sports), has awarded the 2012 event to the Bristol Robotics Lab. The 2010 event was held in Bangalore, India: check here for the web pages with 2010 results and some terrific videos. This year FIRA 2011 will be in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

FIRA 2012 will run from 20 - 25 August 2012, just a week or so after London 2012. Alongside FIRA 2012 will be two robotics conferences: the FIRA Congress and TAROS 2012 (Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems). Here is the (under development) FIRA-TAROS 2012 web site. Here is the joint University of Bristol, UWE press release announcing the event.

The FIRA robot world cup games currently fall into 7 categories and each category is defined by the type of robot and, typically, has its own set of rules. The first six categories are all real physical robots, the 7th - SimuroSot - is all in simulation. Here's a brief summary of the 6 real robot categories with links to the full descriptions and rules on the FIRA web pages.

HuroSot is the main category for bipedal (walking and running) humanoid robots. It is also the most comprehensive category - in addition to soccer the category includes competitions for basketball, wall climbing, weight lifting and marathon running. HuroSot robots can be up to 130cm in height, and weigh up to 30kg. We will be entering a Bristol team for HuroSot. Here are some nice videos of HuroSot competitions in 2009.
Amiresot is a simple one-a-side soccer game for the small Amire wheeled robot, which must be fully autonomous with its own vision system. AmireSot robots play with a yellow tennis ball.
MiroSot is the Micro Robot soccer game for wheeled robots. It's a three-a-side game (one player can be a goalkeeper), in which an external vision system tracks the position of robots - and the ball - and an external computer system computes and relays moves to the robots. Robots cannot be larger than 7.5cm x 7.5cm x 7.5cm and they play with an orange golf ball. Here is a page with a video of a 2009 MiroSot game.
NaroSot is similar to MiroSot but with smaller wheeled robots (4cm x 4cm x 5.5cm) and is a five-a-side game. NaroSot robots play with an orange ping-pong ball.
AndroSot is a three-a-side game for fully autonomous 'android' robots between 30 and 60cm in height. Here is a video of a 2009 AndroSot game.
RoboSot is a game for larger wheeled robots (20cm x 20cm x any height). It's a three-a-side game and the robots must use on-board vision, although computation may be off-board. RoboSot robots play with a yellow/green tennis ball.

Here are some of the robots entered in past competitions (from the FIRA web pages):

HuroSot

MiroSot

NaroSot

RoboSot

On Twitter and Machiavellian Intelligence

2011-02-16T11:25:00.000Z

Four short months and 135 tweets ago I wrote about joining Twitter. Slightly reluctant, confused by how it worked and - if I'm completely honest - a bit sniffy about whether I could be bothered with it at all.

But just a week ago I stunned myself by realising that Twitter is now the first thing I check in the morning. Not email. After the best part of 15 years of first ritually checking my email Twitter has knocked email off the top spot(1). So what happened? What is it about Twitter that is so compelling, so addictive? Why do I love Twitter?

Actually that was just the first surprise. The second was to realise I was so pleased when my number of followers reached 50, then 60 - and last week 70.

But the thing that shocked me rigid a week ago was this. I found myself wondering how I might contrive person X (who I admired) to notice me and become my follower. What the hell was I thinking! Who's in control here - me or Twitter; do I have obsessive compulsive twitter syndrome? Do I need help - maybe go cold turkey for awhile?

But then I started thinking about it and realised that there is a very ancient instinct at work here, and Twitter is just tickling that instinct in me. Perfectly. I'm talking about Machiavellian intelligence. The kind of social intelligence that is present to some degree in all primates and well developed in Chimpanzee and monkeys such as Rhesus Macaques. So what is this kind of social intelligence? Well, if you find yourself thinking: I'm going to make friends with him and pretend I like him, but not because I want to be his friend. Oh no: he has a friend that I really want to be friends with and - through this deception - I might achieve that goal. Then you are engaged in the social politics of Machiavellian intelligence. For anyone interested in intelligence, the evolution of human intelligence, or indeed AI, Machiavellian intelligence is very interesting because it requires Theory of Mind. It was probably already well developed in the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzee, around 6 million years ago.

I don't know whether it was intentional, but the very smart people who created Twitter have somehow built an ecosystem perfectly suited for this kind of game. The basic ingredients are these: firstly everyone has followers and people they follow (following). The fact that you can easily see the number of followers and following for those you follow, or who follow you, means that very quickly you establish exactly where you are in the Twitter social pecking order. These numbers mean alot to us. The alpha-tweeters are those with huge numbers of followers. They are, in the terminology of memetics, meme-founts - leaders of fashion. But even for those of us with modest circles of followers and following, the balance of numbers is significant. Our Machiavellian instinct tells us that those with a greater number of followers than following are, on balance, leaders whereas those whose following outnumbers their followers are, on balance, followers and therefore of lower Twitter status. Please understand I'm absolutely not saying they are less worthy individuals, only that this is what our Machiavellian instinct tells us in the game of Twitter.

The second ingredient that is, I think, significant is the fact that you can easily see which followers or following you have in common with someone. So it is not just a matter of numbers, it's personal. Among those you follow, and those who follow you, you really can work out very quickly who is connected to who - and the connections have social structure. If I and someone else follow each other, then we are - in a sense - equal. If, on the other hand, I see that I'm following someone else, but they don't follow me, then my Machiavellian instinct places them higher up the Twitter social scale than me. Again this may not correlate at all to real-life standing. The point I'm making is that we can't help making these Machiavellian inferences - and Twitter makes it so easy.

This brings me to the third and most brilliant ingredient: Re-tweeting. The politics of re-tweeting are fascinating and complex. Having one of your tweets re-tweeted is the equivalent of being stroked, and we love being stroked. I certainly experience a quantum of happiness(2) when one of my tweets is re-tweeted, and I'm even happier if it's re-tweeted several times. Conversely, I'm disappointed if a tweet that I thought was especially witty, insightful or apposite to current events fails to be re-tweeted. Indeed it appears to be good manners to thank those who have RT'd a tweet - which says alot of how much we value RTs. And of course to be re-tweeted by a Twitter celebrity is a precious honour, the equivalent of a favour by one of the princesses of the Twitter court.

So Twitter is powerful stuff. It's not just a micro-blogging site, it is a quite remarkable place in which we can play out to the full our ancient instinct for Machiavellian social politics.

And of course Twitter has proven itself to be a marvellous vehicle for grass-roots political activism. Is that something to do with Machiavellian intelligence too?

So now I don't feel quite so bad about my new-found Twitter addiction.

(1) Apart from a short spell of Guardian Soulmates 3 years ago:))
(2) I propose a new unit for a quantum of happiness: the RT (re-tweet).

How Intelligent are Intelligent Robots?

2011-02-02T22:35:00.004Z

When giving talks about intelligent robots I've often been faced with the question "how intelligent is your robot?" with a tone of voice that suggests "...and should we be alarmed" It's a good question but one that is extremely difficult - if not impossible - to answer properly. I usually end up giving the rather feeble answer "not very", and I might well add "perhaps about as intelligent as a lobster" (or some other species that my audience will regard as reassuringly not very smart). I'm always left with an uneasy sense that I (and robotics in general) ought to be able to give an answer to this perfectly reasonable question. (Sooner or later I'm going to get caught out when someone follows up with "and exactly how intelligent is a lobster?")

Given that the study of Artificial Intelligence is over 60 years old, and that of embodied AI (i.e. intelligent robotics) not much younger, the fact that roboticists can't properly answer the question "how intelligent are intelligent robots" is, to say the least, embarrassing. It is I believe a problem that needs some serious attention.

Let's look at the question again. There is an implied abbreviation here: what my interlocutor means is: how intelligent are intelligent robots when compared with animals and humans? What's more we all assume a kind of 'scale' of intelligence - with humans (decidedly) at the top and, furthermore, a sense that a crocodile is smarter than a lobster, and a cat smarter than a crocodile. Where, then, would we place a robot vacuum cleaner, for instance, on this scale of animal intelligence?

Ok. To answer the question we clearly need to find a single measure, or test, for intelligence that is general enough it can be applied to robots, animals or humans. It needs to have a single scale broad enough to accommodate human intelligence and simple animals. This metric - let's call it GIQ for General (non-species-specific) Intelligence Quotient - would need to be extensible downwards - to accommodate single celled organisms (or plants for that matter) and of course robots because they're not very smart. Thinking ahead it should also be extensible upwards for super-human AI (which we keep being told is only a few decades away). Does such a measure exist already? No, I don't think it does, but I did come across this news posting on physorg.com a few days ago with the promising opening line How do you use a scientific method to measure the intelligence of a human being, an animal, a machine or an extra-terrestrial? It refers to a paper titled Measuring Universal Intelligence: Towards an Anytime Intelligence Test. I haven't been able to read the paper (it is behind a paywall) but - even from the abstract - it's pretty clear the problem isn't solved. In any event I'm doubtful because the news writeup talks of "interactive exercises in settings with a difficulty level estimated by calculating the so-called Kolmogorov complexity", which suggests a test that the agent being tested has to engage in. Well that's not going to work if you're testing the intelligence of a spider is it?

So let's set aside the problem of comparing the intelligence of robots with animals (or ET) for a moment. Are there existing non-species specific intelligence measures? This interesting essay by Jonathan Ball: The question of animal intelligence outlines several existing measures based on neural physiology. In summary they include:

Encephalization Quotient (EQ): which measures whether the brain of a given species is bigger or smaller than would be expected, compared with that of other animals its size (winner: Humans)
Cortical Folding: a measure based on the degree of cortical folding (winner: Dolphins)
Connectivity: a measure based on comparing the average number of connections per neuron (winner: Humans)

Interestingly, if we take the connectivity measure - which Jonathan Ball suggests offers the greatest degree of correlation with intelligence - then if our robot is controlled by an artificial neural network we might actually have a common basis for comparison of human and robot intelligence.

So, even if none of them are entirely satisfactory it's clear that there has been a great deal of work on measures of animal intelligence. What about the field of robotics - are there intelligence metrics for comparing one robot with another (say a vacuum cleaning robot with a toy robot dog)? As far as I'm aware the answer is a resounding no. (Of course the same is not true in the field of AI where passing the Turing Test has become the iconic - if controversial - holy grail.)

But all of this presupposes, firstly, that we can agree on what we mean by 'intelligence' - which we do not. And secondly, that intelligence is a single thing that any one animal, or robot, can have more or less of* - which is also very doubtful.

*An observation made by an anonymous reviewer of one of my papers, for which I am very grateful.

New experiments in embodied evolutionary swarm robotics

2011-01-24T14:36:00.005Z

My PhD student Paul has started a new series of experiments in embodied evolution in the swarm robotics lab. Here's a picture showing his experiment with 3 Linux e-puck robots in a small circular arena together with an infra-red beacon (at about 2 o'clock).

The task the robots are engaged in collective foraging for food. Actually there's nothing much to see here because the food items are virtual (i.e. invisible) blobs in the arena that the robots have to 'find', then 'pick up' and 'transport' to the nest (again virtually). The nest region is marked by the infra-red beacon - so the robots 'deposit' the food items in the pool of IR light in the arena just in front of the beacon. The reason we don't bother making physical food items and grippers, etc, is that this would entail engineering work that's really not important here. You see, here we are not so interested in collective foraging - it's just a test problem for investigating the thing we're really interested in, which is embodied evolution.

The point of the experiment is this: at the start the robots don't know how to forage for food; during the experiment they must collectively 'evolve' the ability to forage. Paul is here researching the process of collective evolution. Before explaining what's going on 'under the hood' of these robots, let me give some background. Evolutionary robotics has been around for nearly 20 years. The idea is that instead of hand-designing the robot's control system we use an artificial process inspired by Darwinian evolution, called a genetic algorithm. It's really a way of automating the design. Evolutionary algorithms have been shown to be a very efficient way of searching the so-called design space and, in theory, will come up with (literally evolve) better solutions than we can invent by hand. Much more recent is the study of evolutionary swarm robotics (which is why there's no Wikipedia entry yet), which tackles the harder problem of evolving the controllers for individual robots in a swarm such that, collectively, the swarm will self-organise to solve the overall task.

Still with me? Good. Now let me explain what's going on in the robots of Paul's experiment. Each robot has inside it a simulation of itself and it's environment (food, other robots and the nest). That simulation is not run once, but many times over within a genetic algorithm inside the robot. Thus each robot is running a simulation of the process of evolution, of itself, in itself. When that process completes (about once a minute), the best performing evolved controller is transferred into the real robot's controller. Since the embodied evolutionary process runs through several (simulated) generations of robot controller, then the final winner of each evolutionary competition is, in effect, a great great... grandchild of the robot controller at the start of each cycle. While the real robots are driving around in the arena foraging (virtual) food and returning it to the nest, simulated evolution is running - in parallel - as a background process. Every minute or so the real robot's controllers are updated with the latest generation of (hopefully improved) evolved controllers so what we observe is the robots gradually getting better and better at collective foraging. If you think this sounds complicated – it is. The software architecture that Paul has built to accomplish this is ferociously complex and all the more remarkable because it fits within a robot about the size of a salt shaker. But in essence it is like this: what’s going on inside the robots is a bit like you imagining lots of different ways of riding a bike over and over, inside your head, while actually riding a bike.

Putting a simulation inside a robot is something roboticists refer to as ‘robots with internal models’ and if we are to build real-world robots that are more autonomous, more adaptable – in short smarter, this kind of complexity is something we will have to master.

If you’ve made it this far, you might well ask the question, “what if the simulation inside the robot is an inaccurate representation of the real world – won’t that mean the evolved controller will be rubbish?” You would be right. One of the problems that has dogged evolutionary robotics is known as the 'reality gap'. It is the gap between the real world and the simulated world, which means that a controller evolved (and therefore optimised) in simulation typically doesn't work very well - or sometimes not at all - when transferred to the real robot and run in the real world. Paul is addressing this hard problem by also evolving the embedded simulators at the same time as evolving the robot's controllers; a process called co-evolution. This is where having a swarm of robots is a real advantage: just as we have a population of simulated controllers evolving inside each robot, we have a population of simulators - one per robot - evolving collectively across the swarm.

Open Science: from good intentions to hesitant reality

2010-11-26T23:04:00.005Z

At the start of the Artificial Culture project we made a commitment to an Open Science approach. Actually translating those good intentions into reality has proven much more difficult than I had expected. But now we've made a start, and interestingly the open science part of this research project is turning into a project within a project.

So what's the story? Well, firstly we didn't really know what we meant by open science. We were, at the start, motivated by two factors. One, a strong sense that open science is a Good Thing. And, second, a rather more pragmatic idea that the project might be helped through having a pool of citizen scientists who would help us with interpretation of the results. We knew that we would generate a lot of data and also believed we would benefit from fresh eyes looking over that data, uncoloured - as we are - by the weight of hypotheses and high expectations. We thought we could achieve this simply by putting the whole project, live - as it happens - on the web.

Sounds simple: put the whole project on the web. And now that I put it like this, hopelessly naive. Especially given that we had not budgeted for the work this entails. So, this became a DIY activity fitted into spare moments using free Web tools, in particular Google Sites.

We started experimental work, in earnest, in March 2010 - about two and a half years into the project (building the robots and experimental infrastructure took about two years). Then, by July 2010 I started to give some thought to uploading the experimental data to the project web. But it took me until late October to actually make it happen. Why? Well it took a surprising amount of effort to figure out the best way of structuring and organising the experiments, and the data sets from those experiments, together with the structure of the web pages on which to present that data. But then even when I'd decided on these things I found myself curiously reluctant to actually upload the data sets. I'm still not sure why that was. It's not as if I was uploading anything important, like Wikileaks posts. Perhaps it's because I'm worried that someone will look at the data and declare that it's all trivial, or obvious. Now this may sound ridiculous but posting the data felt a bit like baring the soul. But maybe not so ridiculous given the emotional and intellectual investment I have in this project.

But, having crossed that hurdle, we've made a start. There are more data sets to be loaded (the easy part), and a good deal more narrative to be added (which takes a deal of effort). The narrative is of course critical because without it the data sets are just meaningless numbers. To be useful at all we need to explain (starting at the lowest level of detail):

what each of the data fields in each of the data files in each data set means;
the purpose of each experimental run: number of robots, initial conditions, algorithms, etc;
the overall context for the experiments, including the methodology and the hypotheses we are trying to test.

I said at the start of this blog post that the open science has become a project within a project and happily this aspect is now receiving the attention it deserves: yesterday project co-investigator Frances Griffiths spent the day in the lab here in Bristol, supported by Ann Grand (whose doctoral project is on the subject of Open Science and Public Engagement).

Will anyone be interested in looking inside our data, and - better still - will we realise our citizen science aspirations? Who knows. Would I be disappointed if no-one ever looks at the data? No, actually not. The openness of open science is its own virtue. And we will publish our findings confident that if anyone wants to look at the data behind the claims or conclusions in our papers they can.

Postscript: See also Frances Griffiths' blog post Open Science and the Artificial Culture Project

On optimal foraging, cod larvae and robot vacuum cleaners

2010-11-18T23:37:00.002Z

On Monday I took part in a meeting of the Complex Systems Dynamics (CoSyDy) network in Warwick. The theme of the meeting was Movement in models of mathematical biology, and I heard amazing talks about (modelling) albatross flight patterns, e-coli locomotion, locust swarming and the spread of epidemics. (My contribution was about modelling an artificial system - a robot swarm.) Although a good deal of the maths was beyond me, I was struck by a common theme of our talks that I'll try and articulate in this blog post.

The best place to start is by (badly) paraphrasing a part of Jon Pitchford's brilliant description of optimal foraging strategies for cod larvae. Cod larvae, he explained, feed on patches of plankton. They are also very small and if the sea is turbulent the larvae have no chance of swimming in any given direction (i.e. toward a food patch), so the best course of action is to stop swimming and go where the currents take you. Of course the food patches also get washed around by the current so the odds are good that the food will come to you anyway. There's no point wasting energy chasing a food patch. Only if the sea is calm is it worthwhile for the cod larvae to swim toward a food patch. Thus, swim (toward food) when the sea is calm, but don't swim when it's rough, is the optimal foraging strategy for the cod larvae.

It occurred to me that there's possibly a direct parallel with robot vacuum cleaners, like the Roomba. A robot vacuum cleaner is also foraging, not for food of course, but dirt in the carpet. For the robot vacuum cleaner the equivalent of a rough, turbulent, sea is a room with chaotically positioned furniture. The robot doesn't need a fancy strategy for covering the floor: it just drives ahead and every time it drives up to a wall or piece of furniture it stops to avoid a collision, makes a random turn and drives off again in a straight line. This is the robot's best strategy for reasonable coverage (and hence cleaning) of the floor in a chaotic environment (i.e. a normal room). Only if the room was relatively large and empty (i.e. a calm sea) would the robot (like the cod larvae) need a more sophisticated strategy for optimal cleaning - such as moving in a pattern across the whole area to try and find all the dirt.

Robot vacuum cleaners, like cod larvae, can exploit the chaos in their environment and hence get away with simple (i.e. stupid) foraging strategies. I can't help wondering - given the apparently unpredictable current economic environment - if there's really no point governments or individuals trying to invent sophisticated economic strategies. Perhaps the optimal response to economic turbulence is the KISS principle.

Why large robot swarms (and maybe also multi-cellular life) need immune systems.

2010-11-03T11:09:00.010Z

Just gave our talk at DARS 2010, basically challenging the common assumption that swarm robot systems are highly scalable by default. In other words the assumption that if the system works with 10 robots, it will work just as well with 10,000. As I said this morning "sorry guys, that assumption is seriously incorrect. Swarms with as few as 100 robots will almost certainly not work unless we invent an active immune system for the swarm". The problem is that the likelihood that some robots partially fail - in other words fail in such a way as to actually hinder the overall swarm behaviour - quickly increases with swarm size. The only way to deal with this - and hence build large swarms - will be to invent a mechanism that enables good robots to both identify and disable partially failed robots. In other words an immune system.

Actually - and this is the thing I really want to write about here - I think this work hints toward an answer to the question "why do animals need immune systems?". I think it's hugely interesting that evolution had to invent immune systems very early in the history of multi-cellular life. I think the basic reason for this might be the very same reason - outlined above - that we can't scale up from small to huge (or even moderately large) robot swarms without something that looks very much like an immune system. Just like robots, cells can experience partial failures: not enough failure to die, but enough to behave badly - badly enough perhaps to be dangerous to neighbouring cells and the whole organism. If the likelihood of one cell failing in this bad way is constant, then it's self-evident that its much more likely that some will fail in this way in an organism with 10,000 cells than 10 cells. And with 10 million cells (still a small number for animals) it becomes a certainty.

Here is the poster version of our paper.

New video of 20 evolving e-pucks

2010-10-15T14:59:00.004+01:00

In June I blogged about Nicolas Bredeche and Jean-Marc Montanier working with us in the lab to transfer their environment-driven distributed evolutionary adaptation algorithms to real robots, using our Linux extended e-pucks. Nicolas and Jean-Marc made another visit in August to extend the experiments to a larger swarm size, of 20 robots; they made a YouTube movie and here it is:

In the narrative on YouTube Nicolas writes

This video shows a fully autonomous artificial evolution within a population of ~20 completely autonomous real (e-puck) robots. Each robot is driven by its "genome" and genomes are spread whenever robots are close enough (range: 25cm). The most "efficient" genomes end up being those that successfully drive robots to meet with each other while avoiding getting stuck in a corner.

There is no human-defined pressure on robot behavior. There is no human-defined objective to perform.

The environment alone puts pressure upon which genomes will survive (ie. the better the spread, the higher the survival rate). Then again, the ability for a genome to encode an efficient behavioral strategy first results from pure chance, then from environmental pressure.

In this video, you can observe how going towards the sun naturally emerges as a good strategy to meet/mate with other (it is used as a convenient "compass") and how changing the sun location affect robots behavior.

Note: the 'sun' is the static e-puck with a white band around it.

2010-10-13T17:31:00.003+01:00

Well, I can't believe I'm on Twitter: https://twitter.com/alan_winfield

Not at all sure I understand what I'm doing yet. There' some puzzling terminology to learn - what's retweeting for instance..? (It sounds like a word from The Meaning of Liff.)

The reason I joined is because I wanted to respond to the questions on @scienceexchange. The first question is

Given the rate of discovery of exo-planets - is there still any doubt that we are not alone in the universe?

And my twittered answer:

Depends: life maybe a little more probable; intelligent life still highly improbable, see Drake's equation

I like the challenge of trying to construct a useful answer in 140 characters.

Google robot car: Great but proving the AI is safe is the real challenge

2010-10-11T09:39:00.009+01:00

Great to read that Google are putting some funding into driverless car technology with the very laudable aims of reducing robot traffic fatalities and reducing carbon emissions. Google have clearly assembled a seriously talented group led by Stanford's Sebastian Thrun. (One can only imagine the Boardroom discussions in the car manufacturers this week on Google's entry into their space.)

While this is all very good, I think it's important to keep the news in perspective. Driverless cars have been in development for a long time and what Sebastian has announced this weekend is not a game changing leap forward. To be fair his blog post's main claim is the record for distance driven but Joe Wuensche's group at University BW Munich has a remarkable record of driverless car research; fifteen years ago their Mercedes 500 drove from Munich to Denmark on regular roads, at up to 180 km/h, with surprisingly little manual driver intervention (about 5%). I've seen MuCAR-3, the latest autonomous car from Joe's group, in action in the European Land Robotics Challenge and it is deeply impressive - navigating its way through forest tracks with no white lines or roadside kerbs to help the car's AI figure out where the road's edges are.

So the technology is pretty much there. Or is it?

The problem is that what Thrun's team at Google, and Wuensche's team at UBM, have compellingly demonstrated is proof of principle: trials under controlled conditions with a safety driver present (somewhat controversially at ELROB, because the rules didn't allow a safety driver). That's a long way from your granny getting into her car which then autonomously drives her to the shops without her having to pay attention in case she needs to hit the brakes when the car decides to take a short cut across the vicar's lawn. The fundamental unsolved problem is how to prove the safety and dependability of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) driving the car. This is a serious problem not just for driverless cars, but all next-generation autonomous robots. Proving the safety of a system, i.e. proving that it will both always do the right thing and never do the wrong thing, is very hard right now for conventional systems that have no learning in them (i.e. no AI). But with AI the problem gets a whole lot worse: the AI in the Google car, to quote "becomes familiar with the environment and its characteristics", i.e. it learns. And we don't yet know how to prove the correctness of systems that learn.

In my view that is the real challenge.

Can robots be Three Laws safe?

2010-09-30T23:33:00.011+01:00

I'm with about 25 people in a hotel in the New Forest to talk about the ethical, legal and societal issues around robotics. We are a diverse crew: a core of robotics and AI folk, richly complemented by academics in psychology, law, ethics, philosophy, culture, performance and art history. This joint EPSRC/AHRC workshop was an outcome of a discussion on robot ethics at the EPSRC Societal Issues Panel in November 2009. (See also my post The Ethical Roboticist.)

Of course in any discussion about robot ethics it is inevitable that Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics will come up and, I must admit, I've always insisted that they have no value whatsoever. They were, after all, a fictional device for creating stories with dramatic moral ambiguities - not a serious attempt to draw up a moral code of robots. Today I've been forced to revise that opinion. Amazingly we have succeeded in drafting a new set of five 'laws', not for robots themselves but for designers and operators of robots. (You can't have laws for robots because they are not persons - or at least not for the foreseeable future.)

I can't post them here just yet - a joint statement needs to be drafted and agreed first. But to answer the question in the title of this post - no, robots can't be Three Laws Safe, but they quite possibly could be Five Laws Compliant.

Postscript: here is a much better description of the workshop on Lilian Edwards' excellent blog.

Robot imitation as a method for modelling the foundations of social life

2010-09-28T19:30:00.007+01:00

Robot imitation as a method for modelling the foundations of social life: a meeting of robotics and sociology to explore the spread of behaviours through mimesis

Here is the video, posted earlier this month by Frances Griffiths on YouTube, of the meeting of robotics and sociology I blogged about on 21st June. No need for me to write anything more - Roger Stotesbury's excellent 10 minute film explains the whole thing...

Morphogenetic Engineering at ANTS

2010-09-10T10:33:00.007+01:00

I'm at the excellent Swarm Intelligence conference in Brussels, called appropriately ANTS. This morning there is a special session on morphogenetic engineering, chaired by René Doursat, of the complex systems institute in Paris. Morphogenetic engineering is the name coined for a new cross over between biology and engineering. Current engineered systems are designed and 'built'. Biological systems on the other hand grow from seeds or embryos. Morphogenetic engineering asks the question, might it be possible to 'grow' complex engineered systems, like robots?

Of course with current materials: metal and plastic, we can't grow robots so many of the ideas of morphogenetic engineering remain, for the time being, future concepts. But I think we'll see some exciting developments in this new sub-field as new materials become available.

Here is an image from our talk* on autonomous distributed morphogenesis in the Symbrion project, presented during the special session. Here you see robots being recruited to join the 2D planar organism during its formation.

* Wenguo Liu and Alan FT Winfield, 'Autonomous morphogenesis in self-assembling robots using IR-based sensing and local communications', ANTS 2010.

Darn - conference paper soundly rejected

2010-09-08T11:10:00.005+01:00

As someone who believes in - and from time-to-time advocates - the Open Science approach, I need to practise what I preach. That means being open about the things that don't go according to plan in a research project - including when papers that you think are really great get rejected following peer review. So, let me 'fess up. A paper I submitted to the highly regarded conference Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems, describing results from the Artificial Culture project, has just been soundly rejected by the reviewers.

Of course, having papers rejected is not unusual. And, like most academics, I tend to react with indignation ("how dare they"), dismissal ("the reviewers clearly didn't understand the work") and embarrassment (hangs head in shame). After a day or two the first two feelings subside, but the embarrassment remains. None of us likes it when our essays come back marked C-. That is why this blog post is not especially comfortable to write.

My paper had four anonymous reviews, and each one was thorough and thoughtful. And - although not all reviewers recommended rejection - the overall verdict to reject was, in truth, fully justified. The paper, titled A Multi-robot Laboratory for Experiments in Embodied Memetic Evolution failed to either fully describe the laboratory, or the experiments. Like most conference papers there was a page limit (12 pages) and I tried to fit too much into the paper.

So, what next for this paper? Well the work will not be wasted. We shall revise the paper - taking account of the reviewers comments - and submit it elsewhere. So, despite my embarrassment, I am grateful to those reviews (I don't know who you are but if you should read this blog - thank you!).

And for Open Science. Well, a fully paid-up card carrying Open Scientist would publish here the original paper and the reviews. But it seems to me improper to publish the reviews without first getting the reviewers' permission - and I can't do that because I don't know who they are. And I shouldn't post the paper either, since to do so would compromise our ability to submit the same work (following revision) somewhere else. So Open Science, even with the best of intentions, has its hands tied by publications protocols.

On The Human on Temes: an emerging third replicator

2010-08-24T15:36:00.001+01:00

Several weeks ago I was contacted by On The Human, a forum for researchers across science and the humanities to share ideas, and asked if I would like to take part in an online debate in response to an essay by Susan Blackmore. The forum runs one of these debates every two weeks and there are some pretty interesting writers and debates (which - it seems - are moderated and time limited).

So, I looked out for Sue's essay, which appeared yesterday 23rd August. I thought about it (actually had a head start because we had debated temes during a memelab meeting) and posted my response this morning. Here is Sue's essay Temes: An Emerging Third Replicator, the collected comments, and Sue's responses to those comments.

Open-hardware Linux e-puck extension board published

2010-08-20T09:20:00.012+01:00

It's now over two years since I first blogged about our Linux-enhanced e-puck, designed by my colleague Dr Wenguo Liu. Since then, the design has gone through several improvements and is now very stable and reliable. We've installed the board on all 50 of our e-puck robots and it has also been adopted for use in swarm robotics projects by Jenny Owen at York, Andy Guest at Abertay Dundee and Newport.

Since the e-puck robot is open-hardware, Wenguo and I were keen that our extension board should follow the same principle, and so the complete design has been published online at sourceforge here http://lpuck.sourceforge.net/. All of the hardware designs, together with code images and an excellent installation manual written by Jean-Charles Antonioli are here.

Here's a picture of the extension board. The big chip is an ARM9 microcontroller and the small board hanging off some wires is the WiFi card (in fact it's a WiFi USB stick with the plastic casing removed).

And here is a picture of one of our e-pucks with the Linux extension board fitted, just above the red skirt. The WiFi card is now invisible because it is fitted neatly into a special slot on the underside of the yellow 'hat'.

The main function of the yellow hat is the matrix of pins on the top, that we use for the reflective spheres needed by our Vicon tracking system to track the exact position of each robot during experiments. You can see one of the spheres very strongly reflecting the camera flash in this photo. The function of the red skirt is so that robots can see each other, with their onboard cameras. You can see the camera in the small hole in the middle of the red skirt. Without the red skirt the robots simply don't see each other too well, at least partly because of their transparent bodies.

postscript (added Feb 2011): Here's the reference to our paper describing the extension board:
Liu W, Winfield AFT, 'Open-hardware e-puck Linux extension board for experimental swarm robotics research', Microprocessors and Microsystems, 35 (1), 2011, doi:10.1016/j.micpro.2010.08.002.

Open-ended Memetic Evolution, or is it?

2010-07-17T14:42:00.007+01:00

Just finished a paper describing some new results on open-ended memetic evolution from the Artificial Culture project. I describe in some detail one particular experiment in which 2 robots imitate each others' movements. However, here the robots don't simply imitate the last thing they saw; instead they learn and save every observed movement sequence, then when it's a robot's turn to dance it selects one of its 'learned' dances, from memory, at random.

Here is a plot of the movements of the 2 robots for one particular experiment; this picture has been generated by a tool developed by Wenguo Liu that allows us to 'play back' the tracking data recorded by the Vicon position tracking system. The visualisation tool changes the colour of each 'dance', which makes it much easier to then analyse what's going on during the experiment.

Epuck 9 (on the left) starts by making a 3 sided 'triangle' dance, numbered 1 above. Epuck 12 (on the right) then imitates this - badly - as meme number 2, which is a kind of figure-of-8 pattern. It is interesting to see that this 4-sided figure-of-8 movement pattern then appears to become dominant, perhaps because of the initially poor fidelity imitation (1 → 2), then the high fidelity imitation of 2 by epuck9 (2 → 3), then the re-enaction of meme 2 as meme 4. And then subsequent copies of the same figure-of-8 meme then appear to be reasonably good copies, which reinforces the dominance of that meme.

Since the robots are selecting which observed and learned meme to enact, at random, then there is no 'direction' to the meme evolution here. Memes can get longer or shorter - both in the number of sides to the movement pattern, and the length of those sides, and the resulting patterns arise in an unpredictable way from the imperfect 'embodied' imitation of the robots. Thus, we appear to have demonstrated here, open-ended memetic evolution.

Here is a screen captured low-resolution (sorry) movie of the sequence:

Warwick Mimesis project visit to the lab

2010-06-21T19:01:00.004+01:00

As a follow-up to a talk I gave last December in Warwick, we were visited in the lab today by a group of social and complexity scientists from Warwick including Frances Griffiths, Steve Fuller and Nick Lee. We had a hugely interesting day discussing the extent to which (or, indeed, if at all) robots could be used to model mimesis in society.

The day started with me describing the embodied imitation-of-movement experiments that we are currently doing here within the Artificial Culture project, and demonstrating the latest version of the Copybots experiment. After lunch we then had a round table discussion about whether or not such a simple model might have value in social science research and - somewhat to my surprise - there seemed to be strong consensus that there is value and that this (radical) new approach to embodied modelling is something we should actively pursue in future joint projects.

The meeting was filmed by Roger Stotesbury of Jump Off The Screen and I hope to post a link to the video record of the meeting on this blog.

Postscript: here is my blog post with Roger's film of the meeting.

Walking with Robots wins Academy Award

2010-06-08T23:09:00.008+01:00

No, not that academy, but an academy award all the same. Last night WWR won the Royal Academy of Engineering 2010 Rooke medal for the Public Promotion of Engineering. What can I say. It was wonderful for Walking with Robots to be recognised and acknowledged in this way. It was a great project. If there had been an acceptance speech we would have had a large number of thankyous: the EPSRC who funded WWR; the amazing WWR network of roboticists and engagers from about 12 universities and as many companies; Claire who - as brilliant WWR network coordinator - more than anyone made things happen, and of course the RAEng for this award. Thank you! And we had a wonderful evening.

Evolving e-pucks

2010-06-04T20:08:00.004+01:00

Nicolas Bredeche and his graduate student Jean-Marc Montanier have spent the last two weeks working in the lab to test out work they had already done in simulation, onto real robots. Nicolas is interested in evolutionary swarm robotics. This is an approach, inspired directly by Darwinian evolution, in which we do not design the robots' controllers (brains) but instead evolve them. In this case the brains are artificial neural networks and the process of artificial evolution evolves the strengths of the connections between the neurons. Nicolas is especially interested in open-ended evolution, in which he - as designer - does not pre-determine the evolved robot behaviours (by specifying an explicit fitness function, i.e. what kinds of behaviours the robots should evolve). Thus, even though this is an artificial system, its evolution is - in a sense - a bit closer to natural than artificial selection.

Real-world robotics reality check

2010-05-21T23:10:00.003+01:00

This week's European Land Robotics trials (ELROB) in the beautiful countryside of Hammelburg provided the assembled roboticists with a salutary lesson in real world robotics. The harsh reality is that problems such as localisation, path planning and navigation, which most roboticists would regard as having been solved, remain very serious challenges in unstructured outdoor environments. Techniques that work perfectly in the lab, or the university car park, are very seriously challenged by a forest track in the rain or at night.

Having said that there were some deeply impressive demonstrations of fully autonomous operation by university teams - such as the University of Hannover's vehicle Hanna which deservedly took away one of the ELROB 2010 innovation awards. You're a robot: imagine having to navigate your way autonomously through several km of forest track at night; the only map you have is inaccurate and out of date and just 4 (GPS) waypoints are provided at the start of your 1 hour timeslot. There are no trial or practice runs for you to survey the track beforehand, and (just in case it might be too easy) there are unknown obstacles which require you to autonomously backtrack to the last fork and take an alternative route. A good indication of how tough this was is the fact that other (commercial) tele-operated robots, perhaps surprisingly, fared no better than their autonomous rivals. Having spent a cold couple of hours looking over the shoulders of 2 team members: one tele-operating his robot, the other (nervously) tracking his autonomous robot's progress on a laptop, it was clear to me that in an this environment tele-operation is - if anything - harder than autonomy. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that neither tele-operation or autonomy is yet fully up to this kind of task.

I left ELROB wishing that my robotics research colleagues who never venture outside their labs could have witnessed this and, as I did, experience the harsh reality-check of real world robotics.

EPSRC HOW? event

2010-04-29T18:16:00.003+01:00

Spent a most interesting day today at EPSRC HQ in Swindon. I was one of several academics asked to come and exhibit their work to the staff of the EPSRC. The idea of the event was to enable all of the staff of the council to get an insight into the research that EPSRC funds when, in the normal course of events (I guess), only a relatively few would get to see that research - programme managers for instance.

I took along some e-pucks and a portable arena, which proved very popular, together with this poster for the Artificial Culture project.

Expecting the expected on Mars

2010-03-19T23:00:00.010Z

Learned something new and surprising about Mars rovers (like Spirit and Opportunity, and the planned European rover ExoMars): that if little green Martians jumped up and down in front of the Rover's cameras we almost certainly wouldn't know it. There are two reasons: firstly, the communications links between the Mars rovers and Earth are intermittent and low-bandwidth, so you can't have a live video stream (webcam) from the Rover to Earth and, secondly, the Rover's onboard cameras have image processing software that is programmed to look for specific things, like interesting rocks. This means that the Rover simply wouldn't 'see' the Martians, they are - in a sense - programmed to expect the expected. Although we are used to seeing the amazing panoramic views from the surface of Mars, these still images are only grabbed infrequently so our Martian would have to be standing in front of the Rover at precisely the moment the image is captured for us to see him (it).

I just spent 2 days with a remarkably interesting group of space scientists (planetary geology, exobiology, etc), space industry and roboticists discussing the science and engineering of Mars sample return missions: i.e. to find, collect and then bring interesting Mars rocks back to Earth. Given the immense cost and technical risk of mounting such a mission it seems to me worth the extra small effort of giving the rover(s) systems that would allow them (and us) to notice unexpected or unusual stuff. An image processing module that, for instance, continuously looks for things in the camera's view that are the wrong colour, or shape, moving in a different way to everything else. The whole point of exploration is that you don't know what's there and, while I'm not suggesting there really are Martians (other than perhaps microbes), it does seem to me that we should engineer systems that allow for the possibility of discovering the unexpected.

Robotic Visions in Parliament

2010-03-10T00:14:00.002Z

I've blogged before about the excellent Robotic Visions project and - yes I admit it - I have a soft spot for Visions: its where public engagement gets political. Yesterday that happened quite literally as Robotic Visions went to Parliament. Representatives from 3 of the schools who were involved in Visions conferences in Newcastle, Oxford and Bristol came, with their teachers, to the Houses of Parliament to present their visions to roboticists, industrialists and of course parliamentarians.

Here's what I said.

"Imagine personal robot instead of personal computer. Imagine in old age you could have a robot nurse. Your grandchildren a robot teddy, that talks to them, reads them a story, and keeps an eye on them at the same time. Right now these things are possibilities but would we - should we - want them?

Intelligent Robotics is a technology likely to impact every aspect of future life and society. Intelligent robots will - for example - change the way we treat illness and look after the elderly, how we run our homes and workplaces, how we manage our waste, harvest our crops or mine for resources and - I’m sorry to say - how we fight our wars. But as we build smarter robots the boundaries between robots as mere machines, and robots as friends or companions, will become blurred - raising new and challenging ethical questions. This may seem to be a statement of the obvious, but robotics technology will have a much greater impact on our children’s generation than on my generation.

So what is it that makes intelligent robots different to other technologies in a way that means we need to have special concerns about their future impact? It is - I suggest - two factors in combination. Firstly, agency - the ability to make decisions without human intervention. And secondly, the ability to draw an emotional response from humans. Right now we have plenty of machines with agency, within limits, like airline autopilots or room thermostats. We also have machines that generate emotional responses: Ferraris or iPods, for example. Intelligent robots are different because they bring these two elements together in a potent new combination that - frankly - we don’t yet fully understand.

It is, therefore, very important that our children should have the opportunity to understand what robots can and can’t do right now, and where intelligent robotics research is taking us. It is important that our children understand and debate the implications of robotics technology, and make their own minds up about how robots should, or should not, be used in society. And it is important that those views should be heard - and taken seriously – by robotics researchers, funders and policy makers.

I have been immensely impressed by the enthusiasm with which teenagers have engaged in the Robotic Visions Conferences. The views that they have expressed are articulate, serious and insightful, and - on behalf of the Robotics Visions project team - I invite you to consider those views and quotes in the summary paper and on the posters in this room, and to meet with their representatives here today."

The Ethical Roboticist

2010-01-04T23:18:00.005Z

I strongly believe that researchers in intelligent robotics, autonomous systems and AI can no longer undertake their research in a moral vacuum, regard their work as somehow ethically neutral, or as someone else's ethical problem.

Researchers, we, need to be much more concerned about both how our work affects society and how interactions with this technology affect individuals.

Right now researchers in intelligent robots, or AI, do not need to seek ethical approval for their projects (unless of course they involve clinical or human subject trials), so most robotics/AI projects in engineering and computer science fall outside any kind of ethical scrutiny. While I'm not advocating that this should change now, I do believe – especially if some of the more adventurous current projects come anywhere close to achieving their goals – that ethical approval for intelligent robotics/AI research might be a wise course of action within five years.
Let me now try and explain why, by defining four ethical problems.

1. The ethical problem of artificial emotions, or robots that are designed to solicit an emotional response from humans

Right now, in our lab in Bristol, is a robot that can look you in the eye and, when you smile, the robot smiles back. Of course there's nothing 'behind' this smile, it's just a set of motors pulling and pushing the artificial skin of the robot's face. But does the inauthenticity of the robot's artificial emotions abnegate the designer of any responsibility for a human's response to that robot? I believe it does not, especially if those humans are children or unsophisticated users.

Young people at a recent Robotic Visions conference concluded that “robots shouldn't have emotions but they should recognise them”.

A question I'm frequently asked when giving talks is “could robots have feelings?”. My answer is “no, but we can make robots that behave as if they have feelings”. I'm now increasingly of the view that it won't matter whether a future robot really has feelings or not.

On the horizon is robots with artificial theory of mind, a development that will only serve to deepen this ethical problem.

2. The problem of engineering ethical machines

Clearly for all sorts of applications intelligent robots will need to be programmed with rules of safe/acceptable behaviour (c.f. Asimov 'laws' of robotics). This is not so far fetched: Ron Arkin, roboticist at Georgia Tech has proposed the development of an artificial conscience for military robots.

Such systems are no longer just an engineering problem. In short it is no longer good enough to build an intelligent robot, we need to be able to build an ethical robot. And, I would strongly argue, if it is a robot with artificial emotions, or designed to provoke human emotional responses, that robot must also have artificial ethics.

3. The societal problem of correct ethical behaviour toward robot companions or robot pets

Right now many people think of robots as slaves: that's what the word means. But in many near term applications it will – I argue - be more appropriate to think of robots as companions. Especially if those robots - say in healthcare – even in a limited sense 'get to know' their human charges over a period of time.

Our society rightly abhors cruelty to animals. Is it possible to be cruel to a robot? Right now not really, but as soon as we have robot companions or pets, on which humans come to depend – and that's in the very near future – then those human dependents will certainly expect their robots to be treated with respect and dignity [perhaps even to be accorded (animal) rights]. Would they be wrong to expect this?

4. The ethical problem of engineering sentient machines

A contemporary German philosopher, Thomas Metzinger, has asserted that all research in intelligent systems should be stopped. His argument is that in trying to engineer artificial consciousness we will, unwittingly, create machines that are in effect disabled (simply because we can't go from insect to human level intelligence in one go). In effect – he argues - we could create AI that can experience suffering. Now his position is extreme, but it does I think illustrate the difficulty. In moving from simple automata that in no sense could be thought of as sentient to intelligent machines that simulate sentience we need to be mindful of the ethical minefield of engineering sentience.

In summary:

What is it that makes intelligent autonomous systems different to other technologies in a way that means we need to have special concerns about ethical and societal impacts? It is, I suggest two factors in combination. Firstly, agency. Secondly, the ability to elicit an emotional response or in extremis dependency from humans. Right now we have plenty of systems with agency, within proscribed limits, like airline autopilots or room thermostats. We also have machines that generate emotional responses: Ferraris or iPods. Intelligent robots are different because they bring these two elements together in a potent new combination.

This post is the text of the statement I prepared for the EPSRC Societal Impact Panel in November 2009.

Mimetic Factors in Health and Well-being

2009-12-16T15:52:00.006Z

On Monday I gave a talk at an amazingly interesting workshop in Warwick. Part of a project called Mimetic Factors in Health and Well-being, the workshop brought together a very diverse range of disciplines: sociology, medicine, systems science and robotics (and I may have missed a few).

Project lead, Steve Fuller, gave a great talk which reflected on both memetics (pre-Dawkins), and mimesis in advertising and PR. I found myself being introduced first to French sociologist Gabriel Tarde who, who - according to Steve Fuller - first articulated the pivotal role of imitation in society. Then to contemporary French social and cognitive scientist, and by the looks of it all round genius, Dan Sperber. I can see that I have to add Sperber to my reading list!

Can I have a robot for Christmas?

2009-12-11T15:19:00.002Z

I was delighted to be asked to give the annual Christmas lecture to the Nottingham Medico Chirurgical society last night, in the medical school of the famous Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham. Founded in 1828 Nottingham Med-Chi, as they like to call themselves, is one of the oldest such societies in the UK. It was a great audience, with a healthy mix of children and very eminent medics who together kept me on my toes when it came to questions and answers.

In my talk I focus on the current strong convergence of biology and robotics, but in reflecting and speaking with the medics afterwards I was struck that the next big convergence in robotics (perhaps the next wave after biology) will be with medicine. As our understanding of the human body and its astonishingly complex processes and mechanisms deepens, then - in a sense - medicine becomes more like ultra precision engineering. And as robotics moves toward artificial life, then engineering robots becomes far removed from mechanical and electrical engineering and more like bio-medical engineering. For a good example look at the BRL's Ecobot III, with all of its plumbing and bio-chemistry. Hence the convergence I predict.

Postscript: the Notts Med-Chi society is very firmly in the 21st C: I discovered my Christmas lecture can be downloaded as a podcast on iTunes.

Robot ethics at the EPSRC societal issues panel

2009-11-25T09:22:00.005Z

Tough afternoon yesterday. Why? I'll come to that. Along with the other senior media fellows, I attended EPSRC's Societal Issues Panel, chaired by Robert Winston. Before getting the invitation I didn't know about this group, but came away very impressed with just how deeply serious EPSRC is about engaging with public attitudes and concerns about science research and the potential societal impact of its funded research programmes.

As the new boy there wasn't much I could contribute to the main session, when the panel wanted to hear from the senior media fellows about their experiences and what more, or differently, the panel could do in its work. But listening to the SMFs experiences was for me incredibly useful. It was like getting a master class from not one but a whole group of virtuosi, concentrated into two hours.

But the tough bit was to follow. Noel Sharkey and I had been asked to stay for another agenda item on the potential ethical and societal impact of intelligent robots, artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. Noel and I each gave short introductions to what we thought were the main issues and I focussed on the ethical questions raised by research in intelligent robotics - i.e. the ethical roboticist.

postscript: The Ethical Roboticist

e-pucks in Osaka

2009-11-07T22:53:00.003Z

Gave some Walking with Robots talks at an elementary school today, in Ikeda Japan (near Osaka). The e-pucks were a great success with the children, and were joined by some amazing Japanese robots, like Paro - the robot seal. Pictures to follow...

The robots are coming (to Manchester)

2009-10-21T11:19:00.012+01:00

If you're in or around Manchester Saturday 24th - Tuesday 27th October, do come and see us at the Walking with Robots festival of robotics - part of the Manchester Science Festival.

Here are links to the events:

Surrogates: not a review

2009-10-12T23:09:00.006+01:00

Surrogates. Not a great movie* but thought provoking in a possible-robot-futures kind of way. The first thing that made it interesting was that the imagined robotic technology doesn't rely on Artificial Intelligence (AI), unlike most robot sci-fi. In that sense, therefore, its fictional future is rather more plausible than most robot movies, although still very challenging. In the Surrogates future humans put on some kind of headset that enables them to see through their robot's cameras, hear through its microphones and (presumably) smell through its olfactory sensors. This is a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI); there are two kinds of BCI, non-invasive - as in this movie, or invasive (the Matrix).

For me, however, the most interesting question raised by the movie is this. If you had the opportunity to live your life through a beautiful robot proxy, so that you see, hear and touch the world not directly but through its senses, and you interact with (most) other people even more indirectly, via their surrogates, would you..? Not just occasionally, for fun, but 24-7 - work and play. Would the experience be so compelling, so addictive, that it justifies spending your days lying prone on a couch jacked into an immersive real-reality, emerging only to pee and eat pizza (delivered presumable by surrogates)? Would social pressures or fashion compel you to surrogate-up, otherwise as a real human - lumpy and unattractive (not you dear reader) - you find yourself in a world of super-model surrogates?

-------------------------------------------------------------
*Although I thoroughly enjoyed it. The plot is thin and predictable but Bruce Willis and his wife (played by Rosamund Pike) are excellent. And the makeup of the human-actors-playing-surrogates provoked in me a not-quite-out-of-the Uncanny Valley response, that really held my attention.

Now I can really focus on Research and Public Engagement

2009-10-01T17:53:00.009+01:00

1st October today and a new job within UWE. I'm seconded out of my associate dean role(s) within environment and technology so that I can start my senior media fellowship. At the same time I take on the new role of director of UWE's science communication unit. For the next three years I'll be able to focus all my energy on two things I'm really passionate about: research and public engagement. I feel very privileged to be in this position: I'm very grateful to the EPSRC, to colleagues at UWE for making the space for me to be able to do this, and looking forward to working with the amazing team in the SCU.

Artificial Culture in Warwick

2009-09-26T12:26:00.005+01:00

Yesterday we had a full artificial culture project team meeting in Warwick, following on from the EmergeNet meeting on Thursday (see my previous blog post). An excellent meeting, significant because we are now exactly half way through the project. Having spent much of the first two years of the project building the artificial culture lab, the project is now moving into the experimental phase. Having built our microscope we can now start looking through it.

The experimental phase of the project brings new challenges and we spent much of yesterday's meeting discussing and crystallising the detailed research questions that our experiments must address. Of course project team members each have questions and ideas that we want to address within our respective disciplines, but there must be overarching project-wide questions. Alistair led this discussion, wisely warning against the 'so what' problem ("Hey we've discovered x. Hmm interesting, but so what"). Taking a theory motivated approach, Alistair proposes four research questions addressing some key problems with the memetic theory of cultural evolution:

What is the effect of fidelity of imitation on meme transmission?
What is the effect of selection?
What is the effect of size/granularity (of the meme)?
What is the effect of complexity within the meme?

Encyclopaedias and Emergence in Warwick

2009-09-24T11:48:00.008+01:00

Here at the University of Warwick this week for the European Conference on Complex Systems.

Unexpectedly, Springer also used the conference to launch their excellent new Encyclopaedia of Complexity and Systems Science. As an author of one of the articles in the encyclopaedia - on Foraging Robots - it was great to see all 11 volumes and my article, in print, for the first time. Editor in chief Bob Meyers did the formal launch last night and (perhaps not suprisingly) there were four or five contributors here in Warwick. Bob called a couple of us out of the audience to say a few words, which was great. I made the points that complexity science is a wonderful unifier of multiple disciplines - everything from cell biology to economics - and that the grand challenge is to find unifying principles of emergence and self-organisation.

Today is the EmergeNET3 workshop. James Crutchfield gave a terrific invited talk about emergence, which he defines as a change in a system's causal architecture. He outlined his computational mechanics framework for analysing emerging patterns, and gave examples from cellular automata. Very interesting, but I was left wondering if Jim's framework would transfer well from the ideal grid-world of cellular automata, to the continuous time and space of swarm robotics, with rather more complex agent behaviours, real-world physics and noise. I suspect not.

Killer robots in the news again

2009-08-05T09:04:00.007+01:00

I was interviewed by John Arlidge on Saturday, researching for a piece on the American Association for Artificial Intelligence meeting, earlier reported in the New Scientist with the title Smart machines: what's the worst that could happen.

John's article in the Sunday Times was, in my view, a more-or-less reasonable account of what's actually a rather dull story: a group of senior researchers in AI getting together to discuss setting up ethical and design guidelines for future AI-based systems. Well good. That's what we should expect to happen and, indeed the AAAI group are probably a bit late off the mark. An EU initiative in Roboethics has been underway since 2004/05: here is a recent draft of the EURON Roboethics Roadmap; the South Korean government have been reported to be working on a robot ethics charter, and the venerable International Standards Organisation (ISO) have had a group working for a couple of years now on a new ISO standard for intelligent robots.

Unfortunately a sub-editor (I guess) chose to give the piece the lurid title: Scientists fear a revolt by killer robots. Sorry guys. I know it doesn't make for good headlines but we scientists do not fear a revolt by killer robots.

Yes, autonomous robots will demand some new - possibly radical - approaches to safety, reliability and ethics and, yes, a good deal of effort needs to go into this, but the fact that these efforts are going on is not because of some secret fears of killer robots taking over. Just good engineering practice.

Installing Player/Stage on OS X with MacPorts

2009-07-13T11:03:00.008+01:00

Back in 2006 I wrote about installing the excellent Player/Stage robot simulator under Linux, and the problems caused by dependencies (i.e. other packages that need to be installed first, before you can then install Player/Stage). Wouldn't it be great, I wrote, if there were a universal installer programme that would sort out all of these dependencies.

I should explain that since that post I've switched from Linux to OS X, running on a MacBook Pro, and have only just got round to installing Player/Stage. I was very pleased to discover that my plea for a universal installer has been answered by the (almost) excellent MacPorts.

I say almost excellent because installation wasn't completely glitch free.

Here's what I had to do to install to Mac OS X 10.5.7 (Leopard)

1. Download and install XCode (MacPorts depends on it)

2. Download and install MacPorts, install details here

3. In a terminal window run MacPorts with
$ sudo port install playerstage-stage playerstage-player

And wait an hour or so - it takes awhile. However, compilation of playerstage-player fails library not found for -ljpeg. To fix this as detailed here:

4. sudo port install python_select && sudo python_select python25

then re-run step 3.

5. But before you can run Player/Stage there's another fix needed, as detailed here.

sudo ln -s /usr/X11/share/X11/rgb.txt /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/rgb.txt

And that's it. Player/Stage installed.

Letter to the Times Higher

2009-07-09T07:16:00.002+01:00

Here is the full text of my letter in this week's THE:

Sir,

I am dismayed by the poor quality of journalism shown in the article Sandpits bring out worst in infantilised researchers. Of the two academics quoted the first, Professor Docherty, hasn't been to a sandpit; a second, unnamed, researcher apparently hadn't either, instead reporting what some bloke had said to him at a conference. Come on THE, you can do better than this. It can't be that hard to find one or two participants prepared to offer opinions on the record, from the 25 sandpits so far. The piece is depressing also in its use of the pejorative trope 'reality-TV' without justifying it. I recall nothing even vaguely reality-TV-like about the sandpit I attended. And micromanaged? Yes the the week was skilfully managed – but how else can you go from 30 more or less complete strangers to coherent project teams and amazing proposals in 5 days? In fact there was a significant level of self-organisation going on within the sandpit framework. And what on earth is wrong with the word sandpit? The key to creativity is working with people outside your own discipline, outside your intellectual comfort zone; the analogy with play and exploration is apt. To be brought together with 30 very, very smart people and asked to think about big research questions is exhilarating, not infantilising.

Yours faithfully

Robotic Visions at At-Bristol

2009-07-08T10:37:00.019+01:00

The first Robotic Visions conference has started here in the Science Learning Centre of At-Bristol! We have around 25 students from 4 schools. As the day progresses I'll be posting updates, and some pictures, here:

2.00pm The five groups have come up with their big issues:

Robots looking after us
Robots Venturing into Space
Robot Family and Friends (companions)
Robot Teachers and Trainers
Equal access to Robot Technology for rich and poor

What a great set of issues. Especially the last one.

5.00pm We just finished the celebration session in which the five groups presented their findings and recommendations to the invited VIPs. Four of the groups elected to have show and tell presentations with posters and written material - all of which were brilliant. The 'equal access' group, instead read out a powerful and moving statement that was both critical of technology for technology's sake, when set against real issues such as poverty, while at the same time calling for a strong ethical approach to robotics. Hopefully I can get hold of a copy of that statement and post it here.

Scratchbot in the news

2009-07-03T23:38:00.001+01:00

Check our this Youtube video of the amazing Scratchbot built my my colleagues at the Bristol Robotics Lab:

This robot not only has artificial whiskers, that 'whisk' just like real rodents' whiskers, but even more amazingly it processes the sense data from the whiskers with a high-fidelity electronic model of the barrel cortex - the small part of the rat's brain that processes sensory input from its whisker's. If you look carefully you can see the micro-vibrissae - the small extra-sensitive non-whisking whiskers at the robot's snout.

Here's the full story on the EU Cordis news service.

Chimpanzee culture on Material World

2009-06-25T18:31:00.004+01:00

There was a great piece on this afternoon's Material World - an interview with Andrew Whiten about cultural traditions in chimpanzees. Andrew Whiten makes the very interesting observation that while many animals appear to have 'traditions' (i.e. separate groups of the same bird species with different birdsong), chimpanzee have dozens of traditions. Does this mean that chimps have culture? I think so, yes.

Chimp culture appears, however, to have remained relatively static - Whiten observes that archeological investigation has shown traditions to have persisted for hundreds if not thousands of years. Longer, I would suspect, given that anatomically modern chimps have been around for over six million years. In other words, the big bang of human cultural evolution has never happened for chimps. What cognitive deficit in chimps might account for this..?

Artificial Culture web pages now up

2009-06-19T17:20:00.004+01:00

Check out our new Artificial Culture project web pages:

These have been built using Google Sites. A remarkably straightforward way to create both the structure and content for a set of web pages, without HTML coding (actually I did have to tweak the code a couple of times). Integration with other Google applications means, for instance, that creating a slide show of images needs you only to upload the images to a Picasa album, then insert the slideshow gadget and point to the Picasa URL. Add another image to the album and it automatically appears in your web site slide show.

There is one limitation: while invited collaborators can sign-in and add comments - in blog fashion - to existing posts (as well as create and edit new pages), ordinary visitors to the web site cannot. Given that blog functionality is clearly built into the sites technology, it ought to be straightforward to provide an option to allow comments to be submitted, to selected pages, by non signed-in visitors. Or a blog gadget. Google..?

Autonomous robots with guns are a bad idea

2009-06-16T21:26:00.003+01:00

Check out Noel Sharkey's excellent piece describing the depressingly relentless 'advance' of offensive robots, in today's Daily Telegraph: March of the Killer Robots.

Like Noel I am profoundly worried by the weaponisation of robots.

Robotics a key future industry

2009-05-29T20:46:00.004+01:00

Great to see an independent report listing robotics as one of the key future industry sectors for the UK in today's Guardian: uk industry set to put its best robotic foot forward. (Notice also the brilliant photograph of the amazing hand on the BRL/Elumotion robot BERTI.)

There's clearly something in the air because just a couple of days ago blogs were discussing the launch of a US National Robotics Technology roadmap. Here's an interesting quote from the briefing paper "robotech represents one of the few technologies capable in the near term of building new companies and creating new jobs and in the long run of addressing issues of critical national importance".

Artificial Culture in Prague

2009-04-23T11:22:00.008+01:00

I'm here at the brilliant European Union conference Science beyond Fiction, and yesterday gave my talk in the session on Collective Robotics: adaptivity, co-evolution, robot societies. I was pretty nervous because (a) this is my first talk on the Artificial Culture project to a international audience of senior researchers and (b) the project is still in its early development stages so we don't yet have any results. However, I'm pleased to say the talk went down well and I had some great questions - followed by conversations late into the evening.

Here is a movie of my presentation slides:

One of the questions was about robot imitation: are the robots learning to imitate, or have we pre-programmed them with imitation? My answer was that we have hand-coded imitation, in other words, our robots are endowed with an imitation instinct. You have to start somewhere, I argued, and this seems a good place to start and will initially allow us to study meme-evolution in our robot society in isolation from robot adaptation. While my questioners agreed, they also suggested that the evolution of imitation would also be really interesting, and encouraged us to - in effect - turn the evolutionary clock a little further back in our robot model of the emergence of culture.

Here are all of my blog posts on this project so far.

Robotic Visions goes nationwide

2009-03-25T21:05:00.009Z

Really great news. We learned today that our EPSRC bid to take Robotic Visions nationwide has been granted.

Let me explain what Robotic Visions is. About a year and a half ago we (that is Walking with Robots) ran an event in London called the Young Person's Visions conference, co-organised with the excellent L ondon Engineering Project and the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE). We brought about 20 young people - aged between 16-18 - to the grand setting of the RAE for 2 days and asked them to think and talk about what kind of robotics technology they would like in their future. They met with and took evidence from roboticists, in much the same way that a parliamentary select committee does, and at the end formed and agreed a set of recommendations. Those recommendations have now been published by the RAE to inform senior members of the academy and other policy-makers: click here to see that report.

See my blog post on that event here: the future doesn't just happen - we must own it. The new grant will now allow us to run the same kind of event in other venues across the UK: Bristol, Newcastle, Aberystwyth, Glasgow and Oxford.

Emergence in Glasgow

2009-03-24T23:00:00.002Z

Just returned from the excellent 2nd EmergeNet meeting, in Glasgow. EmergeNet is an EPSRC funded network of projects and people linked by an interest in emergence. As the Wikipedia article states, the phenomenon of emergence has been known about for a long time, but it still defies a proper scientific definition. In other words a definition that allows you to look at some complex phenomena and say yes, this is true emergence, but that isn't, and to measure the strength of the emergence (if indeed that is possible).

The reason a rigourous definition of emergence is important is that we can now contemplate designing complex systems that exploit emergence. A swarm robotics system is, for instance, a designed system which relies on emergence but - within the framework of complexity science - many other systems, from molecular to economic, would benefit from a deep understanding of emergence.

There were some truly excellent talks at EmergeNet2 - I'll add a link here when the presentations are online. But from one of those talks here is a link to an astonishing YouTube video from EmergeNet leader Lee Cronin and his team, showing (if I understand it correctly) controlled inorganic crystalline growth of molecular tubes - which looks remarkably organic.

Symbrion debates @Stuttgart

2009-03-13T13:43:00.008Z

In Stuttgart, at the University, for a Symbrion project meeting. Its been a really tough meeting - which is hardly surprising given that we're one year in and - next month - have the big end-of-first-year review meeting in Prague. So a major part of the meeting has been a dress rehearsal for the review.

However, spending a day and a half with a group of very smart people is always a pleasure, and there were some really interesting issues to debate. One concerns the fundamental question of how much of the Symbrion system should be designed and how much evolved (using evolutionary computing techniques). One could take a purist view and aim to evolve every aspect. My own view is more pragmatic. I think that achieving the aims of the Symbrion project is going to be so difficult that we should resort to artificial evolution only for the parts of the system that we can't design, because we don't know how.

Also, I think there's a 'biological plausibility' argument for taking the pragmatic view. The Symbrion system will be both a swarm of individual robots, behaving like a swarm, and - following self-assembly - a multi-cellular organism, behaving as a single organism. Swarm and organism have, I think, radically different control paradigms; the former fully decentralised and dependent on mechanisms of emergence and self-organisation, the latter centralised and coordinated (by a central nervous system). Of course ant genes must both contain the instructions to build multi-cellular animals (the ants with CNSs and coordinated control, e.g. for walking), and their behaviours which give rise to the colony's collective swarm intelligence. However, Symbrion goes beyond anything seen in nature. We want the Symbrion robots to sometimes behave like complicated ant-like creatures, and sometimes behave like complicated cells in a complex body (that can perform useful coordinated functions). I think if such a thing were possible to be evolved it would have been (except for the fascinating but much-simpler-than-Symbrion case of the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum sometimes self-assembling into multicellular structures).

This is why I think engineering a single evolutionary process that can evolve both swarm intelligent control and centralised coordinated control is asking too much.

E-puck imitation

2009-02-01T12:05:00.001Z

Last week we made a significant breakthrough in the Artificial Culture project. My student Mehmet Erbas demonstrated robot robot imitation for the first time. To be more precise: one e-puck robot first watching another e-puck perform a sequence of movements, then (attempting to) imitate the same sequence of movements. This sounds much easier than it is. It's difficult for two reasons. Firstly, because the e-puck can't see very well. It only has one eye - so no stereo vision and no depth information. Thus we make it easier for the robots to see each other by fitting coloured skirts in primary colours. Secondly, the robot has to translate what it has seen (which amounts to a coloured blob moving left to right and/or getting larger or smaller within its field of vision) into a set of motor commands so it can copy those movements. This transformation is what researchers in imitation in humans and animals call the correspondence problem.

Mehmet has solved these problems with some very neat coding, and the demonstration shows the the imitated dance is - on most runs - a remarkably good copy of the original. We're now figuring out how to measure the quality of imitation Qi so we can get some results and understand the average Qi, and its variance.

WWR @ Disneyland in January

2009-01-28T15:26:00.002Z

Just gave a Walking with Robots talk for about 450 school children, at Disneyland, Paris. The Gaumont cinema to be precise, on the Disneyland complex. This was the first time I've given a talk in a cinema - with my slides projected onto the giant sized cinema screen behind me!

My audience, who I discovered had been bussed from various schools across the UK, were attending a Royal Institution Study Experience - a kind of science winter camp. Even allowing for the cold and grey January weather - what a great way to spend a few days of intensive hands-on science.

Robots for Risky Interventions

2009-01-14T05:25:00.004Z

Returning on the Eurostar from a really interesting workshop in Brussels, on Robots for Risky Interventions and Environmental Surveillance (RISE 09). The focus of the workshop was a number of EU funded projects aimed at developing multi-robot systems in safety-critical applications. One project called GUARDIANS, led by Jacques Penders at Sheffield-Hallam, is aimed at providing firefighters with robot outriders, providing sensing and navigation that - in effect - give the firefighter extended super-senses. I learned that one of the most dangerous situations they have to deal with is large warehouse fires which quickly fill with smoke, making it very easy for firefighters to become lost and disoriented in the labyrinth of aisles between storage racks. But the flat smooth warehouse floor and grid like layout is of course ideal for mobile robots, making this a really good application for robots to prove themselves useful in a serious and worthwhile real-world task.

I gave a talk setting out the potential of using a swarm robotics approach to safety-critical applications. The swarm approach differs from the conventional multi-robot systems approach in its control paradigm. A multi-robot system will typically use a centralised command and control system to both direct the actions of individual robots and coordinate the whole group. In contrast a swarm uses a completely decentralised, distributed approach, in which each robot decides how to act autonomously - using local sensing and communication with neighbouring robots - so that the swarm self-organises to achieve the overall task or mission. Although the robots may look the same in both cases, the swarm approach is radically different from a systems control point of view. But the swarm approach offers the potential of much higher resilience to failure (of individual robots, for instance).

Swarm Tolerance to Failure

2008-11-20T21:17:00.003Z

Jan Dyre Bjerknes has made a terrific breakthrough with his PhD research that I'm very excited about: see the YouTube video (courtesy of Jan Dyre) below.

Let me explain what's going on here, and why I'm so excited about it. The swarm of 10 e-puck robots, starting on the left of the arena, are attracted to the beacon (the black box) on the right of the arena. Crucially the swarm's movement toward the beacon is not directly programmed into the robots, it is what we call an emergent property of the swarm. I won't explain how it works here, except to say that the robots need to - in a sense - cooperate. One robot can't make it to the beacon on its own, nor two, nor three or four. Five is about the fewest number that can get to the beacon.

If you watch the movie clip carefully you will see that a few seconds into the experiment Jan Dyre has arranged that two of the robots fail: you can see them stop moving. In fact they fail in a really bad way. Their electronics and software still works, only the motors have failed. But because the swarm works cooperatively, the failed robots have the effect of anchoring the swarm and impeding its movement toward the beacon. However, what the clip also shows is that 'force' of the swarm movement (of the 8 robots still working) is, after a while, enough to overcome the 'anchoring force' of the two failed robots. Bearing in mind that partial failures are the worst kind, 20% is a massive failure rate, so this experiment demonstrates the very high level of fault tolerance in a robot swarm.

E-pucks with spiky hats

2008-09-02T20:12:00.009+01:00

Here are some pictures of e-pucks sporting their new spiky hats (click to enlarge). The purpose of these hats is to allow us to mark each e-puck with 3 reflective spheres, as shown on the left e-puck in the pictures. The reflective spheres allow the e-pucks to be tracked by our Vicon tracking system, and the grid of spikes means that we can provide each e-puck with its own unique pattern of 3 reflective spheres. Jan Dyre (who took these photos) tells me that there are 92 ways of uniquely arranging 3 spheres on this 6x4 grid. The Vicon system will, I'm advised, be able to track each robot in the swarm by recognising its unique pattern of 3 spheres. The Vicon system is due to be set up by their engineers this coming Thursday: it will be great to see it working.

Richard Vaughan and Marco Dorigo visit the lab

2008-08-04T17:00:00.004+01:00

Terrific to have visits today of both Richard Vaughan at his team from Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and Marco Dorigo from the Universite Libre de Bruxelles. Both Richard and Marco are luminaries in the field of Swarm Robotics: Richard for his part in developing the Player/Stage simulation tools and Marco for more or less pioneering the field of Swarm Intelligence and subsequent leading swarm robotics projects such as SWARM-BOT.

Heart Robot and BSc Robotics

2008-08-01T08:30:00.006+01:00

It has been brilliant to see the amazing coverage of the Heart Robot project during the last two days. Check out this piece on BBC news online, or Google Heart Robot. Heart robot was jointly conceived by my colleagues Matthew Studley (lecturer in Robotics), Claire Rocks (research fellow) and BSc robotics student David McGoran. Matt and Claire wrote the bid for funding from the EPSRC partnerships for public engagement scheme, with David as a named researcher. I don't need to describe Heart Robot because you can see the whole story on the excellent project web pages here http://www.heartrobot.org.uk/.

The reason for this post is to say Way to go Team, and to anybody out there who might be thinking of studying robotics at university: this is what can happen when you come and do robotics at UWE!.

Linux e-puck

2008-06-30T15:59:00.004+01:00

I'm very excited because my colleague Wenguo Liu has completed testing of a Linux plug-in board for the e-puck robot. This board very significantly enhances the e-puck - making it into a fully grown-up Linux robot. Here it is with its USB Wifi stick.

e-Puck hearing experiment

2008-04-01T15:00:00.002+01:00

Here's a video clip, by Davide Laneri, of one e-puck sounding a tone on its loudspeaker, and the other hearing the tone and turning toward it. In order to make this work we've had to (1) turn the loudspeaker of the e-puck on the right so that it's facing directly forward (like a mouth) and (2) add 'ears' to the e-puck so that it has directional hearing. We've not done extensive tests because we've now decided to focus our effort, here in Bristol, on imitation of movement instead of sound.

Just returned from the Symbrion Kick-off meeting

2008-03-19T13:55:00.003Z

I just returned from an amazing meeting in Stuttgart with an amazing group of people: the project kick-off meeting for the Symbrion project. So what is Symbrion and what are we trying to achieve? Well, the idea is to build a swarm of mobile robots that can autonomously self-assemble into an artificial organism in which each individual robot becomes - in effect - a cell in a kind of artificial multi-cellular organism. The idea of self-assembling robots is not new, but in Symbrion the robots will be able to function as a swarm but then, if the situation demands, self-assemble into a 3 dimensional organism; then if required disassemble and form into a different kind of 3D organism. Imagine the swarm coming to a barrier too high to cross then autonomously forming an 'organism' to climb over the wall, then disassembling and reassembling into a different morphology to, for instance, collectively transport an object too large for a single robot to carry. In this way the Symbrion organism will be able to morph between different 3D forms as required by the situation.

No surprisingly, Symbrion is an extremely challenging project with very tough technical milestones. Our first task is to design and build the Symbrion robots - each robot will need to operate autonomously and have its own power, computation, sensing and motors for mobility but - in addition - have the ability to physically dock with other Symbrion robots on several sides. Furthermore the docking mechanism will need to be motorised so that once attached several robots will be able to bend in 3D. Thus a 2D swarm will be able to self-assemble into a 2D planar structure but then, once assembled, lift itself into a 3D shape - for instance from a X shape into a 4 legged walker.

-------------
Postscript: following the London press launch ITN posted the TV interview onto YouTube, see Robots with a mind of their own.

Some really interesting Big Questions

2008-03-10T12:28:00.008Z

As reported in my previous two blog entries How and Why do we have Culture?, and What do Aliens look like?, I've become involved in National Science Week, a major part of which has been structured around Big Questions. I've had some fun the last few days responding to some of the big questions - which are really good. Here are the questions and responses I've made so far:

When will people invent robots to fight in wars?

Could you create a robot with a mind of its own?

Can we invent a robot that will do everything for you?

Will the human brain ever be capable of understanding itself?

What actually is Intelligence? Do we understand it?

Is it possible that AI technology may get out of control?

How and Why do we have Culture?

2008-02-28T16:03:00.003Z

In the run up to Science Week (7-16 March) the BA have been asking both the public and scientists for their big questions (see my previous blog What do Aliens look like). When I was asked for my Big Question I didn't have to think too hard, because I'm part of just about the most exciting research project of my life. That project is called The Emergence of Artificial Culture in Robot Societies, and sets out to answer the question "how can culture emerge as a novel property of social animals?" or to put it another way "how and why do we (humans) have culture?".

Of course you may be wondering what business a robot guy (me) has to do with a question of - essentially - evolutionary anthropology, which on the face of it has nothing to do with robotics. Well, firstly I've spent the last ten years working on Swarm Robotics - basically building robot swarms to try and understand how swarm intelligence works, and a robot swarm is a kind of primitive society of robots. Secondly, that work has opened my eyes to the extraordinary power of emergence, or self-organisation*. And thirdly, I'm passionate about trying to work on research problems that completely cross discipline boundaries, ideally across the arts/humanities, social- and natural-science boundaries. The question "how and why do we have culture" is just such a question.

I won't explain now how we intend to address this research question in detail. Suffice it to say that we are going to use a radical approach - which is to build a society of real robots, program them with (what we believe to be) a necessary and sufficient set of social behaviours, then observe them free running. Of course the big question then is will anything happen at all that is capable of being robustly interpreted as evidence of emerging proto-cultural behaviours and - if it does - would we even recognise it (since this will be an emerging robot- not human- culture; an exo-culture if you will).

I'm privileged to be part of a team that includes a computer scientist, theoretical biologist, philosopher, social scientist and art historian/cultural theorist. For more detail here is the announcement on EPSRC grants on the web. Not least in order to mitigate the risk that we fail to recognise anything interesting that might emerge, but also because we strongly believe in Open Science, the whole project will be on the web - live robots, data and all - as soon as we're up and running.

And here's a picture of 2 of the robots we plan to use (called e-pucks). We've added some 'ears' so that they can chirp at each other; the artificial culture lab will have around 50-60 of these robots.

----------------------------------------------------------
*Emergence is - in my view - both ubiquitious (everywhere from physics, to life, intelligence and culture, to galaxies) and for more important than I think we realise. I would go so far as to say that I believe natural selection (although beautiful and powerful) is on its own insufficent to explain the astonishing complexity of many biological and societal systems. I think you need natural selection + emergence.

What do Aliens look like?

2008-02-23T08:08:00.011Z

Amazing meeting yesterday afternoon at the Science Museum. Here's the story: the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BA) has been asking for science questions via their web pages for awhile, in advance of Science Week, which is 7-16 March. A question that keeps coming up is "what do aliens look like?" so, to address that question, the BA pulled together a small panel which met yesterday. Our brief was to come up with some plausible alien life forms that can be visually presented during Science Week. The keyword here is plausible. It would be easy to pluck super-exotic aliens from the rich fauna of SF but then very difficult to explain the science. Of course, the fictional evolutionary science, or biochemistry, or ecosystems of even plausible aliens is going to have gaping holes, but we were tasked with trying to minimise those.

So, what did we come up with..? I can't say now but all will, I hope, be revealed during Science Week (and in this blog, then). ...and here is the press release describing our life forms.

Visualisation by Julian Hume, Research Fellow at the Natural History Museum/University of Portsmouth.

Blogging the Robot Bloggers

2008-02-20T15:31:00.011Z

Here at @Bristol Walking with Robots is running a 3-day workshop for students and researchers in robotics, artificial intelligence and animatronics. It's a kind of masterclass whose objective is to train those students and researchers in science communication, with the hope that they'll be motivated to get involved in public engagement. I'm not going to talk about the training workshop here because it's described elsewhere in both a recent UWE press release Making Science Fun for Everyone and on EPSRC grants on the web here.

What I want to blog about here are the robot bloggers on wwrobots.wordpress.com.

The workshop has four streams with about a quarter of the students signing up for each. One of those streams is New Media, which is training its group in online reporting. Here is picture of the online newsroom.

These students have been tasked with publishing stories from the other three groups. Remarkably, the blog was up and running by mid-morning Monday and has provided a more-or-less real-time record of the workshop since then. The newsroom has been busy the whole time, but never more so than right now. This afternoon the whole workshop has had an amazing opportunity to put their activities to the test on the floor of @Bristol, and since this is the half-term holidays it's pretty busy out there (to put it mildly). Our robot bloggers have been out on the floor too, recording with still photos, video and text, the extraordinary excitement of the interaction between our students, their robotics, AI and animatronics activities, and the children and families. Scroll down wwrobots and you'll quickly get a sense of that excitement.

Of course I'm focussing on just one aspect of the workshop but it was, for me, perhaps the most surprising. Firstly, by opening my eyes to the potential for Web 2.0 media to provide - in effect - real time interactive reporting; a kind of worldwide outside broadcast. It seems to me that, with this approach, there is remarkable potential to enhance and extend the reach of many kinds of public engagement or science communication.

But secondly and even more significantly here, our robot bloggers bound together the whole workshop in an altogether unexpected and enriching way.

Light-speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity

2008-01-26T22:32:00.001Z

Or, Pope's Dangerous Idea.

One of the most important principles of science is attributed to 13th century philosopher William of Ockham and known as Ockham’s Razor. It is the methodological principle of ontological parsimony: when presented with alternative explanations always opt for the simplest, the one with the fewest possible causes, assumptions or variables.

This book is an appeal to Ockham’s Razor, for it offers a much more economical account of special and general relativity than is present in the traditional development of relativity theory. In fact, the extent of the simplification of relativity offered by Anthony Osborne and N. Vivian Pope is such that a theory which could hitherto be fully appreciated only by those with advanced university-level mathematical training, can now be understood with little more than high school maths. But, in this book, simplification is not the same as dumbing down. Osborne and Pope present a rigorous, scholarly and philosophically coherent re-appraisal of the fundamental tenets of both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics and some of the consequences of that physics to both quantum physics and cosmology.

That re-appraisal has consequences that go far beyond an incremental re-working or adjustment of existing results. If the theory presented in this book turns out to be correct it would presage a paradigm shift in physics that would not only challenge the academic establishment but also change the way that ordinary people think about the material world. Let me give an example. Newton's first law of motion states that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. In other words, that the 'natural' state of motion is in a straight line. Osborne and Pope propose an alternative first law of motion: the natural (force less) state of motion is orbital. I.e. that bodies continue to orbit unless an external force is applied. Now the Universe is full of orbital motion. From the micro-scale - electrons in orbit around nuclei, to the macro-scale - moons around planets, planets around stars, rotating galaxies etc. If this alternative first law is true, it would mean that we don't need to propose a force of gravitational attraction to account for orbital motion. This is compelling not least because it leads to a simpler and more elegant explanation. It would also explain why - despite vast effort and millions of dollars worth of research - no empirical evidence (gravity waves or gravity particles) has yet been found for how gravity propagates or acts at-a-distance. A common-sense objection to this idea is "well if there's no such thing as gravity what is it that sticks us to the surface of the earth - why don't we just float off?". The answer, according to Osborne and Pope, is that the natural (force less) orbital radius for you (given the mass of your body), is quite a long way towards the centre of the earth from where you now sit. So there is a force that means that you weigh something, it's just not a mysterious force of gravity but the real force exerted by the thing that restrains you from orbiting freely, i.e. the ground under your feet.

The world is, of course, full of alternative theories. One reason that this one deserves to be taken seriously is that it is experimentally testable. That experiment is conceptually simple: take a spinning mass; spinning one way it should weigh a little more than when at rest, spinning in the opposite direction it should weigh a little less. The problem is not conceptual but practical: the weight change predicted by Osborne and Pope is small (about one hundredth of a milligram for a 175 gram disk spinning at 18,000 revolutions per minute), thus the experimental apparatus would need to be both very strong to cope with the energy of the spinning disk and very sensitive to be able to accurately measure the weight change. The experiment is certainly difficult, but not impossible with today’s technology. What is important here is that Osborne and Pope are not asking for the ideas presented in this book to be taken on faith. The Pope Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis can be proven, one way or the other.

This book deserves to be read and it deserves to provoke controversy. This work is not popular science. It is the culmination of a 20 year collaboration between Osborne and Pope, and a 50 year intellectual journey by N Vivian Pope (quite literally, a life’s work). To anyone who cares about the truth in physics, I commend this book.

---------------------------------------------------------
This is my foreword to this book, launched today at Borders bookshop, Swansea. The ideas in this book are significant and heretical; to paraphrase Daniel Dennett, these are Dangerous Ideas.

Ecobots at the Dana

2008-01-24T23:26:00.001Z

Great evening at the Dana Centre Tuesday. A public debate/discussion called Techno Bodies - Hybrid Life? "What counts as a hybrid life form and how it affects you."

My contribution was to lead a discussion about the lab's Ecobots - starting with the Slugbot, then Ecobots I and II (famously fly eating robots powered by Microbial Fuel Cells), a little about what's next - Ecobot III - and to speculate about possible future applications for these hybrid-life robots. Hybrid life..? I'd never thought of these robots as hybrid life before but I guess the marrying of bio-chemical processes with plastic, metal and silicon does blur the boundaries.

Here's a picture of the Ecobot II, built by colleagues Ioannis Ieropoulos, Ian Horsfield, Chris Melhuish and John Greenman. Remarkably this robot runs for about 12 days on just 8 dead flies.

I was going to blog here about the various interesting questions that came up in discussion, but I don't need to because SciencePunk has done it already, so go here for a great summary.

What I've changed my mind about and Why

2008-01-04T21:15:00.000Z

Every New Year the Edge poses a question and publishes the responses from among the world's intelligentsia. It's fun to read the responses but, even more fun to write your own.

This year's question is What have you changed your mind about? Why? With the rather important sub-text science is based on evidence. What happens when the data change? How have scientific arguments or findings changed your mind?

The sub-text makes all the difference. Without that we can all think of things we've changed our minds about. But how often are we faced with major paradigm shifts from one set of views to a completely different set, based on scientific evidence, and quite possibly in the face of our own prior beliefs or prejudices. Rarely, I'll bet. Most scientists tend to be educated within a particular tradition and then remain within its established dogma throughout their working lives.

Without doubt the most profound scientific change of mind I have experienced (which took many years) is in relation to Newton's first law of motion, which I now believe to be wrong. However, I discussed this two years ago, in response to the Edge 2006 New Year question, so I won't repeat it here.

So, what else have I changed my mind about?

Well, in November 2007 I was lucky enough to be invited to a University of Bristol workshop on Mathematical Models of Cognitive Behaviour. The assembled speakers covered a broad spectrum of topics, but one in particular really caught my imagination. Dennis Bray's brilliant and illuminating talk introduced the computational processes going on inside the single cell, e-coli. I learned, to my astonishment, that single-celled micro-organisms have a complex repertoire of behaviours including memory and adaptation (in addition to finding food and reproduction). Behaviours that one normally associates with far more complex multi-celled organisms with nervous systems.Yet these are creatures with no nervous system. But, as I learned, an exquisitely complex set of molecular computational processes are present within the dense chemical soup (cytoplasm) encapsulated within the cell. Dennis explained that for e-coli, for instance, we now have a kind of circuit diagram of the complete set of computational processes. But it's far from simple!

Before Dennis' talk I was fond of saying that the robots in our lab are simpler than the simplest animals. As a result of what I learned from his talk, I've now seriously downgraded my assessment:

Our robots are simpler than the simplest single-celled micro-organisms.

Human consciousness could be immortal

2007-12-26T12:17:00.000Z

Our subjective experience of the 'continuity' of consciousness is surely an illusion. But what makes that illusion and why is it so compelling? That's a deep question but here are I think two fundamental reasons:

1. Embodiment. You are an embodied intelligence. It is a mistake to think of mind and body as somehow separate. Our conscious experience and its awakening as a developing child is surely deeply rooted in our physical experience of the world as mediated through our senses.

2. Environmental continuity. Our experience of the world changes 'relatively' slowly. The word relative is important here since I mean relative to the rate at which our conscious experience updates itself. Of course we do experience the discontinuity of going to sleep then waking to the changed world of a new sunrise, but this is both deeply familiar and predictable.

A word that encompasses both of these is situatedness. Our intelligence, and hence also conscious experience is inextricably situated in our bodies and in the world. Let me illustrate what this might mean with a thought experiment.

Imagine a brain transplant. Your brain complete with its memories and life's experience, together with as much of your central nervous system as might be needed for it to function properly were to be transplanted into a different body. You would wake from the procedure into this new body. I strongly suspect that you would experience a profound and traumatic discontinuity of consciousness and, well, go mad. Indeed it's entirely possible that you simply couldn't (and perhaps mercifully) regain or experience any sort of consciousness at all. Why? Because the conditions for the emergence of consciousness and the illusion of its continuity have been irreversibly broken.

However, if what I have said above is true, there's a flip side to the story that could have extraordinary consequences.

If the continuity of consciousness is an illusion then, in principle at least, it might be possible to artificially perpetuate that illusion.

Imagine that at some future time we have a sufficiently deep understanding of the human brain that we can scan its internal structures for memories, acquired skills, and all of those (at present dimly understood) attributes that make you you. It's surely safe to assume that if we're able to decode a brain in this way, then we would also be able to scan the body structures (dynamics, musculature and deep wiring of the nervous system). It would then be a simple matter to scan, at or just before the point of death, and transfer those structures into a virtual avatar within a virtual world. The simulated brain structures would be 'wired' to the avatar's virtual body in exactly the same way as the real brain was wired to its real body, thus satisfying the requirement for embodiment. If the virtual world is also a high fidelity replica of the real world then we would also satisfy the second requirement, environmental continuity.

I would argue that, under these circumstances, the illusion of the continuity of consciousness could be maintained. Thus, on dying you would awake (in e-heaven), almost as if nothing had happened. Except, of course, that you could be greeted by the avatars of your dead relatives. Even better, because e-heaven is just a virtual environment in the real-world, then you could just as easily be visited by your living friends and relatives. Could this be the retirement home of the far future?

In this way human consciousness could, I believe, be immortal.

My love hate relationship with an Xbox 360

2007-12-24T07:27:00.001Z

Ok, I admit it. I have an Xbox 360.

Of course I'm hopeless at playing video games, which is perhaps just as well because it means that I don't spend long playing (or wasting time, depending on your point of view). Just as long as it takes for me to get frustrated by how useless I am and give up. (But it's ok because my eldest son levels me up when he comes to stay;-).

However, as a piece of hardware it's awesome. Liquid cooled, 3 processors plus graphics processing unit. As someone who worked with the very first 8-bit microprocessors over 30 years ago (see my post By, you were lucky...) and with pretty much every generation since, I ought to be inured to the now expected doubling of performance roughly every two years (Moore's Law). But I'm not. I still easily get awestruck by next generation hardware and its capability. I'm equally impressed by the Xbox 360's operating system, its so called 'blade' interface is intuitive and a pleasure to use.

Of course this blog is really just an excuse for me to post a screen capture from the stunning Project Gotham Racing 4 of me driving (in my dreams) an Enzo Ferrari down The Mall, in the rain.

The future doesn't just happen, we must own it

2007-12-08T22:25:00.003Z

Had a remarkable couple of days last week. Walking with Robots (WWR), the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) and the London Engineering Project jointly ran a pilot Young Peoples' Visions Conference. The aim of the 2 day event was to give an opportunity for around 20 young adults (age 16-18) to "explore visions of their future and the part robots will play" in that future.

For me the event was important because it takes Walking with Robots into a new form of dialogue. At WWR events and activities I have been privileged to engage with many children, teenagers and adults, over the past year and I increasingly have a sense that our children, in particular, believe that the future is nothing to do with them. That technology is something that happens, or is imposed from outside and that they are merely passive consumers or targets for that technology. In this conference we really tried to change that view. It was wonderful to see the group change from - at the beginning - seeing this as 2 days out of college to - in the end - all being deeply engaged in the dialogue. I got a real sense of them feeling empowered and that their considered opinions are important - not least because those opinions will be published by the RAE and send to policymakers. In other words that they do have a say in their own technological futures.

A Mac with new spots: installing Leopard

2007-10-26T18:34:00.000+01:00

A day off sick with a head cold and painful sinuses had one consolation. I had a little time this afternoon to install Leopard - the new version of Mac OS X (which interestingly arrived this morning before it had been officially launched at 6.00pm this evening).

How did the installation go? Well I'm happy to report that it was remarkable for being unremarkable. Just two minor comments: firstly, there was a very long pause (5 minutes perhaps) at the start of the install process proper, when the time remaining said 'calculating' and there was no apparent hard disk or DVD activity - I was beginning to have doubts about whether all was ok before the process sprang into life again (note to Apple: any kind of long and worrying pause like this really should still have some sort of progress indicator no matter how simple). Secondly, the time remaining calculation appeared to have difficulty making its mind up. Initially it said something over three and a half hours and then revised its estimate downwards over the next 30 minutes or so. In the end it took about an hour and a half from start to finish, and that included a long time for install disk verification.

First impression? Well it's fine. It's an operating system which means - in my view - should not be the main event but just get on and do its thing in the background while letting me get on with my work. It looks very nice of course, but so did Tiger. Cosmetically not such a big difference, especially for me since I place the dock on the left rather than at the bottom. (Ergonomically it makes more sense there because a left mouse movement to reach the dock is far easier than a down hand movement.)

The main new feature that I am immediately and gratefully using is called 'spaces'. It is basically the same thing that Linux window managers have had for years - which I have missed since switching (back) to Mac - that means I can open applications across four virtual screens and then quickly switch between them. This is great for me because when writing I like to have Firefox open for web searches, OpenOffice for drawing diagrams, Preview to read pdf papers, BibDesk and TeXShop for the actual writing. A single screen gets pretty crowded. (Of course what I'd really like is a bank of LCD displays so I can see everything at once but - for now - spaces will have to do.)

What else? Well the ability to instantly search and then - again with almost no delay - view the search results with 'cover flow' and the use 'quick look' to review what you find in more detail is terrific. The way that quick look opens everything from powerpoint presentations to movies and allows you to skip through the files with the left and right arrow keys but also scroll up and down individual files is just great. For the first time in 33 years of using computers I really think I don't need to remember filenames anymore. Given that this is still a good old fashioned traditional Unix file system underneath, Leopard is probably as close as you can get to feeling like an associative 'contents addressable' file system.

----------------------------------------------------------
*Footnote: I returned to Mac earlier this year after a 20 year separation. The first computers at APD (that we didn't design and build ourselves) were 128K Macs in 1985. Lovely machines with a proper windows OS (while the PC was still running DOS) that were used from everything from word processing and accounts to technical drawing.

You really need to know what your bot(s) are thinking (about you)

2007-10-07T23:13:00.000+01:00

The projected ubiquity of personal companion robots raises a range of interesting but also troubling questions.

There can be little doubt that an effective digital companion, whether embodied or not, will need to be both sensitive to the emotional state of its human partner and be able to respond sensitively. It will, in other words, need artificial empathy - such a digital companion would (need to) behave as if it has feelings. One current project at the Bristol Robotics Laboratory is developing such a robot, which will of course need some theory of mind if it is to respond appropriately. Robots with feelings takes us into new territory in human-machine interaction. We are of course used to temperamental machinery and many of us are machine junkies. We are addicted to our cars and dishwashers, our mobile phones and iPods. But what worries me about a machine with feelings (and frankly it doesn’t matter whether it really has feelings or not) is how it will change the way humans feel about the machine.

Human beings will develop genuine emotional attachments to companion bots. Recall Weizenbaum’s secretary’s sensitivity about her private conversation with ELIZA - arguably the worlds first chat-bot in the 1960s. For more recent evidence look no further than the AIBO pet owners clubs. Here is a true story from one such club to illustrate how blurred the line between pet and robot has already become. One AIBO owner complained that her robot pet kept waking her at night with its barking. She would “jump out of bed and try to calm the robo-pet, stroking its smooth metallic-gray back to ease it back to sleep”. She was saved from “going crazy” when it was suggested that she switch the dog off at night to prevent its barking.

It is inevitable that people will develop emotional attachments, even dependencies, on companion bots. This, of course, has consequences. But what interests me is if the bots acquire a shared cultural experience. Another BRL project called ‘the emergence of artificial culture in robot societies’ is investigating this possibility. Consider this scenario. Your home has a number of companion bots. Some may be embodied, others not. It is inevitable that they will be connected, networked via your home wireless LAN, and thus able to chat with each other at the speed of light. This will of course bring some benefits - the companion bots will be able to alert each other to your needs: “she’s home”, or “he needs help with getting out of the bath”. But what if your bots start talking about you?

Herein lies the problem that I wish to discuss. The bots shared culture will be quintessentially alien, in effect an exo-culture (and I don’t mean that to imply sinister). Bot culture could well be inscrutable to humans, which means that when bots start gossiping with each other about you, you will have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about because - unlike them - you have no theory of mind for your digital companions.

--------------------------------------------------------------
This is a short 'position statement' prepared for e-horizons forum Artificial Companions in Society: Perspectives on the Present and Future, 25th and 26th October, Oxford Internet Institute.

A night train to Lisbon*

2007-09-16T11:36:00.000+01:00

Fed up with airports and - perhaps rather pathetically trying to do my bit for climate change - I'm taking the train from Bristol to Lisbon. In planning the trip I quickly discovered that taking the planet friendly option is neither quick, cheap, or particularly easy to organise. Of course I didn’t expect it to be quick and anyway part of the attraction was to actually see some countryside en-route. Nor did I especially expect it to be cheap - around 29 hours of train travel across four countries including a sleeper is never going to be able to compete with a point to point budget (or even regular) airline. As for organisation, amazingly I found a great web-page dedicated to the business of getting from the UK to Lisbon by train.

There are a couple of options but the one I chose (and the shortest in travelling time) was Eurostar to Paris, TGV to Irun, then the sleeper ‘Sud Express’ from Irun to Lisbon. So, an early start from Bristol to get the 06.56 Bristol Parkway to Paddington, to be in good time for the 10.10 Eurostar to Paris Nord. Not my first time on Eurostar but, I’m ashamed to say, my first time in Paris, so I got a cab from Gare du Nord to Gare Montparnasse, to get at least a glimpse of the city. The taxi route crossed the Seine and passed the Piramide Louvre and the Arc de Triomphe. Wonderful. Mental note to self: must come here for a proper visit. Then had less than an hour to wait for the TGV. No time to do anything but wait in an especially dismal café on the station concourse - with amazingly aggressive sparrows trying to fight me for my tarte de pomme. Good coffee though.

The 15.50 TGV from Paris to Irun was packed and - I must confess - slightly disappointing. Not in speed or timeliness - which couldn’t be faulted - but I was somewhat nonplussed to find there was no restaurant car. For some reason (probably a romantic impression gleaned from too many European train movies - Poirot and the like), I expected that on a five and a half hour journey I would be able to get dinner. Oh well, at least the buffet was a significant improvement on English trains, and the French seem to prefer to stay in the buffet car to consume their sandwich and coffee, which I rather liked. The loos were also pretty inadequate for the number of people on the train and the length of the journey. There’s nothing quite like the dismal experience of putting a generous gloop of soap on your hands to then discover that the water has run out and there are no hand towels. Still - pretty impressive to find myself looking out of the window on the Atlantic at Biarritz a little over 5 hours after leaving Paris.

I did notice that the French have not banned smoking from stations - only trains. Thus, on every approach to a station a handful of smokers would gather by the carriage doors ready to leap onto the platform for a tobacco fix in the few brief minutes of the halt. I don’t think I ever saw anyone drag so deeply or gratefully on his kingsize Gitanes as one fellow.

Resumed 11.30pm. The romance of long distance trains fully restored on discovering a restaurant car on the Sud Express. The slick air-con and Starbucks-alike chic of the TGV buffet is replaced by 1960s wood-effect plastic and a no-nonsense bar of the sort you can prop yourself up against. And I did. No namby-pamby air conditioning here. The only way to reduce the temperature to anything bearable is to open all the windows which means the noise level in the restaurant car is deafening. Which is fine really because it helps to mask the fact that I don’t speak a word of either Spanish or Portuguese, and the waiter doesn’t speak more than a word or two of English. There were only three of us eating, me and a Spanish looking couple, his back to me and her huge beautiful brown all-seeing-all-knowing-female-wise-eyes glancing at me from time to time. After a while I realised that the reason there were so few of us in the restaurant was that the doors at the other end of the carriage required superhuman strength to open - eventually a few did manage the necessary feat of strength and the bar achieved something like a friendly buzz. I think there must be something very strange about me that I could so much enjoy this solitary repast while clattering through Spain in the middle of the night.

The following morning. The night seemed too hot for anything like proper sleep on top of which the sleeping car was right behind the engine which sounded to me like the oldest diesel locomotive they could possibly muster. However, the rhythm of the train did get the better of the noise and I awoke surprisingly refreshed. A leisurely breakfast in the restaurant car and in what seemed no time at all we were pulling into Lisbon's Santa Apolonia station exactly on time at 11.03am. Great. No queuing at passport control or the baggage claim. Just step off the train into the city. A civilised way to arrive.

-----------------------------------------
*With apologies to Emily Grayson

A truly Grand Challenge

2007-08-17T22:45:00.001+01:00

Between 13th and 16th August thirteen teams descended on Monte Ceneri in Ticino, Switzerland, for C-ELROB - the Civilian European Land Robotics Trials. Simply arriving was, in fact, something of a trial for the teams; given the physical size of many of the robots and the amount of supporting equipment and tools, air travel was clearly impossible. Teams therefore drove from the four corners of continental Europe, from as far apart as Portugal, Poland and Finland. For the Finnish lads this meant an epic 3,500km road trip.

The event was staged on and around the Monte Ceneri Swiss army base in the beautiful forested mountains above Lake Maggiore. The base provided a perfect environment for the four outdoor robotics challenges; all challenges were based upon the same basic task: as-far-as-possible autonomous search and location of number-plate sized orange markers including reading the letters and numbers on the marker plates (an abstracted search and rescue task). The winner of each challenge would be the robot which found and read the most marker plates - in the shortest time - with the least human intervention. (The rules allowed for human tele-operation of robots, but this carried a points penalty over fully autonomous operation.)

I was privileged to be able to closely observe the competition, as one of the small team of judges. Although closely involved in robotics research for 15 years this was my first up-close-and-personal experience of outdoor robotics, and my first impression was the sheer difficulty of the physical terrain: robots facing the non-urban challenges in particular had to be able to move and navigate through hilly forest and undergrowth, across rutted and muddy trial paths and, on day two, cope with heavy rain as well. The ‘urban’ challenge of day three was perhaps marginally easier for the robots, but still very tough with steps, ramps and indoor as well as outdoor aspects to negotiate.

Some teams were clearly well financed with, for instance impressive 4x4 vehicles fitted with state-of-the-art high performance sensors whereas other teams brought robots that had clearly been hand-built by the students themselves, on a limited budget. My observation was that the well financed teams did not have a significant advantage. The nature of the challenges was such that - provided the robot could cope with the physical demands of the trials - then it was the quality and ingenuity of the autonomous control strategies that was being tested.

All four challenges were demanding, but the ultimate trial on day four was undoubtedly the most testing of all. Robots were required to drive around a 3km forest road while spotting, reading and recording the location of the orange markers, with the optional addition of a 2km off-road section. Although tele-operation was allowed within the rules (albeit with a penalty), the hilly terrain meant that maintaining a radio signal between base and robot was more or less impossible. This challenge required no less than full autonomy which - given the difficulty of the mountain roads including no road markings, no clear road edges, deep shadows caused by overhanging trees and hazards like steep drops and hairpin bends - amounted to a significantly harder test than the much feted DARPA grand challenge. Remarkably, the winner of this event - the unassuming University of Hanover robot not much bigger than a wheelchair shown here - completed the course in a little over 40 minutes.

Quite apart from the demonstration of the state-of-the-art in outdoor robotics, this event was an extraordinarily valuable experience for the teams who entered. Most of the student teams worked around the clock in their makeshift mini-workshops of clustered laptops to test and refine their robots, right up to the last minute, (one lead professor remarked to me that all he had to do was keep his team supplied with pizza). Modern robots are very complex machines which must closely integrate mechanical and propulsion systems; power and energy management; sensors, vision and navigation; wireless communications and command and control software. The key to success here is systems integration and that integration was reflected not only in the engineering but in the very effective teamwork that was much in evidence at C-ELROB. That teamwork, together with the sense of healthy rivalry between teams, contributed to a remarkably successful event.

The full list of teams, and pictures of their robots are here.

If you can read German (or if not check out the pictures anyway), here is a detailed account of each of the 4 days of the event by science journalist Hans-Arthur Marsiske:
Day 1: Combined air and land trial
Day 2: Off-road (woodland) trial
Day 3: Urban marketplace search trial
Day 4: Autonomous reconnaissance

Could a robot have feelings?

2007-07-08T22:36:00.000+01:00

One of the great pleasures of giving public lectures is the questions that come from the audience, and my talk last week to the Bath U3A group was no different. A great question (and one I've been challenged with before) was "could a robot have feelings - emotions like fear, sadness or love?"

My questioner (and I guess most people) would be hoping for a comforting answer: No, only people and maybe some animals (your dog) can have feelings. In one sense that answer would be correct, because if we define feelings simply and subjectively as 'the feelings we experience when we are afraid, sad, or in love', such a definition would make those emotions uniquely human and something robots could not have by definition.

For the sake of argument let's get over that by asking a slightly different question: could a robot have artificial emotions that - in some way - are an analogue of human feelings. At this point I would normally say to my questioner, well, yes, I can conceive of a robot that behaves as if it is experiencing emotions. A humanoid robot, in other words, that acts is if it were afraid, or sad. The better the technology, then the more convincing and subtle would the (artificial) body language be. Actually we don't have to try very hard to imagine such a robot - colleagues in the lab are working on robot (heads) with artificial empathy. Here a picture.

At this point my questioner says "ah, but that robot doesn't really have feelings. It's just pretending to have feelings".

True! But don't human beings do that all the time. Isn't it the case, in fact, that we value the ability to be able to pretend to express feelings very highly, providing it's the honest deception of the actor's trade? We also value people who can make us feel in different ways: musicians, artists, poets or storytellers. Ok, I admit I'm being a little tricky here, but the point I'm trying to make is that humans can be very good at pretending to have feelings or at deceiving others into having feelings, and some (me included) have a hard time telling the difference.

Back to robots though. Yes, a robot that is programmed to behave as if it has feelings cannot, I grant, be said to actually have feelings. At best that robot is a good actor. This might seem to be the end of the issue but it's not, because the possibility of a robot that is very good at behaving as if it has feelings raises some pretty interesting issues. Why? Because in human robot interaction such a robot could have quite some power over the human. What interests me here is how such a robot would make humans feel towards it. Could a human, for instance, fall in love with an deeply (albeit artificially) empathic robot? I suspect the answer is yes.

This is a subject I'll return to in future blogs: not only the social implications of robots with artificial feelings, but also the question of whether robots could be designed that really do have feelings.

Anthropomorphism and robotics

2007-05-11T23:28:00.001+01:00

Spent the last two days at a really interesting workshop: Practices of Anthropomorphism: from Automata to Robotics. The best thing about the meeting was the mix of disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, art and robotics. Terrific. The key to creativity, IMHO, is working with people outside your own discipline. It can be tough, mind you, outside the comfort zone of familiar ideas and frameworks. But that's precisely the point. Recall Koestler's brilliant "The Act of Creation" - creativity happens when two previously disconnected ideas intersect, meaningfully. (Or, humour, if the intersection is absurd.)

So, what were the creative outcomes of the workshop? Well, there were plenty of "ah ha!" moments (as well of lots of "ha ha"). For me the big insight was the realisation (obvious I guess to the anthropologists) that human beings are so utterly pre-disposed, hard-wired even, to anthropomorphise. Whether we like it or not we are, it seems, anthropomorphiliacs with a compulsion to attribute anthropic qualities to and develop emotional attachments with animals or artefacts, almost anything from the everyday to the exotic, the banal to the sublime. This is very interesting to a roboticist on a number of levels. For example, even simple robots are imbued with characteristics they don't have (cute, inquisitive, happy, ill) and at the other end of the robot spectrum humans will anthropomorphise and thereby compensate for the shortcomings of humanoid or android robots. In other words robot builders don't need to worry about making android robots into perfect artificial humans - cartoon robots will do - like NEC's PaPeRo shown here (thus also neatly avoiding the Uncanny Valley). You may think this is just another fraud, like de Vaucanson's defacating duck. And, in a way, it is. But as long as we, the roboticists, are completely honest and transparent about the real capabilities of our robots: what they can but especially what they cannot do, then it is a fraudulent contract that humans and robots can willingly and beneficially submit to.

This brings me to another question. Why are we so fascinated by robots? I think the answer lies in another surprising innate ability of humans. That is our ability to tell the difference between animate and inanimate. I think we love robots because they behave as is they are animate, yet we know them to be inanimate artefacts. We are, I believe, delighted by this deception.

A final thought: if, as Gabriella Airenti brilliantly argued at the workshop, anthropomorphism is an (inevitable) consequence of imitation and theory of mind, then it's surely not inconceivable that future intelligent robots might also develop this tendency. Except that, for them, it would be robomorphism.

Walterian Creatures

2007-04-15T11:55:00.003+01:00

In Daniel Dennett's remarkable book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" he describes the Tower of Generate-and-Test; a brilliant conceptual model for the evolution of intelligence that has become known as Dennett's Tower. I propose here another storey to the Tower, for what I want to call Walterian Creatures, after the pioneering neurophysiologist W. Grey Walter, inventor of the world's first electro-mechanical autonomous mobile robot.

In a nutshell Dennett's tower is set of conceptual creatures each one of which is successively more capable of reacting to (and hence surviving in) the world through having more sophisticated strategies for 'generating and testing' hypotheses about how to react. Read chapter 13 of Darwin's Dangerous Idea for the full account, but there are some reasonable précis to be found on the web; here's one fullsome description. But for now here's my very brief outline of the storeys of Dennett's tower, starting on the ground floor:

Darwinian creatures have only natural selection as the generate and test mechanism, so mutation and selection is the only way that Darwinian creatures can adapt - individuals cannot.
Skinnerian creatures can learn but only by literally generating and testing all different possible actions then reinforcing the successful behaviour (which is ok providing you don't get eaten while testing a bad course of action).
Popperian creatures have the additional ability to internalise the possible actions so that some (the bad ones) are discarded before they are tried out for real.
Gregorian creatures are tool makers including - importantly - mind tools like language, which means that individuals no longer have to generate and test all possible hypotheses since others have done so already and can pass on that knowledge.
Scientific creatures. Here Dennett proposes that a particular way of rigorously, collectively and publically testing hypotheses - namely the scientific method - is sufficiently powerful and distinct to merit a further floor of the tower. (I'm not sure that I agree, however that isn't important to the point I'm trying to make in this blog.)

Like the Tower of Hanoi each successive storey is smaller (a sub-set) of the storey below, thus all Skinnerian creatures are Darwinian, but only a sub-set of Darwinian creatures are Skinnerian and so on.

Gregorian creatures (after Richard Gregory) are tool makers, of both physical tools (like scissors) and mind-tools (like language and mathematics), and Dennett suggests that these tools are 'intelligence amplifiers'. Certainly they give Gregorian creatures a significant advantage over merely Popperian creatures, because they have the benefit of the shared experience of others, expressed either through using the tools they have made or refined or, more directly, through their knowledge or instructions as spoken or written. Arguably the most powerful intelligence amplifier so far created by one particular species of Gregorian-Scientific creature: man, is the computer, for with it we are able to simulate almost any reality we can imagine. Simulation is potent stuff, gedanken thought experiments are no longer doomed to remain flights of fancy and mathematical models need no longer remain dry abstractions. And one of the most remarkable kinds of computer simulation is of intelligence itself: Artificial Intelligence.

What if the tools made by Gregorian creatures take on a life of their own and become, in a sense, independent of the tool-makers? Embodied AI (= Artificial Life) has this potential. Walterian creatures are, I propose, smart tools that have learned to think, grown up and left the toolbox. Think of future intelligent robots (far more capable than the crude prototypes we can currently build) that might co-exist with humans in an extraordinary and fulfilling symbiosis.

The defining characteristic of Walterian creatures is that they are artificial. They've not only left the toolbox but crawled out of the gene pool. No longer bound by the common biochemistry of Earth's biota, yet sharing both the inheritance and evolutionary (albeit artificial) processes of their Darwinian ancestors. So what does this mean for Walterian creatures? Well, all of Walterian’s ancestors share the fact that however simple or sophisticated their strategies for hypothesising about possible actions those actions have to be undertaken by the self-same physical creatures that do the hypothesising. Ok, Gregorian- Scientific creatures can augment themselves with magnificent tools for compensating for their own sensory or physical limitations, like electron microscopes, submarines or manned spacecraft, or remotely operated robot space probes that act as sense extenders, but one thing Gregorian individuals cannot do is evolve themselves as part of the generate and test process. Consider this scenario. A future intelligent autonomous robot is exploring a planet about which very little is known. As part of its generate and test strategy this Walterian can in simulation fast-forward artificial genetic algorithms to evolve its own physical capabilities and then re-build parts of itself on-the-fly to best deal with the situation it has encountered. It could, for instance, artificially evolve and re-engineer itself the means to make best use of whatever energy sources are to hand. (It would be like you or I falling into a river and being able to artificially evolve and grow gills in less time than it takes to drown.)

Walterian creatures are, like Gregorians, able to share tools, knowledge and experience. They will be fully interconnected, so that any individual - subject only to the physical delays of the networking technology - can instantly seek information or resources from the shared Walterian artificial culture. However, unlike Gregorians, these individuals are capable of Lamarckian learning. Need a skill fast? If you’re a Walterian creature then, providing at least one other individual has already learned the skill and is either online or has previously uploaded that skill, then you simply download it. Walterian creatures would surely be profoundly different - and perhaps unimaginable by us merely Gregorian creatures - kinds of minds.

The Mozart meme

2007-03-25T11:24:00.000+01:00

Heard some great lectures yesterday evening at the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institute. John Sloboda gave a wonderful talk about the psychology of music, and in particular what makes the difference between a musical genius and the rest of us. He showed, with some pretty compelling evidence, that firstly you need to start learning an instrument very young, and secondly you need around 10 years of averaging 2 hours per day of practice - but not just any old practice, it has to be strongly supported and guided - before then starting composition. Are musical geniuses born or made? John offered the view that it's much more down to nurture than nature. He suggested that genetics may account for musical deficits (such as the very small number of people who are genuinely tone-deaf) but probably not musical genius.

John told a story so fascinating that I want to recount it here. A US research team ran some IQ tests on a group of adults, one group immediately after listening to Mozart, the other (control) group without. The Mozart group showed higher IQ scores than the control group. Now that's interesting enough, but it's what happened subsequently and outside the research lab, that is really quite shocking. John recounted that a journalist reported this finding as "The Mozart Effect" and parents anxious to improve their youngsters' IQs started playing them Mozart, schools introduced the same practice, and in some US districts this became a requirement of the education authority. Pop-psych books were published and money was made. Google the Mozart effect and you'll see what I mean.

But does it work? No. John explained that the original study was done on adults and subsequent work has shown that the same effect isn't apparent in children, and even on adults the IQ raising effect wears off after 10 minutes or so. But that's the power of a great meme. The idea is so attractive that as soon as it catches hold the truth behind the idea becomes irrelevant. And of course Mozart already has almost mythical super-genius status, so the Mozart effect meme was already riding on a winner. Someone asked John if the same would have happened if the original study had used another composer's music. "Almost certainly not", he replied, "the Couperin effect, doesn't have anything like the same ring to it!"

But the world is full of such memes. Some emerge from flaky science, others from a flawed interpretation of otherwise good science. A particular hobby horse of mine is "The Big Bang". Popular culture regards the Big Bang as an established fact. But it isn't. There are two competing theories for the origin of the Universe: one is the big bang theory, the other is the steady-state theory. The problem with the steady-state theory is that it's just dull. Where's the excitement in the idea that the Universe has always existed? Like the Mozart effect, the big bang theory feeds a need. Finite creatures that we are, we like the idea that the Universe has a birth and a death. And if you believe in God, even better. The steady-state theory is not good news for theists.

Memes really are powerful magic.

Homo dinosauroid

2007-03-14T20:54:00.000Z

Last night's Horizon was promising: what might have happened if the asteroid that is generally agreed to have triggered the extinction event at the end of the cretaceous period 65 million years ago had missed? This should be good, I thought. Interesting to speculate about how dinosaurs might have continued to evolve. What forms might they have evolved into by now..?

But the programme was spoiled by an unnecessary and scientifically dubious focus on the question "what would have happened if humans had co-evolved along with dinosaurs?".

Given the extraordinary success of the dinosaurs in exploiting ecological niches (as the programme pointed out) the likelihood that mammals would have evolved very much beyond the rodent-like animals (like Repenomamus) that managed to just about co-exist with dinosaurs must be vanishingly small. (Clutching at straws perhaps) the programme suggested that the tree-tops might have provided a dinosaur-free niche in which primates might have evolved, but failed to address the question of why dinosaurs would not have also moved into the same eco-space, especially with fresh mammalian meat to tempt them.

But for me the programme makers lost it completely with the suggestion that intelligent humanoid dinosaurs might have co-evolved with humans. Now I love thought experiments, but the idea that homo dinosauroid would now be peacefully sharing our 21st C. cafe culture is, frankly, insulting to dinosaurs. We were shown a rather meek and frightened looking specimen (well you would be too with no clothes on) - clearly 21st C. homo d. needs to get down to the gym.

Now I have no problem at all with the idea that dinosaur evolution, if it had not been rudely interrupted by the Chicxulub asteroid, might have resulted in highly intelligent dinosaurs, language, culture and so on (especially given emerging evidence for gregarious behaviour in dinosaur groups). If the asteroid had missed, and (against the odds) primates and hominids had evolved alongside intelligent dinosaurs, the suggestion that the two lineages would have somehow co-evolved into a peaceful vision of Dinotopia is, well, just unbelievable*. Much more likely is that the dinosaurs would have been subject to another and equally lethal extinction event. Man.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
*I say this with the greatest respect for the wonderful books of James Gurney.

"By, you were lucky..."

2007-03-01T22:46:00.000Z

My friend, erstwhile mentor and visiting professor colleague Rod Goodman and I were reminiscing a few days ago about our first experiences (~1977) with the Intel 8080, which arrived on a circuit board with 1K bytes RAM, a 1K byte EPROM and absolutely no software. We were having one of those conversations inspired by Monty Python's four Yorkshiremen sketch (and thanks to Dave Snowden for this link from his excellent blog):

"When I were a lad, we only had 4K bytes of RAM and a hex keypad"

"Hex keypad! By, you were lucky. We only 'ad 1K of memory and had to key in t'boot loader by 'and in noughts and ones before we could even start work".

"Well you were lucky. We were so poor we could only afford noughts..." and so on.

But the truth is (and I realise how perilously close I am to becoming a grumpy old man parody here) that my fellow graduate students and I really did have to start from scratch and make all of our own development tools. I recall that we first had to write a cross-assembler, in Algol-68, on the university mainframe: an ICL 1904S. We took advantage of the fact that the mainframe was accessed by electro-mechanical 'teletypes' which were fitted, as standard, with paper-tape punches. We got hold of a paper tape reader and interfaced it to the Intel 8080 development board (designing by hand the necessary interface electronics and device driver code - remember this is long before 'plug and play'). Then we were able to write symbolic 8080 assembler on the mainframe, generate 8080 machine code on paper tape, and load that directly into the 8080 development board to test it. Of course the edit test cycle was pretty long, and not helped by the fact that our lab was two floors from the mainframe terminals, so to speed things up we invested in a special device that allowed us to directly 'edit' the paper tape. The device allowed us to make extra holes and cover over - with a special kind of sticky tape - unwanted holes. Here's a picture of this marvellous device.

So, to anyone out there who grumbles about their software development tools I have only one thing to say. "You're lucky you are. When I were a lad..."

An e-puck outing

2007-02-23T18:28:00.001Z

At a little over 5 cm tall the e-pucks are remarkable little robots. Here is a picture from the web pages of supplier and all round good people at Cyberbotics. Our e-pucks got their first outing at the Brighton Science Festival's Big Science Sunday, on February 18th (and let me pay tribute to festival organiser Richard). A small pack of 4 or 5 e-pucks in a table top arena proved to be a compelling attraction for kids of all ages. A great talking point that allowed us to pontificate about everything from ants and swarm intelligence to the future of robots in society. Here is a picture with my colleague Claire Rocks in mid-demonstration showing part of the arena with two of the e-pucks contrasting with the old Linuxbot on the left. It's amazing to think that the Linuxbot was state-of-the-art technology just 10 years ago. The e-pucks, with sound (microphones and speaker), vision (camera and LEDs), bluetooth radio, proximity sensors and accelerometer are astonishingly sensor-rich compared with the venerable Linuxbot and its generation.

Now the small size of the e-puck can be deceptive. A week or so before the Brighton gig I thought I would try and code up some new swarm behaviours for the robots. "Little robot - how hard can it be", I thought to myself as I sat down to an evening's light coding. Boy was I mistaken. Within the e-puck's densely packed motherboard is a complex system which belies its small size. The Microchip dsPIC microcontroller at the heart of the e-puck has come a long way from the reduced-instruction-set and reduced-everything-else 8 bit PIC I programmed with a few dozen lines of assembler for our early Bismark robot 10 years ago. And in the e-puck the microcontroller is surrounded by some pretty complex sub-systems, such as the sound i/o codec, the camera and the bluetooth wireless. It's a complex system of systems. So, suitably humbled, I shall have to take some time to learn to program the e-puck*.

Just goes to show that with robots too, appearances can be deceptive.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

*Fortunately, and with remarkable generosity, the e-puck's designers have released the whole of the e-puck design - hardware and software - under an open source licence. So there are lots of function libraries and example programs to be explored.

And I should have mentioned that, in addition to public engagement, we're also evaluating the e-pucks as possible robots for our new Artificial Culture project. More blogs about this in due course.

The Rights of Robot

2007-02-13T17:13:00.000Z

Almost exactly a year ago I wrote about wild predictions of human level AI. Another prediction that has caught the attention of the general press is about robot rights. See for instance this piece in the otherwise sensible Financial Times: uk report says robots will have rights, or the BBC technology news here, and elsewhere.

The prediction that provoked these responses is worth a look:
Robo-rights: Utopian dream or rise of the machines?

The report, by Outsights - Ipsos MORI, was part of the UK government's strategic horizon scanning exercise and is pretty brief at a little over 700 words. In a nutshell, the report says that if robots gain artificial intelligence then calls may be made for them to be granted human rights. The report doesn't make it clear whether such calls would be made by humans on robots' behalf, or by the robots themselves (although the only link given is to the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Robots, which seems to imply the former). The likelihood of this is rated 1 out of 3 stars (33%..?), and timescale 21-50+ years. The report, which is clearly written from a legal perspective (nothing wrong with that), goes on to make some frankly surreal speculations about robots voting, becoming tax payers or enjoying social benefits like housing or health-care.

Hang on, is this really a UK government commissioned report, or a script from Futurama..? I'm suprised it didn't go on to warn of loutish robots subject to ASBOs.

Ok, let's get real.

Do I think robots will have (human) rights within 20-50 years? No, I do not. Or to put it another way, I think the likelihood is so small as to be negligible. Why? Because the technical challenges of moving from insect-level robot intelligence, which is more or less where we are now, to human-level intelligence are so great.

Do I think robots will ever have rights? Well, perhaps. In principle I don't see why not. Imagine sentient robots, able to fully engage in discourse with humans, on art, philosophy, mathematics; robots able to empathise or express opinions; robots with hopes, or dreams. Think of Data from Star Trek. It is possible to imagine robots smart, eloquent and persuasive enough to be able to argue their case but, even so, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that robot emancipation would be rapid, or straightforward. After all, even though the rights of man as now generally understood were established over 200 years ago, human rights are still by no means universally respected or upheld.

Why should it be any easier for robots?

In praise of Ubuntu

2006-08-31T13:38:00.000+01:00

Back in March I described problems compiling and installing new applications onto Linux and suggested that until this problem is solved, Linux will not take over the desktop; see On Linux. But in the last few weeks a colleague has introduced me to Ubuntu. It's a lovely distribution which feels clean, stable and nicely integrated. However, the real revelation of Ubuntu is the online package system, which means that finding and installing new applications is unbelievably straightforward. Of course this system doesn't work for any Linux application at all, just the ones (actually many) that have been placed in the Ubuntu package server, but it's clearly the way to go.

I strongly recommend Ubuntu, and commend the good people supporting this distribution who really do appear to live up to the ideals implied by the word "Ubuntu".

Life was tough for early memes

2006-06-15T13:36:00.000+01:00

The really great memes* don't just emerge by chance. They have to be thought of, discovered, invented, created; not necessarily intentionally, or purposefully, but certainly recognised as valuable, either by the meme-originator or meme-copier.

And surely many of those early world-changing memes are things that can't be half-invented or discovered bit by bit. Like how to make fire, for example.

From a meme-perspective, it's hard for us to imagine what it must have been like for early memes. At that time our ancestors were animal-smart, instinctive creatures, probably living much as we see modern higher primates: social groups of chimpanzee or gorilla. Then development was slow, driven by gene- rather than meme-evolution. But there must have been a cusp, a point in evolutionary time when memes start to take hold and gene-meme coevolution starts up. How long was that cusp? Thousands... tens of thousands of years, perhaps.

Think of that period. There must have been countless instances when one smart individual in a group hits upon something useful, but for any number of reasons that discovery dies with its creator. Take fire-making, as an example. Perhaps none of the other individuals in the group are smart enough to recognise the value, or utility of fire-making. Or, worse-still, they are so terrified of the fire-maker's magic that they banish or kill the unfortunate innovator. Alternatively, there may be one or two individuals who do see that this is not something to be feared, but valued. But what if they're just not smart enough to be able to mimic the actions of the fire-maker? To propagate, memes need meme-copiers just as much as meme-originators, and so the fire-making recipe is lost because no-one can copy it. Now consider the larger context. Imagine that one tribe has learned fire-making, and is able to refine and pass the technique from one generation to the next. But then another tribe, larger and stronger, wipes out the fire-maker tribe because of fear, or envy. Or they get wiped out anyway because of famine, or any number of other natural disasters.

Life was precarious then, and so it was for memes too. My point is that many memes were probably thought-of, discovered or created, only to be lost again. Then a few hundred or few thousand years passes before they are thought-of all over again. How many times over did those early memes have to be re-invented before they finally found a foothold and became so widespread that only a major catastrophe affecting the whole population would threaten the meme?

One reason, I think, that this is hard for us to imagine (and construct models of), is that we are used to living in a time when life is easy for memes. Too easy perhaps. We are all surrounded by unbelievably expert meme-copiers. Indeed human beings have become so good at it that meme-copying is surely something that now characterises us as a species. Modern society, from a meme-perspective, is a rich and fertile substrate in which even the most inconsequential memes can thrive (like mobile phone ring-tones).

But it wasn't always so.

Life was tough for early memes.

-------------------------------
*For internet definitions of 'meme' see Google define: meme

And for Susan Blackmore's longer description click here.

What is a robot?

2006-05-31T18:36:00.000+01:00

A few weeks ago we had a visitor to the lab who asked a seemingly straightforward question: "what is a robot?". A perfectly reasonable question, in fact, given that we are a robot lab.

Of course he got a different answer from everyone who offered a definition. No surprises there then. But that got me thinking, what is a robot? Of course the word has a well known dictionary definition from the Czech word Robota (meaning 'compulsory service'), the 'mechanical men and women' in Capek's play Rossum's Universal Robots.

In fact the OED gives a second definition 'A machine devised to function in place of a living agent; one which acts automatically or with a minimum of external impulse'. For me, this definition is also somehow archaic, since it does not admit to the possibility that a robot could have a function other than as a subservient machine. We can now contemplate robots that are not designed as servile machines, but are perhaps designed or evolved to exist because, well for no reason, they just exist.

Wikipedia gives a fullsome definition for 'robot' which starts with the (for me) deeply flawed statement 'A robot is a mechanical device that can perform preprogrammed physical tasks'. The parts I have a problem with here are 'preprogrammed' and 'tasks'. There are many research robots that are not preprogrammed - their behaviours are either learned, evolved or emergent (or some combination of those). My objection to 'tasks' is that some robots may not have tasks in any meaningful sense.

I believe we need a new definition for 21st century robots, that shakes off 20th C notions of subservient machines performing menial tasks for lazy humans. A definition that instead encompasses the possibility of future robots as a form of artificial life, neither preprogrammed or task oriented.

Ok, so here's my attempt at a definition.

A robot is a self-contained artificial machine that is able to sense it's environment and purposefully act within or upon that environment.

An important characteristic of a robot is, therefore, that its sense-action loop is closed through the environment in which it operates (the act of moving changes a robot's perception of its environment, thus giving the robot a fresh set of sense inputs). Thus, even simple robots may behave in a complex or unpredictable way, when placed in real-world environments. This is why designing robots for unsupervised operation in real-world environments is difficult.

A second characteristic of a robot is the degree of autonomy.

In respect of 'control' autonomy there is a spectrum of autonomy from none (i.e. a tele-operated robot) to full autonomy (no human supervision). A robot that has a high level of control autonomy will require an embedded and embodied artificial intelligence in order that the robot can choose the right actions and, perhaps, also adapt or learn from changes in the environment or its own actions.

Finally, and often overlooked is 'energy' autonomy. A robot typically requires its own self-contained power source, but if sustained operation over extended periods is required then the robot will need to have the ability to autonomously replenish its power source.

On Linux

2006-03-08T23:30:00.000Z

Or, why GNU/Linux isn't going to take over the world just yet.

I just spent a gruelling weekend installing the excellent open source Player/Stage/Gazebo robot simulation suite of programs. I know... sad or what. But Player/Stage/Gazebo is really essential toolkit for hard-core roboticists.

Now I'm no Linux virgin. I first installed Linux on some real lab robots early in 1998. It was quite a challenge to shoehorn Linux into a 25MHx 386 processor with 4MB RAM and a first generation 80MB solid-state disk drive. We had first generation wireless LAN cards (well before the IEEE 802.11 aka WiFi specification was established), and the Linux drivers were somewhat experimental and needed a good deal of tender loving care to compile, install and coax into reliable operation. More by luck than judgement I used the excellent and highly respected Slackware distribution of Linux. Slackware's organisation into (floppy) disk sets made it very easy to install just the parts I needed. For example, the robots have no keyboard or display. Access is wirelessly via telnet/ftp/http so there is no need for X-windows or any of the usual GUI superstructure that desktop installations need. So Slackware lent itself to a lean, mean stripped-down embedded installation.

The other thing I liked (and still do) about Slackware is that it is not at the bleeding edge of Linux, but takes a very cautious and conservative approach to keeping up with new versions of Linux kernel, libraries and so on. For this reason and deservedly so Slackware has a reputation for reliability. It's an operating system you can install and forget. It was a good decision because the LinuxBots, as they then became known, have been used since in many multi-robot projects with very high reliability.

Having said all of that you may be surprised that it was only about two years ago that I switched from MS Windows to Linux on my trusty workhorse laptop. I tried with Windows, I really did. On my previous Toshiba Libretto Windows 95 was fine and reliable, but this HP laptop came with Windows 98 pre-installed. Hopeless. I migrated fairly quickly to Windows ME (even more hopeless) then to XP. It crashed inexplicably on average about once a week. I got used to that. I got used to having to worry about up-to-date virus checkers, and then windows security updates, and then spyware checkers. In retrospect it was amazing - I was nurse-maiding my computer's operating system! (Mostly because of one killer application: MS Outlook.) Finally after one crash that proved unrecoverable (FAT table corrupted) I gave up and installed Slackware.

Bliss. It boots in a quarter of the time. Gone are the inexplicable flurries of disk or network activity that happen when you've done nothing. Gone is the paranoia of worrying about viruses or spyware or security updates. Running Linux my laptop is sweeter, cooler, more responsive and, best of all, in two years it has never, yes never, crashed.

So why am I complaining?

Well the achilles heel of Linux is that installing new software is not as straightforward as it should be. I should first explain that in Linux it's quite normal to download source code then compile and install; actually that's the easy part, since there are very simple command line scripts to automate the process. The problem is deeper. In fact there are two problems: pre-requisites and version dependencies.

Now Player, Stage and Gazebo are complex packages. Not-surprisingly therefore they require other software (toolkits, libraries, and so on) to be installed first. These are the pre-requisites. Gazebo, for instance (which provides a 3 dimensional world, with physics modelling, in which the simulated robots run) required me to first install no less than five packages: the Geo-spatial Data Abstraction Library (GDAL), the Open Dynamics Engine (ODE), the Simplified Wrapper and Interface Generator (SWIG), the Python GUI wxPython and the open GL utilities library GLUT. Phew! But wxPython is itself a complex package, with its own pre-requisites. The pre-requisites have pre-requisites!

And as if that isn't enough to contend with when I tried to install Stage I discover that it needs the GIMP toolkit GTK+ of at least version 2.4. My GTK+ is only version 2.2. That's a version dependency.

These are the reasons Linux (marvellous as it is) isn't about to take over the world just yet.

What GNU/Linux needs is a distribution independent universal installer that will analyse your existing system, figure out the pre-requisites and version dependencies for the new package you want to install (and do that recursively), then get on and do it while you take the weekend off. Maybe there's already a sourceforge project to do just that, in which case I say 'huzzah!'.

But was it all worth the effort? As Keanu Reeves would say "hell yeah!". Player/Stage/Gazebo is a robot simulator of truly awesome power and versatility.

Quite dangerous ideas

2006-02-24T12:09:00.000Z

I came across the Edge website last week, whose home page declares the rather grand aim:

To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves.

It appears that the Edge asks an Annual Question, "What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything", that sort of thing, and then publishes the answers by the contributing illuminati.

The 2006 question is "What is your dangerous idea?".

So it was with some excitement that I started to read the assembled responses of the great and the good. Very interesting and well worth reading but, I have to say, the ideas expressed are, er, not very dangerous. Quite dangerous, one might say, but by and large not the sort of ideas that had me rushing to hide behind the sofa.

So, I hear you say, "what's your dangerous idea?".

Ok then, here goes.

I think that Newton's interpretation of his first law of motion was wrong and that there is no such thing as a force of gravity. Let me say right away that this is not my idea: it is the result of a lifetime's work by my friend Science Philosopher Viv Pope. But I have played a part in the development of this work, so I feel justified in evangelising about it.

Recall your school physics. Newton's first law of motion states that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. In other words, that the 'natural' state of motion is in a straight line. Of course in an abstract sort of way this feels as if it is right. Perhaps that is why it has not been seriously challenged for the best part of 400 years (or it could be because Newton's first law has become so embedded in the way we think about the world that we simply accept it unquestioningly).

Consider an alternative first law of motion: the natural (force less) state of motion is orbital. I.e. that bodies continue to orbit unless an external force is applied. Now the Universe is full of orbital motion. From the micro-scale - electrons in orbit around nuclei, to the macro-scale - moons around planets, planets around stars, rotating galaxies etc. If this alternative first law is true, it would mean that we don't need to invent gravity to account for orbital motion. This appeals to me, not least because it leads to a simpler and more elegant explanation (and I like Occam's Razor). It would also explain why - despite vast effort and millions of dollars worth of research - no empirical evidence (gravity waves or gravity particles) has yet been found for how gravity propagates or acts at-a-distance. A common-sense objection to this idea is "well if there's no such thing as gravity what is it that sticks us to the surface of the earth - why don't we just float off?". The answer is (and you can show this with some pretty simple maths), that the natural (force less) orbital radius for you (given the mass of your body), is quite a long way towards the centre of the earth from where you now sit. So there is a force that means that you weigh something, it's just not a mysterious force of gravity but the real force exerted by the thing that restrains you from orbiting freely, i.e. the ground under your feet.

This has all been worked out in a good deal of detail by Viv Pope and mathematician Anthony Osborne, and its called the Pope Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis, or POAMS.

Now that's what I call a dangerous idea.

On microcode: the place where hardware and software meet

2006-02-23T23:35:00.000Z

Software is remarkable stuff. Ever since writing my first computer program in October 1974* I have not lost that odd but exhilarating sense that writing a program is like working with pure mind stuff. Even now, over 32 years later, when I fire up Kylix** on my laptop and crack my fingers ready to starting coding I still feel the excitement - the sense of engineering something out of nothing in that virtual mind-space inside the computer.

But there is an even more remarkable place that I want to talk about here, and that is the place where hardware and software meet. That place is called microcode.

Let me first describe what microcode is.

Most serious computer programming is (quite sensibly) done with high-level languages (C++, Java, etc), but those languages don't run directly on the computer. They have to be translated into machine-code, the binary 0s and 1s that actually run on the processor itself. (The symbolic version of machine code is called 'assembler' and hard-core programmers who want extreme performance out of their computers program in assembler.) The translation from the high-level language into machine-code is done by a program called a compiler and if, like me, you work within a Linux environment then your compiler will most likely be the highly respected GCC (Gnu C Compiler).

However, there is an even lower level form of code than machine-code, and that is microcode.

Even though a machine-code instruction is a pretty low-level thing, like 'load the number 10 into the A register', which would be written in symbolic assembler as LD A,10, and in machine-code as an unreadable binary number, it still can't be excuted directly on the processor. To explain why I first need to give a short tutorial on what's going on inside the processor. Basically a microprocessor is a bit like a city where all of the specialist buildings (bank, garage, warehouse, etc) are connected together by the city streets. In a microprocessor the buildings are pieces of hardware that each do some particular job. One is a set of registers which provide low level working storage, another is the arithmetic logic unit (or ALU) that will perform simple arithmetic (add, subject, AND, OR etc), yet another is an input-output port for transferring data to the outside world. In the microprocessor the city streets are called data busses. And, like a real city, data has to be moved around between say the ALU and the registers, by being routed. Also like a real city data on the busses can collide, so the microprocessor designer has to carefully avoid this otherwise data will be corrupted.

Ok, now I can get back to the microcode. Basically, each assembler instruction like LD A,10 has to be converted into a set of electrical signals (literally signals on individual wires) that will both route the data around the data busses, in the right sequence, and select which functions are to be performed by the ALU, port, etc. These electrical signals are called microorders. Because the data takes time to get around on the data busses the sequence of microorders has to carefully take account of the time delays (which are called propagation delays) for data to get between any two places in the microprocessor. Thus, each assembler instruction has a little program of its own, a sequence of microorders (which may well have loops and branches, just like ordinary high level programs), and programming in microcode is exquisitely challenging.

Microcode really is the place where hardware and software meet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*in Algol 60, on a deck of punched cards, to run on an ICL 1904 mainframe.
**which I am very sorry to see has now been discontinued by Borland.