backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by drycrust3.. on Jan 29 at 2:20 PM


The lego prototypes of the evolutionary robots  (Source: University of Vermont)
University of Vermont researcher finds that robots learn to walk and behave more efficiently when its body and behavior evolves instead of being fixed

A University of Vermont researcher has created robots that are capable of evolving, much like tadpoles becoming frogs. 

Josh Bongard, creator of the evolving robots and an assistant professor in the University of Vermont's College of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, has simulated and created robots that change body performance over time instead of having a fixed body form and behavioral traits like other robots. 

Up until this point, robots have been designed and built one specific way and are programmed directly instead of having to learn certain behaviors. But Bongard argues that this method may not produce the most efficient robots. 

Instead, Bongard has created robots capable of evolving both its body and behavior over a period of time, much like the way humans grow from babies to adults. The goal is to create four-legged, upright robots that can move to a light source without falling.  

Bongard's robots were made in many different ways. Some start out flat on the ground, or like snakes with legs while others may have splayed legs like lizards. The robots may start out in any of these forms, but the end result is that they form upright legs and know how to use them. They have 12 moving parts and are very simple-looking structures with a jointed spine, the look of a mammal's skeleton, and four sticks for legs.

The prototypes for these robots were made of Lego's, showing how the evolution of these robots would work. They were made as four-legged "robots" like in the simulation, and wore braces on its front and back legs that would tilt it. This causes the controller to look for successful movement patterns, which results in the legs going from horizontal to vertical. They would go from a reptile to a quadruped. 

"We built a relatively simple robot out of a couple of Lego Mindstorm kits to demonstrate that you actually could do it," said Bongard. 

To make the real robots, Bongard first ran 5,000 computer simulations -- each taking about 30 hours to complete -- on the University of Vermont's parallel processors to create synthetic models that move around in 3-dimensional space. Each generation of each creature then "runs" a genetic algorithm, which is a software routine that helps the creature learn different body motions such as slithering, crawling or walking. An appropriate motion is applied to each generation of the creature, giving it a proper plan to be able to obtain the goal of moving toward a light source without falling over. 

"The snake and reptilian robots are, in essence, training wheels," said Bongard. "They allow evolution to find motion patterns quicker, because those kinds of robots can't fall over. So evolution only has to solve the movement problem, but not the balance problem, initially. Then gradually over time it's able to tackle the balance problem after already solving the movement problem."

Bongard noted that robots who evolve this way learn to walk more quickly and have a more "robust gait" than those that were built with fixed bodies and behaviors. In tests, Bongard's evolving robots were able to reach the final goal of moving to the light source without falling over faster than non-evolving robots. Also, researchers found that the robots were able to attempt new kinds of challenges that were not previously given to them after reaching the light source. This may be because controllers used in the evolving robots could have maintained a certain behavior over a wider range of sensor-motor-related functions while controllers in fixed robots did not. 

"We're copying nature, we're copying evolution, we're copying neural science when we're building artificial brains into these robots," said Bongard. 

This study was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Random Skynet refference
By drycrust3 on 1/21/2011 5:43:43 PM , Rating: 4
I'm sure it will be more interesting and more accurate than this article:
quote:
are capable of evolving, much like tadpoles becoming frogs.

quote:
much like the way humans grow from babies to adults

Since when has the maturing of an infant into an adult been considered as an example of Evolution? Just go and look at Haeckel's drawings and you can see he was using too much license. No wonder people told him to get a better microscope! He fabricated his research! I can't believe I have to actually critique this nonsense!
The tadpole and the frog it grows into have the same DNA, so they are the same species, the babe and the man or women it grows into have the same DNA, so these are not examples of Evolution! Why do I have to critique this nonsense? Can't any Evolutionary experts do it?
If you look at those robots, they cannot be Evolving unless: a) they have the ability to make themselves more advanced than they currently are (UNAIDED!); or 2) they have the ability to construct robots that are more advanced than they themselves are (again: UNAIDED!). Maybe it is just this article was poorly written, but nothing in the text says either of these was actually demonstrated here.
What was demonstrated is an example of artificial intelligence because the robots program was able to work out what the body it was given was capable of and how to use it.
quote:
Bongard has created robots capable of evolving both its body and behavior over a period of time

Really? How does the body evolve? Even if the robot "found" limbs lying around and attached them by itself to its body, that doesn't actually prove Evolution took place, and a robot changing its behaviour is an example of artificial intelligence, not Evolution!

All the evidence presented in this article suggests that neither the writer of this article nor the Assistant Professor actually knows what the theory of Evolution is. Don't they teach it at school?

You guys should be glad there are Creationists like me here because none of the Evolutionists who read this saw the patently obvious flaws in this article. Don't be surprised if it passes peer review without a murmur. What a load of nonsense! Duke Nukem would certainly be more entertaining and educational.


RE: Random Skynet refference
By Myg on 1/24/2011 6:57:16 AM , Rating: 3
Evolution is anywhere and everywhere, its just another word for "Adapting", it exists from the very lowest level we can perceive; molecular to the highest; planetary.

I'd say the "modern evolutionists" have it wrong and instead of "missing links" existing, i'd say its just branches off the main stream of evolution which forgot or chose not to follow God.

For example: Every child wants to be like someone instinctually when they grow up, surely its not just a mechanism for evolving/adapting? So if they chose to evolve towards God, then they keep evolving as they are "intended" towards the "image" of God (Image isn't just a visually coherent thing) and if they attach themselves to something else, like something simple and worldy; wont they just stay the same or de-adapt/de-volve?

Who's to say? Who really knows?

We are all really playing in God's backyard, but some people really need to get out of his tool-shed once in a while.


RE: Random Skynet refference
By drycrust3 on 1/24/2011 2:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Evolution is anywhere and everywhere ... it exists from the very lowest level we can perceive; molecular to the highest; planetary.

Well, you are just the guy this assistant professor should send his paper to!


RE: Random Skynet refference
By Myg on 1/24/2011 6:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
Evolution is anywhere and everywhere, its just another word for "Adapting", it exists from the very lowest level we can perceive; molecular to the highest; planetary.

I'd say the "modern evolutionists" have it wrong and instead of "missing links" existing, i'd say its just branches off the main stream of evolution which forgot or chose not to follow God.

For example: Every child wants to be like someone instinctually when they grow up, surely its not just a mechanism for evolving/adapting? So if they chose to evolve towards God, then they keep evolving as they are "intended" towards the "image" of God (Image isn't just a visually coherent thing) and if they attach themselves to something else, like something simple and worldy; wont they just stay the same or de-adapt/de-volve?

Who's to say? Who really knows?

We are all really playing in God's backyard, but some people really need to get out of his tool-shed once in a while.


RE: Random Skynet refference
By Myg on 1/24/2011 7:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
Unexpected double post, I have no control over this system so I don't know why it happened, but it was not intended.


RE: Random Skynet refference
By drycrust3 on 1/29/2011 2:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have no control over this system so I don't know why it happened, but it was not intended.

Following the logic of the Associate Professor, it is obvious that your computer is evolving. Don't be surprised if the amount of RAM has mysteriously increased, the CPU has more GHz, and the HDD has more space and spins faster as well.
If you think I am stupid, then it is obvious you haven't been paying attention to what the Associate Professor says, he says his robots are evolving, and part of that process is the RAM gets bigger, the CPUs get more powerful, and the HDD capacity increases, all without any intervention of mankind!


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki