Dialogue French in Video

4 Comments | Started September 21, 2016, 04:36:37 PM


How do you make a Robot AI attracted to zebras? in General AI Discussion

How do you make a Robot AI attracted to zebras?

10 Comments | Started September 17, 2016, 10:19:50 PM


Michigan’s automated driving bills in Robotics News

Michigan’s automated driving bills
26 September 2016, 1:30 pm


Michigan’s Senate are reviewing several bills related to automated driving. SB995, 996, 997, and 998 are now out of committee, and SB 927 and 928 are not far behind. These bills seem to be a mixed bag. Critically, they are in desperate need of clarification followed by thoughtful discussion.

Editor’s note: Please note that this article refers to the versions that came out of the senate before moving to the house, where they have been slightly modified.

What’s good SB 995 would repeal the state’s express ban on automated driving generally — a three-year-old anachronism that has frustrated officials promoting Michigan to developers of automated driving systems and that could eventually frustrate early efforts to actually deploy those systems. At a minimum, this would return Michigan law to flexible ambiguity on the question of the legality of automated driving in general. The bill probably goes even further by expressly authorizing automated driving: It provides that “[a]n automated motor vehicle may be operated on a street or highway on this state,” and the summary of the bill as reported from committee similarly concludes that SB 995 would “[a]llow an automated motor vehicle to be operated on a street or highway in Michigan.” (This provision is somewhat confusing because it would be added to an existing statutory section that currently addresses only research and testing and because it would seem to subvert many proposed restrictions on research tests and “on-demand automated motor vehicle networks.”) Regardless, this bill would also exempt groups of closely spaced and tightly coordinated vehicles from certain following-distance requirements that are incompatible with platooning. Furthermore, by using key definitions from SAE J3016, SB 995 would also help to align legal language with credible technical language.

What’s weird SB 995 and 996 may or may not give recognized manufacturers of motor vehicles a special driverless taxi privilege, and they may or may not disadvantage companies that cannot partner with such a manufacturer — but they definitely do add unnecessary confusion. Together, these two bills expressly authorize “on-demand automated motor vehicle networks” that involve a recognized motor vehicle manufacturer in some capacity. Under the bills as originally drafted, only these manufacturers would have been eligible to “participate” in those networks. This would have meant that General Motors could run an “on-demand automated motor vehicle network” while Google and Uber could not. Although nothing in the original bills would have explicitly — or even, at least arguably, implicitly — prohibited other driverless taxi services, these services would not have qualified as “on-demand motor vehicle networks” and would not have benefitted from an express authorization. As revised, however, SB 995 now broadens the scope of “on-demand automated motor vehicle networks” to include both those in which a vehicle manufacturer is the only participant (still called a “SAVE Project”) and those in which such a manufacturer merely “supplie or control” the vehicles used therein (not called a “SAVE Project”).

Making sense of all this is difficult. The currently proposed language could mean that automated driving is lawful only in the context of research and development and “on-demand motor vehicle networks.” Or it could mean that automated driving is lawful generally and that these networks are subject to more restrictive requirements. It could mean that any company could run a driverless taxi service, including motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise face unrelated and unspecified legal impediments. Or it could mean that a company seeking to run a driverless taxi service must partner with a motor vehicle manufacturer — or that such a company must at least purchase production vehicles, the modification of which might then be restricted by SB 927 and 928 (see below). It could also mean that municipalities could regulate and tax only those driverless taxi services that do not involve a manufacturer. Or that any vehicle manufacturer that wants to run a “SAVE Project” may not bring on any other project partners. Or, because “on-demand automated motor vehicle network” and “participating fleet” are each defined by circular reference to the other, it could mean something else altogether. Clarifying these provisions is a necessary condition to evaluating them.

What’s rough Like earlier bills in Michigan and other states, SB 995 and 996 understandably struggle to reconcile an existing vehicle code with automated driving. Under existing Michigan law, a “driver” is “every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle,” an “operator” is “a person, other than a chauffeur, who “

  • perates” either “a motor vehicle” or “an automated motor vehicle,” and “operate” means either “eing in actual physical control of a vehicle” or “[c]ausing an automated motor vehicle to move under its own power in automatic mode,” which “includes engaging the automated technology of that automated motor vehicle for that purpose.” The new bills would not change this language, but they would further complicate these concepts in several ways:

      [li]SB 995 makes reference to “operation without a human operator” and to “[a]utomated technology  that has the capability to assist, make decisions for, or replace a human operator.”
    [li]The bills specify that “[w]hen engaged, an automated driving system” (in SB 995) or “an automated driving system or any remote or expert-controlled assist activity” (in SB 996) “shall be considered the driver or operator of the [or a] vehicle for purposes of determining conformance to any applicable traffic or motor vehicle laws.”[/li][li]The bills further provide that this system (plus, in the case of SB 996, “expert-controlled assist activity”) “shall be deemed to satisfy electronically all physical acts required by a driver or operator of the vehicle.”[/li][li]SB 995 provides both that “[a] person may operate a platoon  if the person files a plan” with the state and that “the operator of a truck or truck tractor that is in a platoon shall allow reasonable access for other vehicles.”[/li][li]The bill further provides that “an on-demand motor vehicle network may be operated.”[/li][li]The bill additionally provides that developers of any “technology that allows a motor vehicle to operate without a human operator” shall ensure that the vehicle “is operated only by an employee” or other authorized person and imposes requirements on “[t]he individual operating the vehicle  and the individual who is monitoring the vehicle” — individuals who are, definitionally, the same individual.[/li][li]The bill also provides that a current prohibition on using mobile communications devices “while operating a motor vehicle that is moving” does not apply either to “a person using an on-demand automated motor vehicle network” or, in a particularly striking sentence, to “an individual who is using” that device to “operate  an automated motor vehicle while  operating the automated motor vehicle without a human operator.” (Read that a few times.)[/li][/list] This is, collectively, a mess.

    If these bills are enacted, drivers and operators could conceivably include companies running driverless taxi services, engineers who start automated vehicles, passengers who merely ride in them (since otherwise a mobile device exception would be unnecessary), companies that file platooning permits, and the automated driving systems themselves. The bills accordingly complicate rather than clarify the meaning of these two critical terms. These terms are critical because Michigan’s current vehicle code places a wide array of rights and responsibilities on the driver or operator of a motor vehicle. Provisions such as the basic seatbelt requirement or the entire licensing regime make no sense when applied to something other than a natural person. And provisions that impose criminal penalties make no sense when applied to something, like an “automated driving system,” that is not even a legal person. This is an important distinction between state vehicle codes, which necessarily treat drivers as legal entities, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which do not. (This is why NHTSA’s suggestion that a “self-driving system” could be the “driver” in the limited context of the FMVSS is not as revolutionary as popularly reported.)

    Consider the provision that “an automated driving system  shall be considered the driver or operator  for purposes of determining conformance to any applicable traffic or motor vehicle laws.” This provision says nothing about who or what the driver is for purposes of determining liability for a violation of those laws, particularly when there is no crash. SB 996 does provide that “a motor vehicle manufacturer shall assume liability for each incident in which the automated driving system is at fault,” subject to the state’s existing insurance code — but only for SAVE projects. (The additional qualification — “during the time that an automated driving system is in control of a vehicle” — is both unnecessary and insufficiently broad.)

    Moreover, the provision that the automated driving system (or possibly the “expert-controlled assist activity”) “shall be deemed to satisfy electronically all physical acts required by a driver or operator of the vehicle” is unclear. The drafters may have intended this to establish that an automated driving system that accomplishes the same ends as a human driver is not unlawful merely because it uses different means. The most natural reading of the actual words, however, is that an automated driving system is deemed to satisfy any and every requirement for physical action, even if it does not achieve an equivalent end.

    Applying the existing vehicle code (and other related codes) in the context of automated driving requires much more careful thought. Potential approaches range from wholly revising these codes to accommodate both automated and conventional driving to wholly exempting automated driving and regulating it under a separate regime. Michigan’s bills — as well as inchoate efforts in other states — attempt to take the middle ground by categorically mapping existing law onto automated driving. In 2012, I also attempted this by defining key terms such as driver and by specifying particular canons of interpretation; the result was far more systematic than Michigan’s effort — but still far from perfect. If the state’s legislature wishes to continue with a middling approach, it should provide (or empower an agency to provide) much more clarity on the questions of who is and isn’t a driver and how existing codes actually apply.

    What’s alarming SB 927 provides that a person who “intentionally access[es] or cause access to be made to an electronic system of a motor vehicle to willfully  alter  the motor vehicle” is “guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years.” SB 928 accordingly, but inconsistently, amends the code of criminal procedure to specify that “access[ing] electronic systems of motor vehicle to obtain data [!] or control of vehicle” is a class A felony punishable by a statutory maximum of life imprisonment. The primary intent of these bills is, I would hope, to prohibit malicious interference with a vehicle. However, the broad language of SB 927 (“A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to an electronic system of a motor vehicle to intentionally destroy, damage, impair, alter, or gain unauthorized control of the motor vehicle”) goes far beyond any such aim. A literal interpretation would make criminals out of manufacturers that send over-the-air updates to their vehicles, vehicle owners who accept such updates, repair shops that run diagnostics checks while fixing vehicles, owners who install new stereos, automated driving startups that modify production vehicles, researchers who test the safety of vehicle electronics, and many others. These bills are particularly troublesome in light of the assertion by some automakers that they alone “own” the software on vehicles that they have already sold. If these bills move forward, they should be limited to instances in which a person acts in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others.

    What’s left Other provisions could, at a minimum, benefit from careful review. SB 995 adds to an existing requirement that any developer of relevant technologies submit proof of insurance even before “beginning research,” which seems a bit premature. A provision in the same bill for academic and public research references earlier provisions in a way that makes their application unclear. On at least one reading of SB 995, the bill would not prohibit the wholly unsupervised operation of a lone commercial vehicle but would require a driver behind the wheel if that same vehicle is part of a platoon. Many issues like these might be caught and corrected in the normal legislative process (or not), but the cumulative effect at this point is to create unnecessary confusion about the actual content and effect of a potentially historic set of bills.

    For steps that governments can take now to encourage the development, deployment, and use of automated driving systems, please see How Governments Can Promote Automated Driving, available at newlypossible.org.

    Source: Robohub

    To visit any links mentioned please view the original article, the link is at the top of this post.

    Started September 26, 2016, 04:48:06 PM


    A Blast from the past... in Gaming


    No...not even the 1998 version.

    How about the Atari 1980 version! One of the 1st 3D based games to hit the market and it was quite a success and loved by masses of people. This one is shown as "wire frame objects" and can be played by practically any system online.

    Use Spacebar to fire the tank and the arrow keys to navigate. You can "hide" behind the 3D objects but they will also block your movement in all directions. (if you're trying to back up and back into one, you'll have to move forward, etc.
    There are also other things that you'll have to shoot at as your skill and points increase.

    Use left/right arrow keys to enter your initials if desired (it's not like they're going to remain there when you're done).

    Anyhow have fun!

    This site also lists many other games from that early era of game playing like Missle Command, Asteroids, Centipede, Tempest and several others...Bookmark the page then come back to play as often as you like.

    Started September 26, 2016, 11:53:45 AM


    Robots can successfully imitate human motions in the operating room in Robotics News

    Robots can successfully imitate human motions in the operating room
    26 September 2016, 9:30 am

    The human-like and the non-human-like trajectories were performed in a random order (10 human-like and 10 non-human-like). Photo: Courtesy of Dr. Elena De Momi, Politecnico di Milano.The human-like and the non-human-like trajectories were performed in a random order (10 human-like and 10 non-human-like). Photo: Courtesy of Dr. Elena De Momi, Politecnico di Milano. By: Marcus Banks

    The nursing assistant for your next trip to the hospital might be a robot. This is the implication of research recently published by Dr. Elena De Momi and colleagues in the open access journal Frontiers in Robotics and AI (Artificial Intelligence).

    Dr. De Momi, of the Politecnico di Milano (Italy), led an international team that trained a robot to imitate natural human actions. De Momi’s work indicates that humans and robots can effectively coordinate their actions during high-stakes events such as surgeries.

    Over time this should lead to improvements in safety during surgeries because unlike their human counterparts robots do not tire and can complete an endless series of precise movements. The goal is not to remove human expertise from the operating room, but to complement it with a robot’s particular skills and benefits.

    “As a roboticist, I am convinced that robotic (co)workers and collaborators will definitely change the work market, but they won’t steal job opportunities. They will just allow us to decrease workload and achieve better performances in several tasks, from medicine to industrial applications,” De Momi explains.

    To conduct their experiment De Momi’s team photographed a human being conducting numerous reaching motions, in a way similar to handing instruments to a surgeon. These camera captures were input into the neural network of the robotic arm, which is crucial to controlling movements. Next, a human operator guided the robotic arm in imitating the reaching motions that the human subject had initially performed. Although there was not a perfect overlap between the robotic and human actions, they were broadly similar.

    Finally, several humans observed as the robotic arm made numerous motions. These observers determined whether the actions of the robotic arms were “biologically inspired,” which would indicate that their neural networks had effectively learned to imitate human behavior. About 70% of the time this is exactly what the human observers concluded.

    These results are promising, although further research is necessary to validate or refine De Momi’s conclusions. If robotic arms can indeed imitate human behavior, it would be necessary to build conditions in which humans and robots can cooperate effectively in high-stress environments like operating rooms.

    This future may not be as far away as we think. De Momi’s work is part of the growing field of healthcare robotics, which has the potential to change the way we receive health care sooner rather than later.

    Read the research paper here.

    If you liked this article, you may also want to read:

    See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

    Source: Robohub

    To visit any links mentioned please view the original article, the link is at the top of this post.

    Started September 26, 2016, 10:52:45 AM


    Victor Scheinman, Assembly Line Robot Inventor, Dies at 73 in AI News

    Victor Scheinman, Assembly Line Robot Inventor, Dies at 73
    25 September 2016, 2:15 pm


    Victor Scheinman, who overcame his boyhood nightmares about a science-fiction movie humanoid to build the first successful electrically powered, computer-controlled industrial robot, died on Tuesday in Petrolia, Calif. He was 73.
    NY TimesLink

    Source: AI in the News

    To visit any links mentioned please view the original article, the link is at the top of this post.

    Started September 25, 2016, 04:48:19 PM


    Congratulations to SquareBear in General Chat

    Well done on the Loebner win  :)

    Do you want to do another interview ?  :D

    13 Comments | Started September 21, 2016, 08:55:39 PM


    speak3D_chung_dll a dll for display face3D talking avatars in openGL in General Avatar Talk

    speak3D_chung_dll is a dll library version of face3D_chung for displaying 3D talking avatars in openGL .
    It is written in compiled freebasic and can be called by any windows desktop application .
    Not the best lipsync but is free open source and easy to program .

    you can find it here => http://chungswebsite.blogspot.fr/2014/06/face3dchung-free-3d-obj-model-with.html

    (29/08/2016) speak3D_chung_dll2 for display multi talking face3D avatars added

    3 Comments | Started August 31, 2016, 02:14:39 PM


    Automated screening for childhood communication disorders in AI News

    Automated screening for childhood communication disorders
    23 September 2016, 1:53 pm

    For children with speech and language disorders, early-childhood intervention can make a great difference in their later academic and social success. But many such children -- one study estimates 60 percent -- go undiagnosed until kindergarten or even later.

    Source: Artificial Intelligence News -- ScienceDaily

    Started September 24, 2016, 04:48:05 AM


    Hold Me Tight in Video

    Started September 23, 2016, 10:48:19 PM
    [Facebook Messenger] Soccer Fan Bot

    [Facebook Messenger] Soccer Fan Bot in Chatbots - English

    This is a Facebook Messenger bot called Soccer Fan Bot. It can do 3 things:

    - Update you on the score of your team by typing "Update me on France" for example.

    - Propose you 3 pictures of either a soccer player or player's wife and ask you to guess the one corresponding to the proposed name. Just write "guess player" or "guess wife".

    - Give you a fact, just type "give me a fact".

    Aug 17, 2016, 11:46:51 am
    [Thai] BE (Buddhist Era)

    [Thai] BE (Buddhist Era) in Chatbots - Non English

    Be has been made with the program-o engine. Almost all knowledge is about Thailand and Thai people. She speaks only Thai language.

    Aug 17, 2016, 11:38:54 am
    The World's End

    The World's End in Robots in Movies

    The World's End is a 2013 British comic science fiction film directed by Edgar Wright, written by Wright and Simon Pegg, and starring Pegg, Nick Frost, Paddy Considine, Martin Freeman, Rosamund Pike and Eddie Marsan. The film follows a group of friends who discover an alien invasion during an epic pub crawl in their home town.

    Gary King (Simon Pegg), a middle-aged alcoholic, tracks down his estranged schoolfriends and persuades them to complete "the Golden Mile", a pub crawl encompassing the 12 pubs of their hometown of Newton Haven. The group had previously attempted the crawl as teenagers in 1990 but failed to reach the final pub, The World's End.

    Gary picks a fight with a teenager and knocks his head off, exposing a blue blood-like liquid and subsequently exposing him as an alien android. Gary's friends join him and fight more androids, whom they refer to as "blanks" to disguise what they are talking about.

    May 31, 2016, 09:28:32 am
    Botwiki.org Monthly Bot Challenge

    Botwiki.org Monthly Bot Challenge in Websites

    Botwiki.org is a site for showcasing friendly, useful, artistic online bots, and our Monthly Bot Challenge is a recurring community event dedicated to making these kinds of bots.

    Feb 25, 2016, 19:46:54 pm
    From Movies to Reality: How Robots Are Revolutionizing Our World

    From Movies to Reality: How Robots Are Revolutionizing Our World in Articles

    Robots were once upon a time just a work of human imagination. Found only in books and movies, not once did we think a time would come where we would be able to interact with robots in real world. Eventually, in fact rapidly, the innovations we only dreamt of are now becoming a reality. Quoting the great Stephen Hawking "This is a glorious time to be alive for scientists". It is indeed the best time for the technology has become more and more sophisticated that its growing power might even endanger humanity.

    Jan 26, 2016, 10:12:00 am

    Uncanny in Robots in Movies

    Uncanny is a 2015 American science fiction film directed by Matthew Leutwyler and based on a screenplay by Shahin Chandrasoma. It is about the world's first "perfect" artificial intelligence (David Clayton Rogers) that begins to exhibit startling and unnerving emergent behavior when a reporter (Lucy Griffiths) begins a relationship with the scientist (Mark Webber) who created it.

    Jan 20, 2016, 13:09:41 pm
    AI Virtual Pets

    AI Virtual Pets in Other

    Artificial life also called Alife is simply the simulation of any aspect of life, as through computers, robotics, or biochemistry. (taken from the Free dictionary)This site focus's on the software aspect of it.

    Oct 03, 2015, 09:21:09 am
    Why did HAL sing ‘Daisy’?

    Why did HAL sing ‘Daisy’? in Articles

    ...a burning question posed by most people who have watched or read “2001: A Space Odyssey”: that is, why does the computer HAL-9000 sing the song ‘Daisy Bell’ as the astronaut Dave Bowman takes him apart?

    Sep 04, 2015, 09:28:55 am

    Humans in Robots on TV

    Humans is a British-American science fiction television series. Written by the British team Sam Vincent and Jonathan Brackley, based on the award-winning Swedish science fiction drama Real Humans, the series explores the emotional impact of the blurring of the lines between humans and machines.

    Aug 28, 2015, 09:13:37 am

    CallMom in Chatbots - English

    [Android App] Pandorabots is pleased to announce the release of our new CallMom app for Android. CallMom is a mobile, voice-activated personal assistant that can have a conversation, dial a number, send an email or SMS message, learn contacts, provide help with the app, search the web, open a URL in a browser, read data from web services, check battery status, give directions and find a location on the map -- all through natural language, voice commands.

    Unlike other virtual assistant apps for Android and iPhone, CallMom includes a learning feature so that it can learn your personal preferences and contacts, and be taught to correct speech recognition errors. CallMom can be connected to a variety of pandorabot personalities, including ALICE, Mitsuku, Zoe, Fake Captain Kirk and others.

    The CallMom app utilizes Pandorabots to respond to natural langauge inputs. The knowledge content is written in AIML (Artificial Intelligence Markup Language) and the responses are completely customizable. In what represents the first major extension to the AIML language in years, we've created a set of AIML tags called "Out of Band" (OOB) tags to process device actions.

    Also unlike other virtual assistant apps, we've made the CallMom knowledge base completely open source. Hosted on a Google Code project, the CallMom AIML is freely available to anyone wishing to create his own custom CallMom personality. We've already attracted a significant body of contributions to this resource from our AIML development community.

    CallMom is now available free in the Android Market, with limited learning features. A premium upgrade is underway which will make the learned knowledge persistent.

    May 02, 2012, 09:47:52 am