Animat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Animat (third-person indicative present of the Latin verb animō),[1] meaning to "animate, give or bring life"
Animats are artificial animals, a contraction of animal-materials. The term includes physical robots and virtual simulations. Animat research, a subset of Artificial Life studies, has become rather popular since Rodney Brooks' seminal paper "Intelligence without representation".
First, let us consider some of the requirements for our
Creatures.
• A Creature must cope appropriately and in a timely
fashion with changes in its dynamic environment.
• A Creature should be robust with respect to its
environment; minor changes in the properties of
the world should not lead to total collapse of the
Creature's behavior; rather one should expect only a
gradual change in capabilities of the Creature as the
environment changes more and more.
• A Creature should be able to maintain multiple
goals and, depending on the circumstances it finds
itself in, change which particular goals it is
actively pursuing; thus it can both adapt to
surroundings and capitalize on fortuitous
circumstances.
• A Creature should do something in the world; it
should have some purpose in being
- article is explaining also development of MIT AI Lab robots:
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/mobile-robots/robots.html
The word was coined by S.W. Wilson in 1985, in "Knowledge growth in an artificial animal", published in the first Proceedings of an International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications.
An example using the Animat model as proposed by Wilson is discussed at some length in chapter 9 of Stan Franklin's book, Artificial Minds. In this implementation, the animat is capable of independent learning about its environment through application and evolution of pattern-matching rules called "taxons".
Alan H Goldstein has proposed that, because nanobiotechnology is in the process of creating real animal-materials, speculative use of this term should be discouraged and its application become purely phenomenological. Based on the Animat Test (contained in the reference "I, Nanobot.") any nonbiological material or entity that exhibits the minimum set of behaviors that define a life form is, de facto, an Animat. Goldstein's basic premise is that in the age of nanobiotechnology it is necessary to follow the chemistry and molecular engineering rather than watching for the emergence of some pre-conceived minimum level of 'intelligence' such as an artificial neural network capable of adaptive phenomena. Goldstein has cautioned that there is a serious disconnect between the fields of nanobiotechnology and A-life based on profound differences in scientific training, experimental systems, and the different sets of terminology (jargon) these two fields have produced. Nanobiotechnologists (really molecular engineers who work with both biological and nonbiological molecules) are generally not concerned with complex systems per se; even when they are building molecular interconnects between such systems, e.g. neuroelectronic splices. A-Life researchers mainly take a systems-level approach. The enormous transformative power of novel molecular engineering has the potential to create Animats, true nonbiological life forms, whose relatively simple behavior would not fit into most standard A-Life paradigms. As a result, Goldstein argues, the first Animats may come into being completely unrecognized by either scientific communit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Animat (third-person indicative present of the Latin verb animō),[1] meaning to "animate, give or bring life"
Animats are artificial animals, a contraction of animal-materials. The term includes physical robots and virtual simulations. Animat research, a subset of Artificial Life studies, has become rather popular since Rodney Brooks' seminal paper "Intelligence without representation".
First, let us consider some of the requirements for our
Creatures.
• A Creature must cope appropriately and in a timely
fashion with changes in its dynamic environment.
• A Creature should be robust with respect to its
environment; minor changes in the properties of
the world should not lead to total collapse of the
Creature's behavior; rather one should expect only a
gradual change in capabilities of the Creature as the
environment changes more and more.
• A Creature should be able to maintain multiple
goals and, depending on the circumstances it finds
itself in, change which particular goals it is
actively pursuing; thus it can both adapt to
surroundings and capitalize on fortuitous
circumstances.
• A Creature should do something in the world; it
should have some purpose in being
- article is explaining also development of MIT AI Lab robots:
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/mobile-robots/robots.html
The word was coined by S.W. Wilson in 1985, in "Knowledge growth in an artificial animal", published in the first Proceedings of an International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications.
An example using the Animat model as proposed by Wilson is discussed at some length in chapter 9 of Stan Franklin's book, Artificial Minds. In this implementation, the animat is capable of independent learning about its environment through application and evolution of pattern-matching rules called "taxons".
Alan H Goldstein has proposed that, because nanobiotechnology is in the process of creating real animal-materials, speculative use of this term should be discouraged and its application become purely phenomenological. Based on the Animat Test (contained in the reference "I, Nanobot.") any nonbiological material or entity that exhibits the minimum set of behaviors that define a life form is, de facto, an Animat. Goldstein's basic premise is that in the age of nanobiotechnology it is necessary to follow the chemistry and molecular engineering rather than watching for the emergence of some pre-conceived minimum level of 'intelligence' such as an artificial neural network capable of adaptive phenomena. Goldstein has cautioned that there is a serious disconnect between the fields of nanobiotechnology and A-life based on profound differences in scientific training, experimental systems, and the different sets of terminology (jargon) these two fields have produced. Nanobiotechnologists (really molecular engineers who work with both biological and nonbiological molecules) are generally not concerned with complex systems per se; even when they are building molecular interconnects between such systems, e.g. neuroelectronic splices. A-Life researchers mainly take a systems-level approach. The enormous transformative power of novel molecular engineering has the potential to create Animats, true nonbiological life forms, whose relatively simple behavior would not fit into most standard A-Life paradigms. As a result, Goldstein argues, the first Animats may come into being completely unrecognized by either scientific communit
Comments
Post a Comment