Join 10,000+ others to decide whether Wall-E or Rosie from <em>The Jetsons</em> gets in.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
The <em>other</em> fall election: Robot Hall of Fame opens voting to the public
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Haven't looked to see what's on the ballot, but i'd hope Watson is on it (if it's not already been inducted). Much more deserving than wall-e or any other movie character.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Walls of Fame, Walks of Fame, Halls of Fame. Same as "Solicitors General", the noun is plural.
Where's Kryten on the inductees list, surely not overlooked?
Where's Kryten on the inductees list, surely not overlooked?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Gibson99":1p83vh39 said:
This fascinates me, was it faster to type this message than it would have been to click on the link in the article?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
coalminds":1vhed9j4 said:
Now that i've actually clicked through and started the survey, yes, it was faster to write that. Thanks for your concern.
And no, watson was not in there.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Wall*E was a crap sci-fi movie. The whole premise was stupid. Robots don't and can't fall in love. As a fantasy movie, it was passable.
The Jetsons were hardly a model for political correctness, merely a reflection of the morals of the day.
Vote for neither.
The Jetsons were hardly a model for political correctness, merely a reflection of the morals of the day.
Vote for neither.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
They didn't nominate Curiosity. Maybe it's too new, so hopefully next year.
And in the category of imaginary robots, Kara is missing.
And in the category of imaginary robots, Kara is missing.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Since when are Wall-E, Rosie, Kryten, Fender, etc. robots?
Which of the 13 links (2 from above the article as well)? And while it may not be faster to click, as you so sneeringly remark, it's certainly faster than reading. This is just bad writing: the article should have contained just one or two links, no more, or the whole bunch, but well categorized, on the bottom; and it should have been made clear in the article why fictitious (not imaginary) robots should be included (something the link doesn't explain either).
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
TGV":126dv6hi said:
Since there's an "Entertainment" category and people like Anthony Daniels are invited to be judges. If this isn't your kind of "robot" then you might need to start your own Hall of Fame.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Gibson99":3rjrfw4d said:
Aside from the minor point that Watson is not a robot.
Johnny-5 deserves induction. After all, Johnny-5 is ALIVE!
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
TGV":2u4coigw said:
The one that says "The full list of nominees is available here. "...
and leads to here:
http://www.robothalloffame.org/nominate.html
or the one that says "voting is open" which leads to the actual ballot. I like the way they embed hyperlinks throughout their articles, it's one of the reasons I visit this site so often. They do it in a way that assumes you aren't retarded.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
pan.sapiens":12ann9ly said:
I figured if HAL was in there, watson should be, too.
And johnny 5 is one of the choices for entertainment. Since he actually was a robot and not just a cartoon, he got my vote. Sure, the movies were cheesy, but at least number 5 was actually a real robot.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Where are Asimov's Daniel, Dors, Giskard on those lists? Many of modern robots would likely have never happened if it wasn't for Asimov's books. After all, he coined the term "robotics".
Are you serious?
TGV":sjf2f7oz said:
Are you serious?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I am outraged that this article omits the fact that you can vote for Johnny-5.
JOHNNY-5!
No contest.
JOHNNY-5!
No contest.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I had a toss between Boston Dynamics Robo Dog and NASA's Robonaut 1 (odd though, NASA had already a v2) but at the end, I gave Robo Dog my vote, for the reason that Robo Dog can *ALREADY* handle the oddest terrains under heavy load, including ice, deep snow, sloped forest floor and being "kicked from the side", trying to get Robo Dog off-blance/to tip over - which it didn't.
Robo Dog is already quite 'matured' out of the lab-enviroment as a "mechanical mule", can't say that for Robonaut just yet. If NASA gets Robonaut to where Robo Dog is already, then vote will be different - next time
Robo Dog is already quite 'matured' out of the lab-enviroment as a "mechanical mule", can't say that for Robonaut just yet. If NASA gets Robonaut to where Robo Dog is already, then vote will be different - next time
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Frenetic Pony":2w33ol28 said:
Comments like this shouldn't be made while I'm still drinking my morning coffee.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Frenetic Pony":2rbo9oo6 said:
Sadly there is no write-in capability on the voting form. Reeves would have won by a landslide.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
It seems pretty weird that they are considering entries that were created in the last decade.
I thought part of the idea of a "Hall of Fame" was to distinguish things/people that have stood the test of time? How can that be done if you vetting process is only a few years?
I thought part of the idea of a "Hall of Fame" was to distinguish things/people that have stood the test of time? How can that be done if you vetting process is only a few years?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Gibson99":qqvg3lqv said:
I'm not sure HAL really should be in there -- but there's a meaningful distinction insofar as HAL clearly has the ability to read from sensors and undertake physical actions. Watson has no physical means of interacting with anything; questions are read to him electronically.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
dtremit":1lkfe14z said:
I can't remember all the details about the watson special i watched, but yes, the answers are fed to him electronically (which i suppose you could call a sensor - a means of input). I wonder why they didn't just use speech recognition and/or OCR for it. anyway, it then has to interpret them and buzz in if it thinks it has the right question. if another player buzzes in first, it must also be aware of that before it simply blurts out a question. i don't know whether it waits for alex to acknowledge after it does buzz in, or if it simply has a short wait statement after it successfully buzzes in. i wonder if alex had a button to press to let watson know it could go ahead and respond.
so... no, not nearly the level of control and interaction HAL had (i seem to recall something about some pod bay doors or something), but watson's real. since we've proved that watson seems to be pretty good at interpreting the english language, and voice recognition software seems to be pretty good now (just look at today's cell phones), i think that compared to the amount of work that's gone into watson so far, it wouldn't take much more work to turn into a real world HAL. Maybe they'll call it LCARS instead of HAL9000.
so no - watson doesn't look like your sterotypical robot, with loads of moving parts to manipulate things, but it can do stuff. to me, the line between "just a computer" and "a robot" is becoming less and less clear these days. just look at something like a modern natural gas pumping and storage facility. you could say it's at least roboticized, as computers handle the flow control and such, performing physical actions (opening/closing valves, starting/stopping/throttling engines) based on input from sensors around the plant. where does one draw the line?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
dtremit":1dc229gs said:
Not quite true, he had a robotic "hand" to press the buzzer.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ibm_resear ... 447266747/
Edit: I fail quoting
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
pan.sapiens":169k2p8f said:
Huh, Asimov would disagree. Also, HAL9000 was nominated before, so there are precedents.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Shouldn't it be called Hall of fame of popculture robots?
Real world robots have no chance anyway.
Real world robots have no chance anyway.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Very disappointed Bender Bending Rodriguez was not on the list
At least Johnny-5 was!
At least Johnny-5 was!
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
koolraap":1njgyjgc said:
That is exactly why it is a good premise. Lots of us live a mechanical life. It has been formatted to fit expectations others (i.e. the factory) have of us. Well fed but dehumanized. Can't fall in love. Love is a plant that can't grow in this place we treat as a dump. We take refuge in an artificial world of technology where we get to grow obese.
How could you miss that?? Are you [...] dutch?
As you say, like robots we can't fall in love. Love is a deprecated system call. We fall in love with movie-characters instead. We love "things" and cultivate the best possible "thing". ars technica. To love someone means to be a loser. For them the shop sign really always says "Closed".
They have to pay taxes nevertheless, basically to support a regime that enslaves them. Just like those living in occupied territory. Like Israel under the romans.
BSOD coming soon.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
No Geoff Peterson? He's the only real robot on TV regularly. Ok, he's actually a Robot Skeleton, but close enough.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Ragnarredbeard":2dol5223 said:
Dunno about that. Isaac Asimov would be a pretty solid contender as well for the meatspace nominees.
Seriously, it would be nice if something like this recognised contributions from people like Asimov. His 3 laws (4? 5?) of robotics are a cornerstone of fiction. And he's not the only one from the Golden Era of Sci Fi that would be worthy.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
- Status