Skip to main content

Almost Human: Making Robots Think – Lee Gutkind ****

 In my youth I was very fond of business biographies, particularly the ones about the early personal computing world – Apple, Microsoft and the like. I was really inspired by the stories of all those young people, prepared to sleep under their desk so they could get back to the code, or to get the hardware right, burning to make something exciting. I had been a programmer, and I understood this feeling.
I don’t know if it’s because I’m older, or because the world has changed, but I find it difficult now not to be slightly cynical when Lee Gutkind gives us a similar heroic presentation of the all-in working of the young postgrads building robots at Carnegie Mellon University, the focus of his book on the state of robotics. It’s a kind of fly-on-the-wall documentary book – Gutkind spent a lot of time with them – and he’s obviously a bit of a fan. Perhaps part of the reason for the cynicism is that in those early days of Apple, Microsoft etc. the bosses were the same as the workers, while in the university context there’s inevitably a feeling of the older professor throwing the troops to the lions (if you’ll forgive a mixed metaphor), using cheap student labour (making up courses to fit round the things they want to build) because they can’t run to proper research grants.
The other thing that is frustrating to a reader with a business background is the shambolic nature of the operation. People moan about commercial software, but on the whole it works because it’s well planned and well tested – this stuff seems to be neither. There’s too much of an “invented here” syndrome. When I worked for a large company we tried to do a project in cooperation with a university computer science department. We needed some dumb terminals (this was before PCs were common) for the job. Their attitude was “first task is to build the terminal.” Ours was “we’ll buy a terminal off the shelf.” Brought up on one-offs and specials, they couldn’t understand the need to use standard technology – or the benefits in terms of reliability and time saving of using something off the shelf. While there is some off the shelf work in Almost Human, there is still that “build it from scratch” mentality.
The only sense this is a criticism of the book is that Gutkind could be more critical of his subjects – otherwise, it’s a great read. It’s often a page turner as you wait to discover what happened next (though on the whole the answer is the same: the robot broke), and Gutkind gives a great insight into the work of the roboticists, the state of robotics, the interface between the roboticists and scientists, and also the self feeding nature of academia, with two different groups spending all their time on a study of how the others do their work.
It’s certainly an eye-opener if you think the sort of indistinguishable-from-human robots we see on TV and in the movies are anywhere near possible. Just getting a vehicle to go for a drive across open desert on its own is fraught with problems. It’s fascinating and frustrating in equal measures, giving an excellent insight into the state of robot research Carnegie Mellon style.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg


Popular posts from this blog

Grace Lindsay - Four Way Interview

Grace Lindsay is a computational neuroscientist currently based at University College, London. She completed her PhD at the Centre for Theoretical Neuroscience at Columbia University, where her research focused on building mathematical models of how the brain controls its own sensory processing. Before that, she earned a bachelor’s degree in Neuroscience from the University of Pittsburgh and received a research fellowship to study at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Freiburg, Germany. She was awarded a Google PhD Fellowship in Computational Neuroscience in 2016 and has spoken at several international conferences. She is also the producer and co-host of Unsupervised Thinking , a podcast covering topics in neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Her first book is Models of the Mind . Why science? I started my undergraduate degree as a neuroscience and philosophy double major and I think what drew me to both topics was the idea that if we just think rigorously enou

A Citizen's Guide to Artificial Intelligence - John Zerilli et al ****

The cover of this book set off a couple of alarm bells. Not only does that 'Citizen's Guide' part of the title raise the spectre of a pompous book-length moan, the list of seven authors gives the feel of a thesis written by committee. It was a real pleasure, then, to discover that this is actually a very good book. I ought to say straight away what it isn't - despite that title, it isn't a book written in a style that's necessarily ideal for a general audience. Although the approach is often surprisingly warm and human, it is an academic piece of writing. As a result, in places it's a bit of a trudge to get through it. Despite this, though, the topic is important enough - and, to be fair, the way it is approached is good enough - that it deserves to be widely read. John Zerilli et al give an effective, very balanced exploration of artificial intelligence. Although not structured as such, it's a SWOT analysis, giving us the strengths, weaknesses, opportun

The Science of Can and Can't - Chiara Marletto *****

Without doubt, Chiara Marletto has achieved something remarkable here, though the nature of the topic does not make for an easy read. The book is an attempt to popularise constructor theory - a very different approach to physics, which Oxford quantum physicist David Deutsch has developed with Marletto. Somewhat oddly, the book doesn't use the term constructor theory, but rather the distinctly clumsier 'science of can and can't'. The idea is that physics is formulated in a way that is inherently limited because it depends on using mechanisms that follows the progress of dynamic systems using the laws of physics. This method isn't applicable in circumstances where either something may happen, but won't necessarily, nor where something isn't allowed to happen (hence the science of can and can't, which probably should be the science of could and can't if we are going to be picky). Deutsch and Marletto have proposed a way of using 'counterfactuals'