The funny thing is, even if those humanoid robots do become a reality, they are likely to be connected to the internet. For example, there is a project with the goal to create a global "Robot instructions repository". This repository has basic instructions for robots to execute tasks. So, if you need a robot to do a certain task it has never preformed before, it can get the instructions from this repository, train for a bit to fine tune and do the task in real life. And when it learns a new task that is not yet in the repo, it can upload it for others to use. Pretty amazing if you think about it. (will post the link here when I find it) EDIT: Found the link: RoboearthYou may have never heard of ambient intelligence. When science-fiction films and books depict our future world, usually advanced robotics take center stage. But if we do enter the IoT age, this will be a very different type of intelligence than we are used to imagining. Instead of being in a world filled with humanoid robots, we would be in a world that can sense and respond to our presence.
Yes, I think the relationship between advanced robotics, the internet, and our system needs to be thought of in more complex ways. Robots will derive their knowledge and be dependent on the system that created them - and their abilities will be greatly enhanced by their information transfer mechanisms (i.e., being able to download and share information instantly). We will be envious of this skill - but will acquire it ourselves via wetware out of necessity/jealousy etc.
I am (not so) secretly a bit scared of a future where humans are connected to the internet. I think a good many of the early adopters will end up addicted to the information stream. I still wonder if robots will ever attain a level of intelligence which would make us consider them as intelligent as us (like scifi). The humans will also change, so another possibility is the melting of artificial and biological intelligence. P.S. Found the link, see my original post.
As amazing as that would be, it makes me think Skynet. Anyway, would humanoid robots serve us best? I suppose for certain tasks, but there are so very many conditions where other shapes might work better for robots. I also wonder how all those signals will affect the environments in which they are situated.
Yes, it seems like skynet, but there is a major difference. In this case, the system does not control the robot. The robot (or operator) decides which information to download, so the control remains with the seperate agents. Humanoid robots can be very usefull, as they can easily adapt to various terrains. And, being humanoid, they can learn how to do things in the same way that humans do them. On the other hand, other robots can also be very versatile, but in a limited range of enviorments. For example, take the robot in the picture. This robot is the care robot from Tech United for the Robocup. As you can see, it is essentially humanoid, exept for the moving mechanism. This robot is perfect for indoor usage on one floor, helping a person in need of care. However, it will never go with you to the supermarket or drug store in order to get stuff. As for the effect of the signals on the enviornment, this is actually subject of many research projects. However, it is too early to say anything about the long term effects because of the short time that electronic devices have been part of our everyday lives. Remember that household computers were something for hobbyists until well into the 80s and mobile phones became commonplace only after the start of the 21st century. Real wireless communication on all kinds of devices is also something from the last decade. BTW, I found the link, see my original comment.
I think that the reason why you hear less about nanobots is because nanobots are indeed still under heavy development, but also because the news is somehow less spectacular. It isn't the realisation of some scifi idea without the actual applications. People like to hear about improvements like "nanobots now deliver cancer medicine to the cancer cells". Not about "nanobots can now hit targets with greater precision". You need the latter for the first, but the latter is 'meh' while the first is 'WOW!'. I am no expert, but this is my guess.
The NSA will have a blast, literally tracking and taking over the world (if it so wishes to). Awesome.
...but you didn't talk about the "internet of things." You waved your hands and said fyooochur. The Internet of Things means my icemaker has an IP address. Why? So it can text me when its filter needs changing. The Internet of Things means my watch has an IP address. Why? Because syncing to the atomic clock over IP uses less energy than a shortwave receiver. The Internet of Things means that when I buy a stereo, it has an IP address for the receiver and an IP address for the remote (that I will never use again because my phone has an app). Why? So that when I can't find the remote, I can send it an SMS and have it beep at me. The Internet of Things, in other words, means a proliferation of connected devices that are connected solely because putting them on the 'net is actually cheaper than giving them warning lights. This is not going to greatly improve my life. It's not going to greatly improve your life. What it will do is push us all onto IPv6 because IPv4 is going to run out. It's going to change your entertainment, too, by the way. Because all those "things" are going to be screaming out into the "whitespace" that Microsoft says is empty, but is actually full of MY WIRELESS MICs. We're already dealing with the bullshit of "The Internet of Things." I had a network TV shoot fucked because somebody's goddamn watch was busy screaming on the exact same frequency as someone's mic - a frequency that had been cleared, vetted and protected by the network sound shop. But the "Internet of Things" doesn't give a shit, because the only thing the watch wants to do is find out what time it is every 10 seconds (because why bother putting a decent crystal regulator on it when you're on the Internet?), thereby giving me a lovely raspberry while I'm trying to record a talk show. So. Your "internet of things" is not going to be some magical "ambient intelligence" it's going to be a cacophony of RF in the last few useful frequencies we have left for shortwave, analog broadcast, wireless microphones, kids' walkie talkies, etc. We're already talking about shooting like we did back before wireless mics - if you've ever seen the way shows from the 60's were shot and noticed a difference with the way they are now, that's what we're talking about. That's "the internet of things" - the meaningless, pointless screech into the last vestiges of RF silence we have left by gadgets that don't even need a voice.
The IoT is simply a world where all objects are connected to the Internet. This is the world I tried to describe as best as I could in 500 words. Quote from the article: "But if we do enter the IoT age" (emphasis added). No. It's so that we can reduce the number of car accidents and traffic jams. So we can improve energy efficiency, reduce waste and make our businesses, schools, and medical facilities operate more intelligently. Many of these benefits will have their biggest impact in the developing world, where people currently do not enjoy ubiquitous access to the Internet and have to deal with poor infrastructure. No. That's a ridiculous statement. Not sure what else to say. Sorry my article disappointed you....but you didn't talk about the "internet of things."
You waved your hands and said fyooochur.
The Internet of Things means my icemaker has an IP address. Why? So it can text me when its filter needs changing.
The Internet of Things means my watch has an IP address. Why? Because syncing to the atomic clock over IP uses less energy than a shortwave receiver.
The Internet of Things, in other words, means a proliferation of connected devices that are connected solely because putting them on the 'net is actually cheaper than giving them warning lights.
I had a whole response written but then I wiki'd "the Internet of things" it's pretty clear how deeply you're researching this stuff. Going any further would be like picking on a kid's homework. Good luck with your endeavors. I've had three friends write for the Huffington Post. None of them kept it up for more than a month.
Luckily people are researching higher frequency, targeted communication means. These systems should be able to target the reciever in order to lessen interference and because of the higher frequency the signals decay faster, also lessening RF pollution.We're already dealing with the bullshit of "The Internet of Things." I had a network TV shoot fucked because somebody's goddamn watch was busy screaming on the exact same frequency as someone's mic - a frequency that had been cleared, vetted and protected by the network sound shop. But the "Internet of Things" doesn't give a shit, because the only thing the watch wants to do is find out what time it is every 10 seconds (because why bother putting a decent crystal regulator on it when you're on the Internet?), thereby giving me a lovely raspberry while I'm trying to record a talk show.
802.22 was formed in 2004. It has yet to be formally adopted. Devices using it are not yet legal in the United States... but when you've got some chick in from London using an O2 phone with unimplemented tech on it, all that doesn't matter - you're still getting skunked in 2013. HDTV research started in '82. It was adopted in 2009. You'll excuse me if your statement does not make me feel particularly optimistic.