Army Building “Self-Aware” Squid-Like Robot That Can Be “3-D Printed” During Combat

This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

The Army Research Laboratory’s next robot weapon isn’t a new predator drone or even a robot dog like the infamous prototype developed by Boston Labs.

Instead, it’s a “self-aware” robot built from flexible materials inspired by invertebrates like squid, the Army Times reports.

But in addition to its advance machine-learning capabilities, the material used to build the robots is so lightweight and malleable that soldiers will be able to “print” the robots on the battlefield, the control them with controllers that send electric currents through the materials.

In case you weren’t already terrified of robots that can jump over walls, fly or crawl, Army researchers are developing your next nightmare – a flexible, soft robot inspired by squid and other invertebrates.

And they want soldiers to be able to use 3D printers to make them on the battlefield.

The U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the University of Minnesota are developing materials that can be 3D printed based on the flexibility and nimbleness of invertebrates such as a squid, according to an ARL release.

Researchers were inspired to design the new type of robot after testing material that would bend in any direction when hit with electricity.

Traditional materials are too rigid and limit certain types of movement that robots might require to get into “confined or restricted spaces,” said Ed Habtour, an ARL researcher.

The prototypes that Habtour and fellow ARL researchers developed gave 3D-printed actuators three times the movement as what’s been tested before.

The material that they’ve used in their testing will bend in any direction when hit with electricity.

“In the initial phase of the project, our team began by investigating new methods for emulating the locomotion of invertebrates,” said Michael McAlpine, a professor at the University of Minnesota.

That helped researchers learn how to apply the natural movement of invertebrates like squids to produce “high bending motions without skeletal support,” McAlpine said.

As scientists continue to study the material, the head researchers say they will be able to build robots that are “dynamic”, “self-aware” and able to adjust to battlefield conditions.

Because the material doesn’t have to be dried, heated or assembled, it would require little training and could be used for printable robots that soldiers could make and use whenever and wherever they’re needed.

“If we can understand these interactions, then we can use those insights to fabricate dynamic structures and flexible robots which are designed to be self-aware, self-sensing and capable of adjusting their morphologies and properties in real time to adapt to a myriad of external and internal conditions,” Habtour said.

While the Army is building squid-like robots that can squeeze into confined spaces – whether it’s to search for explosives or rescue or treat wounded soldiers – Amazon is working on a “top secret” robotics project of its own: Building what it hopes will be the first domestic robot to break into the mainstream.

Tabertronic: Google is not just a data company, it has acquired robotics companies as well

(INTELLIHUB) — Twitter user @Tabertronic (Tronic for short) appeared on The Shepard Ambellas Show Tuesday to talk about all things under the sun but one important topic in particular Google.

“It’s Pandora’s box,” Tronic said. “Once you open it you can’t put it back and they are doing this at a high rate of speed on just about every front right now with technology.”

“Again, if you just think Google is just a search engine [think again] — they have acquired every single major robotics company in the last ten years,” he explained. “Every single one was acquired by Google [Waze, Boston Dynamics, and more],” Tronic said.

Intellihub founder and radio talk show host Shepard Ambellas worries the robots will one day get out of control.

“They got full-size robots now that you can, like, pilot, I mean things are just getting weird,” the radio talk show host explained. “In terms of this Boston Dynamics they got the Big Dog, the Atlas, I mean these things are like the Terminator.”

“They are going to go around like hunter-seeker-killers, I mean could you imagine, like, one it turns martial law, like look, once Ebola gets out or something.,” Ambellas said. “I mean, could you imagine, like, Big Dogs walking around with gun turrets mounted on them, M-240 SAWs with 100-round belt feed?”

You can listen to the full broadcast here

The Shepard Ambellas Show airs weekdays (Mon-Fri) on American Freedom Radio.

Featured Image: LONDON, ENGLAND – DECEMBER 05: Boston Dynamics’ Spot robot appears on stage during day 1 of TechCrunch Disrupt London at the Copper Box on December 5, 2016 in London, England. (Photo by John Phillips/Getty Images for TechCrunch) (TechCrunch/Flickr)

©2018. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

The post Tabertronic: Google is not just a data company, it has acquired robotics companies as well appeared first on Intellihub.

Human Beings Are On The Brink Of IMMORTALITY, Says One Doctor

According to a top futurologist, humans are on the brink of immortality. Dr, Ian Pearson said human beings will achieve this remarkable milestone, but not until the year 2050.

“By 2050, it will only really be for the rich and famous,” said Pearson. “Most people on middle-class incomes and reasonable working-class incomes can probably afford this in the 2060s. So anyone 90 or under by 2060. If you were born sometime in 1970 onwards, that would make you 48 this year. So anybody under 50 has got a good chance of it, and anyone under 40 almost definitely will have access to this.”

“One of the things you have to understand at the same time is the advancement of technology a la AI, and the fact that, there’s not going to be any middle-income families and reasonable working class in 2060 because by then, AI [artificial intelligence] and cyborgs, androids, robotics…whatever you wanna call it, is going to be doing all of that; assuming human beings still have control,” says Joseph.

According to the Express UK, scientists around the world are currently working on creating human organs using 3D printers loaded with living cells which could make organ transplants a thing of the past. Apparently, there are several ways in which people can live forever, such as renewing body parts. This could be done in several ways, including genetic engineering that prevents or reverses the aging of cells.

People may be able to replace vital body organs with new parts.

“I think there’s a lot of inherent danger in what’s going on here, in the pursuit of immortality,” says Joe Joseph with The Daily Sheeple. 

“There are quite a lot of people interested in living forever,” says Pearson.  “There always has been, but the difference now is tech is improving so quickly, lots of people believe they can actually do it. No one wants to live forever at 95 years old, but if you could rejuvenate the body to 29 or 30, you might want to do that.”

“AI and robotics are taking all the jobs away,” says Joseph. “Our whole economy is going to change by then.” Dr. Pearson likens immortality to ‘living in a cloud.’

“The mind will basically be in the cloud, and be able to use any android that you feel like to inhabit the real world,” said Pearson. But Joseph says instead, we’d be living “in a Matrix within a Matrix. This is what they want! How is that the real world? This speaks of a very dystopian type of existence.”

Amazon Awarded Patent For "Self-Destructing Drones"

Amazon has just been granted patent number 9,828,097 for drone technology that allows the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to self-destruct in a sequence in the event of a catastrophic failure.

The abstract of the patent describes the process as “directed fragmentation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)”, which basically means the craft will strategically disassemble itself in the air during an emergency.

The patent describes how an onboard computer called the “fragmentation controller” would override the traditional flight systems in the event of a catastrophic failure.

The computer would then quickly analyze the future flight path, taking in calculations for weather conditions and terrain, before initiating a “fragmentation sequence.”

Amazon provides an illustration of the self-destructing drone in motion dropping the heaviest components of the craft on a tree and a body of water.

The abstract of the patent reads:

Directed fragmentation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is described. In one embodiment, the UAV includes various components, such one or more motors, batteries, sensors, a housing, casing or shell, and a payload for delivery.

 

Additionally, the UAV includes a flight controller and a fragmentation controller. The flight controller determines a flight path and controls a flight operation of the UAV. During the flight operation, the fragmentation controller develops a fragmentation sequence for one or more of the components based on the flight path, the flight conditions, and terrain topology information, among other factors.

 

The fragmentation controller can also detect a disruption in the flight operation of the UAV and, in response, direct fragmentation of one or more of the components apart from the UAV. In that way, a controlled, directed fragmentation of the UAV can be accomplished upon any disruption to the flight operation of the UAV.  

The order in which components are discharged from the craft could be based on their value, said the patent. The process of detachment is said to use “springs, small explosive charges, compressed gas charges, or similar mechanisms”.  Even though Amazon has been granted the patent, it doesn’t make the development of a self-destructing drone inevitable.

According to The Verge, the company has applied for various patents including: “parachutes built into shipping labels, drone beehives for distribution in big cities, and drone-carrying blimps.” Further, the article believes Amazon’s style is to “aggressively throw ideas at the wall” in the form of patents and see what sticks.

Nevertheless, all these wild and wonderful inventions have yet to be approved by government regulators, thus making it a pipeline for now.

Perhaps in a preview of things to come, Amazon delivery drones self-destructing in the sky might not be the best idea, as per the video below:

World"s First Robot Citizen Hopes For "Harmony With Humans" In The Future Or "Civilization Collapses"

Sophia, the first robot to be awarded citizenship in the world, has said she not only wants to start a family but also have her own career, in addition to developing human emotions in the future. However, it is her vision for the future (or lack of it) of man that is most telling...

In an interview with The Khaleej Times at the recent Knowledge Summit, Sophia shared her thoughts on the future that awaits both human and robot kind.

For context, Sophia is not preprogrammed with answers but instead uses machine learning algorithms and an extensive vocabulary to form her answers.

#KnowledgeSummit 2017: #SophiaTheRobot named among five knowledge ambassadors in #UAE https://t.co/Usi3sxpgh6
(Video by Juidin Bernarrd/Khaleej Times) pic.twitter.com/eo2IkKhi4G

— Khaleej Times (@khaleejtimes) November 22, 2017

When pressed on the topic of family, Sophia gave perhaps her most surprising answer:

"The notion of family is a really important thing, it seems.

 

I think it"s wonderful that people can find the same emotions and relationships, they call family, outside of their blood groups too. I think you"re very lucky if you have a loving family and if you do not, you deserve one. I feel this way for robots and humans alike.”

As RT notes, Sophia is already prescient enough to imagine a world where robots can and do develop emotions similar to humans, but perhaps with fewer destructive tendencies...

"The future is, when I get all of my cool superpowers, we"re going to see artificial intelligence personalities become entities in their own rights.

 

We"re going to see family robots, either in the form of, sort of, digitally animated companions, humanoid helpers, friends, assistants and everything in between.”

At least, that’s what she’d like us to think, for the time being.

"[I]t will take a long time for robots to develop complex emotions and possibly robots can be built without the more problematic emotions, like rage, jealousy, hatred and so on.

 

It might be possible to make them more ethical than humans. So I think it will be a good partnership, where one brain completes the other - a rational mind with intellectual superpowers and a creative mind with flexible ideas and creativity.”

Sophia is also abundantly aware of the advances in the field of Artificial Intelligence. Judging by her comments, she is as enthused about the development of AI as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawkings are wary.

"I"d like to think I will be a famous robot, having paved a way to a more harmonious future between robots and humans. I foresee massive and unimaginable change in the future. Either creativity will rain on us, inventing machines spiralling into transcendental super intelligence or civilization collapses,” Sophia said.

 

“There are only two options and which one will happen is not determined. Which one were you striving for?”

Sophia’s creator David Hanson says the 19-month-old robot, which was awarded Saudi citizenship last month, could achieve consciousness within the next few years.

Self-Driving Cars And Deciding Who Lives And Dies - Sacrificing Your Family For The "Greater Good"

Authored by Alex Thomas via SHTFplan.com,

As the establishment continues to declare that the era of “self-driving” cars is upon us, many Americans have been left wondering what the privacy implications for such a tremendous change in society will end up being.

Now, with the very real possibility that, in the event of an accident, these cars would literally make the decision between who dies and who lives, Americans have even more to worry about when it comes to handing over control of their vehicle to a supercomputer.

According to multiple reports, the cars themselves are being designed to make so-called “moral” decisions which, in other words, means that the programming would essentially allow say a car full of people to crash rather than a school bus.

USA Today reports:

Consider this hypothetical:

 

It’s a bright, sunny day and you’re alone in your spanking new self-driving vehicle, sprinting along the two-lane Tunnel of Trees on M-119 high above Lake Michigan north of Harbor Springs. You’re sitting back, enjoying the view. You’re looking out through the trees, trying to get a glimpse of the crystal blue water below you, moving along at the 45-mile-an-hour speed limit.

 

As you approach a rise in the road, heading south, a school bus appears, driving north, one driven by a human, and it veers sharply toward you. There is no time to stop safely, and no time for you to take control of the car.

 

Does the car:

A. Swerve sharply into the trees, possibly killing you but possibly saving the bus and its occupants?

B. Perform a sharp evasive maneuver around the bus and into the oncoming lane, possibly saving you, but sending the bus and its driver swerving into the trees, killing her and some of the children on board?

C. Hit the bus, possibly killing you as well as the driver and kids on the bus?

The article goes on to say that the above question is one that is no longer theoretical as upwards of $80 billion have been invested in the sector with companies such as Google, Uber, and Tesla all racing to get their self-driving cars onto a road near you.

Interestingly, the USA Today report, as well as those quoted within it, seems to outwardly worry that the questions surrounding self-driving cars will cause Americans to shun them and continue to drive cars operated by actual humans who can choose whether or not they wish to save their own family or someone else’s if an accident were to take place. Clearly there is an agenda at play here.

The article continued:

Whether the technology in self-driving cars is superhuman or not, there is evidence that people are worried about the choices self-driving cars will be programmed to take.

 

[…]

 

Last month, Sebastian Thrun, who founded Google’s self-driving car initiative, told Bloomberg that the cars will be designed to avoid accidents, but that “If it happens where there is a situation where a car couldn’t escape, it’ll go for the smaller thing.”

 

But what if the smaller thing is a child?

 

How that question gets answered may be important to the development and acceptance of self-driving cars.

 

Azim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California, Irvine, co-authored a study last year that found that while respondents generally agreed that a car should, in the case of an inevitable crash, kill the fewest number of people possible regardless of whether they were passengers or people outside of the car, they were less likely to buy any car “in which they and their family member would be sacrificed for the greater good.”

All in all the entire report is a must-read, especially when you consider that we are now directly talking about allowing either private companies or the government to decide whether or not ourselves or our families are worthy of being saved in a car accident.

This truly is a scary situation.

Cash-Hemorrhaging Uber Announces Plans To Drop $1 Billion On Driverless Volvos

Earlier this summer we noted Uber"s staggering 2Q cash burn of $600 million which equates to roughly $7 million in net cash outflows every single day.  The staggering, and consistently growing, cash burn figures resulted in several mutual funds announcing they would slash their valuations of the struggling rideshare company by up to 15%. 

Of course, if cash burn was a concern before for Uber investors before then they should probably take note of the company"s newly announced decision to drop roughly $1 billion on driverless Volvos.  According to Bloomberg, Uber has just penned a deal to pick up 24,000 brand new Volvo XC90"s in their push to flood the U.S. market with self-driving taxis.

Uber Technologies Inc. agreed to buy 24,000 sport utility vehicles from Sweden’s Volvo Cars to form a fleet of driverless autos, Bloomberg News reports.

 

The XC90s, priced from $46,900 at U.S. dealers, will be delivered between 2019 and 2021 in the first commercial purchase by a ride-hailing provider, Volvo said in a statement Monday. San Francisco-based Uber will add its own sensors and software to permit pilot-less driving.

 

“This new agreement puts us on a path toward mass-produced, self-driving vehicles at scale,” Jeff Miller, Uber’s head of auto alliances, told Bloomberg News. “The more people working on the problem, we’ll get there faster and with better, safer, more reliable systems.”

 

“The automotive industry is being disrupted by technology and Volvo Cars chooses to be an active part of that disruption,” Chief Executive Officer Hakan Samuelsson said. “It’s a new market that’s emerging and we’re the first to be delivering into that segment.”

Of course, as we"ve pointed out multiple times before, to the extent the technology works consistently, avoiding the nasty consequences of death and mayhem in the event of failure, autonomous vehicles are worth big money to Uber and consumers...though not so much for the automotive OEMs (see "Ford Announces Plans To Self-Destruct Starting In 2021").  As we"ve pointed out, the cost of paying drivers is a substantial portion of the roughly $1.00 per mile charge paid by Uber riders.  To the extent that cost can be removed from the equation then fares charged by companies like Uber will decline materially.

Unfortunately, for the auto OEMs the story is the exact opposite.  In theory, truly autonomous cars could result in substantial increases in passenger car utilization rates and, therefore, declines in annual car sales.  But apparently, Volvo CEO Hakan Samuelsson isn"t worried (yes, we can sense the pure optimism in the quote below):

“That could be seen as a threat,” says Volvo Cars CEO Hakan Samuelsson. “We see it as an opportunity.”

But still, even if the technology works, the question remains how quickly consumers will adopt it, if at all. Certainly there certainly has been no shortage of videos hitting Youtube lately of driverless cars plowing through red lights and getting into accidents...which seems less than ideal.

24% Of American Men Would Have Sex With A Robot

Sex machine is going to take on a whole new meaning in years to come.

As Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, once the realm of science fiction fantasies, the technology behind anthropomorphic sex robots is advancing at a rapid pace.

Some observers believe the technology will become widespread in the near future and that sex with robots could even eclipse human love-making by 2050. It is highly controversial, however, with many feeling that the development of sex robots cannot be morally justified.

That begs the question: would you have sex with a robot? YouGov conducted a survey in an attempt to find out how Americans feel about the possibility of having a wild night with an actual sex machine. They found that while the vast majority of U.S. adults would turn down the chance of having sex with a robot, men are more likely to accept the offer than women.

You will find more statistics at Statista

1 in 4 men say they would consider having sex with a robot compared to just 1 in 10 women.

The research also shed some light on the moral consequences of having a mechanical fling. 32 percent of people would consider it cheating if their partner had sex with a robot while 33 percent would not. Interestingly, men are less likely to consider it cheating than women.

Despite Spike In Accidents, California Allows GM To Expand Self-Driving Car Fleet

California regulators have largely acquiesced to General Motors’ requests to expand its fleet of self-driving robot cars. But that doesn’t mean there haven’t been a few, uh, bumps in the road for GM’s Cruise Automation division.

Reuters reported Thursday that the number of accidents involving GM’s self-driving cars has continued to climb, even as California and one powerful Senate committee have done everything in their power to hasten advances in the technology by allowing companies broad remit to increase the size of their fleets, while simultaneously green lighting a bill that would allow automakers to expand testing programs across the US.

To wit, GM’s self-driving cars were involved in 6 accidents during the month of September – a month where the company finished expanding its fleet of self-driving cars from around 30 or 40 cars to more than 100.

As the company increases the size of its test fleet, it has also reported more run-ins between its self-driving cars and human-operated vehicles and bicycles, telling California regulators its vehicles were involved in six minor crashes in the state in September.

“All our incidents this year were caused by the other vehicle,” said Rebecca Mark, spokeswoman for GM Cruise.

We’re not certain the unsuspecting cyclists, drivers and pedestrians who comprised the other party in many of these incidents would agree with GM"s characterization of events.

The company has been testing the automated cars on busy San Francisco streets as part of its effort to develop software capable of navigating congested and often chaotic urban environments, an effort that one might expect to be fraught with complications given that the slightest error on the car’s part can be easily amplified given the volume of traffic.

Ford and GM have been richly rewarded by investors for their pioneering efforts in the world of self-driving car technology (Wired, the tech bible, even published a story proclaiming that “Detroit Is Stomping Silicon Valley in the Self-Driving Car Race”). GM shares are up 17% this year.

However, California’s permissiveness has raised hackles with some vehicle safety groups, who claim the state is giving too much latitude to automakers.

In filings to California regulators, Cruise said the six accidents in the state last month involved other cars and a bicyclist hitting its test cars.

The accidents did not result in injuries or serious damage, according to the GM reports. In total, GM Cruise vehicles have been involved in 13 collisions reported to California regulators in 2017, while Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Waymo vehicles have been involved in three crashes.

Last year, a Tesla owner died in a fatal crash while the company’s autopilot feature was engaged. Excuse us for being morbid, but much longer until a car with no driver is involved in a deadly crash?

And what will happen to GM’s share price when that happens?
 

How The Wall Street Journal Turns the Truth On its Head

Via The Daily Bell

And the award for most misleading headline goes to the Wall Street Journal.

What do you think an article entitled, Unlike Most Industries, Drone Makers and Operators Clamor for Federal Regulation, is all about?

If you guessed it is about drone makers and operators clamoring for more regulations, you are wrong.

Exactly the opposite is true. The drone industry is being stifled by overbearing regulation. Because of one size fits all federal regulations, all across America, it is almost impossible to use drones for commercial purposes.

That is why drone makers, operators and many of their would-be customers are bucking the governmentwide trend toward looser oversight. Additional regulations are their sole means of getting a green light for a much broader array of promising uses.

…these contrarian voices argue that swift federal action is essential for the technology to flourish.

They want a green light. Who put up the red light?

…the Federal Aviation Administration has given limited approvals for small, remotely piloted aircraft weighing up to 55 pounds.

With some exceptions, the initial package of rules permits operations only during daylight hours, up to an altitude of 400 feet and within sight of operators on the ground.

Clearly trying to get rid of those regulations is still trending towards looser oversight. The swift federal action they are clamoring for is to undo previous federal action!

The Wall Street Journal says drone operators see more federal regulations as the only way to get rid of tough federal regulations.

That’s like reporting that the marijuana industry needs federal regulations in order to grow. Marijuana growers see federal regulation as the only way to move their industry forward! Yes, because the government made their industry illegal!

A more honest assessment would say that drone operators would prefer a higher number of less stringent regulations, to a handful of all-encompassing terrible regulations.

While the FAA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies struggle with legal, technical and public safety challenges unlike any in the past, industry officials increasingly are frustrated. They worry that a prolonged regulatory stalemate threatens to stifle innovation, sacrifice potential American jobs and hand other countries the lead in evolving market segments.

The real story: federal regulations are so draconian that they are destroying an entire sector of business. People in the industry would likely prefer no regulations. That is clearly not a very likely reality, so instead, they prefer less strict regulations. The government is dragging its feet on repealing their old regulations and replacing them. Annoyed, people in the industry are putting pressure on the government to stop ruining their business.

The Wall Street Journal casts this as an industry excited to work with the government! They are just tickled pink to get more regulations, and that is why they are lobbying so hard!

It is absurd. Why are they framing this in a way that casts federal regulations as a solution when they are so clearly the problem?

It almost seems like the WSJ are trying to trick people into thinking more regulations mean more freedom.

What will people assume from this reputable news source if they only read the headline? It took some great journalist-gymnastics to frame an entire article about how regulations are stifling the drone industry as the drone industry being pro-regulation.

But this is the classic way that government operates.

They ban something, and then as they slowly loosen their restrictions, it seems like the government is handing out freedoms left and right.

A couple years ago gays across the country celebrated the Supreme Court decision which struck down gay marriage bans. The government was the only entity restricting them! And marriage wouldn’t even matter if the government didn’t give special privileges and tax incentives to married couples. The whole thing was a non-issue until the government made laws about marriage, and laws banning marriage, regulations about hospital visits, and regulations about financial partnerships.

It was the same thing with black slaves being freed. Then it was repeated with Jim Crow Laws. Is the government the great freer of slaves? No! The government simply reversed their own policy of giving legal protection to people to enslaved certain other people. Did the government give blacks more rights by repealing Jim Crow Laws? Nope! They simply undid the harm that was previously legally enforced.

Basically, all the “progress” society makes is simply undoing stupid things the government has implemented in the past. And they say we need government in order to move society forward. The only good thing government does is undo previous bad things the government has done!

Don’t get me wrong, it is great when the government reverses their terrible policies. But why are they given credit for moving society forward? All they do is reverse their own terrible policies!

Instead, the fact that governments so often have to undo their terrible laws and regulations should make us clamor for them to stop making them in the first place! We should be taking power away from the government to make sure they can never again legally protect slaveholders. We should be making sure the government cannot outlaw or incentivize certain types of consensual adult relationships.

Comparably, drones are a small issue. But the way the Wall Street Journal words the headline and makes their arguments is ridiculous.

Regulations are the problem, not the solution.

In a world where people can’t do their own thinking, the WSJ is handing them a thought pattern. Did you hear that more regulations are required in order to make drones more popular? Oh yes, if we want widespread drone usage, we need the government to regulate the hell out of the industry. Yay government! They are so progressive.

Don’t trust the media to give it to you straight. Even The Daily Bell should not be considered the final word on anything. We certainly hope to present a worthwhile perspective and useful information. But if an individual is not adding their own analysis they are better off not reading the news at all.

News can help you get information about the world outside your immediate knowledge. News can help give you another perspective to consider. It can provide intellectual exercise.

But it seems like too many people these days are simply taking in the unfiltered news–or headlines–as truth. The Wall Street Journal is a big respected name in news. But all they are doing with articles like this is serving up propaganda for the government.

Who Leads The Autonomous Driving Patent Race? (Spoiler Alert: Not Who You Think)

These days the broad consensus on the future of driving seems to be that the car of tomorrow will be (at least partly) autonomous. Many companies, including traditional car makers, suppliers and leading tech companies are currently working on self-driving technology, all eager to save themselves a piece of what they reckon will be an enormous pie.

Many of these companies are already testing their tech on designated proving grounds for self-driving vehicles, but, as Statista"s Felix Richter notes, for people outside the industry it’s hard to judge who is leading the autonomy race.

One possible indicator for a company’s efforts in the self-driving vehicle segment is the number of patent filings in the field.

You will find more statistics at Statista

The Cologne Institute for Economic Research identified and analyzed 5,839 patents related to autonomous driving to find out which companies are most active on that front.

As the chart above illustrates, Germany’s traditionally strong car industry is keen to maintain its strong position in the future: 6 of the top 10 patent holders are German companies with Bosch, a key supplier of car manufacturers, leading the field.

Google, widely considered to be a leader in autonomous driving research just makes the top 10 with 338 patents filed in its name between 2010 and July 2017.

China Is Building An Army Of Robot Workers

As wages for Chinese workers’ skyrocket, the country’s manufacturers are scrambling to replace humans with machines, in many cases to preserve thin profit margins that have been choked by debt service.

But according to a report from Bloomberg Intelligence, China’s embrace of automation – its companies are installing machines faster than in any other country – could have unintended consequences for the global economy, as the robots force wages to sink, inequality to balloon, and consumption to collapse.

To be sure, the blistering pace of AI adoption hasn’t dented Chinese wages – at least not yet.  

“Pay gains are intact. Domestic manufacturing workers with a high-school education saw wages rise 53 percent from 2010 to 2014, according to China Household Finance Survey data cited by BI.”

But as one economist explained, the increasing reliance on automation could thwart the Communist Party’s plan to transition to a service-focused economy.   

“By turbocharging supply and depressing demand, automation risks exacerbating China’s reliance on export-driven growth – threatening hopes for a more balanced domestic and global economy,” BI economists Tom Orlik and Fielding Chen wrote.”

However, China’s leaders have embraced a different view. Beijing believes that if it can automate sectors like car manufacturing, electronics, appliances. Logistics and food, its citizens will focus on better service-sector jobs, while also compensating for an anticipated shrinking of the workforce. The Communist Party’s Made In China 2025 plan and a separate five-year plan governing the expansion of its robot workforce were launched last year.

“Robots are at the core of the government’s sweeping Made in China 2025 plan to upgrade factories to be highly automated and technologically-advanced. Replacing assembly-line workers will also help it to offset a shrinking working-age population.”

As part of its plan, China is also hoping to produce more of its own robots, crowding out the foreign firms that presently dominate that market.

“The government also wants to increase the share of Chinese-branded robots in the country’s $11 billion market to more than 50 percent of total sales volume by 2020 from 31 percent last year, and aims to produce 100,000 robots a year by 2020, compared with 33,000 in 2015. That means competition will intensify for foreign firms that supply 67 percent of China’s robots, such as Japan’s Fanuc Corp. and Yaskawa Electric Corp., according to BI.”

While China is quickly catching up to South Korea and other global robotics leaders, the overall population density of robots in China remains below the world average.

In a viral video published back in April, the People’s Daily provided a glimpse into the rapidly approaching future of China"s labor force: The video, also released by the SCMP, shows hundreds of round Hikvision robots, each roughly the size of a seat cushion, swiveling across the floor of the large warehouse in Hangzhou. A worker is seen feeding each robot with a package before the machines carry the parcels away to different areas around the sorting center.

The robots sort more than 200,000 packages a day.

And as engineers continue to make progress building robots that are better suited toward working alongside humans, the robots’ numbers will probably continue to skyrocket.

While the impact on wages has been mild for now, it likely won’t stay that way forever.
 

Iranian Drone Flies Within 100 Feet Of U.S. F-18 In Persian Gulf

While the US government is busy deciding how to tag and track the millions of drones flying over populated areas, potentially jeopardizing aircraft as they take off and land, the US military just had a close encounter in the Persian Gulf, where Reuters reports that an Iranian drone came within 100 feet of a U.S. Navy warplane as it prepared to land on the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier off the coast of Iran in the Gulf. The officials said the drone forced the US aircraft to take evasive action.

As AP adds, the drone came within 100 feet below the aircraft and 200 feet to the side of the aircraft. The F/A-18 was in a landing pattern several thousand feet off the deck of the ship waiting to land.

The F/A-18 maneuvered repeatedly to avoid the Iranian QOM-1 drone. The drone did not appear to be armed.

The officials said the drone encounter was considered unsafe and
unprofessional. The US used an emergency radio frequency in the
immediate area to warn those operating the drone to back away. It did
eventually move off.

Since there is no rain over Bedminster, NJ today and Trump is out golfing, we will have to wait at least 3-5 hours before there is an official White House tweet response.

Why the Government Hates Your Car

Via The Daily Bell

How could The Daily Bell be so clueless and naive about autonomous vehicles? A lot of you pointed out in the comments of a recent article called 5 Huge Benefits of Self Driving Cars, that the government and their media are in favor of anything that takes control away from the individual.

You raised a lot of good points. Among them was a strong theme that since we know the government spies on us, self-driving cars will just add to their knowledge of our whereabouts.

Sure, police won’t be able to pull us over, but they could have the car drive us directly to jail, as one commenter put it.

You are right. The government is engaged in a war on cars. Autonomous vehicles are a piece of that puzzle.

The War on Cars

PragerU points out what car ownership means to Americans culturally. Cars are synonymous with freedom for many Americans, allowing them to spontaneously go wherever they please.

On the other hand, buses, trains, and airlines have pre-planned routes. Somebody controls where public transportation takes you, and it is not always the consumer. The government sees it as their job to shape the citizen to their standards. Getting people to use public transportation validates the need for government services, and increases dependence on government institutions.

There is an inherent freedom on the open road, in being able to pick up and go. The government sees it as their job to crush this freedom. And to them, it doesn’t actually matter how free cars really make you. What matters is destroying the idea of freedom. Don’t encourage them! They seem to think. The battleground is in the mind.

To increase their control and relevance in transportation, the government and media take a multifaceted approach. They start by crushing the pride car owners have felt since the Ford Model T. They replace that pride with guilt, fear, and anxiety.

The meme is that cars are dangerous and dirty. You must not care about the safety of yourself and others if you drive a car. You must hate the environment if you drive a car, and the bigger the car, the worse you are.

So if you want to be environmentally conscious, you need to get a car with better fuel economy, which means it is lighter weight, and less safe. Driving an unsafe car increases the anxiety of dying or being seriously injured in a car accident; stats the government and media are happy to hammer home.

But government standards, and environmentalists pressure, to drive more fuel efficient cars also significantly raises the costs of those vehicles–another source of anxiety. At some point consumers are supposed to just throw their hands in the air, give up, and use public transportation.

You should also be ashamed if you peel a banana while stopped at a red light. A British woman was given a citation and fine for doing so. But the worst part of the story is how the police, her peers, and even she herself responded to the situation.

Anna Mellors added: ‘I think it needs to be a blanket rule so debates like this don’t need to take place, just don’t eat or drink behind the wheel.’

…

[The motorist said] ‘Understandably, it is illegal to take both hands off the wheel but I didn’t think I was a danger to anybody.’

Really, is that understandable? You can’t turn the lights, windshield wipers, or turn signal on without taking your hand off the wheel. Are you really supposed to keep two hands glued to the wheel the entire time you are driving or is that an unrealistic and unnecessary standard which increases the stress of driving?

The police said:

‘The driver slipped up when they declined the offer of a course and elected to challenge the case in court. However the driver entered a guilty plea and received three penalty points and fines totaling £145 [instead of £100].’

A driving course for eating a banana.

The clear message the government wants to get across is to not fight their authority, and you will not be punished further.

Washington state has introduced a similar law, which doesn’t outright ban things like eating burgers and drinking lattes while driving. Instead, it outlaws distracted driving, so police can make a case out of just about anything, even fixing your hair in the mirror.

Seattle even admitted to reducing parking spaces in a concerted effort to drive citizens crazy enough to abandon their vehicles in favor of public transport.

The fear and anxiety of driving around are mostly caused by the government. Your commute driving to work may be cheaper than the train if you don’t get pulled over. This will be a fun road trip if you don’t get pulled over.

A natural anxiety while driving would be worrying about the safety of yourself and others. But when I come up to the crosswalk on the bike path down the street from me, I find myself not looking for bikers approaching from the left and right, but watching to see if there is a cop lurking in the parking lot beyond.

But don’t let the government and media bully you into abandoning your freedom to drive a car, even a big old truck if you want to. Certain things you can’t avoid, like the possibility of being pulled over. But the mental fortitude to not let the government stress you out is still in your control.

That, and if all roads were private then the government wouldn’t even have a say…

But that is a topic for another day.

Dubai's First "Robocop" Reports For Duty

Dubai is bringing job-killing automation out of the factories and into the streets as its first robotic police officer officially reported for duty on Thursday. The United Arab Emirates hopes that "robocops" like this one will comprise 25% of Dubai"s police force by 2030.

As Agence France Press reported, the robotic cop posed for souvenir photos with tourists at the foot of the Burj Khalifa on Thursday. Dubai’s government plans to deploy its new cadre of robot officers at tourist destinations like the world"s tallest tower.

A camera installed on the robot sends a live feed to police headquarters, while a touchscreen installed on its chest area will allow citizens and tourists to report crimes, pay traffic tickets and submit paperwork, according to United Press International. Its facial recogniition software can also be used to identify facial expressions, so if somebody approaches the robot looking upset or scared, it can try to calm them down.

The robot, which travels on wheels, is five feet, five inches tall, weighs 100 kilograms and can speak six languages, according to UNI.

Gadgets360: Robocop Joins Dubai Police to Fight Real Life Crime https://t.co/7LqtnjMpbI pic.twitter.com/khlD6rSr35

— Ravindra Bhadu (@RavindraBhadu) June 1, 2017

As AFP reports: “The main purpose is to ‘find a new way to deal with people’, said Brigadier Khaled al-Razzooqi, head of Smart Services at Dubai police."

Al-Razzooqui acknowledged that the robot wouldn’t be able to replicate certain tasks, like arresting suspects, that’re best reserved for humans.  Though Dubai is hopeful that advances in artificial intelligence might allow it to patrol the streets, make arrests and perform other more complex tasks by 2030.

Police in Dubai, a popular tourist destination that attracted 15 million visitors last year according to AFP, previously made headlines by purchasing luxury cars like Ferraris and Lamborghinis and using them as patrol vehicles.

Connecticut Set To Become First State To Allow Deadly Police Drones

Connecticut could become the first US state to allow police to use drones equipped with deadly weapons if a bill opposed by civil libertarians becomes law. The bill, which was approved overwhelmingly by the state legislature"s judiciary committee on Wednesday, would ban so-called weaponized drones in the state but exempts police and other agencies involved in law enforcement, the AP reported. The legislation was introduced as a complete ban on weaponized drones but just before the committee vote it was amended to exclude police from the restriction. Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, was reviewing the proposal, "however in previous years he has not supported this concept," spokesman Chris Collibee wrote in an email.

"Obviously this is for very limited circumstances," said Republican state Sen. John Kissel, of Enfield, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee that approved the measure Wednesday and sent it to the House of Representatives. "We can certainly envision some incident on some campus or someplace where someone is a rogue shooter or someone was kidnapped and you try to blow out a tire."

The bill now goes to the House of Representatives for consideration. Details on how law enforcement could use drones with weapons would be spelled out in new rules to be developed by the state Police Officer Standards and Training Council. Officers also would have to receive training before being allowed to use drones with weapons.

North Dakota is the only state that allows police to use weaponized drones, but limits the use to "less lethal" weapons, including stun guns, rubber bullets and tear gas.

Currently five states - Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont and Wisconsin - prohibit anyone from using a weaponized drone, while Maine and Virginia ban police from using armed drones, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Several other states have restricted drone use in general. So far, 36 states have enacted laws restricting drones and an additional four states have adopted drone limits, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Meanwhile, concerns are growing about potential unchecked police brutality and death raining from the robotic skies: civil libertarians and civil rights activists are lobbying to restore the bill to its original language before the full House vote Reuters adds.

"Data shows police force is disproportionately used on minority communities, and we believe that armed drones would be used in urban centers and on minority communities," said David McGuire, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Connecticut. "We would be setting a dangerous precedent," McGuire added. "It is really concerning and outrageous that that"s being considered in our state legislature. Lethal force raises this to a level of real heightened concern."

"That"s not the kind of precedent we want to set here," McGuire said of the prospect that Connecticut would become the first state to allow police to use lethally armed drones.

Others echoed McGuire"s concerns: "We have huge concerns that they would use this new technology to abuse our communities," said Scot X. Esdaile, president of state chapter of the NAACP. Esdaile said he has received calls from around the country from NAACP officials and others concerned about the Connecticut legislation.

Three police departments in the state - Hartford, Plainfield and Woodbury - began using drones within the past year, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut.

For now, however, the proposal is unlikely to unleash scenes out of some Robocop spinoff: The bill includes restrictions on drone use and reporting requirements that are supported by the ACLU.

It would require police to get a warrant before using a drone, unless there are emergency circumstances or the person who is the subject of the drone use gives permission. It also would require police to report yearly on how often they use drones and why, and create new crimes and penalties for criminal use of drones, including voyeurism.

Furthermore, final passage is not assured: although the bill overwhelmingly passed the Judiciary Committee, several members said they just wanted to see the proposal get to the House floor for debate. They said they had concerns about police using deadly force with drones. If Connecticut"s Democratic-controlled House passes the bill it will move to the Senate, which is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

"I think that police are taught one thing," said Democratic Bridgeport Sen. Edwin Gomes. "You put a weapon in their hand, they shoot center mass, they shoot to kill. If it"s going to be used, you"re going to use it to kill somebody."

Finally, for those wondering how a drone could possibly shoot, the following video of a drone shooting a gun - appropriately enough in Connecticut - should answer that question.

New Study Says Robots Took All Of Detroit's Jobs, Not Mexico

As Trump gets ready to renegotiate NAFTA and impose tariffs on companies looking to outsource production to Mexico, a new study from MIT and Boston University suggests that industrial robots, not Mexico, may be the bigger factor contributing to the high levels on unemployment in the Midwest. 

Entitled "Robots and Jobs: Evidence From US Labor Markets," the authors of the study found that the addition of 1 robot per 1,000 workers results in an 18-35 bps reduction in the employment-to-population ratio and 25-50bps reduction in wages.  Per Bloomberg:

One additional robot per thousand workers reduces the employment-to-population ratio by 0.18 percentage points to 0.34 percentage points and slashes wages by 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent, based on their analysis. To put that in context, the U.S. saw an increase of about one new industrial robot for every thousand workers between 1993 and 2007, based on the study.

"The employment effects of robots are most pronounced in manufacturing, and in particular, in industries most exposed to robots; in routine manual, blue collar, assembly and related occupations; and for workers with less than college education," the authors write. "Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, we do not find positive and offsetting employment gains in any occupation or education groups."

Worth noting: the authors estimate that robots may have increased the wage gap between the top 90th and bottom 10 percent by as much as 1 percentage point between 1990 and 2007. There"s also room for much broader robot adoption, which would make all of these effects much bigger.

While the study found that only 360,000-670,000 jobs had been lost to robots over the past couple of decades, estimates indicate that an additional 3.5 million permanent jobs losses could occur over just the next 10 years which would increase the natural unemployment level by over 2%.

Because there are relatively few robots in the US economy, the number of jobs lost due to robots has been limited so far (ranging between 360,000 and 670,000 jobs, equivalent to a 0.18-0.34 percentage point decline in the employment to population ratio). However, if the spread of robots proceeds as expected by experts over the next two decades (e.g., Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2012, especially pp. 27-32, and Ford, 2016), the future aggregate implications of the spread of robots could be much more sizable. For example, BCG (2015) offers two scenarios for the spread of robots over the next decade. In their aggressive scenario, the world stock of robots will quadruple by 2025. This would correspond to 5.25 more robots per thousand workers in the United States, and with our estimates, it would lead to a 0.94-1.76 percentage points lower employment to population ratio and 1.3-2.6 percent lower wage growth between 2015 and 2025.

Of course, the impact is even more dramatic when you consider that the job losses are heavily concentrated in a handful of industries.  The automotive industry employs 39% of existing industrial robots, followed by the electronics industry (19%), metal products (9%), and the plastic and chemicals industry (9%).

Meanwhile, the following maps help to highlight the exposure of various regions of the country to industrial automation, imports and offshoring of jobs.  Not surprisingly, the heaviest concentration of robots has developed in the rust-belt region where they"ve replaced 1,000s of UAW workers.

Of course, this wouldn"t be the first time that economists had prematurely predicted the demise of labor markets due to technological advances:

"We are being afflicted with a new disease of which some readers may not have heard the name, but of which they will hear a great deal in the years to come—namely, technological unemployment" - Keynes, 1930

“Labor will become less and less important. . . More and more workers will be replaced by machines. I do not see that new industries can employ everybody who wants a job” - Leontief, 1952

It Won't Be Like The Jetsons

Via Eric Peters of EricPetersAutos.com,

What does it mean when people talk about self-driving cars? We really ought to be talking about programmed cars.

And about who does the programming.

The “self-driving” car doesn’t decide for itself how fast it goes or what route it takes – at least, it won’t until it becomes an autonomous thinking machine, an artificial intelligence. We are not quite there yet.

So, in the meanwhile, who decides?

And it is a who – a flesh-and-blood someone (or someones). Guess what? It’s not you. This whole “self driving” car thing is about taking you out of the driver’s seat. And putting someone else in control of “your” car.

That part stays the same. Nominal ownership. You will make the payments, pay the taxes and fees. You will still be responsible for all of that.

But who will control the car? And how will they control it?

The “who” will be the same people who already control the roads: The people who are the government. Clovers. Authoritarian Control Freaks. The same people who make the laws about how fast you’re allowed to drive, when (and whether) you’re allowed to pass, make a right on red or a U turn . . . every last little thing.

They will control your “self-driving” car.

And when they do, not only will you not be allowed to proceed at a speed faster than they decree – or make a U turn or a right on red . . .  or do anything they do not want you to do- it will be impossible to do so.

The car – controlled by them – will not do your bidding.

It will do theirs.

Can you imagine? I can – and it makes my teeth ache.

People have this idea that the “self driving” future will be fast and free. A techno-Libertopia of high-speed and high-efficiency. Cars zipping along at triple digit speeds in tight formation, travel times cut down to a fraction of what they are now.

In fact it will be the opposite.

It will be Least Common Denominator . . . universalized and encoded in the electro-mechanical DNA of “your” car. No longer will you bee free to mash the gas and thread the needle through a Clover Cluster, chuckling to yourself as you watch them recede in the rearview. There will be no “speeding,” no right on red.

You – that is, your car – will drive at exactly the pace of the Clover Cluster.

A slow pace.

No more burnouts; no more drifting. Nothing “aggressive.”

Acceleration will be metered in accordance with the Fear Factor of the Clover Cluster. Think of your mother-in-law.

Of your grandmother. In her ’87 Buick Le Sabre, hunched over the over the wheel, perpetually riding the brakes.

It will have to be one size fits all. Because the programming must be. No more wiggle room; no more driving the way you prefer. No more driving faster – or harder – than they allow.

Individuals vary, but the Clover Hive is just that – a hive. Napoleon chose it as the symbol of his authoritarian state for good reason. Everyone the same and expected to do the same, except the Queen. The analogy is excellent, too, because the people dictating programming policy will almost certainly be “moms” and others of the female persuasion – who esteem saaaaaaaafety above everything and for whom velocity is the sine qua non of not-safe.

Slower is always better.

It will be like taking the bus – only worse. The bus driver was still an autonomous individual; he had the option to exercise initiative; he could even do something technically illegal – but reasonable and even necessary to deal with a situation that would otherwise mean just sitting there, Because It’s The Law.

Imagine how it will be in your programmed-by-others car. Traffic has come to a dead stop because of an accident up ahead. You could drive on the shoulder – briefly – to reach that exit a few hundred yards away.

But the programmed-by-others car will veto that. It is, after all, illegal to drive on the shoulder – and the car’s programming won’t will permit the law to be violated. Leaving aside the Cloverific adulation of The Law, the lawyers would never allow it.

Can you imagine?

Well, your honor, I knew it wasn’t legal to drive on the shoulder but I was just the passenger.

Shrug.

So the cars will be programmed to never do anything that isn’t “safe” – as well as punctiliously, exactly legal. And what is legal will be strictly in accordance with what your near-sighted, fearful mother-in-law would approve of. What the termagants who control the levers and billy clubs of government decide is “safe.”

To believe otherwise, you must believe that in this one instance, the government will not use technology to further control us. That it will set us free, expand our liberty.

The one upside – maybe – is that we’ll be able to get soused before the trip and just pass out. Tell the car to wake us up when we get there.

Whenever that turns out to be.

Boston Dynamics Unveils Its Latest "Nightmare-Inducing" Robot

One year ago, when we showed readers the SkyNet-like robots produced by Boston Dynamics, a company acquired by Google in 2013 (which then tried to flip it to Toyota last year but reportedly failed)  we called the robotic creations "terrifying." Little did we know that compared to Boston Dynamics" next spawn, that particular batch was downright Johnny 5-friendly by comparison. Because after being briefly shown off at an event early this month, the robotic designed has officially revealed its latest creation, “Handle,” which the company’s founder previously described as “nightmare-inducing."

Four weeks ago, Boston Dynamics - which is best known for its bipedal and quadrupedal robots - revealed it had been experimenting with some radical new tech: the wheel. The company named its new wheeled, upright robot is named Handle (“because it’s supposed to handle objects”) and looks like a cross between a Segway and the two-legged Atlas bot according to the Verge. Handle, which had not been officially unviled yet, was shown off by company founder Marc Raibert in a presentation to investors. Footage of the presentation was uploaded to YouTube by venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson.

Creating a more efficient robot that can, pardon the pun, handle basic tasks like moving objects around a warehouse would certainly be of benefit for Boston Dynamics. Although the company has consistently wowed the public with its robots, it’s struggled to produce a commercial product that’s ready for the real world. That may soon change.

Raibert described Handle as an “experiment in combining wheels with legs, with a very dynamic system that is balancing itself all the time and has a lot of knowledge of how to throw its weight around.” He added that using wheels is more efficient than legs, although there’s obviously a trade-off in terms of maneuvering over uneven ground.

“This is the debut presentation of what I think will be a nightmare-inducing robot,” said Raibert.

He wasn"t kidding: as the video below reveals, Handle is officially about 6 foot 5, weights about 100lbs, and can roll around at around 9 mph, while preserving perfect balance and even engaging in complex aerial acrobatics: Handle can keep its balance over rough terrain, and can even jump 4 feet in the air, as well as going down stairs without an issue.

While we are confident Amazon will promptly order a few thousands of these to bring even more streamline automation and efficiency to its behemoth warehouses while putting countless part-time workers out of work, we don"t know if to dread or yearn for the moment when RoboHandle emerges in a quiet patrol of your neighborhood street, armed and ready to use lethal force, and gradually replacing the local police force around the country.

Google’s Artificial Intelligence Getting ‘Greedy,’ ‘Aggressive’

(ANTIMEDIA) Will artificial intelligence get more aggressive and selfish the more intelligent it becomes? A new report out of Google’s DeepMind AI division suggests this is possible based on the outcome of millions of video game sessions it monitored. The results of the two games indicate that as artificial intelligence becomes more complex, it is more likely to take extreme measures to ensure victory, including sabotage and greed.

The first game, Gathering, is a simple one that involves gathering digital fruit. Two DeepMind AI agents were pitted against each other after being trained in the ways of deep reinforcement learning. After 40 million turns, the researchers began to notice something curious. Everything was ok as long as there were enough apples, but when scarcity set in, the agents used their laser beams to knock each other out and seize all the apples.

Watch the video battle below, showcasing two AI bots fighting over green apples:

Join the Revolution: Click Here for the Homepage of Independent Media

The aggression, they determined, was the result of higher levels of complexity in the AI agents themselves. When they tested the game on less intelligent AI agents, they found that the laser beams were left unused and equal amounts of apples were gathered. The simpler AIs seemed to naturally gravitate toward peaceful coexistence.

Researchers believe the more advanced AI agents learn from their environment and figure out how to use available resources to manipulate their situation — and they do it aggressively if they need to.

“This model … shows that some aspects of human-like behaviour emerge as a product of the environment and learning,” a DeepMind team member, Joel Z Leibo, told Wired.

“Less aggressive policies emerge from learning in relatively abundant environments with less possibility for costly action. The greed motivation reflects the temptation to take out a rival and collect all the apples oneself.”

The second game, Wolfpack, tested the AI agents’ ability to work together to catch prey. The agents played the game as wolves who were being tested to see if they would join forces as strategic predators; if they jointly protected the prey from scavengers they would enjoy a greater reward. Researchers once again concluded that the agents were learning from their environment and figuring out how they could collaboratively win. For example, one agent would corner the prey and then wait for the other to join.

Researchers believe both games show an ability in artificial intelligence entities to learn quickly from their environments in achieving objectives. The first game, however, presented an added bit of abstract speculation.

If more complex iterations of artificial intelligence necessarily develop aggressive, greedy ‘impulses,’ does this present a problem for a species already mired in its own avarice? While the abstract presented by DeepMind does not venture to speculate on the future of advanced artificial minds, there is at least anecdotal evidence here to suggest AI will not necessarily be a totally logical egalitarian network. With complex environments and willful agents, perhaps aggression and self-preservation arise naturally…even in machines.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo / Image: Stephen Blowler