Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- designing_robotic_artifacts [2010-10-25 19:01] – created 83.101.5.51
+++ designing_robotic_artifacts [2010-10-25 19:04] (current) – 83.101.5.51
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
     * imperfectiosn can be interesting/human
     * do we expect all robots to be superheros?
-    * assumptions of perfection often hinder the development of currrent
+    * assumptions of perfection often hinder the development of current robots (e.g. maintainence is not considered necessary for a 'perfect' robot)
-robots (e.g. maintainence is not considered necessary for a 'perfect' robot)
     * humans are not perfect, why should machines be?
-    * perfection is context specific, context senstiive
+    * perfection is context specific, context sensitive
-    * ignores inevitability of entropy. we should work with, rather than
+    * ignores inevitability of entropy. we should work with, rather than against entropy
-against entropy
   * **Origins**
-    * Ideal meachines of the Industrial Age, always working, never needeing
+    * Ideal meachines of the Industrial Age, always working, never needing to sleep, get paid or complain
-to sleep, get paid or complain
     * godlike delusions of engineers
     * striving for perfection in design/engineering
   * **Maintaining the myth**
     * reinforced by consistent desire for improvement, onward & upward!
-    * using "perfection" as a placeholder or susbstitue for articulating
+    * using "perfection" as a placeholder or substitute for articulating desires and/or purpose of machines/autonobots
-deisres and/or purpose of machines/autonobots
     * human nature to improve things
     * stories, film. fiction, etc+ pop culture
-    * NOTE: 'evil' robots are usually protrayed as 'perfect' in
+    * NOTE: 'evil' robots are usually protrayed as 'perfect' in pop.culture, the 'flaws' or failings make the robots seem more human or 'good'
-pop.culture, the 'flaws' or failings make the robots seem more human or
-'good'
   * **Strategies to dispel the myth**
     * imperfection by design
     * better illustrate the value of imperfect systems
-    * do not let visions escape into the future, maintian enough "now" for
+    * do not let visions escape into the future, maintian enough "now" for the future to stand on
-the future to stand on
+    * designing artefacts that embrace noise, error, ambiguity -> normal/useful/etc
-    * designing artefacts that embrace noise, error, ambiguity ->
-normal/useful/etc
     * consider maintainence as part of use (i.e. use cases, experience design)
     * design for decay
-    * use imperfections to build character, quirks, personality, etc+ (e.g.
+    * use imperfections to build character, quirks, personality, etc+ (e.g. reduced acuracy vision system & eye tracking -> less annoying characterisation)
-reduced acuracy vision system & eye tracking -> less annoying
-characterisation)
+----
+see also; [[category robotics]], [[project lirec]], [[the animist paradox]]