Mahru Humanoid Robot

[JUKIO01]

man, korea and china needs to let japan develope robots, japan is the worlds leading in robotics.

[DanFrederiksen]

Intelligent is perhaps overstating it a bit : )

it seems to be similarly useless to honda's asimo

[allogicid]

The Intro of the Show looks like RTL Aktuell Intro 1998

[Kaeman72]

Just wait till it gets a hold of a gun.

[gammarush]

It would be epic to make this fight Asimo. Asimo would win though ^^ He kicks but!

[Puntaltenses]

Korean robots sucks.

[ervinnjay]

japanese robots is better!!!

[Puntaltenses]

Indeed !!!

[omgwtfbbqstfu]

lol it can raise its arms!!

asimo wins!

[TheSlackOne]

It sucks. Fucking pice of metal can't does anything well.

Perhaps, at the future, it will can make something, but no now.

[JAMB02009]

Give it 10 years and they will be killing us and thinking for themselves, I Robot, i dont want to die....

[gagecube]

It responds to Oral demands! When can I buy one!

[JimmyPeep]

Asimo looks genuinely cute, but this looks like it's pretending to be nice. Biding its time to ATTACK. :)

[warlockboyburns]

he walks like he needs to take a shit :))

[liknyne]

This robot has nothing on QRIO.....

[jumaesli]

pinches chinos o japoneses no tienen nada ke hacer jajaja

[shigurui]

not ASIMO?

[yk12196027]

bad ASIMO

[openmindedjjj]

give it like 10 years and im shure this robot and many other will be able to walk very well and not have any other problems regarding walking. im pretty excited! :D

[shakiin000]

this toy doesnt even take big step and walk propery.

[zbcrazy]

Robots kind of creep me out...but it's amazing how they figure that out.

[DarkHawkShadow]

Yah the totaly stol this 100 % from asimo ,

not to mention they try to make it sound better whn asimo can already do allthoes things, better, and more.

[frogvillage]

ASIMO OEM version, added a voice recognition feature?

WTF!. KOREANS DO NOT HAVE CREATIVITY PERIOD!!

Hate fuckn chinks. Koreans are like Chinese!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[A1bert00]

hahaha could they make it with a more friendly face lol make it TX face

[AkaStevie]

oh my god... those robots are just waiting to get an upgrade so they can bust outta there

[Breakyerself]

yeah, asimo destroys this hunk of junk. They need to make a robot that has a neural net or something new like that.

[AdamBailey9]

Wait a minute did she say unlike asimo this robot can recognize faces verbal commands and gestures? asimo can do all that! Including the hand shake.

[dmanandcmac]

yay now i dont have too yell at my wife too go get me a beer!!! this robot wont get upset and regect me, ending with me sleeping alone at night. GO FUTURE!!!

[tommyn79]

damn.. in 10 years.. the image of the movie I robot will become true

[DeimosSaturn]

Ha. In 10 years, Cats will still be smarter than the smartest robot. I doubt there will be a real domestic consumer market for something as useless as this.

[anon69]

It depends on what you mean by smart. Can a cat recognize the difference between Coke vs Pepsi? By certain measures robots are already more intelligent. Exponential growth is such that the final result can be vastly different from what people in earlier generations thought of.

[DeimosSaturn]

A software program that can fit on a floppy disc can recognize the difference between coke and pepsi. It's a matter of spectral analysis.

Although I agree, the hardware will evolve exponentially, once we figure out how, so will we. AI will always be inferior.

[anon69]

They're not talking about chemical analysis , but about computer vision, autonomous agents that recognizes imagery. Both the software and hardware with software would be more useful than a cat in this regard. The premise that flesh and blood humans will retain their edge permanently is a hypothesis not unlike Technological Singularity which assumes the potential of above-human machine intelligence. There's also the possibility that "we" and "AI" would become indistinguishable.

[DeimosSaturn]

The human brain, in all its complexity, and a cat brain for that matter, has half of its resources dedicated to processing visual information. It is not neccessary, however, for a machine to be sentient in order to see how we see.

Also, I was indeed speaking of the vinge singularity. And I was implying cybernetic evolution, but that's not "artificial", it's "amplification".

[anon69]

A cat can processes as much visual and audio information as it wants and still have no ability to follow this basic instruction. It is simply not "smarter" than AI for this task. A statement such as "humans/cyborgs will always (keyword always) be smarter than artificial machines" is total speculation. Few if any scientists will seriously say "always" or "never" which means for all eternity.

[DeimosSaturn]

If you do some google research, a machine, developed some 10 years ago, could accurately tell the name and year of any wine just by smelling it. It is not sentient. The speculation I made is actually far safer than the idea that Asimos will rule the world.

[anon69]

It's a fallacy known as argument by lack of imagination, like an ancient person who claims that no machine will ever fly. It's a fictional version of what the future would be for all time. Can you find a computer scientist who claims that "AI will never exceed humanity?" You could say "not in the foreseeable future" which would be more reasonable.

[DeimosSaturn]

Maybe I ought to reword my speculation:

Some Human beings or some modification there of or direct decendent of organic human will always remain more intelligent than the most intelligent non-organic decendent AI. Machines will undoubtedly become more intelligent than men of TODAY...but never the men of tommorow.

[anon69]

You're entitled to opinion of course, but no peer reviewed scientific journal would publish a statement that is fallaciously speculative. Some may concur in casual conversation, but simply beliving it would not be hard science. There's also the bias toward humans, namely "carbon chauvinism". There may be sentient forms elsewhere, non-organic or machine-like. You can guess, and that's all it is.

[DeimosSaturn]

When have I expressed a desire to publish my hypothetical thought experiments in a peer review science journal? I don't have a "bias" towards humans. I've simply examined all the possibilities and weighed their likelyhood. It's not quite "guessing" as you say.

[anon69]

As long as you're aware that the idea is speculative fiction, no problem, because that's why one would not find a premise as "organic or partially organic life will necessarily be intellectually superior to inorganic life at all times in the universe" in a journal. It's not factual, because there is insufficient data or no data whatsoever (astrobiology). It may be true, not necessarily true.

[DeimosSaturn]

Try your best to imagine a scenario where a purely inorganic gains the upperhand on the most intelligent organic or organic descendant (modified or not). I dare you.

[anon69]

Again with fiction and chauvinism. To give an example: Rodney Brooks is a professor of robotics at MIT. His current research includes robots with the social understanding of an 8 year old. "My intellectual side still wants to go about building Commander Data." He will "never answer" how far away they are. Speculation is not what science is about. Yet, you know more than any scholar ever will. Congratulations.

[DeimosSaturn]

ugh...what? That's not a scenario and that's not even answering my challenge. Again, let me stress, I am NOT a carbon chauvanist. Get that through your head. It's rather silly for you to think that artificial life can ever gain the upper hand and blaim it on chauvinism. just silly.

[anon69]

But you have no challenge; proof is not provided by either speculation or lack of imagination. In order for you to say that something is impossible, you need a set of physical laws that exclude its possibility. What is the theory that says "non-carbon-based intelligence such as silicon can never achieve higher level sentience than carbon-based intelligence such as humans"? No theory means fantasy. Name calling does not change that.

[DeimosSaturn]

If you can't answer the challenge, just say so.

[anon69]

You continue to miss the point: your science fiction is irrelevant. What you claim to know would grant you a PhD in computer science, engineering, biochemistry etc all at once. Idle hypothesis is not necessarily wrong, but only a layperson would mistaken it for fact. Have you actually taken a course in AI? Have scientists reached consensus on the subject? Did you tell or challenge the professor about what you are certain to be facts?

[DeimosSaturn]

Ugh...let me spell it out for you plainly.

gene engineering leads to recursive improvement in humans. Humans or their immediate decendants always remain vastly superior to any inorganic. No possible scenario can be presented of this being untrue into perpetuity. Only in science fiction are people so blind to this.

[anon69]

In other words, you have no education in AI, no dialogue with any scholar. You could've learned about evolutionary computation, machine learning, genetic algorithms, artificial neural networks, parallel processing, patterns that humans can not recognize but machines do, etc etc. What you're claiming is that the best computer scientists and engineers are all blind but you know everything they don't. Suggestion: how about we give pseudoscience a rest and make you look smarter?

[DeimosSaturn]

Wow...how exactly do any of those fields you mentioned dispute my point? Hmmm?? How? Are they showing that humans will not recursively self improve before sentient AI? Let's go over some recent articles on genetics and neurophysiology shall we?

[Rasputin677]

It is more intelligent than asimo, but not as cute

[JUKIO01]

and it cant run

[dirtbikefreak942]

i want one