From: Emlyn O'Regan (emlyn@one.net.au)
Date: Mon Sep 04 2000 - 02:44:47 MDT
All this talk of "humbots"; horrible. If you had a human in the role, you'd
probably want someone skilled; they might know the local area better than
you, they might speak the local language better, or they might have at least
some skill in the domain in which you are working (eg: the lab assistant
example below).
I'd lean toward the name "teleoperative", which connotes a professional,
rather than a mindless slave. There'd need to be a code of ethics, similar
to that of interpreters, of impartially handling interaction for the
teleoperator, of confidentiality, all that stuff. For some tasks, you might
get right down to the job of directing the teleoperator; maybe through a
heads-up displayed arrow, which tells them which way to turn their head,
maybe the buzzing mentioned below, whatever.
I imagine there would be some nice benefits of this to the teleoperative in
some cases. For example, in an IT system administration environment, new
graduates could work as teleoperatives for some of the best people in the
world, giving them the chance to observe at extremely close proximity how to
perform incredibly advanced tasks. The same could go for many fields.
The level of teleoperation required could vary substantially; call this the
required Control Factor. A really high control factor would involve
directing the teleoperative where to move their hands, head, feet, whatever.
You'd need a highly skilled human teleoperative, who was used to the "rig"
they wear, and who was trained to respond quickly and exactly. I imagine
this could turn into a profession of sorts; you'd need a relatively fit
person, agile, and attentive, who could pay attention to operator
instructions without being distracted by the details of the task at hand,
whilst still paying attention to personal safety. To get really good
immersion as a teleoperator, you'd need a very skilled teleoperative, who
would most likely charge you an arm and a leg. For a very physically
oriented person, this would likely be a fairly demanding and satisfying job.
A mid-range control factor would be realtime direction, but at a higher
level ("please go the the corner of 43rd and fifth", or "This guy is lying
to us. Engage him in polite chit-chat, and I'll think about how to
proceed"). Mid-range control factor is where communications/negotiation
professionals, conference level interpreters, and skilled actors would come
into their own, being given general directions, and deciding on
implementation details themselves, as their professional opinion dictates.
This could often be much more like teamwork; often, you would be hiring
skills which you don't possess yourself.
Low control factors might be entirely offline. You'd send a message to the
company, "Could you please get someone to pick up a box of chocolates from
XYZ chocolate shop, and mail them to this address...". Least functional, but
still often a useful service. This is probably available right now,
depending on what you need; you just contact the appropriate service
provider and tell them your requirements.
To even achieve decent mid-range control factors, we are going to need good
wireless comms; bandwidth! In Australia, I know I can only get 9600bps over
a mobile-phone link; I'm not sure what other technologies are available
here. 9600bps is not enough. I think some newer, better data options are
coming online soon; I'm going to keep an eye on that. What's the situation
in the US? What sort of data rates are available? What's on the way? I think
we really need realtime video to make this plausible; probably a way off.
Although there are possibilities even without it; you've got relatively
decent, affordable audio if you can get to 56K, so the teleoperative has to
be your eyes. Still, there's a dedicated person on-site, working on your
behalf; better than a conference call.
I'm interested in the state of wireless comms in the US, mainly. What's an
affordable data rate (say using cellular networks), and what are the charges
like? How about if money was no object; what kind of bandwidth could we put
between a teleoperator on one side of the world, and a teleoperative on the
other?
Emlyn
----- Original Message -----
From: "phil osborn" <philosborn@hotmail.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Teleoperation [was Re: TV: Documentary Science of Beauty]
>From: Adrian Tymes <wingcat@pacbell.net>
>Subject: Re: Teleoperation [was Re: TV: Documentary Science of Beauty]
>Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 10:29:43 -0700
>
>phil osborn wrote:
> > On the plus side, the human can recognize nuances and details and make
> > inferences that can add significantly to the experience.
>
>Ah...no, the original proposal was that there be a human operator on
>the other end - and presumably one more skilled in the activity being
>done than the humbot (else, the humbot itself could just do the task
>without the expense of an operator) - thus leaving no nuances for the
>humbot to contribute.
>
There's a lot of room between the two positions. A professional lab
assistant may be more competent than the research director at running
certain equipment, but probably not in understanding the theory being
tested. One possible interface would involve the humbot seeing a heads-up
picture of the actions he is to perform. This would be handy when very
precise direction is necessary, but probably very tiring to both parties. I
would think that a simpler sensory connection - one that sent a buzzing
sensation to transducers, telling the humbot to swivel his or her head,
simultaneously (with a second or so lag) with the controller turning his or
her head for example, would provide a very realistic feeling of "being
there." Some practice in this modality might lead to some very good
teamwork, I suspect.
>Taking a different spin on this...what about seating-limited events?
>(Say, a legal proceeding or a government meeting where The Powers That
>Be wish to limit public input.) One person sits in, webcasting what's
>going on; a bunch of interested parties monitor the feed and have a chat
>session discussing what's going on. Perhaps the person could even get
>feedback as to what to do (say, if one of the viewers thinks of a good
>retort to the Powers' "respond to this complex question within five
>seconds or we'll assume our point is made"); either all the parties
>could have voice input, or there could be a moderator who is the only
>one who can directly give feedback to the attendee, and gives it based
>on the chat session.
Possibly, altho there I suspect you would want your smartest person on site,
so they would also likely be the controller and decide what gets done.
As our bandwidth over the RF PDA/cellphone improves, I suspect that a lot of
telepresence and tele-experience will become very popular. Instead of
calling 911 from under an avelanche, a hundred thousand thrill seekers will
be there with you - placing bets on your survival.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:45 MST