Robotic wondering

The original target of the artificial sciences is maintained but heavily questioned in this article. The author feels there is no use sweeping strong artificial intelligence under the carpet as it remains very present in the minds of the specialists despite an apparent swing to realism. Strong AI, supported by newer fields such as evolutionary computing and cognitive, humanoid or epigenetic robotics, and yet others is questioned on the grounds of the fundamental aspects of communication. Our understanding of the function of language and what it means to mean something while interacting with others is a major attribute of human life. The ultimate aim herein is to enquire into the current state of knowledge in the remnants of strong AI (its implicitness, suitability...). Its implicit nature in the minds of the forerunners in the community is particularly bothersome in as much as it hinders other scientists from sensing it and thus apprehending its actual role.

[1]  Daniela Giordano,et al.  Evolution of interactive graphical representations into a design language: a distributed cognition accoun , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[2]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[3]  Jordan Zlatev,et al.  The Epigenesis of Meaning in Human Beings, and Possibly in Robots , 2001, Minds and Machines.

[4]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Human Cognition and Social Agent Technology , 2000 .

[5]  Colin T. Schmidt,et al.  Socially interactive robots. Why our current beliefs about them still work , 2002, Proceedings. 11th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[6]  A. M. Turing,et al.  Computing Machinery and Intelligence , 1950, The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.

[7]  Tomio Watanabe,et al.  InterActor: Speech-Driven Embodied Interactive Actor , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Language and the Evolution of Cognition , 1995 .