Advertisement

Cognitive Computation

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 347–353 | Cite as

The Self-Cognisant Robot

  • Dimitar KazakovEmail author
Article

Abstract

This work discusses the challenge of developing self-cognisant artificial intelligence systems, looking at the possible benefits and the main issues in this quest. It is argued that the degree of complexity, variation, and specialisation of technological artefacts used nowadays, along with their sheer number, represent an issue that can and should be addressed through an important step towards greater autonomy, that is, the integration of learning, which will allow the artefact to observe its own functionality and build a model of itself. This model can be used to adjust the expectations from an imperfectly manufactured item, patch up its performance and control its consistency over time, so providing a form of self-certification and a warning mechanism in case of deterioration. It is suggested that these goals cannot be fully achieved without the ability of the learner to model its own performance, and the implications and issues of this self-reflective learning are debated. A possible way of quantifying the faculty for self-cognition is proposed, and relevant areas of computer science, philosophy and the study of the evolution of language are mentioned.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence Robot Self-reference Machine learning Self-cognition Self-certification 

References

  1. 1.
    Aho AV, Sethi R, Ullman JD. Compilers: principles, techniques, and tools. 1st ed. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley; 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aristotle. Categories. In: Barnes J, editor. The complete works of Aristotle, 2 vols. (transl. Ackrill JL). Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldwin JM. A new factor in evolution. Am Nat. 1896;30(354):441–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartlett M. Language as an exaptation: simulating the origin of syntax. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Computer Science, University of York, York; 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartlett M, Bate I, Kazakov D. Guaranteed loop bound identification from program traces for WCET. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE real-time and embedded technology and applications symposium (RTAS). San Francisco, CA: IEEE Computer Society; 2009.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernat G, Burns A, Newby M. Probabilistic timing analysis: an approach using copulas. Embed Comput. 2005;1(2):179–94.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Montaigne M. Essais I. Gallimard: Paris; 1965.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foote B, Johnson RE. Reflective facilities in Smalltalk-80. In: OOPSLA’89 conference proceedings on object-oriented programming systems, languages and applications. New Orleans, LA: ACM New York; 1989, p. 327–35.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foucault M. The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. Paris: Pantheon Books; 1970.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gray HM. A framework for meta-genetic programming. Supervisor: D. Kazakov, Bachelor’s Thesis, University of York, UK; 2010.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hesslow G, Jirenhedthor DA. The inner world of a simple robot. J Conscious Stud 2007;14(7).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hofstadter DR. Gödel, Escher, Bach: an eternal Golden Braid, 1999 edn. Basic Books; 1979.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holland O. A strongly embodied approach to machine consciousness. J Conscious Stud 2007;14(7).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Intel white paper: Detailed statistical analysis of floating point flaw in Pentium processors. http://www.intel.com/support/processors/pentium/fdiv/wp, 30 Nov 1994.
  15. 15.
    Kazakov D. Interplay between language, navigation and kin selection. In: The 8th conference on the evolution of language (EvoLang), Utrecht, the Netherlands: World Scientific Publishing Company; 2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kazakov D. Self-reflective machine learning. In: Submissions to the workshop on grand challenges for computing research, Edinburgh, UK; 2002. http://www.nesc.ac.uk/esi/events/Grand_Challenges/paneld/d12.pdf.
  17. 17.
    King RD, Whelan KE, Jones FM, Reiser PGK, Bryant CH, Muggleton SH, Kell DB, Oliver SG. Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist. Science. 2004;427:247–52.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirby S, Hurford J. The emergence of linguistic structure: an overview of the iterated learning model, London: Springer; 2002. p. 121–48.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuhn TS. The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change. In: Objectivity, value judgement and theory choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1977.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maes P. Concepts and experiments in computational reflection. In: OOPSLA’87 conference proceedings on Object-oriented programming systems, languages and applications. NY, USA: ACM New York; 1987.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maturana HR, Varela FJ. Autopoiesis and cognition. In: The realization of the living, Boston studies in the philosophy of science, vol 42. D. Boston, MA: Reidel Publishing; 1980.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mitchell T. Machine learning. New York/London: McGraw Hill; 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muggleton SH, De Raedt L. Inductive logic programming: theory and methods. Journal of Logic Programming. 1994;19,20:629–79.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pavlov T. Theory of reflection (in Bulgarian). In: Selected works, vol 5. Sofia; 1962.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pianka ER. On r and K selection. Am Nat. 1970;104:592–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Russell B. The principles of mathematics. Cambridge: University Press; 1903.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Russell S, Norvig P. Artificial intelligence. In: A modern approach. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall; 2010.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schmidhuber J. Evolutionary principles in self-referential learning. Master’s thesis, Institut f. Informatik, Tech. Univ. Munich; 1987.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmidhuber J. Ultimate cognition à la Gödel. Cogn Comput 2009;1:177–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith BC. Reflection and semantics in Lisp. In: Proceedings of the 1984 ACM principles of programming languages conference. New York: ACM; 1984. p.23–35.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wikipedia: Quine (computing). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing) (visited on 5 Nov 2011).
  32. 32.
    Zarpas E. A case study: formal verification of processor critical properties. In: CHARME 2005, LNCS 3725, Heidelberg: Springer; 2005. p. 406–9.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang K, Shasha D. Simple fast algorithms for the editing distance between trees and related problems. SIAM J Comput 1989;18(6):1245–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations