KI - Künstliche Intelligenz

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 423–428 | Cite as

Shakey Ever After? Questioning Tacit Assumptions in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence

  • Alexandra KirschEmail author


Shakey the robot was a milestone of autonomous robots and artificial intelligence. Its design principles have dominated research until now. Tacit philosophical and architectural assumptions have impoverished the space of research topics and methods. I point out ways to overcome this impasse with sideglances to other scientific fields.


Shakey Architectures Design Objectivism 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Brooks R (1991) Intelligence without representation. Artif Intell 47:139–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Engelmore R, Morgan T (eds) (1988) Blackboard systems. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gharajedaghi J (2011) Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity, 3rd edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gigerenzer G, Brighton H (2009) Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cogn Sci 1:107–143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (1999) The ABC Research Group (eds) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haber A, Sammut C (2013) A cognitive architecture for autonomous robots. Adv Cogn Syst 2:257–275Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hayes-Roth B (1985) A blackboard architecture for control. Artif Intell 26(3):251–321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hayes-Roth B, Hayes-Roth F (1979) A cognitive model of planning. Cogn Sci 3(4):275–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katsikopoulos K (2019) Kirsch’s, and everyone’s, bind: how to build models for the wild? Cogn Process 20(2):269–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelley D, Kelley T (2013) Creative confidence. Harpercollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirsch A (2017) Lessons from human problem solving for cognitive systems research. Adv Cogn Syst 5:13–24.
  12. 12.
    Kirsch A (2017) A modular approach of decision-making in the context of robot navigation in domestic environments. In: Benzmüller C, Lisetti C, Theobald M (eds) 3rd global conference on artificial intelligence (GCAI), vol 50. EasyChair, Miami, FL, pp 134–147Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein G (2002) The fiction of optimization. In: Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 103–122Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klein G (2017) Sources of power: how people make decisions. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kotseruba I, Tsotsos JK (2016) A review of 40 years of cognitive architecture research: core cognitive abilities and practical applications. arXiv:1610.08602
  16. 16.
    Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) METAPHORS we live by. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langley P (2017) Progress and challenges in research on cognitive architectures. In: Proceedings of the thirty-first AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-17)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lesser VR, Erman LD (1977) A retrospective view of the hearsay-II architecture. In: IJCAI’77: Proceedings of the 5th international joint conference on artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maes P (1990) Situated agents can have goals. Robot Auton Syst 6:49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matarić M (1998) Behavior-based robotics as a tool for synthesis of artificial behavior and analysis of natural behavior. Trends Cogn Sci 2(3):82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Müller A, Wünsche HJ (2012) Object-related-navigation for mobile robots. In: Proceedings of IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium. IEEE, MadridGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nilsson NJ (1984) Shakey the robot. Tech. Rep. 323, AI Center, SRI International.
  24. 24.
    Scheutz M, Harris J, Schermerhorn P (2013) Systematic integration of cognitive and robotic architectures. Adv Cogn Syst 2:277–296Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simon HA (1972) Theories of bounded rationality. In: McGuire C, Radner R (eds) Decision and organization. North-Holland Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Veloso M, Carbonell J, Pérez A, Borrajo D, Fink E, Blythe J (1995) Integrating planning and learning: the prodigy architecture. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 7(1):81–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yves Pigneur AO, Bernada G, Smith A (2014) Value proposition design. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.StuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations