Welcome to the Euroscientist!
-
On the Way to Artificial Intelligence
Giulio Sandini, accompanied by a talk by Edgar Körner of the Honda Reserach Institute Europe, gave an insight look into recent developments on the way to learning robots at ESOF2010 in Turin. This thought provoking talk gave the determining factor for this interview.
Following Giulio’s fascinating session at ESOF 2010, the Euroscientist asked him a few questions approaching the philosophy of robotics.
ES: You mentioned that it is impossible for the human brain to "un-learn". Could you describe what is the difference between unlearning and forgetting?
GS: Once you have learned something you cannot voluntarily go back in time and try to replay the process that made you learn. When you have to solve an equation you can go through a set of processes until you get the solution and then, if you want to you can go back and follow all the steps again. With learning, once you have the solution all the intermediate steps are lost. As people say, once you have learned to ride a bicycle you never forget. Of course this is not true for all our memories (I do not remember the phone number of my first girlfriend). My point was more on the process of learning than on the memory itself.
ES: Do you think, that robots might have an advantage because we can teach them how to "un-learn"?
GS: This is not necessarily an advantage also because you could “delete” a memory but you cannot prevent the process of re-learning it (but it is an interesting point).
ES: Does the field of Robotics, especially the discipline dealing with artificial intelligence, benefit from discoveries in medical research? Could a better understanding of Alzheimer's disease or Dementia play an essential role in teaching Robots how to learn?
GS: Yes, medical and neuroscience research are definitely important sources of knowledge if one is interested in building systems with human-like intelligence. I would not say that a better understanding of Alzheimer or Dementia could play a role in teaching a robot how to learn, but it could certainly give new information about how humans learn and this could be useful. The reverse is also true in the sense that building robots that learn may clarify which are the essential ingredients of the process and explain why the failure of some may cause Alzheimer-like dysfunction.
ES: But dealing with the creation if intelligence is kind of a philosophic quest. Do you have to be a philosopher to work in the field of artificial intelligence?
GS: Maybe so, the definition of a philosopher is fuzzy. In the past it was intended to study matter (so also physical phenomena) so, in some sense, also robots.
ES: Euroscience is an international and interdisciplinary organisation: How is research in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence organised and handled, in respect to international co-operation and interdisciplinary research?
GS: In the past, robotics was mostly in the field of engineering, but more recently some of the long-term objectives of robotics, such as learning, have expanded the field to include cognitive and social sciences as well as neuroscience. Interdisciplinary research is possible in some centers around the world, such as the IIT where I currently work, and is supported by specific programs such as EU research programs in the IST (Information Science and Technology) area.
ES: Teaching robots to learn will affect our understanding of how we learn - and vice versa. This sounds very exciting.
GS: Yes indeed! If it is not useful to both engineers and neuroscientists the collaboration does not work in the medium and long terms.
Giulio Sandini is Director of Research at the Italian Institute of Technology (iit) and full professor of bioengineering at the University of Genoa. After his graduation in Electronic Engineering (Bioengineering) at the University of Genova in 1976 he was research fellow and assistant professor at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa until 1984. During this period, working at the Laboratorio di Neurofisiologia of the CNR, he investigated aspects of visual processing at the level of single neurons as well as aspects of visual perception in human adults and children. He has been Visiting Research Associate at the Department of Neurology of the Harvard Medical School in Boston where he developed diagnostic techniques based on brain electrical activity mapping. After his return to Genova in 1984 as associate professor, in 1990 he founded the LIRA-Lab (Laboratory for Integrated Advanced Robotics, www.liralab.it). In 1996 he was Visiting Scientist at the Artificial Intelligence Lab of MIT. (taken from the iit-webpages)
Images:Giulio Sandini, source: www.torinoscienzia.itiCub robot, source: www.robotcub.org
interview by Simon SchneiderCategories
Keywords
-
Winners of the Euroscientist journalism competition
At ESOF 2010, we launched the Euroscientist journalism competition. We are pleased to announce that we have three winners. Their articles can be found here on the Euroscientist.
1st Place - Martin Enserink - “Italian scientist provide food with thought”
2nd Place - Venna Patwardhan - “Dear ESOF”
3rd Place - Dino Trescher - “Vikings get ahead in science”
Congratulations to our winners and thank you to those who entered.
posted by Leila SattaryCategories
Keywords
-
Italian scientists provide food with thought
You know that you're not reporting on an ordinary science meeting when a waiter drops penne and tomato sauce on your notes. But then, this is Italy.
At the Euroscience Open Forum yesterday, Italian scientists tried to draw attention to their cutting-edge work by combining it with something for which their country is even more famous: food. A lavish six-course "Biolunch'" for 50 reporters offered up a variety of specialties from the Piemonte region in a downtown restaurant, each paired with a short talk on a related science topic. The organizer, Jacopo Pasotti, hopes it will set a delicious new trend in science communication.
A panzanella, for instance—a bread salad with tomatoes, basil, and cannellini beans—was the occasion for Roberto Papa of the Marche Polytechnic University in Ancona to discuss how beans were domesticated in the Americas and transplanted to Europe. Paola Bonfante of the University of Turin explained how the sequence of the truffle genome, published in Nature by a French-Italian team this year, is changing research into the prized delicacy. Another regional treat—steak tartare with slivers of summer black truffle—underlined the importance of her research.
Truth be told, their 5-minute talks didn't dig too deeply into the science. This was probably for the better, because the wines—a fresh, elegant Pinot Bianco and a robust Nebbiolo—were already flowing in abundance.
Next on the menu, which was sponsored by the Piemonte Innovation Cluster and Sardegna Ricerche, the Sardinian agency for R&D, was a seafood pasta, accompanied by a presentation by Maurizio Casiraghi of the University of Milano-Bicocca, who explained how unique genetic signatures known as DNA bar codes can help identify species rapidly. This is useful not just in science but also at Italian fish markets, where not everything is what it's claimed to be, Casiraghi said. Verifying seafood by their DNA bar codes can protect gullible consumers' wallets, as well as their health, since some people are allergic to certain kinds of seafood. What's more, said Casiraghi, it can help to keep endangered species off the markets.
Next came a vegetarian risotto, and Riccardo Velasco of the Istituto Agrario San Michele all'Adige, who works on "genomics-assisted breeding" in apples and grapes. (He led one of the groups racing to sequence the grape genome several years ago.) Over the main course, Giorgio Bertorelle of the University of Ferrara discussed his research into the domestication history of the aurochs (Bos primigenius), the bigger, wilder, fiercer predecessor of the modern-day cow. Some scientists are trying to bring this beast back to life, but the veal served with Bertorelle's talk—roasted to perfection and served with chopped hazelnuts—made one wonder whether this is really necessary.
The dessert was for evolutionary biologist Andrea Pilastro of the University of Padua. Pilastro studies post-copulatory sexual selection—that is, how females decide which male's sperm will fertilize their eggs—but he had decided that discussing the quality of ejaculate over pannacotta was not a great idea. Instead, he talked about his work on the function of male ornamentation, such as the blue tit's bright hues. Waiters had offered the audience the choice between plain pannacotta or a garnished version (photo), and most opted for the latter—proving, Pilastro said, that a little extra investment can make all the difference when it comes to attraction.
As they sampled the dessert wine—a 2003 Erbaluce di Caluso—the audience was convinced: Italy really has a lot to offer to hungry science journalists. And some appetizing research as well.
by Martin Enserink
Martin Enserink, a native of the Netherlands, has a Masters' degree in Biology. He worked as a news reporter at Science's headquarters in Washington, D.C. for 5 years; in 2004, he became a contributing correspondent, based in Paris and Amsterdam.
This article was submitted to the Euroscientist journalism competition 2010 and came in 1st place and is reposted here with the kind permission of ScienceNOW, Science magazine's daily news websiteCategories
-
Dear ESOF
Dear ESOF,
"It's important to be polite, but it's more important to be honest", said Professor Holger Wormer, one of our mentors at our last feedback briefing before the curtains swung down on ESOF 2010. Sound advice, don't you think? I for one agree with him 100%. Honesty is the best policy, especially when you sincerely want to help make things better.
At ESOF 2010, everything was well organised. The event was well planned, the credentials of the speakers were impeccable, and the sessions were varied, multidisciplinary and all that.
I attended at least three or four sessions each day. With one or two exceptions, my experience was the same every time. I think I'll give you a re-cap of "When scientists read literature", one of the few off-the-track topics, one you wouldn't normally find featured in a science conference. Congratulations for selecting such an intriguingly innovative theme.
They say "we are what we read", and that is why this topic peaked my curiosity. I wondered which literary works had shaped the thinking of scientific greats like Faraday, Owen, Humbolt and Maxwell. What a wonderful treat this session will be, I thought as I ticked it on my copy of the sessions program. In the seemingly long line up of heavy-duty scientific talks, here was one that would be refreshingly buoyant, or so I thought.
And so I almost skipped all the way to Sala Parigi in joyful anticipation, joining the hordes streaming into the venue. Smartly turned out, well-fed science journalists, some with their designer jeans fashionably on the verge of slipping down their plump hips, were literally rubbing shoulders with eager young scientists, including a sprinkling of Einstein look-alikes, obviously potential "madly-in-love-with-science" scientists of the future, as they tried to find a seat in the crowded hall. The place was packed with attendees of different hues and nationalities within minutes. Soon people were jostling for space even in the aisles along the length of the hall. The topic was clearly a popular choice. Not surprisingly, an enthusiastic round of applause greeted the organiser as she strode to the dais to open the session.
Did the proceedings that followed enrapture us? Frankly speaking, no. Were we disappointed? YES!
Coming back to the session that's the focus of this letter, we had four speakers that day, each of them eminent professors who had made their mark in European academic circles, but chosen more for their knowledge of the reading preferences of the scientists I named earlier rather than for their eloquence. Agreed, it must be terribly intimidating for speakers to face a bunch of sombre-faced science geeks or smart-ass, smirking journalists. But on the other hand, (don't know if repeating this favourite phrase of mine makes me sound like Topol in Fiddler on the Roof), did they have to strut their stuff in that dreadful monotone? That too, barely looking up from their written notes? To be fair, I have to admit this was a common feature at almost every session I scurried to. At some, the drone of the speakers was accompanied by complex graphics flitting across the screen behind them, disappearing even before we could scan them, leave alone grasp their significance.
Like most ESOF speakers, our four learned professors took care to see they imparted information in the most complex way as possible. The experience was like having water described to us as liquid dihydrogen monoxide. To be honest, the speakers did manage to draw a chuckle or two from us, but surely, given a topic with so much potential, they could surely have done a much better job. A tad more science-centric humour would have given the almost lifeless session a vitalising shot in the arm. And what a let-down it was to see our speakers were not enthused enough about their subject to be able to speak extemporaneously even for a few minutes here and there.
The result? Even before the session was half-way through, people were grabbing their belongings and rushing out of the hall like wild animals fleeing from a forest fire. The formerly jam-packed hall was soon half-empty. Those who didn't have the nerve to stomp off were struggling to stay awake. The few who had been diligently trying to jot down notes at the speed of light (that was how fast the speakers were zipping through their notes), had long since given up doing the impossible. Speaker after speaker was letting loose facts the way a trigger-happy soldier fires bullets from a gun. Wouldn't it have been better if they had trained their sights on delivering a crisp and concise talk, making it both informative and stimulating? I think even you would agree it's possible to make people think and smile at the same time, right?
The bottom line? If the distinguished speakers had even passable public speaking skills, it would make your sessions not only livelier but also more productive. You know, I had actually sat in on one session where they talked about making science more fun for kids to induce a greater number of them to choose scientific careers. But how about making ESOF more fun? That's the only way forward if your aim is to be the best science-related outreach program in Europe.
I love science, and I love what you're trying to achieve. And that's the only reason I think I have a right to be frank with you. Politely frank.
by Veena Patwardhan
Veena Patwardhan is a Mumbai-based science journalist, freelance writer, and special correspondent for Chemical Industry Digest, India's leading chemical and engineering journal.
This article was submitted to the Euroscientist journalism competition 2010 and came in 2nd place
Categories
-
Vikings get ahead in science
Be brave and aggressive, be prepared and be a good merchant. These so called “Viking Laws” are, in a nutshell, the advice of Zsolt Kajocsos, Deputy Director of KFKI, for young researchers who want to be successful in science. In the ESOF session on “Structured doctoral training and postdoctoral mobility” different approaches to university management of high quality academic education, research and innovation in Europe were discussed. Young researchers were encouraged to be strong and learn how to sell themselves and their research despite how their university manages doctoral training.
“There are universities who contract their PhD candidates and there are universities who not even register candidates who want to start a research career“, said Mary Ritter, Pro-Rector for Postgraduate and International Affairs in Imperial College London, UK. After assessing five years of reforms of European Doctoral Education she concluded that benchmarking progress of graduate school programs are essential and that there are fast and slow adopters of change in academia. The different levels of adaption to change are connected with the “different funding and degrees of autonomy of universities,” said Ritter.Marja Makarow, Chief Executive of the European Science Foundation thinks that “research training is a must in a knowledge based society” and that some top down pressure helps universities manage their doctoral training more effectively.
Since no system is perfect and the road to a PhD is long and the pathways to the European Research Area are even longer, researchers are advised to stay strong and take on Viking principles in the face of rough waters.
by Dino Trescher
This article was submitted to the Euroscientist journalism competition 2010 and came in 3rd place
Categories
Keywords
