Originally Posted by banded1
learning isnt just mimicry. people use intuition and trial and error as well.the learning you describe is what someone in school does, but thats not the only facet of learning
that robot is bound by it programming to just copy what its shown to do. people dont learn based purely on that. the first person to ride a bike didnt have anyone to show them how to ride it. they had to teach themselves. thus they learned through intuition and trial and error. for any kind of knowledge to be taught, someone had to figure it out on their own. a baby is a perfect example of this as well. if a baby touches something it doesnt like (too hot, or too cold etc) it learns that maybe it shouldnt be touching that stuff. if you told this robot to dip its hand into LN2 then bust its hand off, it would do it for eternity unless the hand wasnt replaced (at which point it would just run through the motions missing the hand). it wouldnt eventually figure out that maybe it shouldnt be doing that after every replacement to prevent damaging itself.
Important to note, in my opinion anyway, that this is still a type of learning. Just because it is not the only facet of learning, does not make something like this irrelevant or null. We have a long way to go, as IBM has demonstrated with its work in this area.
As the article said,
Originally Posted by source
Teaching by demonstration isn't going to replace traditional programming, because robots will still require some degree of common sense to function properly in our uncertain world
This isn't an advance in cutting-edge robot technology, to create some advanced android who can function like a human. This really seems to be geared to people who have difficulty getting around, or have physical impairments. I think the word "teachable" in this instance could be substituted for "learning", and since this doesn't really require any coding or programming skills, I think it's a very useful advance in robotics.