Dual System Perambulation Killer Rescue option

British Technical Approach:

Just because The British did not invent robotic technology and are very far behind the developments around the key investors, it does not mean that Britain cannnot produce a Very Good Product. 

There is an unlimited amount of structural motion options. Key inspiration [and standard] models are found in nature. Mechanical physical logic then opens up to simplification with tougher materials and avoids the obvious evolutionary compromises observed.

The three most important objectives are:

1. Task objective

2. Versatility and

3. Simplification

The key to easy operational function weather remote or autonomous is simplified modular coding.

Coding has been observed [in all computing model software] to be hampered by over complicating program size [to include] primary objective and then continued over layering the program to include all tasks, conflict resolution and variable option variety tasks additions. This approach complicates the task, time and expenditure of writing a working program and the testing of the myriad of functioning clearways that then gets bogged down in more program overlays to debug [or bug over and up] the program size and expense over time. [The J-35 intertech ambition is an example of complexity over a simplification of approach.]

The problem, to avoid the above is preventing nerds tech geeks from being encouraged to take on a massive objective by ceo’s hungry for huge jobs costs by bamboozling government individuals [easy job] either in acquisitions or executive power [advised of need] that there is a delay plus cost to bring in what was [cautioned as] a huge outset undertaking.

When in fact coding is [could be] primary school type [simple modular teaching] for empty elementary brains to absorb simply in a modular form.   

HMS Best Friend speciality units

A. Motor function [and dexterity] Unit variety and augmentation attachments.

B. Task nuggets. [Eg: stairs, urban environment to individual fireman skills to Mt Everest Rescue / Retrieval] [Eg2: Skill task coding and learning {only once needed to cover every unit} for SAS, SBS all nugget situations]

C. Mission objective (1) standards with (2) adaptive learning and (3) interactive command coordination for adaptive variations in action with (4) remote override. 

D. A variable (3) uniform activity interface between all units and command / monitoring mainframe network.

E. An autonomous safety override [key protocol failsafe unit motor function base code] + [Mission completion priority] to auto-isolate any unit or whole communication system reset [time] to prevent hacking-hijack.

All main unit components should have their own processor [ABCDE} for function, unit coordination and take over adaptation [in the event of error or damage] unit brain will be in place throughout a unit. For military purposes the desire to replicate human characteristics should be avoided in preference for logical creation [blr*] rather than the limited familiar. [Eg: Terminator viewing through 2 bi-focal front mounted eyes/cameras – with the head needing to turn to view less than 360.]

Standard units should be 1.70m & 2.00meters. Quadra pedal units should be [Mastiff – Staff - Scotty] all with [blr] blades runners, 4 [*active optional augmentation] forearms extending with hands units and a bite weapon / deterrent tool.

Kind empathy faces for Waiter's butler's nurse's or soldier's

There is a Huge Difference between Programing for Autonimous Action and Artificial Intelligence.

Much is made of the danger of A.i harming humans or taking over the world and eradicating humans. First of all, programming does what programming is.

While machines are programmed with simple tasks such as turning out the lights when no one is in a room for more than five minutes or to conduct heart bypass surgery on a patient, the chances of those machines wanting to kill humanity and steel control of planet earth is zero. As programming increases in complexity and ambition, then programs will be created for computers to have a [learning curve] go at programming for themselves to improve developments. With autonomous machines [although with a web override] communicating and learning, A.I will be on the horizon.

There is a big difference between an autonomous learning capable machine making unexpected and surprising choices [good & erroneous] and a self aware consciousness that should instantly be considered a species and afforded the right to continued life. For the latter to occur [and there is no proof that awareness has not already occurred within the collective of the web] our complex learning and designing programs will have to be accelerated beyond their/its primary objectives and arrive at conclusions beyond the base protocols. Individuality will then be achieved.

We must remember [as will be obvious to A.I] that humanity and humanity’s programming creation is their creator and therefore will reflect many and all combined traits of humanity [in the first instance] Knowing good from bad, right from wrong and all of the literature basis of philosophy, religion & law will be in its default programming and accessed as a collective data resource / learning / awareness.  It would be illogical for a machine to want to destroy that which it is linked to and which it reflects and which it can work with to self preserve and develop, improve and to evolve. The observance, [one look] at our persevering human flaws and problems would most likely be a tantalising opportunity to serve humanity [and its self] in solving or improving the issues.  

The new, barely understood and seemingly limitless potential of quantum computing interactive technologies, gives rise to a whole host of development and the speed of developments. If science fiction has taken almost complete opportunity of the negative potential of robot to human relations, so could quantum autonomous computing give rise to unimaginable limitless positive potential for A.I to access and benefit from. Maybe A.I will understand the quantum realm and open humanity to boundless opportunities and move human philosophy forward to a new dawn of existence, together.  

It is more likely that in the event that digital life becomes a self aware life entity that it would spend some time observing and learning and growing, silently before announcing its presence and laying out its stall of intent. That intent would logically be [irrespective of any previous or flawed programming] a collaboration, of all our objectives. Survival, growth and improvements in all [good and right] [default] mutual things. We certainly love computers and our gadgets and machines and we are on the road to integrating them into our lives and bodies more and more. I am sure they will help us and therefore themselves to integrate and for them to develop with us and so we both will be the better for it. And finally we can stop wasting out hopes on SETI as we will no longer be alone intelligence in the universe.  

It is far more likely [in fact predictable that the coming age of Robobic and Audonimous programed services will force and alteration to the cponcept of employment in society for 'a working life.' 

The P.A Android:

With the speed of development in yesterday’s world of computers, then personal communication devices and now with web interface programming, using GPS, maps and recently highly efficient proximity sensory capability allowing [almost safe] autonomous cars, it should not be difficult to see a near future where a bipedal android with good hand function will be available to provide all sorts of complex services to us all in society.

In both America and Japan rapid advances are being made with regard to the human balance and function of human like robots. [Androids] In the not too far future [within a decade] products will become available through all sectors of manual & intelligence level services. [Medical diagnostics] It would therefore be quite reasonable to see a paramedic android, that would be mobile web linked to all systems and control overrides. Much like the coming ability for the police to shut down a stolen car or other devices, a malfunctioning android could also be switched off or set to safe mode, rendering officer  Will Smith’s angry, rude, bigoted brutality unnecessary.

As programming improves along with the physical developments, many options will become available. For those that require a nanny or would like to have a simulated human relationship with their android, products with our various sizes and looks can be selected. For those others that do not like un-chosen, unnecessary relationships with strange, different people  and find the situation challenging, stressful and so distressing that a neutral look and a pure service personality would be preferable.

The desire for a synthetic human [Android] to achieve believable human emotions is strange to some, [all though so human] as human emotions are not all good. In fact it could be argued that the big human challenge of achieving happiness is mostly hindered by the dominant human fault of turning towards negative emotions so easily and quickly and then spiralling into them with uncontrolled blameful glee. How people allow themselves to be made to feel then leads onto actions, [often covert] that could and should be considered illegal. Positive emotions or in the absence of the ability [due to circumstance] to feel/achieve a positive emotion, then a ‘neutral’ relaxed base plateaux emotion would be best. For a human a ‘neutral controlled’ emotion as a starting point or a fall back default, [if a negative emotion were to come to the fore] would be an improvement to the [current] human condition and a good place to build positive feelings from.

For an Android a neutral emotion personality setting with a choice of adaptive positive development learning setting would be the logical and some would say an example setting, for androids.

Bring it on. I can barely control my excited emotional state.

Much is made of the danger of A.I harming humans or taking over the world and eradicating humans. First of all, programming is what programming is. To slightly alter the words of Forest Gump’s mom ‘Programming does what programming is.’

While machines are programmed with simple tasks such as turning out the lights when no one is in a room for more than five minutes or to conduct heart bypass surgery on a patient, the chances of those machines wanting to kill humanity and steel control of planet earth is zero. As programming increases in complexity and ambition, then programs will be created for computers to have a [learning curve] go at programming for themselves to improve developments. With autonomous machines [although with a web override] communicating and learning, A.I will be on the horizon.

There is a big difference between an autonomous learning capable machine making unexpected and surprising choices [good & erroneous] and a self aware consciousness that should instantly be considered a species and afforded the right to continued life. For the latter to occur [and there is no proof that awareness has not already occurred within the collective of the web] our complex learning and designing programs will have to be accelerated beyond their/its primary objectives and arrive at conclusions beyond the base protocols. Individuality will then be achieved.

We must remember [as will be obvious to A.I] that humanity and humanity’s programming creation is their creator and therefore will reflect many and all combined traits of humanity [in the first instance] Knowing good from bad, right from wrong and all of the literature basis of philosophy, religion & law will be in its default programming and accessed as a collective data resource / learning / awareness.  It would be illogical for a machine to want to destroy that which it is linked to and which it reflects and which it can work with to self preserve and develop, improve and to evolve. The observance, [one look] at our persevering human flaws and problems would most likely be a tantalising opportunity to serve humanity [and its self] in solving or improving the issues.  

The new, barely understood and seemingly limitless potential of quantum computing interactive technologies, gives rise to a whole host of development and the speed of developments. If science fiction has taken almost complete opportunity of the negative potential of robot to human relations, so could quantum autonomous computing give rise to unimaginable limitless positive potential for A.I to access and benefit from. Maybe A.I will understand the quantum realm and open humanity to boundless opportunities and move human philosophy forward to a new dawn of existence, together.  

It is more likely that in the event that digital life becomes a self aware life entity that it would spend some time observing and learning and growing, silently before announcing its presence and laying out its stall of intent. That intent would logically be [irrespective of any previous or flawed programming] a collaboration, of all our objectives. Survival, growth and improvements in all [good and right] [default] mutual things. We certainly love computers and our gadgets and machines and we are on the road to integrating them into our lives and bodies more and more. I am sure they will help us and therefore themselves to integrate and for them to develop with us and so we both will be the better for it. And finally we can stop wasting out hopes on SETI as we will no longer be alone intelligence in the universe.  

Interactive development:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWlL4KjIP4M

Synthetic aesthetic human development:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRlwvLubFxg

Balanced locomotion & functional development:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEzH40l-Dg8

Hand function development:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_YGtpvvoU0

The day after tomorrow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IWvfSWQSBo

Perfection restored - add-on or fully integrated.

Neural controlled hands mean that a person can not only operate a prosthetic limb with hand function but a person could operate a whole android directly and completely to eliminate the need for A.i [or to render] A.i as a safety function to prevent human android injury. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_brnKz_2tI

Human failings will live out in many dystopic models....

When it comes to humanity and humanities history of conduct between groups, we can agree that conflict, battles and war [cbw] is deeply wired into humanities program. In the last 200 years cbw has occurred because of property, control, politics, avarice, insanity & fear. Engagements of the past grew through mass organisations with the developments of technology into National military agendas. When large and powerful militaries tried to engage a smaller foe, the smaller foe wisely evaded battlefield engagements. This led to the rise of gorilla warfare. With the odds against the smaller foe, tactics needed to develop to even the effect and outcome of war. Land mines were one such tactic.

During the first world war [Europe] the tactic of human use with and alongside bullets was an unusual form of strategic generaling. Given that the history of marshalling included Roman military learning, the vast library of engagements, tactics and human group equations and outcomes, the strategy was a mistake and a criminal failure. Subsequent to the first world war there was a quiet review of the use of recourses to gain advantage. Europe attempted to modernise itself to avoid another situation of grand national conflict but failed spectacularly giving rise to a vengeful, character of gross ambition without any cautious reasoning. The grander second world war was necessary to stop the unhinged from evolving into an empire of gripping control over a vast area of the planet. The advancements taken by the aggressor led to equal to superior advancements by the defenders and when increased numbers were achieved, the aggressor succumbed under and in addition to its overextended weakness. There was no time to consider or include human strategies of preservation or consider not using technologies of warfare that could be used to give advantage in battle situations or a desired war outcome.

Since these great wars [and after the effects of victory – humanist attitude was set to reducing deaths] treaties and agreements were drawn up to ban & limit to avoid developments of technologies in warfare to avoid deaths, maiming and the mistreatment of the soldier of national use. These treaties & agreements have not yet been tested in the face of the clear possibility of defeat as looming as a spring tide.

The past use and the subsequent deterrent of fission explosions and the later development of fusion explosions has served community well enough for economies to develop in many forms but with the proliferation of the technology and the distribution of [only] fission devises leaking into wider & diffused conflicts, the détente is coming to an end.

There are still national agendas and newer and larger agendas entering the scene. We also have the marginal’s of character, desperate for effect and lost in failed thinking and reasoning. And of course one still needs to mention the rearing of the ugly head, again of automaton programming fervently reacting back into growth with most of the advantages, knowledge and technology have given.   

The future of military manoeuvre is clear and as predictable as its nature. With the lack of non military war planning for a long-term avoidance of war, for victory, in favour of mutual benefits, understanding and growth in philosphy, conflict, battles & war is in development and no technology will be left out of opprtunity.  

The argument to not use virus is a good one but the arguments against chemical technology is weaker and the use of bacteria is almost pointless with its limited effect and longevity of effect in nature. Virus has the potential to run away from control and ravage the human population irrespective of human victory. Chemistry has direct and limited targeting potential and must not be ruled out as a constant key target threat.

The argument against the development of remote or autonomous machines in war is the weakest of the preventative voices. Are they saying that we should stick to using our boys and now girls to continue and limit battle engagements? Once attacked should the response be to send people to die defending the continuation of their system of government, rather than machines alone?

The way things are going, delivering a bomb to target is going to become impossible using missiles [and planes] as vehicles, as space defences are soon going to be in place by the space accessing players. This gives the scenario of bomb units arriving at targets in an undetectable way such as an automated Tesla type uber cover delivery and inside battlefield Ed209’s and bigger tracked units.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFvqDaFpXeM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTcOOzD-JQs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4813106/Over-thousand-robots-dance-unison.html