| |

|
|
Rodney Brooks
Rodney Allen Brooks is currently (as of 2005)
director of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
and Panasonic Professor of Robotics.
He is Chief Technical Officer and sits on the Board of iRobot Corp.
His seminal work in robotics, first published in 1986 and subsequently
elaborated upon in a series of highly influential papers, inaugurated
a fundamental shift in artificial intelligence research. Brooks has
argued strongly against symbolic processing approaches to creating
intelligent machines, which had been the focus of AI since the days
of Alan
Turing, directly tracing back to the work of Gottlob
Frege. Instead, Brooks has focused on biologically-inspired robotic
architectures (e.g., the Subsumption architecture) that address basic
perceptual and sensorimotor tasks. These had been largely dismissed
as uninteresting by the mainstream AI community, which was far more
interested in reasoning about the real world than in interacting with
it. Conversely, Brooks argued that interacting with the physical world
is far more difficult than symbolically reasoning about it. This perspective
is perhaps best and most eloquently described in his classic paper, Elephants
Don't Play Chess. His books include, Cambrian
Intelligence: The Early History of the New AI, and Flesh
and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us.

Related Links
• Rodney
Brooks' website
• Rodney Brooks' Wikipedia page
• Interview
with Rodney Brooks
• Paper:
Intelligence Without Reason
• BBC
News Article on Rodney Brooks
• Boston
Weekly News Article on Rodney Brooks
• The
Deep Question: A Talk With Rodney Brooks
• Beyond
Computation:
A Talk With Rodney Brooks
 Rodney
Brooks Quotes
Humanoid intelligence requires humanoid interactions
with the world.
The thing that puzzles me is that we've got
all these biological metaphors that we're playing around with
– artificial immunology systems, building robots that appear
lifelike – but none of them
come close to real biological systems in robustness and in performance.
They look a little like it, but they're not really like biological
systems. What I'm worrying about is that perhaps in looking at
biological systems we're missing something that's always in there.
You might be tempted to call it an essence of life, but I'm not
talking about anything outside of biology or chemistry. The central idea that I've been playing with
for the last 12-15 years is that what we are and what biological
systems are. It's not what's in the head, it's in their interaction
with the world. You can't view it as the head, and the body hanging
off the head, being directed by the brain, and the world being
something else out there. It's a complete system, coupled together.

|
|