Fwd: UltraFuturo - a Russian/Bulgarian transhumanist art group
мне на личное мыло прислали - это нам интересно?
Дмитрий
Пересылаемое письмо От: Hughes, James J. <james.hugh***@t*****.edu>
К: <wta-arts@t*****.org>
А также к:
Время создания: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:40:37 -0500
Тема: UltraFuturo - a Russian/Bulgarian transhumanist art group
Прикрепленные файлы: <none>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafuturo
ULTRAFUTURO Group (http://roboriada.org/ultrafuturo) is an international
group which works in the intersection of technology, ethics and
human/machine identity. The group is established on 1st May, 2004, by
Boryana Rossa (http://www.roboriada.org) and Oleg Mavromatti
(http://drugie.here.ru/). Ii is based on the activity of the Supernova
Group (http://roboriada.org/supernova). ULTRAFUTURO propagates a new
trend in art called ultrafuturism (radical transhumanism). This trend is
the one and the only tendency developed in Bulgaria. The grup is an
initiator of the International Robot Day (IRD- 5.Feb.2004) and founder
of the online magazine Ultrafuturo (2004).
http://www.roboriada.org/ultrafuturo/pages/about.php
members
Boryana Rossa makes photographs, movies, artistic actions and
combinations of all these. Till 1st August 2004, she works under the
name Boryana Dragoeva. Her videos "Celebrating the Next Twinkling",
"Back & Forth", "The Moon and the Sunshine"; "Why Beauties Fall in Love
with Beasts" have been shown internationally at venues such as Video
Medeja, Novi Sad; Steirischer herbst, Graz; The 8-th International
Biennial, Cairo; Regina Gallery, Moscow; Kunsthalle, Vienna.
Rossa's last projects - "Spookybots", "Robo-Sapiens", "Roboriada",
"Citizen Robot" and the curatorial project "Defenseless and Bad" are
dedicated to the rights of the robots in contemporary society and have
been exhibited at L Gallery Moscow, Foundation for Art and Creative
Technologies (FACT), Liverpool, Society for Art and Technology (SAT),
Montreal; CMU Art Museum, Chiangmai, Thailand; National Gallery of Fine
Arts and Goethe Institute, Sofia.
They are based on the research of Supernova Group (Russia/Bulgaria), now
called ULTRAFUTURO. Rossa is a member of Supernova since 2000.
Oleg Mavromatti is an interdisciplinary artist, who works in the fields
of performance, installation, film, video and computer animation. An
outstanding representative of the Moscow radical art and a founder of
the Supernova Film Union.
Mavromatti's performances and artistic actions react rapidly to the
socio-political changes in Russia during the 1990's. His performances
"Do Not Kill" (dedicated to every electronic soldier, killed in the
computer games), "Do Not Believe Your Eyes", "Citizen X" etc. have been
shown at.Museum of Contemporary Art, Denver; The Culture Center of
Stockholm, Pro-Arte Institute, St. Petersburg; Museum of Cinema, Moscow;
Media Art Bienalle WRO 01 and their documentation is a part of the
collection of the Russian Museum, St. Petersburg.
Mavromatti is also one of the founders of STIK Moscow Film Festival.
Anton Terziev, Katia Damianova and Miroslav Dimitrov are representatives
of the youngest generation of bulgarian artists, who declare their
critical attitude towards contemporary society trough their works.
http://www.roboriada.org/ultrafuturo/pages/roborevolutions.htm
The Robot Revolution 1
May. 2004
What are the reasons to talk about it? Why are we making prognoses? What
makes us shudder with fear, try to overcome or do not overcome our fear?
Some of the answers are hidden in the assumptions that we assign the
evolution of the robots, similar to that of the living organism. We
dread that this is an evolution, which we won't be able to control. By
allowing the robots' independence we either dread the possibility of
their defining the inequality compared to the human beings and thus
making them rebellious against it, or their desire to rule the world
mimicking their creators - I.e. the humans.
Precisely this robot "independence" is the quality which isn't
stimulated in the developing of robots with military or production
designation. In order to make a robot serve, one should be able to
predict its behaviour with 100% certainty.
Who are "the bad guys"?
In the context of the 100% certainty the "bad guys" are those human
beings, who bring forward the issue of independance and equality between
humans and robots. The following text is dedicated to these cathegories
and if the reader is sympathetic with them, then he plays the part of
the "bad guy" whose density as a character in the
happy-end-robot-machine-rebellion movies usually is humiliation or at
its best - death.
Thou reading thy text - exercise your wits well and decide whether you
are ready to side with the "bad guys" and loose!
1. We, the bad guys are against the Living Robots Experiment
When talking about the evolution of robots the project 'Living robots'
is often mentioned. This is one of the possible ways humans can imagine
the development of their artificial creations.
What could we read on the web site dedicated to the project 2:
"'Living Robots' is a world-first experiment into artificial evolution.
Designed by the Creative Robotics Unit at Magna (CRUM) the robots are
the brainchild of Professor Noel Sharkey, a leading expert on machine
learning and bio-robotics and a regular on the BBC as a judge on Robot
Wars and a technical consultant in TechnoGames. The Living Robots have
one goal - to obtain enough energy to survive and breed. To do this, the
robots co-evolve in an artificial food chain in which some must graze
and some must hunt. The prey finds their food from light sensors within
the arena, while the predators feed off prey by stalking and chasing
them before sucking away their power.
In natural systems, energy may enter in sunlight that is absorbed by
plants and stored in a form that can be ingested by organisms that use
the plants as their energy stores. These organisms will act as energy
stores for other creatures, their predators, who, in turn, may be prey
to other, tougher predators, and so on. This is the basis of the food
chain, and it is considered to be one of the main driving forces in
evolution."
The creators of this artificial world, as we could clearly deduce from
the web site text, have tried to make use of the theory of evolution of
the species as a basis for the artificial evolution, developed,
conducted and closely examined by them.
As "bad guys" we do not appreciate the implementation of ideas of
violence, or the idea that "the stronger survives" into robotic world.
We think that this blind imitation of aggressive theories for
development of any kind of entity is quite dangerous for the human/robot
relations, and extremely accusable for the purity of the human
consciousness.
Some imaginary (and may be quite real) possibilities for the robot
development based on the theory of evolution of the species, human
society and individual would be presented as examples of happy or
miserable scenarios for our future.
2. The Robot Insurrection, based on the theory of evolution
2.1. The predator's qualities necessary for military purposes
"The war of the robots" is apparently a small-scale model of the duel
between the great military robots. This is a good though rather a
simplified example of which robot qualities are most valuable for the
production of military robots, one of them is their viability and
capacity to survive based upon the merciless predation.
When we see robots fighting each other or hunting their own kind, we can
easily imagine how they might do the same with us. And if we don't want
to face our creation's death even before its birth, just because we have
decided to kill it for the panic fear seized us, we should be prepared
for that predator behaviour pointed against us.
Further is quoted a part of the "All Robots Go to Heaven"3 which
describes the instigated predation as useful but dangerous quality.
Because of the author's (Vita Cook) membership in the Society for Robots
Defense (SRD) 4, we could be sure that we are sharing common views
regarding the reasons for the instigation of the robots' rebellion.
'It is the wish of the creator to prevent the danger to be replaced
by his own creation that results in the ban on predator behaviour, that
brings forth encoded martyrdom and revolt only when it is programmed in
advance (mostly against those of the same kind, or against the master's
enemies). This brings the creation of the ideal victim - that is the
utterly innocent creature, whose place is in heaven and not among the
predators.
But in making the slave absolutely defenseless, his own evolution
(i.e. the improvement of those slave qualities "useful" for the master -
MAGNA Living Robots) is no longer possible, so the result is a slave,
that potentially can cut the throat not only of his kind, but also of
his master."
2.2 The rebellion is possible! (Psychological bases of the robot
rebellion theory)
If we can imagine the wrath of the robots, then we are obliged to
imagine also a robot able to feel. Therefore if it is a sensitive
creature, we should find a way to give them rights equal to ours.
The American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Robots5 says:
"ASPCR will construct a Robotic Bill of Rights, and eventually
establish a lobbying board to further these rights in the body politic."
The following quotaton is from the manifestation web site of the society
illustrating their ideas and showing the psychological reasons for the
rebellion of every creature able to think and feel:
"'Should robots have the same rights as you or I? What rights do you
and I enjoy because of our intelligent, self-aware status? These
questions are far-reaching in their implications, and will no doubt have
real-world consequences at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Should robots reach the level of self-awareness and show genuine
intelligence, we must be prepared to treat them as sentient beings, and
respect their desires, wants and needs as we respect those things in our
human society.
Failure to recognize and grant these rights to non-human artificial
intelligences would be a crime on the order of the 19th century's
failure to recognize the humanity and attendant rights of people of
African descent. Outward differences in appearances should in no way
affect our ethical treatment of self-aware, intelligent beings.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case, even today. It is,
sadly, a simple matter to find people who still deny the basic rights of
certain peoples to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What
chances does an intelligent machine have to secure these rights?
It is the hope of the ASPCR to raise the awareness of these issues
of intelligence, self-awareness and the ethical considerations which are
an essential component of these conditions.
....
If this still sounds a little too "futuristic" for you to credit,
remember that the ASPCA (The American Society for Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals), when founded in the 1890's, was ridiculed and lampooned
mercilessly for daring to assert that "dumb" animals had certain rights.
Yet now, just a century later, the ASPCA has spawned chapters across the
world, an extremely active lobby in Washington, a yearly budget in the
tens of millions, and a massive physical infrastructure to ensure that
animal cruelty does not go unpunished, including their own police,
investigators, prosecutors, etc.
As we draw closer to a time when self-aware artificial intelligences
become a reality, the mission of the ASPCR will become more and more
relevant, and hopefully can ensure that the rights we take for granted
as humans will apply equally to ALL intelligences, "artificial" or not.'
The quotation should be interrupted with a remark regarding the
difficulties talking about alive and non-live, based on the spiritual
and philosophical background of the different nations and societies6.
Having also in mind the abstract terms for taking into consideration the
rights and opinion, we must accept those of the robots, just because
recognizing them defines us as sensible, sensitive, conscious and worthy
creatures, able to use and apply abstract ideas where necessary. Even if
we look at the robot just as training machine for good manners, this
would be a great victory upon our egotism.
"How can we tell when a robot is experiencing cruelty? What is
cruelty?
Well, Webster's defines cruelty as: "Inhuman treatment; the quality
or state of being cruel". And "cruel" is defined as: "Disposed to
inflict pain or suffering" and also "Causing or conducive to injury,
grief, or pain".
Obviously any discussion of cruelty as it applies to robots must
begin from an understanding of what "pain and suffering" might be to a
robot.
In the opinion of the ASPCR, once a robot becomes sufficiently
self-aware and intelligent to feel discomfort, pain or grief (this would
most likely be a cognitive dissonance caused by conflict between a
robot's natural intelligent desire and the restrictions or conditions
placed upon it), we are ethically bound to do whatever is humanly
possible to alleviate this condition.
There is obviously a very broad and undefined ethical middle ground
here. It may be helpful to consider an analagous situation in the animal
world. For instance, it is now considered cruel to starve and beat a pet
dog, and we can even be arrested and fined for doing so!
Instead, we are encouraged to "anthropomorphize" animals to a
certain extent, to ensure that we treat them "humanely", and with a
reasonable level of respect for their physical and emotional needs.
This same process can and should be extended to robots and other
artificial intelligences. They may even make this process easier for us
by talking considerately with us and sharing their concerns.."
The ideas of Society for Robot Defense are connected with the idea of
anthropomorphic similarities between humans and robots in the way of
equality of feelings and equality of rights. The anthropomorphism of
relationship robot/humans is regarded as a phenomenon, provoking
behaviours parallel to those occurring when socializing "THE DIFFERENT".
If a man is capable of loving a robot (Steven Spielberg's "A.I." is a
fine example), he is definitely capable of loving "the other", or the
"the different" person, no matter what his race, sex or social status
is.
Than we come to the most popular versions about robots, the idea of the
'big other' on which are based the most popular science fictions
3. The Big Other
Have you ever discovered how few are the movies, where the aliens are
good and not violent by default? (Spilberg's 'A.I.'; 'I.T.'; Softley's
'K- Pax' - any other suggestions?). Are we afraid of diversity, because
we have already betrayed our own teenage intentions of being different,
scarifying them before the 'common mature interests' of the society?
Aren't these common interests implemented into the collective film
character of the 'saviors' who protect the majority from the invasion of
Alienosity?
"The robot is a materialized simulacrum and "the big other" - but
why?
Only to be subjugated (another boastful formula: "We mustn't wait
for nature's giving"). The taming of the wild animal is the destruction
of its will. The power over the electric slave is absolute.
Man has the custom of demonizing his creatures (their slave function
is related to the revolt, to the overcoming of the slavery, the rebel
slave replacing his master - the law of marginality tending towards the
center (Golem, RUR etc.).7"
3.1 The Legend about the GOLEM8
Sometimes the Golem seemed very happy. But one day the Golem became
very sad. The Golem had been watching all the people having fun and
laughing. The Golem also began to see that the children had time to play
games and have fun. "Ah," thought, the Golem, " I wish I could be like
the children. It would be fun to run, play games, laugh, and eat good
tasting food."
The Golem became very angry. The Golem shouted, "Why can't I be like
the children? I know what children know. I want to be like the children!
I want to have fun! I want to be happy! I will run away and learn to
have fun!"
The Golem ran out of Great Rabbi Loew's house, ran up the street,
yelled at all the people, and began to throw rocks and break things. The
people became afraid. They began to chase the Golem. The Golem could run
very fast. The people could run as fast as the Golem, but the Golem was
able to escape .
3.2 Rossum's Universal Robots9
In R.U.R., the idealistic young Helena Glory arrives at the remote
island factory of Rossum's Universal Robots, on a mission from a
humanitarian organization devoted to liberating the Robots
Mass-produced by Robot-run assembly lines, Robots remember everything,
and think of nothing new. According to Domin, "They'd make fine
university professors." Rejecting Helena's theory that Robots have
souls, the psychologist Hallemeier admits that once in a while, a Robot
will throw down his work and start gnashing his teeth. The human
managers treat such an event as evidence of a product defect, but Helena
prefers to interpret it as a sign of the emerging soul.
The price to have robots (unequal creatures) would appear to be the
gradual extermination of the human race; but one of Helena's specially
modified Robots (Radius) issues a manifesto: "Robots of the world, you
are ordered to exterminate the human race!".
Nature eventually re-emerges triumphant when two Robots (the beautiful
Helena, and Primus) fall in love. The play ends on an uplifting,
religious note. Alquist blesses the lovers, renames them Adam and Eve,
and sends them out to avoid the sins that destroyed their
human-predecessors.'
These two different stories are stories about the cruelty of people
toward creatures different to them. Even if there is a hope for people
to escape the scary fortune of humans in RUR (escape seems possible only
for the people who have read RUR, and had already made up their minds),
the easiest way to deal with the problem is to make robots safe.
3.3 Isaac Azimov
The Three Laws of Robotics
First Law:
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a
human being to come to harm.
Second Law:
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such
orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection
does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
While reading the 3 laws of Robotics, I had the strong impression that
we simply want to build slaves. Nothing more. This is the main thing
that defers us from godlike (divine) creativity.
By building slaves (especially when they are intelligent and sensitive)
we underline the definition of humanity as ignoble race, which deserves
the annihilating 'Revolution of the Robots, the Different, the Other'.
We point on the human being, who deserves to be replaced by a new and
better creature, that respects creativity as an act of love, not as an
act of power.
3.4 Lord of the Rings10
Nevertheless, even when considering all possibilities of physical
uncontrollability, here comes the threat of the robot's mind, for which
a very good example is the spontaneous behaviour of the smart soldiers,
designed for the "Lord of the Rings" battle scenes.
"Digital warriors thought for themselves - and their first thought
was to run away.
It's the greatest and most spectacular battle in the Lord of the
Rings trilogy.
But filmmakers faced one surprising challenge - how to keep the
computer-generated soldiers from fleeing the battlefield.
Special effects designer Richard Taylor says this led to the writing
of a "massive" principal code for the battle to give more than 200,000
digitized soldiers and some 6,000 horses distinctiveness and
individuality.
"So to create these individual agents, there was a code that was
especially written and developed," Taylor says, adding that it was like
being involved in a living work of science fiction.
"So each of these computerized soldiers is assessing the environment
around them, drawing on a repertoire of military moves that have been
taught them through motion capture - determining how they will combat
the enemy, step over the terrain, deal with obstacles in front of them
through their own intelligence - and there's 200,000 of them doing
that."
Basically, all the necessary information for decision-making was fed
into this network of computers without determining for them whether they
would win or lose.
But this attempt to ensure that they acted spontaneously almost
sabotaged the the battleground sequences.
"For the first two years, the biggest problem we had was soldiers
fleeing the field of battle," Taylor said.
"We could not make their computers stupid enough to not run away."
3.5 HAL
The best example of loosing control over the machine comes from 2001: A
Space Odyssey's computer HAL.
HAL is made to tell the truth, but at the same time must keep the secret
of the mission from his human passengers. Bouman and Paul are not
allowed to know about it. This situation produces a contradiction in its
mind, which is based on the fear that at the end the cosmonauts will
understand that it is lying. HAL begins mixing falsehood and truth. It
becomes schizophrenic. Its rebellion against the humans is based on a
psychological inequality to human beings. Because it was not built to
feel sympathy, it can commit acts of cruelty and murder without remorse.
The murder it makes is performed with only one aim - HAL wants to
fulfill its mission, which is the only reason for its life, for its
existence.
Because of the psychological complexity of HAL's conscience problems,
which are creating the feeling for the typical human fuddle, the scene
of the HAL's turn off seems as cruel as any scene of a classical murder.
4. Alternative evolution
The commonly accepted theory of evolution assumes that evolutionary
development and intellectual development of human beings and other
creatures happens in a step-by-step manner. But there is another theory,
which is anti-Darwinian, and proclaims a completely different
development of the species as well as individuality:
4. Nomogenesis
"Russian biologist L. S. Berg (1876-1950) sets out an explicitly
anti-Darwinian conception of evolution in 1922 in his book <Nomogenesis>
(evolution according to laws), where he grants an important place to the
notion of conformity to a particular aim ('celesoobraznost') as a
property of everything alive. According to him, the course of evolution
is predetermined by a distribution of pre-existing rudiments.
Berg was perhaps the first to indicate that evolution and the
development of the individual were closely related. In a clear
demonstration of his rejection of Darwinism, he wrote:
'The laws of the organic world are the same whether we are dealing
with the development of an individual (ontogeny) or that of a
paleontological series (phylogeny). Neither in the one nor in the other
is there room for chance.'
Note that Berg insisted that chance plays no role in either
process."
This theory gives another approach to the problem of robots'
development, and possibility of robot rebellion.
Until now, all theories or science fiction stories are mostly based on
the rebel as a result of the robot's evolution, similar to the human's,
for which the main factor is the robot's struggle for life.
Following the logic of nomogenesis, it is realistic to have an
expectation of unpredictable development of the robot's individuality,
rather than linear development. It means that there is a real chance of
intellectual jumps in the development of the robot, as well as something
that could be even more scary for someone - to have a new kind of
existence: smarter, more flexible and lively, then humans thought it
could be.
Following the same theory, we must be sure that if humans pretend to
give the genotype to the robot, the robot will surely have good and bad
sides, it could be evil and tender; because humans too are dualistic
creatures. Beside that it is for sure that people will try to restrain
and foreordain robot's development as early as during the design
process. What they will give the robot is the knowledge of killing and
loving, without giving it the will (the chance) to choose by itself what
to do. It will be designed to do only the things it is programmed for.
Any other behaviour will be counted as malfunction. Thus if we can't
overcome our ego and fear, and also can't give the robot equality in
choosing, the progress in the development of robots designed to kill
would lead us to the most fearful depths of human evil, as well as to
unexpected progress in its intellectual growth, or face us with endless
"unhuman" love and self-sacrifice as all these qualities will be
"genetically coded" in the robot (according to nomogenetic theory).
In short - we must expect everything from the robot, we are not safe by
the 3 laws, as we are the ones who give the "genetic code" of the robot,
so it will have all known or unknown functions or malfunctions of the
human being itself.
5. And some contradictory statements - for and against the possibility
of reasonable rebellion based on 1971 pamphlet 'The Robots'11
This brochure is based on the communist materialistic theory that
proclaims the faith in the good nature of the human being, and his will
to live in peace, love and community. It makes the following claims.
5.1. Robots Revolution impossible
- Robots are electronic idiots. This is something very well known, and
it proclaims the power of a human over his doll, or robot-slave.
- Humans are creators. They can control the 'mad robots'. From this
strongly materialistic perspective, if there is some kind of
misunderstanding between robots and humans, it is because the robots are
going mad with design bugs in their mind. Man can fix these bugs,
because he is the god creator, and he knows every little wire crossing
the mind of his creation.
- There is no possibility of a robot revolution, because the robots
can't think and live as community. In opposition to that, people are
communal creatures, who can think and act in collective, which is
impossible for robots, as they are "individual idiots".
At the end of the brochure "The Robot" is the most utopian, the most
honest and brave decision about human-robot relationship. Even if it
sounds silly, it is the only way to deal with robots, and to respect
yourself.
5.2. Robots - brothers in reason
- 'Is it possible for humans to build a machine that we could hardly
distinguish from a human? This question doesn't really engage with the
problem. The real question is 'Is it possible for humans to create
automatic machines that adequately reproduce all known human features?
We would like to know the possibility to create a new form of life,
highly organised, self-determined, but which doesn't look like us?
Often, these ideas are rejected on the basis of our unwillingness to
accept the idea that man is really a sophisticated material system, but
NOT an infinitely sophisticated system, which actually means that this
system is easy to be replicated. This situation seems to be
unacceptable, very humiliating and scary for many of us. ...
This fear is compouned by another - is it possible for our inner
construction to be completely described and physically manifested?
I think there is nothing scary or humiliating in our aim to know
ourselves completely. These moods are merely the result of ignorance.
Our aim must be to replace this insensible fear by the enormous
satisfaction of the fact that such sophisticated and beautiful things
are made by the human being, who not long ago was afraid of simple
arithmetic "12
- "There is a place for robots in human society. But what do they
have to do? They have to obtain good orientation in the terms and
regulations put forth by humans for their own orientation - i.e. to
understand and act in accordance with the human's requirements.
If the robot wants to be reasonable, in the world of the HUMAN
REASON, it has to be similar to humans, and it is basically for the
definition of reasonability itself...
It was a long time ago when people thought God created them, and it
is time for a man to have outlived the idea from the Book of Genesis
that he is 'the crown of the nature'.
Is there no need for us to remember that reason itself has come to
exist in a certain moment of the history of the evolution?
Human Reason will prove itself in us as a masterpiece of Nature only
when we succeed in recreating ourselves not only in a biological way,
but also in a logical way, with a fully developed mind, reason and
consciousness.
Why do we have to be afraid of the robot's 'instinct for
self-preservation', if robots are reasonable? Why are we afraid that the
robots feel that humans exploit them, or that they are 'wasting their
electricity' for human purposes?
In a reasonable existence, the ideas are not separated to 'yours'
and 'mine', 'little' and 'big', 'on purpose' or 'without purpose'. (It
means that if robots are as much reasonable as human beings, and vice
versa, there is no need of envy or hostility by any of the sides- remark
by Boryana).
Why do we have to promise the robots eternal life, as the only way
to erase future misunderstandings?
The robot of the future will be a free person - free-willed and
reasonable - and when it can speak to us, it will say:
- I am sorry! The question is not hidden in as-yet undiscovered laws
of 'endless, impossible-to-observe complexity', but in understanding new
ideas which have already appeared before you, human of the 20th
century!"13
1. This is the second edition of the text written by Boryana Rossa in
2003. It was presented for the first time by CoolSpeech 5.0 with the
voice of Peter, at the forum "We are the Robots-exploring robot/human
relations", 8. August, 2003, FACT (www.fact.co.uk), Liverpool
2.
http://magna.livewwware.com/acg/acgsmg01.dll/gen/t/robotics/ptxt/robot/p
txt2/000000
"All Robots Go to Heaven"2003 (Vitalia Ivanova-Cook) Born 1978 Sofia,
Bulgaria. Critic and writer. Since 2002 is a council member of the
Society for Robot Defense.
3. Society of Robot Defense (SRD), international movement founded in
2003. Initiators of the International Robot Day, internationally
celebrated for the first time on 4th February, 2004
4. http://www.aspcr.com
5. http://www.karakuri.info/robots/
6. "All Robots go to Heaven", Vitalia Ivanova- Cook, 2003
7. GOLEM : http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6960/golem.htm
8. "Rossum's Universal Robots", 1921, a theater play written by Carel
Chapek. The word "robot" is used for the first time by Chapek in this
play. It comes originally from the word "rabota" a common word for all
Slavic languages, which means "work".
9. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1041377/posts
10. http://www2.unil.ch/slav/ling/recherche/biblio/99Impact.html
11.Issued by the popular science magazine "Cosmos".
12. Prof. Alexander Kolmogorov, "Robots -brothers in Reason",
13. Ivan Kisiov, "Robots -brothers in Reason",
Конец пересылаемого письма --
С уважением,
Дмитрий mailto:Dmit***@b*****.ru
