3 ms·
No, sorry. You are too ignorant on too many subjects to realize just how ignorant you are. And if you try to go ahead with this idea of your, you will cross the
by crpatino 12y ago
No, sorry. You are too ignorant on too many subjects to realize just how ignorant you are. And if you try to go ahead with this idea of your, you will cross the barrier into criminally-negligent-ignorance. Just don't!
Children are not small adults, and babies are not small children either. It is not like your present self going to a tennis class on the weekends and leaving it aside the rest of the week. Every stimulus during the first few days/weeks of life outside the womb has a disproportionate effects on the neural development of the individual.
Using a computer engineering analogy, babies are "pre-programmed" by millions of years of evolution to "bootstrap" their brains through "machine learning". Mess with the "trainning set" and you will cripple the result for a lifetime.
This is the kind of experiment (on mammals) that can get PETA all over you. Just considering its hypothetical use on humans is pretty much the stuff 007!Mad-scientists are made off.
- walterbell 12y agoThis hypothetical question involves an exoskeleton and neurofeedback. Hopefully it remains hypothetical and does not become a mad-scientist methodology for using babies to bootstrap a neural network that teaches robots how to walk.
- crpatino 12y agoThat's not what I had in mind... though it's pretty scary and downright evil. I read the OP as trying to use robots to teach babies how to walk, not the other way around. I was thinking more in the lack of practical purpose of the endeavor itself[1]. Something that potentially causes a bunch of collateral damage for no clear purpose. Human babies have been learning to walk on their own for about a million years unaided, just like every walking animal before them. [1] Lampshaded here (kind of): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnMaroAlfvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnMaroAlfvI