If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Dogs basically don't care if you are a robot or a human. Apparently, they don't have a steak in it   (io9.com) divider line 13
    More: Interesting, dogs, robots, steaks, moans, robot uprising, dog intelligence  
•       •       •

6775 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2013 at 1:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-14 01:49:57 AM
3 votes:
This research is an end around by Skynet, whose terminator units were frequently detected by dogs.  Now they've come back to get dogs to like robots.

/we're doomed.
2013-09-14 12:35:31 AM
3 votes:

Lsherm: While the dogs didn't interact with the robot to the same extent that they normally do with humans, they spent more time hanging out near the robot or looking at its touchscreen head when the robot behaved socially. They were better at finding hidden food in the room when the social robot pointed to it, rather than the asocial one, though neither held a candle to the results when a human pointed to the food.

Can someone farking explain to me what subby or the article writer are talking about?


Dogs are basically the only animal out there that understands what pointing a finger means.
2013-09-14 04:21:38 AM
2 votes:

Lsherm: While the dogs didn't interact with the robot to the same extent that they normally do with humans, they spent more time hanging out near the robot or looking at its touchscreen head when the robot behaved socially. They were better at finding hidden food in the room when the social robot pointed to it, rather than the asocial one, though neither held a candle to the results when a human pointed to the food.

Can someone farking explain to me what subby or the article writer are talking about?


I'm not subby. But someone already mentioned dogs are the only animal to innately understand finger pointing (incorrect technically, they are one of two...humans are the other. Chimps don't). Wolves cannot do this. Dogs are able to do this because we selectively bred them over thousands of years to be able to understand and interact with humans to do their jobs. Dogs also have a rare genetic variable (rare in the animal kingdom and humans don't have it) which allowed for breeding to produce such marked variety while still being able to interbreed. So basically if you look at the types of different sheep, horses, chickens, and all other animals we've bred for our purposes, you see some variety but you don't see the extensive variability you do with dogs (Mastiff v. poodle v. bulldog, etc).

Anyway just offhand and off memory, dogs innately know pointing. They also scan human faces in the same way humans scan human faces (starting IIRC at the left eye, or something). They understand human facial expression, and most breeds also have human like facial expressions (dogs can make a larger variety of faces than a cat, or a horse). And while breeds vary *greatly* in intelligence, the pointing thing is something all puppies can do almost instantly. Toddlers can too. And it's really weird seeing chimps just *not* get what the finger pointing means.
2013-09-14 02:09:24 AM
2 votes:
What a stupid test. Dogs can smell better than humans can see. They know exactly where the treat is the whole time.
2013-09-14 01:43:10 AM
2 votes:

Because People in power are Stupid: I had a friend who used to feed his dog beer. That dog loved it too. I found out later that you really shouldn't give dog's beer because it causes obesity or something that we humans are immune to.


Your liver can metabolize alcohol, your dog's liver can't.  The alcohol stays in his system until it's flushed out by the kidneys so it puts a lot more stress on a dog than a human.
2013-09-14 06:08:06 PM
1 votes:

Lusebagage: This is simply not true, most creatures find extraordinary ways to ensure the survival of their young


No they don't.

Most pregnancies and births are complete failures. The highest rate of death for all animal life occurs right after - or right before - birth, either through internal mechanisms, sustenance issues or hostile environments (predation, weather/climate, disease, infections, abandonment, etc.). Sometimes, birth is the cause of death. And infancy is no walk in the park either. The odds of survival improve significantly as an organism ages, but generally, from conception to birth is the most dangerous part of life (whether it be an egg or a womb). This is true of all animals, regardless of era, location, or species. Nature is completely unsympathetic to the rarity of life and sees almost all of it as a total waste. You are not here because you are special. You are here because you are lucky.

Reproduction is a numbers game. It hits the target by throwing a handful of gravel rather than a solitary stone. Animals that reproduce more (ie: rabbits) have to because they die more. Never has the nurturing care of motherhood, nor evolution, nor even God solved the issue of inefficiency and quality of childrearing and birth. It is messy, risky, painful, and life-threatening for all involved. Insects have successfully endured hundreds of millions of years of this statistical model of insignificance through sheer quantity.

Deaths of children - and occasionally their mothers - were so common in past ages that families usually didn't give their newborns a name until they were certain those newborns were going to live past a meaningful age. This could be anywhere from a few weeks to several years depending on the culture. Even the Bible didn't consider infants to be people nor fetuses human, nor anything young enough to die suddenly and quickly and frequently.

Historically, the only worthy response to high infant mortality rates was higher birth rates. It wasn't until the empowerment of women - especially over their own bodies - and the reduction of fetal and infant mortality rates to near-negligible levels thanks to science and medicine, that people began to regard life as rare, precious and important, and moreover that each child is special and sacred. But this was never the case in the past, and it's not the case among animals. Life is cheap, harsh, brief, disposable and expendable for everything alive.
2013-09-14 09:04:17 AM
1 votes:

educated: Nope.
Cats know what pointing means.

So do most primates.
I'd put money on wolves and dolphins knowing too.


Citation needed. Because scientists have tested this, and they disagree.
2013-09-14 02:20:56 AM
1 votes:
Sex with animals, especially dogs, is really big in the lesbian community.
2013-09-14 02:17:42 AM
1 votes:

Harry_Seldon: cman: Lsherm: While the dogs didn't interact with the robot to the same extent that they normally do with humans, they spent more time hanging out near the robot or looking at its touchscreen head when the robot behaved socially. They were better at finding hidden food in the room when the social robot pointed to it, rather than the asocial one, though neither held a candle to the results when a human pointed to the food.

Can someone farking explain to me what subby or the article writer are talking about?

Dogs are basically the only animal out there that understands what pointing a finger means.

You have obviously never been flipped off by a chimp or a monkey.


Or that gorilla Koko, who speaks American (sign language). And I dnrta but, if it's the experiment I'm thinking of, it was to show that the dogs watch our faces alot for cues from eye movements n whatnot.
2013-09-14 02:06:58 AM
1 votes:

neongoats: I wish Monsanto would come out with dog pee resistant grass.


It's basically a fertilizer burn. There's nothing to 'resist'. You generally don't want grass that reacts poorly to the nutrients that it feeds on.
2013-09-14 02:00:18 AM
1 votes:
No robot could ever give a good belly scrub like I do.
But it they build one that picks up the poop and puts all nice in a plastic bad and ties the end in a knot I am so getting one.
2013-09-14 01:13:32 AM
1 votes:
Okay, I'm drunk right now but I watched that video and it didn't prove anything. The dogs had a human trainer/owner with them all the time -so it's not like the dogs are accepting the robots as part of their pack.

I had a friend who used to feed his dog beer. That dog loved it too. I found out later that you really shouldn't give dog's beer because it causes obesity or something that we humans are immune to.
2013-09-14 12:20:32 AM
1 votes:
While the dogs didn't interact with the robot to the same extent that they normally do with humans, they spent more time hanging out near the robot or looking at its touchscreen head when the robot behaved socially. They were better at finding hidden food in the room when the social robot pointed to it, rather than the asocial one, though neither held a candle to the results when a human pointed to the food.

Can someone farking explain to me what subby or the article writer are talking about?
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report