DPRG List  

[DPRG] Is subsumption old hat?

Subject: [DPRG] Is subsumption old hat?
From: Ed Okerson ed at okerson.com
Date: Fri Sep 7 20:14:51 CDT 2007

> Dave Grubb opined: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:54 AM
>> Well the author is absolutely right of course. Robotics as a
>> field of study has moved on, just as it moved from reactive
>> to cognitive to subsumption.
>> However, just because the focus of research has moved from
>> one paradigm to another it doesn't mean that those superseded
>> paradigms are useless. If a practical problem can be solved
>> by using a subsumption architecture then it's entirely
>> appropriate to do so. I think that the popularity of
>> subsumption amongst amateur groups stems from that it does
>> offer a robust and easy to implement solution to the kinds of
>> problems of a scale tackled by  hobbyists. ...
> But here's the point, Dave. Can you name the next architecture
> that replaced subsumption? Or can anyone primarily in the
> hobbiest side of interest name the next one? I doubt it.

Can you name it Randy?  Or are you as clueless as the rest of us?

> So if robotics reseach has moved on, back in 1992, even if
> subsumption is useful and robost, which I admit it is, does that
> mean that an additional 15 years of research not provided
> something even more useful and robust? Or are we as hobbiest
> just that far behind the times that we don't even discuss the
> new advances.

Why don't you finish reading the book, and then enlighten us?

> New advances, there? Or not there? If they're there, then why
> don't we even know their name(s)?

Because you haven't told us yet!  If we are unaware of the new paradigm,
how can we discuss whether it is better than the one we currently use?  I
am sure there are many hobbyist robot builders who haven't even worked
their way up to subsumption yet, after all for most of us it is just a

Ed Okerson

More information about the DPRG mailing list