http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/p.bentle y/arstalk.mp3

- Regarding robots; are genetic algorithms the best approach to make it move? That is, do they yield the best performance, and aren't they limited by lack of processing power or a long time needed to evolve a movement behaviour?

GAs are a great idea if you want to incorporate ideas of embodiment. In other words, if you want your robot to be able to affect its environment in as many ways as possible, and if you want the environment to affect the robot (resulting in improved body and brain) as much as possible. This is how natural organisms are - they shape their world, and their world shapes them. Evolution enables us to test robots in the real world and has a wonderful ability to exploit everything possible to improve those robots. The downside is of course that we can't really evolve robots. We don't have robots that can have children (or that can build themselves), so if we want to use GAs right now, we have to use a combination of computer simulation and physical testing, which can be slow.

- As a sort of subquestion to the one above, do you think evolutionary algorithms are the way to go to make robots robust for hardware failure?

I think evolution is half of the solution. The other half is development (or embroygenesis). If we evolve a growth process, which generates our desired hardware, then that hardware "knows" what it wants to be. So if it gets damaged, the growth process automatically replaces the damaged elements. This is an important trick that we've only just begun to explore, but we're all very excited about the possibilities.

- On a very general level speaking, why biomimetics? Can nature do a better job than humans engineers, or can nature do something that human engineers can't? Or is there some other reason?

The answer to both questions is yes and no. Engineers are much better than nature for certain applications, and they can do things nature can't do (like design rockets to take us into space). But nature is packed full of trillions of intricate designs, from the molecular structure of a virus, to the eye of an eagle, to the elegant symbiosis of a rain-forest. There's a lot of designs to learn from, and also the processes that produce those designs can teach us a great deal. Nature already has nanotechnology in the form of DNA, proteins and cells. Nature has technology that adapts to new situations and environments, self-replicates, builds itself, repairs itself and designs itself. Nature also has some of the most complex designs in the universe - like the human brain or immune system. These are all features that we would love our technology to have, but we can't do any of them. Yet.

- Do you think biomimetics if often the best approach? Or is it only applicable to certain specific areas?

I think you must require some of those capabilities I list above. If you don't want adaptability, self-repair, or a massively complex design that works, then you may find that an engineer is better able to create a cheap and quick solution.

- What do you think the prevalence of biomimetics in the future will be, especially regarding biomimetic machines?

I think the two areas that are most important are: (1) applications where complexity needs to be managed better, and (2) applications where coping with the unexpected is important. An example of the first area is ubiquitous computing - in a few years we will have computers in *everything* and they'll all be talking to each other. If we don't learn how to do this, then when you walk into a new building you may find your glasses crash, your phone malfunctions and the elevators stop working for you - all the computers shouting at each other will cause chaos around you. Adding security to such systems will also be very important. An example of the second area is any safety-critical system, from air-traffic control to car engine management. Obviously we'd prefer these systems to adapt and cope with unexpected situations such as damage or unforeseen environmental conditions. A classic example of both areas combined is autonomous robotics - if you send a robot to Mars, you ideally want a complex system capable of coping in new environments. Once these kinds of systems are perfected, we might one day see consumer electronics with similar capabilities - televisions that repair themselves. But that won't be for a while (especially since people make money from repairing or replacing TVs).

http://www.amazon.com/Ars-Electronica-2003-Code-Language/dp/3775713565

I forget how coherent I was in the talk, but while I was there I was interviewed for Austrian radio. Listening again some five years later I'm pleased to say I still agree with myself, although I'm slightly dismayed that all the research I describe in the EDBC, CES and OGFC books has not progessed us much further in this area. You can listen for yourself by clicking here.

Later I was given the link to the transcript of the interview: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1292193.htm

It's one of those occasions when I wished they'd done a little light editing on my words - it's amazing how ungrammatical and repetitive we can be in normal speech, and how clumsy it looks when written down verbatim. Hopefully my words sounded better on the actual radio show.