Body: <p>I was studying AI when a question came to my mind.</p>
  <p>I have to write a 6-pages essay on a chosen topic in AI, and I think it can be interesting to reflect on <strong>the measure in which machines should have a human-inspired body in order to perform intelligence</strong> (or to be intelligent). I know it's a vast topic and that the answer basically relies on what one means by intelligence, but I hope that an appropriate documentation will let me reduce the scope accordingly coming up with something brilliant.</p>
  <p>Given the destination of my research, some personal or <strong>documented insights</strong> are welcome (some of which are discussed also <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1415/what-kind-of-body-if-any-does-intelligence-require">here</a> and <a href="https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/8219/can-a-brain-be-intelligent-without-a-body">here</a>), but I'd particularly be interested in <strong>authoritative or enlightening or up-to-date references</strong>, i.e. articles or books, possibly (but not necessarily) with a short introduction.</p>
  <p>I feel this an interesting topic, and this collection could be useful for many. I thank those who will contribute.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-07T17:01:14.727Z
Comments.Text: just lookup "embodied ai"
Comments.UserDisplayName: Alberto
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-07T19:41:36.500Z
Comments.Text: Cross-posted: https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/45630/1794, https://cs.stackexchange.com/q/167967/755.  Please [do not post the same question on multiple sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/64068).
Comments.UserDisplayName: D.W.
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-07T19:42:53.570Z
Comments.Text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition
Comments.UserDisplayName: D.W.
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-08T07:32:02.367Z
Comments.Text: It's an interesting area and definitely on topic. However asking for a general introduction and review might put off potential responses. If you could ask for something more specific, even if only provides part of what you want, that could be better. You can always ask other questions to cover all the specifics you need for your project
Comments.UserDisplayName: Neil Slater
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-08T08:03:33.763Z
Comments.Text: @NeilSlater The point is that it's exactly a good introduction what I'm really missing. The topic is really intertwined with theory of mind and it's hard to find references building things from scratch and providing a thorough conceptual framework. I've mostly found either partial accounts or technical and lengthy books. I know it's a complex matter, but there should be a nice way to start I suppose.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Amanda Wealth
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-08T11:16:27.180Z
Comments.Text: That's fine, just bear in mind that you are asking here for someone to write that introduction. So it might be more pragmatic to ask for less with a more reasonable expectation that it will happen. However, some people here *might* have the time and be willing to give it a go.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Neil Slater
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-08T11:58:30.447Z
Comments.Text: @NeilSlater Of course I don’t dare to expect that much: I posed it as a reference request just imagining it could be unlikely to get that introduction as a direct answer.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Amanda Wealth
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-08T14:42:15.533Z
Comments.Text: In her book Artificial Intelligence, Melanie Mitchell argues for the need of embodiment. I checked by asking Perplexity.AI, which provides some links: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/How-does-AI-lIGzCL8mQOa0rp3g1fF3Mw
Comments.UserDisplayName: Jaume Oliver Lafont
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-08T14:50:05.427Z
Comments.Text: @JaumeOliverLafont Thank you very much! Lately I've found a interview of her really inspiring, I'm confident she could have a point on this matter.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Amanda Wealth
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-08T15:01:22.707Z
Comments.Text: Welcome! This workshop report (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.13589) looks like a good source for additional people and ideas. Her article "Why AI Is Harder Than We Think" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12871) can also be read freely. The fourth "fallacy" (Intelligence is all in the brain) deals with embodiment.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Jaume Oliver Lafont
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-08T15:06:04.063Z
Comments.Text: @JaumeOliverLafont Thank you again. I had already marked the first workshop report, full of interesting ideas. As I've said, probably the only flaw consists in its treating in a unified way the mind-theoretical problem of localising human intelligence (let alone defining it) and the AI question regarding the kinds of intelligence one wants to internalise in machines (which is a presupposition of the question whether machines should have human-like bodies).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Amanda Wealth
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-08T15:08:29.887Z
Comments.Text: @JaumeOliverLafont I don't mean they are separate questions intrinsically, it just seems fair to keep them apart at the beginning of the inquire on them, seeming hard also when taken singularly.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Amanda Wealth
Tags: <reference-request><papers><agi><philosophy>
Title: Should intelligent machines have a body? (Reference request)
UserDisplayName: Amanda Wealth
ThreadText: # Should intelligent machines have a body? (Reference request)
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-05-07)
  
  I was studying AI when a question came to my mind.
  
  I have to write a 6-pages essay on a chosen topic in AI, and I think it can be interesting to reflect on **the measure in which machines should have a human-inspired body in order to perform intelligence** (or to be intelligent). I know it's a vast topic and that the answer basically relies on what one means by intelligence, but I hope that an appropriate documentation will let me reduce the scope accordingly coming up with something brilliant.
  
  Given the destination of my research, some personal or **documented insights** are welcome (some of which are discussed also [here](https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/1415/what-kind-of-body-if-any-does-intelligence-require) and [here](https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/8219/can-a-brain-be-intelligent-without-a-body)), but I'd particularly be interested in **authoritative or enlightening or up-to-date references**, i.e. articles or books, possibly (but not necessarily) with a short introduction.
  
  I feel this an interesting topic, and this collection could be useful for many. I thank those who will contribute.
  
  **Tags:** reference-request, papers, agi, philosophy
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: just lookup "embodied ai"  
  > **username_2**: Cross-posted: https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/45630/1794, https://cs.stackexchange.com/q/167967/755.  Please [do not post the same question on multiple sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/64068).  
  > **username_2**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition  
  > **username_3**: It's an interesting area and definitely on topic. However asking for a general introduction and review might put off potential responses. If you could ask for something more specific, even if only provides part of what you want, that could be better. You can always ask other questions to cover all the specifics you need for your project  
  > **username_0**: @NeilSlater The point is that it's exactly a good introduction what I'm really missing. The topic is really intertwined with theory of mind and it's hard to find references building things from scratch and providing a thorough conceptual framework. I've mostly found either partial accounts or technical and lengthy books. I know it's a complex matter, but there should be a nice way to start I suppose.  
  > **username_3**: That's fine, just bear in mind that you are asking here for someone to write that introduction. So it might be more pragmatic to ask for less with a more reasonable expectation that it will happen. However, some people here *might* have the time and be willing to give it a go.  
  > **username_0**: @NeilSlater Of course I don’t dare to expect that much: I posed it as a reference request just imagining it could be unlikely to get that introduction as a direct answer.  
  > **username_4**: In her book Artificial Intelligence, Melanie Mitchell argues for the need of embodiment. I checked by asking Perplexity.AI, which provides some links: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/How-does-AI-lIGzCL8mQOa0rp3g1fF3Mw  
  > **username_0**: @JaumeOliverLafont Thank you very much! Lately I've found a interview of her really inspiring, I'm confident she could have a point on this matter.  
  > **username_4**: Welcome! This workshop report (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.13589) looks like a good source for additional people and ideas. Her article "Why AI Is Harder Than We Think" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12871) can also be read freely. The fourth "fallacy" (Intelligence is all in the brain) deals with embodiment.  
  > **username_0**: @JaumeOliverLafont Thank you again. I had already marked the first workshop report, full of interesting ideas. As I've said, probably the only flaw consists in its treating in a unified way the mind-theoretical problem of localising human intelligence (let alone defining it) and the AI question regarding the kinds of intelligence one wants to internalise in machines (which is a presupposition of the question whether machines should have human-like bodies).  
  > **username_0**: @JaumeOliverLafont I don't mean they are separate questions intrinsically, it just seems fair to keep them apart at the beginning of the inquire on them, seeming hard also when taken singularly.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  