Pretty soon someone will discover subsumption architectures. I predict that they will be called Deep Subsumption Architectures and they will be betterer and newerer than the old stupid subsumption architectures and that anyone who speaks against them is stupid and wrong and has no startup and can't work at Google or use a mac and smells and has no paper at NIPS since 1998 and then papers at NIPS were no good and also they don't have a band or a court case against them.
Seriously though, I've been reading up on insect neurology over the last couple of weeks, and then looking at Boston Dynamics' new stuff, and wondering how much subsumption is mixed in with their traditional motion planning.
Yeah leaving aside the (possibly warranted) cynical tone in GP... It seems to me that ensembles (and related structures, I'm playing fast and loose here) are the modern ML counterpart of subsumption.. driving an ensemble, MOE, etc with more complex supervisor models (especially reinforcement models) essentially gets us the Brooks architecture, but with less of a demand for explicit programming of individual behaviors. That demand is the part of Brook's vision that strikes me as unrealistic, especially for tasks like driving. Though of course everything was more optimistic in the 80s.
