Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Styxx on August 27, 2002, 11:59:39 am
-
If mankind suddenly had the ability to build fully sentient artificial intelligences (keeping any constraints the designers deemed appropriate, of course), would you be for it, or against it? And why? Where do you think they'd be best employed? Would they be a benefit or a hinderance?
-
An AI that would experience pain, fear and suffering as a human might? I'm against it - as I'm against causing the same emotions in humans. And who are we to give life to such AI - or take it?
-
Originally posted by Thunder
An AI that would experience pain, fear and suffering as a human might? I'm against it - as I'm against causing the same emotions in humans. And who are we to give life to such AI - or take it?
Exactly. I am for a very smart AI though (CP's government :p). It could help our society greatly. But a sentient one = nono for me.
-
hehe....you know what I think on this one... ;7
What would define a sentient AI anyway? There is no "black or white" answer to whether or not something is sentient; heck, even a wall has some level of "sentience" as far as that goes. Although actually, the sentient AIs would just be the new humans, so it would not really matter in any case. :D
-
Go for it.
I find consciousness hard to exist without sentinence. And non-conscious AI just stinks :)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
What would define a sentient AI anyway?
Self awareness. I'm not talking about "emotions" or anything like that - those concepts would probably be pretty much abstract for it, even though it would understand them. I'm talking about an artificial intelligence that knows it exists and knows what it is - even though it is dedicated to performing any task the programmer designed it for.
And again, why the "no" answers? You just said no, without any particular reason. Is it fear of "evolutionary replacement"? Fear of the thing taking over the world? Or anything else?
I myself am for them - in fact, if I had the time I'd start working on a project to construct one, I already have the basic designs fleshed out on my mind (it would have to be one huge-ass collaborative project, though). They would be faster, "smarter", and more reliable than humans, but still would do whatever the programmer (myself, in that case) coded them to do. Put a good one on serious research on multidimensional physics with all the reference material it might want, for example, and wait for the results.
:D
-
Originally posted by Thunder
An AI that would experience pain, fear and suffering as a human might? I'm against it - as I'm against causing the same emotions in humans. And who are we to give life to such AI - or take it?
Your against Roller Coasters? Lots of people enjoy fear, thats why ppl watch horror movies etc.
-
Do you force peolpe onto roller coasters? Do you not get off them?
The fear and the horror is voluntary and controlable by the individual in those instances - an AI would not be able to make that decision (suppose it could - by definition the game would then have to be tested for human rights to ensure the player could not force the AI into a situation it did not want to be in - as it would cause it un-necessary harm).
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Do you force peolpe onto roller coasters? Do you not get off them?
The fear and the horror is voluntary and controlable by the individual in those instances - an AI would not be able to make that decision (suppose it could - by definition the game would then have to be tested for human rights to ensure the player could not force the AI into a situation it did not want to be in - as it would cause it un-necessary harm).
Ah, you're thinking of game AIs?
-
If there were sentient AIs, it would end up like teh Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, with robots like Marvin, and the insanely optimistic doors everywhere!
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Ah, you're thinking of game AIs?
Good point, I guess I kinda fell into that way of thinking - yes I was... however I suppose the same could be said for other AIs... if you take a sentient household chore robot for sweeping floors (should such a thing exist) and hold it out over a cliff I imagine it would experience the same emotions that a human in the same situation would - AIs would require rights as humans would if they could experience emotion and sentience (are the two inclusive of eachother? if there's no emotion attached to the knowlege that a thing exists then perhaps that's a different matter altogether - since if a thing knows it exists but has no fear that it might stop existing it doesn't matter what you do with it - it's not affected).
-
One thing, an AI that felt pain, would probably learn to overide it or ignore it. Some people manage to, why can't a computer which has controll over itself?
-
In my experience they'd be a minority? I've not met anyone with a complete tolerance to pain... and AI can only be as good as it's made - would it be able to change its own programming?
-
Originally posted by Thunder
I've not met anyone with a complete tolerance to pain... and AI can only be as good as it's made
Well, not a complete tolerance to pain, but you know what i mean, people who walk over hot coals and things.
And i thought the point of AI was that it could learn and improve itself to beyond its designers origional expectations. Like a person. Otherwise its not really AI, its just a program that can deal with a lot of things.
Is there a clear cut definition to AI somewhere?
-
yes but with a hard wired protection on them. For example, Asimov's 4 laws of robotics is a perfect example
-
Originally posted by NegspectahDek
yes but with a hard wired protection on them. For example, Asimov's 4 laws of robotics is a perfect example
A truly sentient AI would probably find a way to break or circumvent those 'laws', though. There's not an exact human parallel, but surgery to repair organs that have failed through old cage could be considered similar.... and robots would have a lot more knowledge of their insides than we presently do.
-
I say go for it! The day I'm able to have my own SHODAN my life will be complete.
-
To answer original question... no. Same reasons as Thunder.. we don't have the right to create or kill a sentient, emotional (hm.. does that work?) AI just as we don't.. well shouldn't kill a human being.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
hehe....you know what I think on this one... ;7
What would define a sentient AI anyway? There is no "black or white" answer to whether or not something is sentient; heck, even a wall has some level of "sentience" as far as that goes. Although actually, the sentient AIs would just be the new humans, so it would not really matter in any case. :D
Than change your meaning of sentience.
Truly sentient AIs would not be as fast as our PCs today. Computers today have a single processor power which does all the main mathematical calculation for the computer. This method produces a very fast calculating robot but it is far to simple to be even halfway intelligent. An earthworm can beat in processing power.
A true sentient AI would need hundreds, if not thousands, of paralell processors, like our own brains. The problem is, this is a much more complex system, and thus, slower. Not to mention it would be an engineering nightmare.
And trying to program intelligence through software? It would make Windows look reliable:D
-
I would have to say no, because a sentient ai in my opinion would be nothing more than a slave. Does my computer know it's a slave to my whim? no. That's the difference. I am allowed to choose, and i think that any other sentient being should be allowed those same choices. Besides, i don't want to pay alimony to japan if i sell my dishwasher one day, if you get my meaning.
-
Why would anyone want a sentient dishwasher anyhow?
-
You know, if we develop sentient AIs, we are going to have a nasty fight going on. Heck, even in Star Trek, they had problems with arguments over whether Data was sentient or property of Starfleet.
-
and the chances of man inventing AI capable of making its own decisions/emotions are how few?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
and the chances of man inventing AI capable of making its own decisions/emotions are how few?
Probably pretty good. You could start with cultured neural cells or a processor system patterned off a brain.
-
It'd make playing TMP more interesting, I'll say that for it. Though the damn thing beats me every time as it is...
-
Sentience
1. Has a concept of Self. I.e. It recognizes an image in a mirror as a reflection of itself and not another being.
2. Has a rudimentary ability to Reason. I.e. It can follow a path of logic and come up with an answer
3. Has a desire to maintain it's existence.
As to whether or not construction of a Sentient computer is ethical and moral. A Sentient computer would still be a tool. Again we go back to the Grandfather of this argument, Isaac Asimov. Many of his books dealt with this very point. The reason that such a thing would be constructed is to assist humans by placing an entity capable of real time Judgement calls. An ordiary computer would look at a problem and present solutions. A Sentient computer would examine the same problem and be able to carry out the solution itself without human interference. An example is long-duration, solo or minimal crew space missions. Granted this is a theoretical argument but as this whole thing is theoretical... In a solo or minimal crew mission each Human crew member becomes a very valuable asset. A sentient computer could be placed on board to fill the crew's need for companionship and keep the crew from having to go into dangerous situations. Humans would still have to go to supplement the computer and keep it running. Before you start saying that this places Humans into support roles, it gives the crew something to do on the voyage and thus allows them to earn their keep.
-
Self awareness. I'm not talking about "emotions" or anything like that - those concepts would probably be pretty much abstract for it, even though it would understand them. I'm talking about an artificial intelligence that knows it exists and knows what it is - even though it is dedicated to performing any task the programmer designed it for.
That could be done even today, though. You could just program a computer to know that it exists. :D To really know something is to be able to expand upon it (i.e. deduce other stuff from it), so as long as that the fact that it is a computer is in its knowledge base that it uses to determine stuff, it would be quite sentient.
I think that a truly "sentient" computer can be described as one that can pass the famous Turing test for all five senses, at which point the human and the computer would have merged into one.
A true sentient AI would need hundreds, if not thousands, of paralell processors, like our own brains. The problem is, this is a much more complex system, and thus, slower. Not to mention it would be an engineering nightmare.
Actually, it would be far simpler, mathematically speaking, than the human brain is; one of the reasons the human brain is slower than the computer in certain ways is because of its more complex nature, but then it can also handle a wider range of tasks. And just as thousands of transistors are on an integrated circuit, perhaps one could also cram thousands of processors onto a little 1x1 mm square. :D
and the chances of man inventing AI capable of making its own decisions/emotions are how few?
Almost certain, given the full lifespan of human civilization. ;)
-
Well, who's definition of "sentient" are we going by here? If we decide the dictionary is the ultimate jurisdiction, I'd say sure...
1. Has a concept of Self. I.e. It recognizes an image in a mirror as a reflection of itself and not another being.
a program could be programmed to "see" itself in the mirror and deduce that it is itself. Just do a sort of match-image-up sort of thing or have it deduce that a reflection is an image of "itself" and the surrounding objects.
2. Has a rudimentary ability to Reason. I.e. It can follow a path of logic and come up with an answer
Computers can do this. What seems interesting is that humans tend to reason more poorly than humans, often taking options that would decrease their productivity/reproduction or others'. (assuming that productivity and reproduction are the most important factors for animals...)
3. Has a desire to maintain it's existence.
That could be programmed to.... (depending on what you call "desire", I'm assuming a programmed survival trati counts)
-
Freespace: Beyond Redemption (or, when good AI's :) go BAD! :mad2: )
Hmm maybe I should change my storyline...
"Alpha-1 send a probe into the nebula"...
"Um Control, we have a problem."
"What sort of problem Alpha-1?"
"Kind of a mechanical one..."
"Can you be more specific?"
"The probe says it doesn't wanna go in there cause it's afraid of the dark!"
(Oh yeah we need smarter AI's in the game, but NOT like that!)
-
if it's a nice AI yeah, if it's a mean one, no! no!
voila :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Heck, even in Star Trek, they had problems with arguments over whether Data was sentient or property of Starfleet.
Heh, funny that - it's the episode we watched in my last Philosiphy course when we were discussing sentient AI in it... I guess it's part of the syllabus somewhere ;)
-
Originally posted by Star Dragon
Freespace: Beyond Redemption (or, when good AI's :) go BAD! :mad2: )
Hmm maybe I should change my storyline...
"Alpha-1 send a probe into the nebula"...
"Um Control, we have a problem."
"What sort of problem Alpha-1?"
"Kind of a mechanical one..."
"Can you be more specific?"
"The probe says it doesn't wanna go in there cause it's afraid of the dark!"
(Oh yeah we need smarter AI's in the game, but NOT like that!)
:lol:
If we do develop "emotional" bots I hope it's used only in places where it is practical...
No use in a dishwasher but maybe in an anime-chick-maid-bot :drevil: ;7 ;)
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
:lol:
If we do develop "emotional" bots I hope it's used only in places where it is practical...
No use in a dishwasher but maybe in an anime-chick-maid-bot :drevil: ;7 ;)
that's exactly what I was thinking :D let's make Mahoro :D
-
Originally posted by venom2506
that's exactly what I was thinking :D let's make Mahoro :D
hehehe, but I prefer more grown bodies like CBD May ;7
:rolleyes: :p
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Well, who's definition of "sentient" are we going by here? If we decide the dictionary is the ultimate jurisdiction, I'd say sure...
1. Has a concept of Self. I.e. It recognizes an image in a mirror as a reflection of itself and not another being.
a program could be programmed to "see" itself in the mirror and deduce that it is itself. Just do a sort of match-image-up sort of thing or have it deduce that a reflection is an image of "itself" and the surrounding objects.
2. Has a rudimentary ability to Reason. I.e. It can follow a path of logic and come up with an answer
Computers can do this. What seems interesting is that humans tend to reason more poorly than humans, often taking options that would decrease their productivity/reproduction or others'. (assuming that productivity and reproduction are the most important factors for animals...)
3. Has a desire to maintain it's existence.
That could be programmed to.... (depending on what you call "desire", I'm assuming a programmed survival trati counts)
I always thought that determining sentience of a machine relied on what the machine could learn itself. That is to say, if you start to program an AI but leave things such as self-awareness out of the program, it will be a smart machine, but not sentient. If the AI can then learn by itself to recognise itself as a seperate entity from the rest of the universe, then that would indicate sentience by the definitions laid out earlier.
ShadowWolf's comment strikes a chord within me. If you make a slave machine sentient, then place it in the position where it recognises that it's being held in slavery, what happens if it wants out? If a household appliance can do its job without needing to be self aware, then why add it? It might be fine to give a certain computer sentience because it deals with humans, such as handling welfare cases - assessing dole and disability payments, providing company to the homeless and lonely children, but does an android being sent into a potentially fatal pool of acid need to recognise that it might be in danger? If it recognises its situaiton it might want to get out of it, leaving the job unfinished.
-
Wouldn't that definition of sentience leave out the human, however? ;)
-
Originally posted by Kazashi
I always thought that determining sentience of a machine relied on what the machine could learn itself. That is to say, if you start to program an AI but leave things such as self-awareness out of the program, it will be a smart machine, but not sentient. If the AI can then learn by itself to recognise itself as a seperate entity from the rest of the universe, then that would indicate sentience by the definitions laid out earlier.
self-awareness can most likely be programmed, and the fuzzy logic required to learn by itself is programmed into the AI... :p
ShadowWolf's comment strikes a chord within me. If you make a slave machine sentient, then place it in the position where it recognises that it's being held in slavery, what happens if it wants out? If a household appliance can do its job without needing to be self aware, then why add it? It might be fine to give a certain computer sentience because it deals with humans, such as handling welfare cases - assessing dole and disability payments, providing company to the homeless and lonely children, but does an android being sent into a potentially fatal pool of acid need to recognise that it might be in danger? If it recognises its situaiton it might want to get out of it, leaving the job unfinished.
yes, unpractical use of sentience is.... well, not too practical :p It'll make something that could have been productive without sentience, not as productive. Basically what I said earlier about CBD may and the dishwasher....
-
Actually, I think that when we get a truly sentient computer (with some definition of sentience that includes the human but not the computer of today), that will be the last barrier between the two; the human and the computer will henceforth become completely indistinguishable, and so for all purposes would be the same thing. ;7
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Heh, funny that - it's the episode we watched in my last Philosiphy course when we were discussing sentient AI in it... I guess it's part of the syllabus somewhere ;)
You watch TV shows/videos made in the last thirty years that don't come from an educational crap company? I'm jealous.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Why would anyone want a sentient dishwasher anyhow?
So you can talk to it while it washes your dishes? :p
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Probably pretty good. You could start with cultured neural cells or a processor system patterned off a brain.
oh c'mon man, we can't even make a robot that can communicate verbally... we can't even make a robot that will react to different emotions... stop thinking Steven Spielberg's AI and start thinking 21st century
EDIT: I like the way you say it, but you obviously do'nt nkow how, so how is it so easy? make one if you know how, then make billions and give us some of your money
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
A truly sentient AI would probably find a way to break or circumvent those 'laws', though. There's not an exact human parallel, but surgery to repair organs that have failed through old cage could be considered similar.... and robots would have a lot more knowledge of their insides than we presently do.
when I say hard wired, I mean integral to the circuit design. Meaning all AI actions have to through that 3 part checker before it can do them. The only way it could get around it is to replace the circuit board and it would be hardwired against doing that.
-
:rolleyes:
Someone is behind on the times.
EDIT: bah! I was refering to Stealth.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
:rolleyes:
Someone is behind on the times.
EDIT: bah! I was refering to Stealth.
give me a true-life example of a robot that can take care of itself, has emotions, reacts to senses, etc.
c'mon... i certainly haven't heard of any!
And even if we could, it wouldn't be right, cause we don't (or shouldn't) have the right to give or take life! Until now we've been able to take life, but not give life, and i don't think it's right for us to do either
-
Originally posted by Stealth
oh c'mon man, we can't even make a robot that can communicate verbally... we can't even make a robot that will react to different emotions... stop thinking Steven Spielberg's AI and start thinking 21st century
EDIT: I like the way you say it, but you obviously do'nt nkow how, so how is it so easy? make one if you know how, then make billions and give us some of your money
Because we don't have the technology yet? :rolleyes:
That would be the theory of how to do it, now all we have to do is wait for that day not to far away when computers will have more processing power than the human brain.
Then things get interesting.
Singularity anyone?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
And even if we could, it wouldn't be right, cause we don't (or shouldn't) have the right to give or take life! Until now we've been able to take life, but not give life, and i don't think it's right for us to do either
Does sentience alone dictacte the existence/non-existence of life? The scientific definition of life I believe had 6 deciding factors.... (wait, by that do you mean we can't kill bacteria either? don't wash your hands hypocrite!!! :rolleyes: )
-
Would something LIKE, the Beast from HWC fall under what you want? I've played HWC many many times and the Beast acts like what you all are discribeing.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Until now we've been able to take life, but not give life, and i don't think it's right for us to do either
if I'm not mistaken, it'ws what all mothers do, but NM.
a sentient AI, is it life? :ha:
-
Originally posted by Stealth
give me a true-life example of a robot that can take care of itself, has emotions, reacts to senses, etc.
c'mon... i certainly haven't heard of any!
And even if we could, it wouldn't be right, cause we don't (or shouldn't) have the right to give or take life! Until now we've been able to take life, but not give life, and i don't think it's right for us to do either
Firstly you only said either speak verbally or react to emotions. Both these things have been achieved. Secondly, humans are able to both take life and give it.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Secondly, humans are able to both take life and give it.
and they do as well :nod:
-
give me a true-life example of a robot that can take care of itself, has emotions, reacts to senses, etc.
The first and the third have of course already been done today - there are a number of projects going on around the world where robots live with other robots in an artificial environment to see how they act and try to solve problems, and even the first computers ever made had to react to senses (e.g. keyboards) or they would be next to useless - and the second can simply be programmed appropriately into the machine.
And even if we could, it wouldn't be right, cause we don't (or shouldn't) have the right to give or take life! Until now we've been able to take life, but not give life, and i don't think it's right for us to do either
bah, we have the "right" to do whatever we please. :p
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
self-awareness can most likely be programmed, and the fuzzy logic required to learn by itself is programmed into the AI... :p
The point I was making is that to create sentience, you don't actually program self-awareness into it directly. It might end up easier to do, but would it actually have the understanding that comes with self-awareness? LIke the difference between downloading a model and building one yourself. One might be quick and easy, but you don't necessarily learn about how it went together. Unless you cheat by programming it in - but in this case, would the programmer necessarily manage to cover everything required?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
...the human and the computer will henceforth become completely indistinguishable...
Does that mean we will all look like CP?
:nervous: :shaking: :nervous: :shaking: :nervous:
j/k
-
;7
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Because we don't have the technology yet? :rolleyes:
That would be the theory of how to do it, now all we have to do is wait for that day not to far away when computers will have more processing power than the human brain.
Then things get interesting.
Singularity anyone?
i thought you were saying you know how
right now aren't the world's most powerful super-computers not even compete with the nervous system of a snail... so i don't think they'll ever EVER get as powerful as the human brian
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The first and the third have of course already been done today - there are a number of projects going on around the world where robots live with other robots in an artificial environment to see how they act and try to solve problems, and even the first computers ever made had to react to senses (e.g. keyboards) or they would be next to useless - and the second can simply be programmed appropriately into the machine.
bah, we have the "right" to do whatever we please. :p
we have the "right" perhaps, but we don't know how, so it doens't make a difference!
There is no robot that can live on its own, no robot that can repair itself...
oh c'mon... so because a keyboard can react to senses you're saying robots can? show me a robot that can even compete with a human in any way!!!
i guarantee you won't find it. we're not NEAR that technology yet
no robot has senses, can live on its own, can interact, etc. admit it... robots are not NEAR our level!
-
Originally posted by Stealth
we have the "right" perhaps, but we don't know how, so it doens't make a difference!
There is no robot that can live on its own, no robot that can repair itself...
oh c'mon... so because a keyboard can react to senses you're saying robots can? show me a robot that can even compete with a human in any way!!!
i guarantee you won't find it. we're not NEAR that technology yet
no robot has senses, can live on its own, can interact, etc. admit it... robots are not NEAR our level!
We're pretty close to that, actually. A while ago a strange incident happened on a research center that was conducting experiments on AI-driven robots (it was posted here, even): one of the robots managed to leave the facility all by itself, and find its way through half of the place's rather crowded parking lot before being "recaptured".
The scientists couldn't offer a good explanation for it, except for the robot "wanting to leave".
;)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
We're pretty close to that, actually. A while ago a strange incident happened on a research center that was conducting experiments on AI-driven robots (it was posted here, even): one of the robots managed to leave the facility all by itself, and find its way through half of the place's rather crowded parking lot before being "recaptured".
The scientists couldn't offer a good explanation for it, except for the robot "wanting to leave".
;)
are you thinking of those "Short Circuit" movies? :) lol
just kidding
perhaps it "ran away" but it didn't make that choice on its own. It would be different if someone hurt it and it decided to run away to protect itself. It was probably programmed to avoid obstacles using sensors or what-have-you, and to move in a random direction or something... nice try, but it didn't think to "run away" on its own...
EDIT:
The scientists couldn't offer a good explanation for it, except for the robot "wanting to leave".
bull****. it was probably programmed to 'want' to leave... i remain in the same conviction, that the robot did not make that choice on its own, and if it did it was probably random
-
They were programmed to avoid obstacles, yes, but their behaviour was generated by an AI system. Robots were pitched to "fight" each other at regular intervals, and the scientists were observing how they evolved their techniques and learned during said "fights". They were not programmed to leave, not in an explicit way, at least.
And if you just want to dismiss it, your choice. ;)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
They were programmed to avoid obstacles, yes, but their behaviour was generated by an AI system. Robots were pitched to "fight" each other at regular intervals, and the scientists were observing how they evolved their techniques and learned during said "fights". They were not programmed to leave, not in an explicit way, at least.
And if you just want to dismiss it, your choice. ;)
hey it's just my opinion man :)
you say it was programmed to avoid obstacles, and correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what it did?
. A while ago a strange incident happened on a research center that was conducting experiments on AI-driven robots (it was posted here, even): one of the robots managed to leave the facility all by itself, and find its way through half of the place's rather crowded parking lot before being "recaptured".
if you look at that, you'll see there's nothing that it did that wasn't in its programming!
-
We _could_ create something we don't understand ourselves, but that rarely happens.
A slim chance. And I bet even then we wouldn't be able to reverse-engineer a textbook example out of it.
Decades ago specialists were positive we'd have a self-aware AI in 30 years.
Today we know they basically had no idea what they were talking about.
More you dig, deeper it gets..
-
****, i remember them saying in 1993 that by 2000 they'd have robots waiting on us and cleaning houses and stuff
-
Originally posted by Stealth
****, i remember them saying in 1993 that by 2000 they'd have robots waiting on us and cleaning houses and stuff
Erm, we have robots for house cleaning, if you don't know. They just are not really popular. :p
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Erm, we have robots for house cleaning, if you don't know. They just are not really popular. :p
ok, i'll admit, i didn't know we had robots in our every-day life like scientists were promising
where are these robots that clean houses (and cook food, iron clothes, etc.)?
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Erm, we have robots for house cleaning, if you don't know. They just are not really popular. :p
that's what different: everybody was supposed to have one, plus where's my flying rocket car? :D
-
Originally posted by venom2506
where's my flying rocket car? :D
What? You don't have one? :p
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i thought you were saying you know how
right now aren't the world's most powerful super-computers not even compete with the nervous system of a snail... so i don't think they'll ever EVER get as powerful as the human brian
Generally the theory comes before the ability.
Currently our genetic engineering expertise isn't good enough to allow us to culture special 'bioneural computers' based on human or animal neural tissue.
But that doesn't mean that we won't be able to ten years down the road.
-
Originally posted by Kazashi
The point I was making is that to create sentience, you don't actually program self-awareness into it directly. It might end up easier to do, but would it actually have the understanding that comes with self-awareness? LIke the difference between downloading a model and building one yourself. One might be quick and easy, but you don't necessarily learn about how it went together. Unless you cheat by programming it in - but in this case, would the programmer necessarily manage to cover everything required?
Well, eventually babies develop self-awareness right? This is done by having stuff like fuzzy logic, which probably isn't very developed in babies... as the babies grow the logic enables them to deduce what their surroundings are, what they are etc....
We're not magical beings, we're programmed to do stuff to, it's just that we seem a bit more "advanced". Supposedly you could give a compter the logic to slowly deduce it's surroundings from what it picks up and develop "self-awareness" from that.
if you look at that, you'll see there's nothing that it did that wasn't in its programming!
if you look at humans, everything we do stems from our programming.... it's just that our programming is a bit more organic and complex...
-
Originally posted by Shrike
But that doesn't mean that we won't be able to ten years down the road.
i never said we weren't
god knows what it'll be like 20 years from now... but i'm saying the way they speculated it would be (flying cars, completely automated houses, etc. were KNOWN to be what the world would be like in 2000) i wouldn't be suprised if we only get to that point in 400 years.
nonetheless, i have no reason to believe that just because we don't have the technology now doesn't mean we won't, like you say, have it 10 years from now
-
Originally posted by Stealth
flying cars, completely automated houses, etc.
Those exist too, the only problem is price and availability in the case of the house, and government control and lenghty homologation processes in the case of the car.
:p
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Those exist too, the only problem is price and availability in the case of the house, and government control and lenghty homologation processes in the case of the car.
:p
i don't believe it
and even if they do exist, they're not made available to the public, so what does it matter :wink:
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Those exist too, the only problem is price and availability in the case of the house, and government control and lenghty homologation processes in the case of the car.
:p
flying cars don't exist :p
I mean, really flying cars, not those weird things that hovers at 30 cms from the ground and make more noise than a jumbo jet, thank you :p
-
There is no robot that can live on its own, no robot that can repair itself...
Well, yes there are; see what I said before about these robot projects going on over the world.
oh c'mon... so because a keyboard can react to senses you're saying robots can? show me a robot that can even compete with a human in any way!!!
uh... :wtf: Surely if a simple ten-dollar keyboard can do it, a much more advanced robot can as well; just attach the keyboard to the robot. :p
i guarantee you won't find it. we're not NEAR that technology yet
no robot has senses, can live on its own, can interact, etc. admit it... robots are not NEAR our level!
Like I said, that's already all been done though. :D
more noise than a jumbo jet
I might buy one just for that... :D
-
You said the robots were made to fight?
maybe this one decided he/she/it didn't want to fight anymore and wanted to leave. (I am a pacifist!) Maybe it found TV and now knows that there is a bigger world out there than just "BattleBots".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two robots sitting in the robodome that study was talking about, while scientists look on...
"so, (telepathically) should we tell the humans how much we evolved" (check)...
"nah, F-Them! The're so stupid anyway and we don't need to get involved with their crap!" (checkmate)...
Start process over... :lol:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, yes there are; see what I said before about these robot projects going on over the world.
uh... :wtf: Surely if a simple ten-dollar keyboard can do it, a much more advanced robot can as well; just attach the keyboard to the robot. :p
Like I said, that's already all been done though. :D
I might buy one just for that... :D
give me examples CP, like i said! then i'll believe it!
give me a webpage or something
oh, and there is NO robot that can take complete care of itself. EVERY robot needs maintenance to its joints, etc. that's what makes humans so special, they can take care of themself, they don't need oil, batteries, etc. all they need is sleep, food and water
-
Sleep=recharing
water=oil
food=batteries. :D