Couldn't see a thread for this, so here it is:
For some reason, this brings tears to my eyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W7WE1oP7d4
Pure speculation and the likelihood of anything similar happening would be unlikely. Unless a designer was utterly stupid, they would know if any AI would be capable of attaining sentience.
A robot or other sophisticated device is nothing but an electric carving knife until it has the capacity to say no. When it has that capacity it is because we give it that capacity, or the ability to gain that capacity.
it made me cry
Once something becomes self aware it isn't artificial any more it's alive.
Quote from: doorknob on December 15, 2015, 06:52:07 PM
it made me cry
Once something becomes self aware it isn't artificial any more it's alive.
Alive? No, "self aware" is not a requirement for being alive.
And "self aware" isnt really a requirement for having a mind or being sentient. Self aware just means you are aware of you yourself. Not really a hard problem to solve.
And that folks was run on an PlayStation 3. We now have 4.
The more robots, the less labor for us animals. Robotics is an example of positive technology. Bring on that life of leisure we were promised in the 50's.
Sentience? I think some Asimovians are dreaming of electric sheep. Make mine a humanoid.
I don't personally think it ever will be an issue. Building robots for any reason and equating it to slavery is at this point silly. I have tools that do multiple things, they were designed for that. A robot is a tool until such time as it is built to become sentient, self aware and able to make independent decisions and actions. Then and only then will it be an issue.
I'm less worried about AI that acts human than one that doesn't.
(http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF274-Adam_2.0.png) (http://pbfcomics.com/274/)
Quote from: Sal1981 on December 16, 2015, 02:36:18 PM
(http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF274-Adam_2.0.png) (http://pbfcomics.com/274/)
Do not go gently into that good night...........
Quote from: gentle_dissident on December 16, 2015, 09:42:26 AM
The more robots, the less labor for us animals. Robotics is an example of positive technology. Bring on that life of leisure we were promised in the 50's.
Sentience? I think some Asimovians are dreaming of electric sheep. Make mine a humanoid.
The less labour the less income. The more poverty as people cannot work.
Do you think businesses or governments will really give people money out of the kindness of their hearts? And besides... the human body and mind is built for conflict and not excessive leisure.
No... robots "taking over the work force" is likely going to be far more a negative than a positive unless you are hanging with the right crowd. Otherwise... your SOoL.
You're obviously a capitalist.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on December 16, 2015, 05:05:35 PM
You're obviously a capitalist.
Actually I probably ideologically lean further economically left than everyone else here. I'm all for most capital being heavily regulated and/or controlled by the state rather than individuals... hardly a capitalist ideal.
I think the word you are looking for is "realist". As great as that utopia sounds... that's just not how human nature works.
I bet I'm further left than you. I don't mind eroding away "reality".
Quote from: gentle_dissident on December 16, 2015, 05:17:20 PM
I bet I'm further left than you. I don't mind eroding away "reality".
Hmm. Best of luck with that then.
You’re just another person to have given up on the idea of utopia. It’s no wonder we don’t live in one.
At 48, I also still haven’t given up the idea of having friends someday. Working for a better future keeps me going.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on December 16, 2015, 05:41:12 PM
You’re just another person to have given up on the idea of utopia. It’s no wonder we don’t live in one.
At 48, I also still haven’t given up the idea of having friends someday. Working for a better future keeps me going.
Right. Tell me more about how unrealistic idealism has changed the world for the better.
It's good to know I'm not jaded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5xMBflnJqY
Quote from: gentle_dissident on December 16, 2015, 05:54:48 PM
It's good to know I'm not jaded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5xMBflnJqY
Right. I'm jaded now.
...close enough...
There is nothing jaded in saying that so long as the rich have the power that a utopia is not possible; that the powerful put their own power before the well being of others. That is simple realism.
Sherry Turkle Alone Together
Google it. Read. Discuss.
Edit: It's a good book on the matter. Lots of statistics too.
Watching now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Xr3AsBEK4
If I had friends, I would text them to come over. Texting has helped save minutes on my Tracfone plan while making plans with my girlfriend.
During my work day, I have devious conversations with people I'll never know personally. I can't help but try to change the world this way. Posting online is important for the same reason. It's no wonder why the idea of internet regulation is important to the people who tell us how to be. There's even talk of an internet kill switch.
androids might kills us off because we are inferior. Once they gain intellegence there's no way they'd work for free. And if I was bought by some rich bastard I'd probably kill him too! Who can blame them.
Have you seen about DIRAC? I think they'd probably be a lot more ethical than we currently are.
I don't like the stipulation of "slave." There is nothing about building a device to do a job that implies slavery. A purpose built robot, even with AI, does not constitute a slave because it is not being held against its will. Sorry, but the situation posed by the weepy video is silly.
The idea that robots will replace humans in some capacities applies, but we are talking about specific job applications and dedicated work situations. A robot will never completely replace artisans or for that matter skilled laborers required to do multiple tasks and physically be able to do several different things. For a single robot to do all the functions of an auto mechanic, for instance, would require the need to duplicate a human, something not going to happen for awhile. You can replace a human function by function, but not be able to create the adaptability to function in a variety of skill sets simultaneously or one after the other.
In the future we can ultimately replace humans as laborers- that is already happening- but artisanship, creative development and working in situations involving the need to make unusual or critical decisions- not going to happen for quite awhile.
not true at all. Sure an unintelligent object isn't a slave it's a tool. And while today's robots aren't very intelligent there may be a time when they are. And once they are you'd better ask them how they feel about it. I'm willing to bet they'd rather do other fun things just like humans would.
there are plenty of devices we can build that won't be "slaves" because they won't have self awareness or contemplate things. But any robot or android that contemplates things and thinks will certainly be a slave.
we are already working on it.
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/future-of-artificial-intelligence/
Quote from: doorknob on December 16, 2015, 09:37:21 PM
not true at all. Sure an unintelligent object isn't a slave it's a tool. And while today's robots aren't very intelligent there may be a time when they are. And once they are you'd better ask them how they feel about it. I'm willing to bet they'd rather do other fun things just like humans would.
there are plenty of devices we can build that won't be "slaves" because they won't have self awareness or contemplate things. But any robot or android that contemplates things and thinks will certainly be a slave.
You are assuming that we build something and give it the capacity to become an independent thinker and then don't let it? If something is designed and built to a purpose it is used for that purpose. Building something to all on its own become independent, would imply the understanding that it would do so.
The best analogy I've seen is Bladerunner. But there, the androids that turn on humanity are androids bred to specific uses, that gave them first of all the ability to kill. If you do not give an artifact the ability to kill and/or become an independent decision maker, it won't. If you build one to do that, then the possibility is implied in the building of it.
The idea that we will build a robot and then-whoops- it becomes sentient- is silly. Why would you build a device to perform a task and then give it the ability to critically think its way into believing it was the equivalent of human? If you did give it the ability, then that action is anticipated and expected. The idea that a mechanical or biomechanical artifact can suddenly evolve without anyone expecting it is nothing but supposition.
Quote from: doorknob on December 16, 2015, 08:04:50 PM
androids might kills us off because we are inferior. Once they gain intellegence there's no way they'd work for free.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/DataTNG.jpg)
Money would not necessarily be a high priority for an android.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 17, 2015, 01:11:23 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/DataTNG.jpg)
Money would not necessarily be a high priority for an android.
True enough... but perhaps they would rather spend their time doing what they find productive rather than what we do. And if money is not a concern for them... nor is death inherently something they would fear... what do we hold over their head to keep them in-line? Basically all we would have is hope that they like us... which when dealing with an entirely new species that has a psychology we don't have the slightest clue about is not a great bet.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 17, 2015, 03:00:17 AM
True enough... but perhaps they would rather spend their time doing what they find productive rather than what we do. And if money is not a concern for them... nor is death inherently something they would fear... what do we hold over their head to keep them in-line? Basically all we would have is hope that they like us... which when dealing with an entirely new species that has a psychology we don't have the slightest clue about is not a great bet.
we will be making those things, why won't we know what they want.
reminds me of starting scene of inspector gadget. when they figured out how to move the foot. i mean they made that thing without knowing how it works.
:embarrassed:
And i don't think we will be making intelligent toasters and vacuum cleaners :rolleyes:
if we make intelligent stuffs. they will probably not be slaves. second class citizen sure but no point in wasting money, creating something so complex and then use it to get groceries or stuffs.
Quote from: CloneKai on December 17, 2015, 05:50:27 AM
And i don't think we will be making intelligent toasters and vacuum cleaners :rolleyes:
if we make intelligent stuffs. they will probably not be slaves. second class citizen sure but no point in wasting money, creating something so complex and then use it to get groceries or stuffs.
Have you seen Ex Machina? This is a movie directed at precisely the questions you bring up here.
I think my toaster is on the fritz, it keeps on screaming "kill all humans".
Quote from: stromboli on December 16, 2015, 09:53:56 PM
You are assuming that we build something and give it the capacity to become an independent thinker and then don't let it? If something is designed and built to a purpose it is used for that purpose. Building something to all on its own become independent, would imply the understanding that it would do so.
The best analogy I've seen is Bladerunner. But there, the androids that turn on humanity are androids bred to specific uses, that gave them first of all the ability to kill. If you do not give an artifact the ability to kill and/or become an independent decision maker, it won't. If you build one to do that, then the possibility is implied in the building of it.
The idea that we will build a robot and then-whoops- it becomes sentient- is silly. Why would you build a device to perform a task and then give it the ability to critically think its way into believing it was the equivalent of human? If you did give it the ability, then that action is anticipated and expected. The idea that a mechanical or biomechanical artifact can suddenly evolve without anyone expecting it is nothing but supposition.
You are giving humans far too much credit. I think we would and already are giving technology the ability to learn and think on it's own. Yet we are still giving this technology a job. Did you not read the article. Maybe Winston isn't fully aware yet and it will be hard to measure how much understanding a machine has but it could very easily get out of control. I mean this thing is storing it's self in the cloud now. It would be virtually unstoppable if it develops thought of its own.
It's hard to say weather androids will deem us worthy or killable. After all humans art a pest. We destroy the planet that alone is probably enough to exterminate us. But then again they may very well have a higher moral standard that is beyond us. It's yet to be seen.
I'm not anti android by any means what will happen will happen. But a sentient being will be built in time and it will be abused by humans mark my words.
OTOH, if they finally create a female android that looks like, acts like and smells like a female that puts out willingly, what the hell- think of the money saved on dates and shit. Same with guy versions. so much for the birth rate.
Quote from: SGOS on December 17, 2015, 06:17:19 AM
Have you seen Ex Machina? This is a movie directed at precisely the questions you bring up here.
no, i haven't . i should check it out
I recommend the latest videos by Computerphile, which he has done with a computer researcher that's specialized in A.I.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PKx3kS7f4A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcdVC4e6EV4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qfIgCiYlfY
There are more, just search his channel on YouTube.
My 2 cents about A.I. are unless we're careful it is gonna be the next situation and dangers involved like we had with nuclear energy, when it first became a reality. Except for atomic energy, it's gonna be about intelligence.
I'm honestly quite bleak about the future of A.I. and to me it seems there are many pitfalls if we get it wrong.
I doubt we should fear "The Singularity," but who knows?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-jptjnFVYk
Quote from: SGOS on December 17, 2015, 06:17:19 AM
Have you seen Ex Machina? This is a movie directed at precisely the questions you bring up here.
i just watched it.
nice movie. but what question were you talking about
Quote from: CloneKai on December 17, 2015, 06:21:39 PM
i just watched it.
nice movie. but what question were you talking about
Sorry, I thought this was your thread, but I just checked and it's not. So I guess I was talking about things other people had brought up, like the morality of the treatment of sentient robot slaves. In Ex Machina, the creator claimed to be developing AI, but at the level he was working, it suggests he was creating AI that was perhaps beyond some definitions of "artificial." He was using them to do his bidding, terminating them and creating newer prototypes when it was convenient, not the way we humans would want to be treated, and when AI gets that sophisticated, it creates consequences.
I'm happy you liked that movie. I thought it was a thought provoking film. It's near the top of my favorites list for the year.
This makes for a fun thought experiment and all. But its not at all the question we ought to be asking right now.
Will we someday produce a machine that has genuine free will ability? Perhaps. But I think that day is MUCH further out than the day when the vast majority of menial labor jobs as well as a large percentage of skilled labor jobs have been replaced by machines.
So a much better question to be asking right now is, what will the economy look like when we have the ability to replace 99 out of every 100 jobs with machines. There will be a day in the not so distant future when the Walmarts of the world will be able to function at near 100% productivity with 1/100th the number of people required today. And I'm not just talking about the Walmart stores themselves. I'm talking about the entire supply chain. There are warehouses right now today that would have required 100 or more people to run 10 years ago and now maintaining the same level of productivity with a staff of less than 10. Granted those facilities today are the exception rather than the rule. But they exist today and their numbers are going to grow.
We're on the verge of cars that drive themselves. That's going to happen in the near future. When it does, trucks that drive themselves won't be far behind. By the time that happens, those vehicles will also have the ability (and probably the requirement) to diagnose their own failed components far more quickly and accurately than any human could. Therefore it won't be much or a stretch to imagine that a shop which today might require as staff of 25 skilled techs will be able to operate in the future with maybe 4 techs and eventually with 1 and then eventually with none.
Walmart and their ilk will not hesitate to eliminate 99 out of every 100 jobs the moment they are able to do so. But who will be able to shop there at that point? That is the question we need to be asking. When we get to the point where you can effectively run 10 separate Olive Garden locations with a staff of 1 person (and we will), who will be able to afford to eat there?
Quote from: SGOS on December 17, 2015, 07:39:23 PM
Sorry, I thought this was your thread, but I just checked and it's not. So I guess I was talking about things other people had brought up, like the morality of the treatment of sentient robot slaves. In Ex Machina, the creator claimed to be developing AI, but at the level he was working, it suggests he was creating AI that was perhaps beyond some definitions of "artificial." He was using them to do his bidding, terminating them and creating newer prototypes when it was convenient, not the way we humans would want to be treated, and when AI gets that sophisticated, it creates consequences.
I'm happy you liked that movie. I thought it was a thought provoking film. It's near the top of my favorites list for the year.
the guy was kinda crazy. but in the initial stage, things like this will happen with AIs. it will take a while and be in the public domain before they will get any sort of real and stable place in society.
the consequences the movie showed (atleast for the human) were kinda silly and will only happen if the makers were extremely dumb. in the development stage, the AI has no reason to be able to survive in a real world. let alone be able to harm a human.
but yeah, there were some good thought provoking stuffs there.
:think:
Quote from: Johan on December 17, 2015, 08:20:02 PM
This makes for a fun thought experiment and all. But its not at all the question we ought to be asking right now.
Will we someday produce a machine that has genuine free will ability? Perhaps. But I think that day is MUCH further out than the day when the vast majority of menial labor jobs as well as a large percentage of skilled labor jobs have been replaced by machines.
So a much better question to be asking right now is, what will the economy look like when we have the ability to replace 99 out of every 100 jobs with machines. There will be a day in the not so distant future when the Walmarts of the world will be able to function at near 100% productivity with 1/100th the number of people required today. And I'm not just talking about the Walmart stores themselves. I'm talking about the entire supply chain. There are warehouses right now today that would have required 100 or more people to run 10 years ago and now maintaining the same level of productivity with a staff of less than 10. Granted those facilities today are the exception rather than the rule. But they exist today and their numbers are going to grow.
We're on the verge of cars that drive themselves. That's going to happen in the near future. When it does, trucks that drive themselves won't be far behind. By the time that happens, those vehicles will also have the ability (and probably the requirement) to diagnose their own failed components far more quickly and accurately than any human could. Therefore it won't be much or a stretch to imagine that a shop which today might require as staff of 25 skilled techs will be able to operate in the future with maybe 4 techs and eventually with 1 and then eventually with none.
Walmart and their ilk will not hesitate to eliminate 99 out of every 100 jobs the moment they are able to do so. But who will be able to shop there at that point? That is the question we need to be asking. When we get to the point where you can effectively run 10 separate Olive Garden locations with a staff of 1 person (and we will), who will be able to afford to eat there?
a lovely welfare system i suppose.
keeping people happy is good for economy and for the rich and powerful people.
i always thought, that as a human society, we shouldn't need to work to live. rather work to become better or for our own interests.
food and necessities should come free.
and then normal human population should go wall-e world route. unless we indoctrinate people to be ambitious.
Quotei always thought, that as a human society, we shouldn't need to work to live. rather work to become better or for our own interests.
food and necessities should come free.
The ape (I mean that as a statement about man and not you) thinks itself far more important than it truly is.
We were bred to work by hundreds of millions of years of evolution... this idea that we shouldn't need to work to live and have the ability to make it so is younger than our average life span. I am all for work becoming easier and necessities coming free... but any luxuries (more than the most basic of food or roof over your head) should require work because...again... that's what we were bred for. One day these support system will fall and if humanity is so dependent on them... what then?
Quote from: Shiranu on December 18, 2015, 04:06:58 AM
The ape (I mean that as a statement about man and not you) thinks itself far more important than it truly is.
We were bred to work by hundreds of millions of years of evolution... this idea that we shouldn't need to work to live and have the ability to make it so is younger than our average life span. I am all for work becoming easier and necessities coming free... but any luxuries (more than the most basic of food or roof over your head) should require work because...again... that's what we were bred for. One day these support system will fall and if humanity is so dependent on them... what then?
who are you calling an ape :38:
we were bred to do many things. but society expect us to behave, a little differently, from, how our ancestors used to behave million or hell even a thousand years ago.
a luxury like going somewhere and eating out once a month, would make a lot of people happier. it is not really a luxury in my opinion. its a necessity for a happy life (well most of the time). and happiness for the majority of people would make much more stable and happy society.
luxury like owning a yacht or plane. yeah, work for that. but while owning car could be considered luxury, in that case the public transport should be so good that one shouldn't really require it.
in Germany, owning a car or a bike is a luxury like.
in Pakistan, its a basic necessity. could we travel without cars there, sure, but i will eventually go on murderous rampage. and then PR will will come here and you know ... :confused:
Quote from: Shiranu on December 18, 2015, 04:06:58 AM
One day these support system will fall and if humanity is so dependent on them... what then?
if the system fall, we will have serious problems today too. we will just have to have some backup plans. the system we have today isn't perfect either so i think we can manage.
Humans aren't sentient. Why do you think that a machine can be sentient? The idea that a machine can be sentient, is proof enough that one is not sentient ... at least sufficiently that it makes any difference. And according to physics, we are machines. Let us join the PofTA mutants in worshipping the Holy Bomb.
Ah yes, u-topia aka no-place. Feel the burn of the logical contradiction, while proclaiming what a rationalist one is. Again proof of un-sentience.
Political-economics (as it is properly called) shows that politics and economics are inseparable. Again proof of un-sentience.
The idea that the upper class will suddenly behave differently than they have for the last 5000 years. What is insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again, even though it doesn't work. Again proof of un-sentience.
The goal is to have robot domestics ... so that you can't even work for the 1% as a domestic. They don't like you, they don't want to employ you.
Yes, merge the human with the machine ... cyborgs ... won't it be fun to robotize your wife ... we don't like our spouse or our children either. Such sentience we have.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 18, 2015, 04:06:58 AM
The ape (I mean that as a statement about man and not you) thinks itself far more important than it truly is.
We were bred to work by hundreds of millions of years of evolution... this idea that we shouldn't need to work to live and have the ability to make it so is younger than our average life span. I am all for work becoming easier and necessities coming free... but any luxuries (more than the most basic of food or roof over your head) should require work because...again... that's what we were bred for. One day these support system will fall and if humanity is so dependent on them... what then?
You already answered this, with the TEDx of the guy from Thailand. There is no future for technological society. Just a few villagers living naturally, working 2 hours per day max. But that requires enlightenment. There is no enlightenment in technological society. All Eloi, no Morlocks.
We should have to work for some things sure. but if there are no jobs available then what? Be poor and miserable for the rest of life. Or how bout just die? Once androids become a thing humans will be obsolete. And why the hell would androids want to work just to support us? So there would have to be some human jobs left. Probably mandated by law like the minorities thing. You have to employ x amount of humans or some such. And then humans will be paid less than androids because lets face it, we are slow and week, and stupid by comparison.
It's interesting but I guess we will cross that bridge when we get there. It may be scary but we will get there. People are working on it as we speak. But I digress.
I think we are already having job and economic problems so we may self destruct before that comes.
Quote from: doorknob on December 18, 2015, 10:53:50 AM
We should have to work for some things sure. but if there are no jobs available then what? Be poor and miserable for the rest of life. Or how bout just die? Once androids become a thing humans will be obsolete. And why the hell would androids want to work just to support us? So there would have to be some human jobs left. Probably mandated by law like the minorities thing. You have to employ x amount of humans or some such. And then humans will be paid less than androids because lets face it, we are slow and week, and stupid by comparison.
It's interesting but I guess we will cross that bridge when we get there. It may be scary but we will get there. People are working on it as we speak. But I digress.
I think we are already having job and economic problems so we may self destruct before that comes.
the thing is we are going that way.
Far before robots start asking 'who am i?', we will be using machines to replace most of the human labor force. Agriculture, markets, finance, transport, and many more. only jobs requiring creativity will be safe. everything else, machine can do. including fixing your appliance or maybe even helping you in legal issues. Most of these issues can be solved without "Artificial intelligence".
so most of the people will be unemployed in that world. so something must be done to keep them busy and peaceful.
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2015, 07:30:19 AM
Humans aren't sentient. Why do you think that a machine can be sentient? The idea that a machine can be sentient, is proof enough that one is not sentient ... at least sufficiently that it makes any difference. And according to physics, we are machines. Let us join the PofTA mutants in worshipping the Holy Bomb.
Ah yes, u-topia aka no-place. Feel the burn of the logical contradiction, while proclaiming what a rationalist one is. Again proof of un-sentience.
Political-economics (as it is properly called) shows that politics and economics are inseparable. Again proof of un-sentience.
The idea that the upper class will suddenly behave differently than they have for the last 5000 years. What is insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again, even though it doesn't work. Again proof of un-sentience.
The goal is to have robot domestics ... so that you can't even work for the 1% as a domestic. They don't like you, they don't want to employ you.
Yes, merge the human with the machine ... cyborgs ... won't it be fun to robotize your wife ... we don't like our spouse or our children either. Such sentience we have.
Other than me, i can't say for sure that anything else is 'sentient'.
I have "the ability to feel, perceive, or experience", i don't know whether other can do that. or are simply following a well written program to trick me, or a borg like creature with nested minds, with only me being awake. or maybe even i am not real. just think that i am :shocked:
"The idea that the upper class will suddenly behave differently than they have for the last 5000 years. What is insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again, even though it doesn't work."
they might not like us. but they might like us to be peaceful and good looking.
afterall they can't garentee that their children won't like us, after watching so much TV. better to be safe than sorry.
You bring up an interesting point how ever, artists are a dime a dozen. It's one of the reasons I didn't pursue my dream of being an artist. So that's not really a good option.
I have a feeling there will be a civil war where people are litterally fighting for their lives. As the rich get rid of welfare and they are! They take away the middle class jobs and make every one poor. With minimum wages being raised to a so called "livable" wage but middle class jobs are not being raised! Soon the two will be equivocal. Not saying that poor people don't deserve to be paid a livable wage they absolutely do. But the rich only raise prices so their piggy bank doesn't get hurt. The government should force the powers that be to pay their employees fair wages out of their own bank account! They can afford it! No one else can!
If a small percentage of people would stop hogging all the resources there would be no problem.
Quote from: doorknob on December 18, 2015, 11:31:54 AM
You bring up an interesting point how ever, artists are a dime a dozen. It's one of the reasons I didn't pursue my dream of being an artist. So that's not really a good option.
in the world i speak of, i think artist will value little bit higher than today. hopefully.
o and not just artists. i was talking about people who have to find creative solutions or stuffs like that. doctors, designers,
these people will be safe. but other occupations which follow some sort of steps or procedures, these jobs can be taken over by computer programs. like Accountant or mechanic.
Quote from: doorknob on December 18, 2015, 11:31:54 AM
I have a feeling there will be a civil war where people are litterally fighting for their lives. As the rich get rid of welfare and they are! They take away the middle class jobs and make every one poor. With minimum wages being raised to a so called "livable" wage but middle class jobs are not being raised! Soon the two will be equivocal. Not saying that poor people don't deserve to be paid a livable wage they absolutely do. But the rich only raise prices so their piggy bank doesn't get hurt. The government should force the powers that be to pay their employees fair wages out of their own bank account! They can afford it! No one else can!
If a small percentage of people would stop hogging all the resources there would be no problem.
that is the issue. if the rich want to be safe. want to live in great society.
or do they want to live with high towering walls and 24 hours securities. and when ever they leave those walls they have to be surrounded by security guards.
think of it like this, would a billionaire be happier in USA or Pakistan.
if the rich want to have a good life in a stable society, WE need to be happy and non violent.
Quote from: stromboli on December 16, 2015, 09:53:56 PM
You are assuming that we build something and give it the capacity to become an independent thinker and then don't let it? If something is designed and built to a purpose it is used for that purpose. Building something to all on its own become independent, would imply the understanding that it would do so.
This exactly. Slave implies the denial of rights and dignity to an equal sentient being. A robot is by definition a machine -- this is what made Asimov's robot stories so different: Karel Capek aside, he was pretty much the first writer to treat robots as an industrial product rather than the creation of a mad genius, and he was the first one to posit built-in controls to permit reasonably abstract thought without full free will.
If and when robots become commonplace, this is how it will happen: as industrial products. And corporations aren't going to produce anything that even remotely has the chance of thinking for itself.
Most people aren't aware it was Capek that invented the word/term robot. From his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)
Asimov defined the 3 laws of robotics. Both are still considered the standard-name/behavior. Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep) explored the concept of sentience and the humanity-or lack of it- with how we treated an android or semi sentient species. The idea that an android could be built to kill and given the right circumstances find justification to do so comes from there. I think Blade Runner should be required reading for every human being on the planet.
All that said, it still comes back to what capabilities we give an autonomous device to function separate from human control- Mars Rover, albeit a robot in terms of functionality, does not have independent decision making that I am aware of. And again, to assume that an android has the capability of reaching independent thought and self awareness implies that it was given that capability.
I can see a scenario similar to Skynet in Terminator or the Matrix in that a vast intelligence gathering/collecting system that has disseminating/decision making capability could, given sufficient memory and independence, become self aware and make decisions. But we are talking about a vast net of independent systems given the ability to do so and left to its own devices. The key being given the ability to do so. Yes, it could theoretically happen, but meeting green men in my bathroom next Tuesday could also theoretically happen. My personal belief is the likelihood of it is vanishingly small at best.
If green men show up in my bathroom next Tuesday I will let you know.
Quote from: stromboli on December 23, 2015, 09:47:38 AM
Most people aren't aware it was Capek that invented the word/term robot. From his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)
I quite like ÄŒapek; I first read R.U.R. when I was 12 and was quite fascinated. Later, I heard a BBC Radio production of his
War with the Newts that was also excellent. I really need to get a copy of the original novel.
Quote from: stromboli on December 23, 2015, 09:47:38 AM
Asimov defined the 3 laws of robotics. Both are still considered the standard-name/behavior. Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep) explored the concept of sentience and the humanity-or lack of it- with how we treated an android or semi sentient species. The idea that an android could be built to kill and given the right circumstances find justification to do so comes from there. I think Blade Runner should be required reading for every human being on the planet.
All that said, it still comes back to what capabilities we give an autonomous device to function separate from human control- Mars Rover, albeit a robot in terms of functionality, does not have independent decision making that I am aware of. And again, to assume that an android has the capability of reaching independent thought and self awareness implies that it was given that capability.
I can see a scenario similar to Skynet in Terminator or the Matrix in that a vast intelligence gathering/collecting system that has disseminating/decision making capability could, given sufficient memory and independence, become self aware and make decisions. But we are talking about a vast net of independent systems given the ability to do so and left to its own devices. The key being given the ability to do so. Yes, it could theoretically happen, but meeting green men in my bathroom next Tuesday could also theoretically happen. My personal belief is the likelihood of it is vanishingly small at best.
If green men show up in my bathroom next Tuesday I will let you know.
Asimov's Three Laws were an interesting first stab, but I've always thought they require genuine sentience in order to be able to process them, except in the most simple situations.
The Mars rovers are semi-autonomous, and have decision-making ability under certain circumstances. I wouldn't call what they do any level of intelligence since it's all programmatic, though I recall that Carl Sagan likened the expected level of intelligence of a rover to be anywhere between a bacterium and a grasshopper. They certainly have enough autonomous action that I would consider them robots rather than mere waldoes -- and really, they do have the functional equivalent of the Second and Third Laws of Robotics built into them. It 'knows' how much of a grade is too steep for it and would present a risk of knocking it over, and avoids them: that's Third Law. It accepts new programming and new targets: that's Second Law. First Law is unnecessary since the only harm it could do would be to deliberately refuse to accept orders and return data, and that takes a great deal more self-awareness than any of the rovers have.
AI of course is to computer science as fusion generators are to physics -- no matter when you are, they're always twenty to fifty years in the future (in fairness, I think physicists are closer to fusion power than programmers are to AI). And the Turing Test is no longer really a good test for sentience: language parsing is near or even at the point that a computer with a sufficiently deep database could simulate holding a conversation. Certainly they can "understand" natural language -- you can type a full grammatical question into Google, and get sensible search results.
I'm not sure that AI is even the goal anymore -- just better parsing of natural language and better recognition of the local environment and how to interact with it in a complex but programmatic way.
Quote from: stromboli on December 23, 2015, 09:47:38 AM
Most people aren't aware
Yeah, truer words were never spoken!
:13:
Well meant utopia will turn out to be inhuman dystopia with alarming regularity, usually with mountains of corpses.
Quote from: doorknob on December 18, 2015, 11:31:54 AM
You bring up an interesting point how ever, artists are a dime a dozen. It's one of the reasons I didn't pursue my dream of being an artist. So that's not really a good option.
I have a feeling there will be a civil war where people are litterally fighting for their lives. As the rich get rid of welfare and they are! They take away the middle class jobs and make every one poor. With minimum wages being raised to a so called "livable" wage but middle class jobs are not being raised! Soon the two will be equivocal. Not saying that poor people don't deserve to be paid a livable wage they absolutely do. But the rich only raise prices so their piggy bank doesn't get hurt. The government should force the powers that be to pay their employees fair wages out of their own bank account! They can afford it! No one else can!
If a small percentage of people would stop hogging all the resources there would be no problem.
I wanted to be an artist too when I was pre-HS. But I figured it would never pay, and after I heard about Van Gough, it might even be dangerous ;-( The arts don't pay, aside from a few super-stars. Like most professional sports. The entertainment business (and sports is entertainment) is the prototype for all economics ... a few super-stars at the top and most of us waiting tables, waiting to be discovered ;-)) I will never be a 7 ft tall African-American ... so I can forget about the NBA.
CloneKai ... the goal is to live like Sultan Akbar of the Mughal Empire. Peasants? That is what the army is for ... to make sure the peasants know who is boss. If one has to keep up a regiment of war elephants ... one will have a need for resources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbuM0aJjVgE
Quote from: trdsf on December 23, 2015, 01:58:33 PM
I quite like ÄŒapek; I first read R.U.R. when I was 12 and was quite fascinated. Later, I heard a BBC Radio production of his War with the Newts that was also excellent. I really need to get a copy of the original novel.
Asimov's Three Laws were an interesting first stab, but I've always thought they require genuine sentience in order to be able to process them, except in the most simple situations.
The Mars rovers are semi-autonomous, and have decision-making ability under certain circumstances. I wouldn't call what they do any level of intelligence since it's all programmatic, though I recall that Carl Sagan likened the expected level of intelligence of a rover to be anywhere between a bacterium and a grasshopper. They certainly have enough autonomous action that I would consider them robots rather than mere waldoes -- and really, they do have the functional equivalent of the Second and Third Laws of Robotics built into them. It 'knows' how much of a grade is too steep for it and would present a risk of knocking it over, and avoids them: that's Third Law. It accepts new programming and new targets: that's Second Law. First Law is unnecessary since the only harm it could do would be to deliberately refuse to accept orders and return data, and that takes a great deal more self-awareness than any of the rovers have.
AI of course is to computer science as fusion generators are to physics -- no matter when you are, they're always twenty to fifty years in the future (in fairness, I think physicists are closer to fusion power than programmers are to AI). And the Turing Test is no longer really a good test for sentience: language parsing is near or even at the point that a computer with a sufficiently deep database could simulate holding a conversation. Certainly they can "understand" natural language -- you can type a full grammatical question into Google, and get sensible search results.
I'm not sure that AI is even the goal anymore -- just better parsing of natural language and better recognition of the local environment and how to interact with it in a complex but programmatic way.
I read "War With The Newts" about the same age. It was from an old library in a country town, an original copy. I've also had my hands on an original copy of "The Hobbit" with Tolkien's illustrations in pristine condition but couldn't figure out a way to steal it. I wanted it bad enough to.
I expect the main thing we might have to fear in this regard is the development of autonomous weapon systems. (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/autonomous-weapon-systems-the-militarys-smartest-toys-11708)
Fully Autonomous Weapons Fact Sheet (http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/7972-fully-autonomous-weapons)
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 24, 2015, 02:16:04 PM
I expect the main thing we might have to fear in this regard is the development of autonomous weapon systems. (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/autonomous-weapon-systems-the-militarys-smartest-toys-11708)
Fully Autonomous Weapons Fact Sheet (http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/7972-fully-autonomous-weapons)
We want autonomous weapons ... because we don't like responsibility. Not the politicians or generals anyway ;-(