Can robots ever be at par with humans

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 04, 2004 at 10:53

Every human process can be replicated in a robot…..logically thinking. Imagine would a robot ever feel?

68 Replies

Please log in or register to post a reply.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 04, 2004 at 13:26

Every human process can be replicated in a robot…..

i doubt it…
seriously, it’s terrible that the image humans have of themselves is more and more that of a (highly complex) machine. i’m not saying that i know it’s wrong but it’s far from being a fact

357c7b2935ccd2cb0913717186684394
0
JSoftware 101 Jul 04, 2004 at 18:11

take humor.. we don’t know even what it is! i can’t realize that we can make robots understand humor when we don’t understand it ourself

E05263ec846eb85da803f56e2917962d
0
Noor 101 Jul 04, 2004 at 18:40

I, Robot :)

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 04, 2004 at 19:28

imo you can describe many aspects of humans in a way that might be reproduced by machines. but i fail to see how you could ever build a machine that, for example, has self consciousness

2562953b4e8e2602a8bfc24b1123a341
0
EvilSmile 101 Jul 05, 2004 at 02:53

Reminds me of `Cal’ (a short story by Asimov). Please do read it if you could.

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 06, 2004 at 05:02

Let me try and explain what i mean. Talking about feeling, if u analyse what they actually are , in terms of the processes taking place in the body,we could relate them to some reactions or movements of the neurons in the brain.
In terms of technology(when it does reach that state), replicating these movements might someday be possible.Practically speaking it seems really tough.But it could anyday happen! :rolleyes:

2b97deded6213469bcd87b65cce5d014
0
Mihail121 102 Jul 06, 2004 at 06:59

Of course they can! It’s just matter of time and progress. And at my opinion you don’t need to create complex neutron network devices since a slightly modified human brain should also do the job fine. You just have to connect it and voila! Of course it’s easier said than done but one never knows what will happen in the future!

P.S.
Wait if ‘something’ is using a human brain, then it’s not completely a robot, right ?

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 06, 2004 at 09:20

Wait if ‘something’ is using a human brain, then it’s not completely a robot, right ?

who knows… we know little about how we work and there are other centers like the solarplexus in our body that have a great influence on how we feel and behave (the saying that you can “feel it in your guts” doesn’t come from nowhere). “connecting the brain”, as you put it, might be a very tough job since the brain will expect all the input from the body and it’s questionable that you will be able to simulate that.

Of course they can! It’s just matter of time and progress.

let me reiterate : we don’t know shit about how we work. even assuming that we can understand ourselves has no basis today. besides, this assumption conflicts with any spiritual concept we ever developed.

read “computer power and human reason” by joseph weizenbaum (MIT legend, the guy who wrote ELIZA)

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 08, 2004 at 03:06

let me reiterate : we don’t know shit about how we work. even assuming that we can understand ourselves has no basis today. besides, this assumption conflicts with any spiritual concept we ever developed.

Its not true that we dont even know how we work.Talking about spirituality, we come across these ideas as we grow up, learning from the surroundings. When we say that we r trying to create or rather imagine a robot that would kind of be a replica of a human being first thing we gotto to take in mind is that it would be able to learn from the surroundings. This is also how one robot could be different than the other.

Mihail121:

The idea of connecting to the brain seems quite tough, cause hear we are considering the separation of a particular part from a whole interdependent system. Talking purely in terms of ‘making’ every part of the robot, the study and the working of neurons in the brain seems inevitable.

Anubis:
The feeling ‘from the gut’, will also be a kind of activity of neurons or say secretion of somekind of hormones/juices. It would boil down to a single process. I dont see why that couldnt be replicated

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 08, 2004 at 07:35

The feeling ‘from the gut’, will also be a kind of activity of neurons

that was much more of a statement about the interdependency between the body and the brain…

Its not true that we dont even know how we work

right, we know some things but in general we still know very little about how the brain works at all. part of the problem is that it’s hard to conduct experiments on a living brain. so most of the experiments that are done reduce themselves to finding out which regions of the brain get used during certain actions or sensations.
a good example are these dumb devices we construct were you can concentrate on a left field and a cursor will move to the right while if you concentrate on the right field it will move to the right. we know that if a person thinks “left” hard ebough some region in the brain gets activated. fine. but how useful is a machine that requires me to think in a way that the machine can understand ? we don’t understand at all what happens in the brain when we think “left” except for the fact that some electro magnetic pattern arises.

The feeling ‘from the gut’, will also be a kind of activity of neurons or say secretion of somekind of hormones/juices.

to get back to this sentence… just because chemicals can induce emotions that doesn’t mean at all that emotions are fully described by mere interaction of these chemicals. for example : if we would for one second assume that there is a soul stuck in us it makes sense to assume that it is directly affected by the processes in our body.

personally i’m offended by the modern way of science to exclude everything from reality that we can’t express in formal laws that our brains can understand and i would be more than amused to see that it’s ourselves we can’t press into that narrow scientific view upon the world

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 09, 2004 at 15:35

but how useful is a machine that requires me to think in a way that the machine can understand ?

i m sorry, i didnt get what u meant

Not knowing the working of the brain might be true if thought of literally………i hope u r getting what i mean.See when talk of a robot that would be at par with a human being, i m not talking of us humans programming everything into the robot. What we r to do is make a robot capable to learn, for that we require the basic process of things going on inside the brain and the study of processes that trigger various reactions. That is definately possible…….to an extent i agree with u that as studyng the brain is tough……..not impossible ( that might very efficiently happen whrn bio tech or bio med eng advances to that level)…..so it might be easier to study the roots than the actual process .

i would be more than amused to see that it’s ourselves we can’t press into that narrow scientific view upon the world

what do u mean?

Also when i m talikng of robots at par with human beings , it is about being parallel and not the same .humans will never be equal to robots or vice versa , it is about ‘living’ parallel lives with interactions due to the intersection of the surroundings in each case.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 10, 2004 at 07:02

Every human process can be replicated in a robot…..

Also when i m talking of robots at par with human beings , it is about being parallel and not the same

contradiction ?
do you want robots that mimic human behaviour or do you want robots that actually feel and think and could be thought of as equal to human beings ?

What we r to do is make a robot capable to learn, for that we require the basic process of things going on inside the brain and the study of processes that trigger various reactions

it took evolution billions of years to produce todays animals including us. so where do you start ? with the complexity of the brain a baby has ? a dog ?

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 11, 2004 at 10:50

Let me clear myself.
I m talking of robots that THINK AND LEARN BY THEMSELVES which can be considered equal to human beings.

Evolution has taken place for yrs together. We start with a human being only…… not necessary a baby…… all we need to know how the process of learning and thinking happens. The way, as of today we have been able to create light , sound or touch sensitive robots; in the same manner we could create a robot that picks up from the surrounding .ie using all senses and learn from it.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 11, 2004 at 12:11

true. but a a baby can only learn to talk, walk, go to the toilet or eat with a fork and a knive because it already has a highly complex brain that allows it to learn these things. we are born with the ability to learn a language. we are born with the ability to walk some day. it’s our nature because we have the needed structures in our brain (which is why a dog will never talk and a chimp will never solve differential equations).

creating a machine that has these learning abilites might probably be not much easier than rebuilding the brain of an adult

btw, what you are proposing isn’t at all new. MIT and other universities have such machines… or had them. these projects had their time back in the 70’s when they AI hype was big. today AI development is more about designing autonomous agents (like a robot moving through a room and cleaning it while avoiding all obstacles or wheelchairs that help disabled people to avoid obstacles)

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 11, 2004 at 16:11

btw, what you are proposing isn’t at all new

I m aware of it…..that what i m proposing ia not altogether new. But as long as i know they have never had robots which could feel things emotionwise or robots that could be human like, they are working on similar concepts now and there are proper scientists also debating as to whether a robot could ever feel.

As of autonomous agents, i would consider it to be a step towards creating a HUMANLIKE robot; things like avoiding obstacles are the part of the processes a human brain does. May be we could call it as, what the research now a days is going on about or the designing taking place are very small fragments what a a humanlike robot would be.

I dont know if u r eamiliar with hardcore problems in math eg:combinatorics in those kinds of problems we bvreak it down into parts and proceed and at times what happens is that it becomes extremely tough to relate those minute parts of the solved problem………probably in the near future we might head for this kind of a problem with robots!

Building a machine having learning capacities of a brainmight not be any easy………may be …….but again as i was saying, replicating the various mechanisms rather than the ACTUAL process eg:neuron movements may be to an extent easier. To clarify myself; in say org chem we study various mechanisms rather than the actual attacking of the given compound on the other - simplifying it.

When we are born we are not meant to learn a language in particular, its just that we have the ability to pick up those things cause thats whats there in our surroundings.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 11, 2004 at 20:27

When we are born we are not meant to learn a language in particular

no. we aren’t born with the ability to walk either. and if you teach a baby to walk like a dog it probably will. none the less a child wants to walk at some point in order to explore the world. the same thing goes for speach. it doesn’t matter if you teach a child a language or if you teach it to wave with it’s feet and hands but it is born with the desire and ability to comunicate. on the other hand you won’t find your kid suddenly communicating by telepathy, simply because we are not born with the ability to do that.

6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Jul 12, 2004 at 04:57

actually, anubis, we know quite good how humans work. the ONLY issue we have is complexity, means, we’re not capable of doing the whole work of a human body in realtime (but we can’t simulate anything 100% in realtime.. we can only approx).

human life, animal life, plant life. feelings, movement, logic, behaviour, is all very controllable and understandable.

oh, and, it helps to know how feelings work. makes you.. feel bether.. if you feel bad. sort of :D

nature isn’t difficult, nor magic. it’s very simple, and easy. thats the beauty of it. the very simple rules that exist created the most complex thing any human being, any being at all, can ever be part of. a very impressive thing.

oh, and, about being on par.

i know tons of robots that can beat me, it just depends on what. a robot that 1:1 replaces humans is a dump robot imho. but we have tons of robots today, that are just here to be bether than us, a.k.a. to help us where we can’t get a job done nicely.

i don’t believe much in human-replacers. more in enhancers, that team up with us.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 12, 2004 at 06:43

a robot that 1:1 replaces humans is a dumb robot imho

yeah, who would want a robot complaining about his wages or demanding better social security :)

actually, anubis, we know quite good how humans work.

afaik, they have problems understanding the brains of flys…

the ONLY issue we have is complexity, means, we’re not capable of doing the whole work of a human body in realtime

you sound like every part of the brain is SO well understood and that it’s just a matter of reaching a certain complexity in our simulation capabilites. bullpies to that !

human life, animal life, plant life. feelings, movement, logic, behaviour, is all very controllable and understandable

i’d like to see your proof for that. just because it seems simple to you doesn’t mean it is

6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Jul 12, 2004 at 11:01

all structures are well understood and simple. it’s just, they all work together, and influence each other. and this, by today, is, even in case of a fly, out of our control.

thats why we can’t understand a fly-brain. not because it’s something strange, magic. the rules, with wich it works, we know, we can identify each component exactly, and what the part does. but we can NOT understand, and work with the whole brain at once. we can’t get up to that complexity, it’s much over our head, and computing-simulation-power.

it’s similar to chess, understanding the rules is easy. winning against a master is near to impossible. you know the rules. you _should_ know how to win. why don’t you? … same reason we can’t really use the knowledge we yet have. thinking on the whole isn’t doable. but we can correctly identify each component, and what it does, on it’s own.

proof? you know drugs yourself… :D there’s tons of proof out there. medicine, sports, all the stuff, that has to do with our body. it’s all just about how it reacts on different situations, influences.

we know the human brain about as good as you, and i can program c/c++. quite good, we know about all we need to, and can read all sort of code. the same way, we can read info in a brain today, easily. we can see the “brain-code” of your fly.

but even while we can read source-code, i’m not capable of reading the whole windows XP source, or the full linux source, and simply “go in there, and fix some problems”.

and THATS nature. a human body is not billions of lines of code to read. it’s sorta billion billions. while we can understand it’s behaviour, we can not control that mass at once. not anytime soon.

and i still don’t want robots to take our job on being “the dump-ass of the world” :D

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 12, 2004 at 11:11

and i still don’t want robots to take our job on being “the dump-ass of the world”

nah, we do a pretty good job at that.

i guess it doesn’t make much sense to debate believes here… so let’s stick to the original topic. ..
robocop : did you ever take a course in cognitive ai ?

6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Jul 13, 2004 at 06:47

actually, i’m not talking much about believes. but i have no links, as i learned that with proof, and books, and such. yeah, i was quite a bit into biology, and the big “what’s life?” issue.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 13, 2004 at 12:29

i was quite a bit into biology, and the big “what’s life?” issue

you can’t take science(here biology) as a proof that science(here biology) is valid… science explains only our percieved reality and forms it into thought modells we can understand. this however is no proof at all that there isn’t more to reality than the part we can percieve, neither does it proof that we are able to understand all parts of nature as soon as our scientific aproach to nature reaches a certain level of complexity

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 13, 2004 at 18:16

anubis: though i have not taken a course in cognitive ai , i have read about it

I dont understand how has the discussion moved to biology and stuff. anyway taliking about a capacity of a child to explore the world; the same yearning to learn from the surrounding can be developed into a robot.A baby might not be born with the ability to do particular function but it learns from various actions in the surroundings.Say none of the senses are there; then there wont be any learning;similarly in a robot it will be our job to c that there are openings and there is a programming that takes input and learns.

all structures are well understood and simple. it’s just, they all work together, and influence each other.

all structures are being understood they are not yet known. Them working together isnt a problem. Its just about first creating or replicating various actions carried out by a human as simple multiple programs.

Human body is a complicated machine agreed, but it is a Machine. From my point of view creating replicas of all different functions- mechanism like may be tough and also joining them may not be that simple but we could definately have it happen. May be something like triggering a reaction and it continues on its own

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 13, 2004 at 19:37

Human body is a complicated machine agreed, but it is a Machine

what makes you think so ?

6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Jul 13, 2004 at 20:40

the simple rule of math, sience, and logic: until you can prove wrong, and everything hints its right, it is right.

i can be wrong. then again, we can be wrong in EVERYTHING. but in the reality we life, given the ‘facts’ that we can see on our own, and live with, the human body is a machine.

actually, no, it isn’t :D it is a complex reaction. thats all it is. a machine is a “tool that helps to solve a certain task faster, where physically, you, as a human (or other lifeform), are inable to do it. it is built by you”.

well.. a human is only a machine in the form that it is produced by you (hehe.. it requires two to produce one human:D), and it will help you to survive longer in the future, do to it’s payments in your age. well, it happened to be like that :D but the ‘machines’ got outa control!

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 13, 2004 at 21:34

the simple rule of math, sience, and logic: until you can prove wrong, and everything hints its right, it is right.

if humans worked that way, religions would have never existed… face it the world is always only what we believe it to be.

i can be wrong. then again, we can be wrong in EVERYTHING. but in the reality we life, given the ‘facts’ that we can see on our own

i’m not saying that what science knows about the human body is wrong. probably we are assuming wrong things that might get corrected in the future. so i’m not on the what if science was wrong line. most of the things we invent seem to at least work :) i’m just pointing out that science acts as if it had a wholesome theory about the universe and that everything can get epxressed in a mathematic context, which is not the case. science is just another set of believes we choose to obey and devote our lives to. it’s really not that different. the priests of the old days were just replaced by scientists who preach the new religion

every human quest to unriddle the the mysteries of the universe reminds me of the story about that guy who lost his keys and searches them under a light at the side of the street allthough he lost them somewhere completely else. finally someone asks him why he’s doing that and he responds : why ? i can see better under the light.

sure we’ll find a lot of interesting and absolutely true things under the light. the question is. will we find our keys ?

6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Jul 13, 2004 at 22:41

i don’t care about the way sience behaves. i care about how sience works. it works the same way every human explores his life (at least, in child age), and how every human defines his own right and wrong. science only tries to define a global true and false, based on common local impressions on true and false.

if they do this with stupid marketing, and hyping, today, then i can say, who doesn’t? nvidia does, intel does, even politics do.

centuries ago, they all hyped in form of being the religious thing itself.. today we try to “sell ideas”.

thats just the way of life.

but that doesn’t affect what science does. and real scientists are well avare that all rules that science has written down can by tomorrow be defined false. with just one proof.

6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Jul 13, 2004 at 22:43

science never will find a “why”. nor will we ever.

it can only detect some normally happening rules, and explain some behaviour based on it.

but the general why will never be answered. well, not by humans by theselfes, at least. possibly one day one will explain that whole to us. but we will not be able to do it ourselfes.

i guess..

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 14, 2004 at 10:13

Machine is defined as an intricate organization that accomplishes its goals efficiently. Hence a Human being is a machine.
Science is best studied with experience, it is not rigid it changes from time to time. Its like we discover new things about ourselves everyday.Similarly if we are creating a robot that has various replicated processes of a human then it would also learn new things about the world and itself everyday. Machine learning things about itself might not be possible, if v are the creators of machine then we can keep updating the robot everyday.
I agree it might be possible that everything we know today is wrong.But the fact is it might be wrong if the frame of reference is tomorrow or even attimes yesterday. But when the frame of reference is consideed to be today then it is right.

Getting back to the original topic….of humans and robots. Emotions might be easier to replicate rather than other basic processess; there are studies being done that emotions are directectly related to intelligence. So it is more likely a robot will cry than he probably going around talking to people

6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Jul 14, 2004 at 10:34

@robocop

Machine is defined as an intricate organization that accomplishes its goals efficiently. Hence a Human being is a machine.

I don’t get this logic.. :D

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 14, 2004 at 13:16

Machine is defined as an intricate organization that accomplishes its goals efficiently. Hence a Human being is a machine

we are not speaking here about the definition of machine. you gave human’s the attribute “reproducable” (yeah, i know about the naughty way…) in terms of engeneering and i think that’s what’s being discussed here

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 15, 2004 at 02:23

I don’t get this logic..

I dont see why you dont get the logic. This might help, here we are sticking to basics of science and technology! :)

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 15, 2004 at 02:27

Have you ever had a look at www.ai-forum.org. If not, have a look some of the topics and stuff are really interesting!

6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Jul 15, 2004 at 07:00

well.. humans are not made to accomplish a task efficiently. thats what they created robots for:D

i don’t know of any task humans are made for. we just exist. and thats the onyl purpose of us

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 15, 2004 at 08:20

ok, let’s just assume it was possible. i don’t think anybody would want to build a robot that features actual emotions. maybe one that mimics them so that we feel comfortable talking to it. think about a robot that has emotions, including greed, that decides to get power hungry

065f0635a4c94d685583c20132a4559d
0
Ed_Mack 101 Jul 15, 2004 at 12:46

I think that it is hard to define Science as a religion. Yes, people some put more faith into it than others, but the core principle of science differs from that of say Christianity.

Science is purely created by the itch man has to understand things, and the facts it puts forward are validated in clear, logical fashion - one would not argue that most plants do not contain chlorophyll. Whereas religions are often the reminants of a once much more powerful control tool eg the great crusades, egyption slavery ect. They often provide ‘facts’ that do not have any hard evidence and require faith in the true sense of the word.

I think it’s not Science’s aim to give the answer to the ‘why’ as that’s more in the realm of philosophy than hard facts.

you gave human’s the attribute “reproducable” (yeah, i know about the naughty way…) in terms of engeneering and i think that’s what’s being discussed here

Taking that argument further, from the perspective of early man, a watch wouldn’t be reproducable therefore not a machine. If you look at the bigger picture, we will eventually be producable.

I think my main problem with [mainstream] religions is the concept and practical implications of Souls.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 15, 2004 at 13:53

Taking that argument further, from the perspective of early man, a watch wouldn’t be reproducable therefore not a machine

but it is nevertheless possible to produce a watch by technical means. it’s worth a discussion if that applys to humans as well.

I think my main problem with [mainstream] religions is the concept and practical implications of Souls.

what bothers you about it ? the idea that there might be a soul makes my death the most interesting moment in my life :D

065f0635a4c94d685583c20132a4559d
0
Ed_Mack 101 Jul 15, 2004 at 15:08

but it is nevertheless possible to produce a watch by technical means. it’s worth a discussion if that applys to humans as well.

I hate to resort to what really amounts up to a buzzword right now, but the world of nano will hopefully change this :)

what bothers you about it?

It’s where it all fits in. Neuroscientiists can open you up, monitor with electrodes and watch stimuli pass between different areas, in the better studied areas they could give us a good idea of where it will go, what is happening. It looks to me as if our decisions are made by our brains - weighing up past knowledge, current stimuli - and then we take action upon the outcome. In my model, there just isn’t need nor room for a soul.

Other things that get me is how they come into being? Where does it interface to the brain. Where do they reside (4th spatial dimension). How can a dog or chimp exhibit all the same qualities as us, yet not have a soul? Is god just specist ;) (question mountain today). The notion of a brain being a behemoth of a hardwired neuron soup makes a lot more sense, and doesn’t bring up questions that verge on the supernatural. IMHO, Religion has had a long history of opressing and forcing Science (book burning, geocentric universe model, joining brain to testes to transport soul during sex), and this is just one more extravagence.

On the subject of free will, I’m undecided. People’s actions never do seem of true free will - if it was so, it’d be very hard to predict anything. I suppose if quantum physics amounts to anything that can give the facility for true randomness in rinteractions inside our brains, but otherwise it’s pretty pre-determined.

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 15, 2004 at 16:55

think about a robot that has emotions, including greed, that decides to get power hungry

Ya when talking of a robot being at par with a human this might also happen. And just the way you deal with people; u deal with a robot in the same way.You are talking of greed and emotions that might make us feel harmed…….i would on the otherhand go to the extent and say that you might even have to console a robot and further u might c a robot consoling another robot. Why dont we feel harmed if a dog wants its own territory, similarly why should it harm us if a robot does become greedy ……u just gat to tackle it in a natural way.

well.. humans are not made to accomplish a task efficiently

okey for your better understanding, A human being an actual machine in the mind (like ordinary machinery), constructed out of mental mass and energy, that has been made by the individual to do work for him, usually having been set up so as to come into operation automatically under certain predetermined circumstances. Also a machine is something that uses mechanical energy to do any task…….we always do specific things is we eat or run or whatever ……in the case of a human being the range of tasks it can do is very big

Fdbdc4176840d77fe6a8deca457595ab
0
dk 158 Jul 16, 2004 at 19:00

@Vernor Vinge (1993)

Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.

Got this quote from here, which might be an interesting read:

http://yudkowsky.net/tmol-faq/tmol-faq.htm…ent_singularity

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 16, 2004 at 19:43

And just the way you deal with people; u deal with a robot in the same way

for one a robot can reproduce itself much quicker given the resources are available to him.
come on you don’t really believe that as soon as one robot starts to go postal many humans would object to destroy all robots of his type…
*insert dark matrix vision here*

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 17, 2004 at 09:58

come on you don’t really believe that as soon as one robot starts to go postal many humans would object to destroy all robots of his type…

What exactly are u trying to get at?

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 17, 2004 at 10:12

What exactly are u trying to get at?

that you wouldn’t handle robots the same way you would treat humans. if a robot killed a human it would always be seen as a flaw in it’s design and most likely all of his kind would be destroyed. when a human kills somebody in the worst case that one human gets executed but nobody sees it as a flaw in our own design. robots will never be like humans because they will remain our creations and we will treat them that way.
i’m sorry… this whole line of argument is already in the what would happen if we could construct robots that have emotions, etc. direction

It’s where it all fits in. Neuroscientiists can open you up, monitor with electrodes and watch stimuli pass between different areas, in the better studied areas they could give us a good idea of where it will go, what is happening. It looks to me as if our decisions are made by our brains - weighing up past knowledge, current stimuli - and then we take action upon the outcome. In my model, there just isn’t need nor room for a soul.

typical scientific view… you only look at what we can monitor and conclude that it’s the only thing there is to humans. that’s exactly what i meant with the guy only looking under the light for his keys…
for example : nobody today knows how self consciousness works and why we have it and other animals apparently don’t. as long as you can’t present a valid theory on that, and if you can you can already book your ticket to stockholm, the soul theory (whatever that might be… you don’t have to involve gods or magic here) has as much validity as yours.

i don’t care about the way sience behaves

good for you that you don’t care but i do

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 17, 2004 at 10:26

i guess my whole point revolves around “self consciousness”. i have not much doubt that we will construct robots that can perform all the tasks we do. they will walk, they will talk, etc. but, and that’s a big BUT, i have strong doubts that we will construct robots that have reflections about themselves, that are fully aware of themselves. they will remain “soulless” (soul being synonym with self consciousness) machines.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 17, 2004 at 12:55

i’m going to reword this.
i agree that humans to a certain extent are information processing machines. since we can reproduce arbitrary logical structures we can assume that the information processing parts of humans are reproducable as well. this however does not imply that every part of a human being can be epxressed as a process of taking data from the outside and producing some output. hence it is nor right to assume that every part of a human being can be artifically reproduced

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Jul 19, 2004 at 04:04

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/18/1915250

probably interesting for this discussion

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 19, 2004 at 15:37

Let me also try and convey my way of thinking about the self conciousness. What is self conciousness? I would put it as awareness of self when taken in consideration with the surroundings. There are places or times when we are uncomfortable and situations also when we are omfortable……how do these come about ; i believe it happens because there are certain things which we have never come across in our lives and seem extremely new to us …..so we find them uncomfortable. Also it could be explained as when a foreign body enters the private territory or a home zone it is at first always not welcome. This is because of the unawareness.

Now talking of self conciousness as in the gut feeling , there probably there is something inbuilt when we are born. I am not quite able to explain what i mwan to say, but i still believe that i agree that when we r born we have something in us , but it is only the way we r brought up that decides how will we respond to various situations.

Talking about looking for the key under the light; i dont think that it is a problem; as i have said earlier whatever we know about sci. in this discussion about human is true for us today , so if we sometime do discover nwe things we could update the robot.

Now about treating robots ; to an extent i agree with u that we would probably never be able to treat robots like human; but what i mean to say id tht i dont quite agree with it that if a robot makes a mistake it will be the human to blame; cause here we are talking about a robot which learns and grows up like a child and has its own intelligence and emotions. the blaming might be there at the extent of what a parent has to go thru when a child makes a mistake.

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 19, 2004 at 15:41

Also i still strongly believe tht everything we do or wht happens in our bodies was a kind of relation with the neuron movements in the brain. Even the self conciousness part included.
………….only problem that could probablt happen is that there is a possibility of the neuron movement being similar in certain diff circumstances, but that also can be differentiiated as it is not the same thing happening and will be different in some or the other way

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 21, 2004 at 03:22

I was going thru the laws of robotics, which clearly convey tht a robot has to stay in its limits. Even assuming that a robot like the kind i m saying is made there would be lots of fighting against the society to be done. There would be no guarantee tht a robot will follow its ethics as a human also forgets his own at times. This sounds as if i m contradicting myself. Yes i m!

Till now what we were trying to discuss was more on the technical part ie just whether a robot of that kind can be made or not; we never discussed as to the practical problems faced in such a existance.

Soul: I think u are right in this part a robot might never hae a soul; though it could have its morals or to an extent the ability of self-realisation.

Talking of emoting robots, they exist today and there is good amount of research being done on them………it seems it might take long; but someday robots will able to percieve as well as feel to a decent extent.

One more thing; as u were saying human being itself is a mystery- though what i believe is that when such a robot is created there should be enough space for upgradation in its system then it would be alright.

9ad30471312b0b26d5a64b510475128e
0
robocop 101 Jul 21, 2004 at 03:25

…..
If such a machine is ever made then the first thing that would have to be done is that we would have to bring the status of a robot higher from what it is now, in the minds of human beings

94cb346a3db618053acb616c005d1a12
0
LuciferX 101 Sep 16, 2004 at 06:54

“we don’t know shit about how we work”

This statement is not nessecarily true due to the fact that it is a gross understatement of how little we actually know about how we work.

Since it is like measuring a ruler’s lenth by using that same ruler, it is debatable if we can Ever objectivly see what we are and how we work.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Sep 16, 2004 at 13:22

reword : compared to the complexity of the brain we know very little about it. *points at self conciousnes*
strange… i missed that robocop led on this discussion after my last post… oh well… let’s get back at it, shall we ? :)

i think a major problem for robots, besides the fact that i’m still in heavy doubt about the pure technical side, is that we, as you pointed out, are heavily dependant on how we were brought up by our parents and our sourrounding. a simple example… it might very well be that our whole conception of taking and giving is based on the taking/giving act we experience in our first days when our mothers feed us (i’m not a psychologist and this is purely hypothetical). a robot will never have access to this kind of knowledge. it maybe won’t have a mouth to kiss like we do or won’t have hands that are capable of waving good bye. i hope you see what i’m trying to get at.

edit : to the previous poster… thanks for bringing this up again but was that all you had to add to this whole conversation ? in general you shouldn’t post in old threads (this time it is ok since the discussion just stopped for no good reason) and if you do it should be something that contributes to the discussion and not just a rehash of something that has already been said before

065f0635a4c94d685583c20132a4559d
0
Ed_Mack 101 Sep 16, 2004 at 15:13

Since it is like measuring a ruler’s lenth by using that same ruler, it is debatable if we can Ever objectivly see what we are and how we work.

It’s different if you have more than one ruler :) Or you brake the ruler in half.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Sep 16, 2004 at 15:30

Or you brake the ruler in half

yeah… i remember… mengele did a lot of that “ruler breaking”…

94cb346a3db618053acb616c005d1a12
0
LuciferX 101 Sep 16, 2004 at 19:41

I think anubis is right in many ways,

But one thing to consider is:
What if a machine can surpass humans, not by doing all that we do, but by NOT doing all that we do?

For instance if you were unable to program it to feel anger, would that make it less than human, or more? :nervous:

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Sep 16, 2004 at 19:52

that is totally possible. i’m not saying that we are supperior, just different. look at insects. you could argue that they are far more successful than we are

94cb346a3db618053acb616c005d1a12
0
LuciferX 101 Sep 21, 2004 at 07:53

Yes, it’s true, robots I think would behave much more like inscts. No emotions, no 15 minute breaks, just single-minded obsessive focus on accomplishing a certain task. Also [bees for instance] they have much better team work, I guess that’s where the term ‘Hive-mind’ comes from.

However, I do not believe that we will se an AI that has all the intricacies and flaws of the human mind. What I see forthcoming is an AI that can pass the Turing test, but is not actually intellegent. Like the Eliza program, which while not really AI, was built specifically to pass the Turing AI test.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Sep 21, 2004 at 12:06

yeah… that’s exactly how i see it and it fits the current trend. we try to build robots that mimic us not robots that are like us. like walking… we don’t build them with our kind of sense for balance we just build robots that are able to walk, no matter how. same will go for behaviour. only because we will try to build machines that mimic our ways won’t mean that they are intelligent

94cb346a3db618053acb616c005d1a12
0
LuciferX 101 Oct 04, 2004 at 00:10

Great thread, many good points, but here’s one you missed:

The other day I called Virgin Mobile [a cellphone company here] and the robot that answered the phone was really realistic. Im talking dynamic speaking, inflections, it was the whole enchalada. Top notch answering machine.

Then after going through 10 thousand menus the human came on: Completly monotone, no emotion, did not understand me , I had to repeat myself 10 times. And I realized, I would rather have continued to deal with the machine!

So in a way some of us are already being surpassed by machines! :blink:

7543b5c50738e23b200e69fe697ea85a
0
NomadRock 101 Oct 04, 2004 at 04:15

True but intelligence is based not on the ability to mimic speach, but on the ability to act appropriately in varied situations. For example, if you were to say into the phone “Let me speak with your boss!” Then the machine would not act appropriately, and would most likely not respond in any way. The human would act appropriately, he may not fulfil your request, and he may stutter a bit and read a pre written response, but this is what you would could expect an intelligent person might do (maybe not a greatly intelligent person)

94cb346a3db618053acb616c005d1a12
0
LuciferX 101 Oct 05, 2004 at 19:14

hehe, It’s funny that you say that, I actually did say that to the ‘Human’….and he hung up on me :dry:

Needless to say I am the ‘Angry Customer’ :tongue:

Db48ec9bf6c4bcacdd3cc1b1cc3573b4
0
ciri 101 Oct 06, 2004 at 21:36

<my 2 cents>
Imho we will be able to reproduce anything that happens in our conscient mind, as we will probably be (if we aren’t already) able to analyse that quite detailed. We won’t however ever be able to understand our unconscience because it is simply not possible for us to get at that point as it will drive us mad.
</my 2 cents>

94cb346a3db618053acb616c005d1a12
0
LuciferX 101 Oct 09, 2004 at 00:15

ooooooo….good point ciri ;)

7543b5c50738e23b200e69fe697ea85a
0
NomadRock 101 Oct 09, 2004 at 01:24

Actually many believe that we cannot really reproduce our concious actions without our unconcious thoughts being there. There are many who in fact believe that we cannot properly mimic a brain without actually building a model of it out of pieces that act just exactly like neurons.

People are still looking for better ways, and this certainly does not give much hope for being able to understand what goes on, but they certainly have some good arguments.

94cb346a3db618053acb616c005d1a12
0
LuciferX 101 Oct 09, 2004 at 04:18

Actually in the ‘90;s they invented an AI that was the intellectual equal to over half of all humans. It was the Furby!!

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Oct 09, 2004 at 07:40

and then came the tamagotchi, which in fact now is head of the CIA

94cb346a3db618053acb616c005d1a12
0
LuciferX 101 Oct 10, 2004 at 23:20

Look let’s face it, most of the people I went to highschool with could not beat out a Giga-pet in a job interview!

E7d27115b2e1283cfe10809e3a89a796
0
Ioncycle 101 Oct 28, 2004 at 14:35

If Robots were on par with Humans they would be Human which is definatley possibe but I still am old fashioned with the hotty/sex/pregancey thing. :alien: