The next step toward skynet

[Jakensama]

Ha, you'll never penetrate my impregnable lair guarded by my fanatical followers.

[Staracker]

war will always be a necessary event as long as humans are on the planet. its a way to keep the population in check, not unlike great plagues.

[Diggles]

war will always be a necessary event as long as humans are on the planet. its a way to keep the population in check, not unlike great plagues.

that and we can test/refine/research new weapons to prepare for the inevitable alien invasion

[Zouji]

war will always be a necessary event as long as humans are on the planet. its a way to keep the population in check, not unlike great plagues.

that and we can test/refine/research new weapons to prepare for the inevitable alien invasion

Or the great Zombie uprising (hey robots can't become Zombies!),
Or when cats learn to use tools and decide to kill us all.
Or when the great robot uprising occurs we need to have all the technology and robots we can get to battle the rising robot rebels. Hmmm maybe that last one isn't such a good idea. Never mind everything will be fine. That smoke you see is safety smoke. That means it's for your safety.

[Dustie]

And the next step toward skynet:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124751881557234725.html

For the last four years, Henry Markram has been building a biologically accurate artificial brain. Powered by a supercomputer, his software model closely mimics the activity of a vital section of a rat's gray matter.

[Slamz]

The neurons in the brain slice were still alive and actively communicating with each other. Nearby, a modified microscope recorded some of this inner activity in another brain slice. "We're intercepting the electro-chemical messages" in the cells, then testing the software against it for accuracy, said Dr. Markram.

Eventually they will build a computer whose only thoughts are "OH FUCK I CAN'T FEEL MY LEGS OH GOD I CAN'T SEE OH SHIT WTF IS HAPPENING".

[Dustie]

The neurons in the brain slice were still alive and actively communicating with each other. Nearby, a modified microscope recorded some of this inner activity in another brain slice. "We're intercepting the electro-chemical messages" in the cells, then testing the software against it for accuracy, said Dr. Markram.

Eventually they will build a computer whose only thoughts are "OH FUCK I CAN'T FEEL MY LEGS OH GOD I CAN'T SEE OH SHIT WTF IS HAPPENING".

Yes, and if the specimen had previously read this article it will be:

"SWEET MOTHER OF GOD, IS THIS THOUGHT COMING FROM A THIN SLICE OF MY BRAIN REMOVED FOR QA TESTING SOME SOFWARE!?"

[Vanraw]

As long as we implement Asimov's three rules, I'm good to go with the Positronic brain.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

And then the added 2 other rules.

4. A robot must establish its identity as a robot in all cases
5. A robot must know it is a robot.

[Slamz]

But if they truly become intelligent, we would have to grant them equal rights as sentient beings.

[Vllad]

As long as we implement Asimov's three rules, I'm good to go with the Positronic brain.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

And then the added 2 other rules.

4. A robot must establish its identity as a robot in all cases
5. A robot must know it is a robot.

In other words you would bring back slavery?


Smart robots is a bad idea on so many levels. Doing it just to show we can is super stupid.


Vllad

[Dustie]

The problem with those rules (IMO) is that they are written for "pre-sentient" computers. Once the computer can actually think for itself, it will have the ability to say "that rules doesn't make sense!"

[Vanraw]

In other words you would bring back slavery?

Yes, I would not recognize a robot as the same thing as a human.

Smart robots is a bad idea on so many levels. Doing it just to show we can is super stupid.

I completely agree. The best way to avoid the first delima is to avoid the issue. Seriously, whats the motivation of someone to create AI? Just so they can say they did?

[Ulfen]

We need robots to protect the earth from Diggles and Emperor Palpatine.

[Thudz]

In other words you would bring back slavery?

Yes, I would not recognize a robot as the same thing as a human.

Smart robots is a bad idea on so many levels. Doing it just to show we can is super stupid.

I completely agree. The best way to avoid the first delima is to avoid the issue. Seriously, whats the motivation of someone to create AI? Just so they can say they did?

I may hold some robots above some humans. For the most part humans are illogical. I'd rather hang with a logical AI that can think for itself then most people I know. If we were to ever create this type of AI I would be for equal rights for them.

[Thudz]

As long as we implement Asimov's three rules, I'm good to go with the Positronic brain.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

And then the added 2 other rules.

4. A robot must establish its identity as a robot in all cases
5. A robot must know it is a robot.

In other words you would bring back slavery?


Smart robots is a bad idea on so many levels. Doing it just to show we can is super stupid.


Vllad

Physical being aside if we were to make a perfectly intelligent, free thinking AI what would the difference be between it and giving birth to a human child? Why is one a bad idea and the other isn't? What do you see is the difference?

[Vllad]

Physical being aside if we were to make a perfectly intelligent, free thinking AI what would the difference be between it and giving birth to a human child? Why is one a bad idea and the other isn't? What do you see is the difference?

One is of my own species one is not. I can't think of a better reason for conflict then that. This has to end violence no matter how careful you are. It is the natural order of things. Only one species can be the dominant one.

I would be all for sentient freedom as well which is why we shouldn't create it. No good can come from it except more reasons to kill each other.


Vllad

[Thudz]

Physical being aside if we were to make a perfectly intelligent, free thinking AI what would the difference be between it and giving birth to a human child? Why is one a bad idea and the other isn't? What do you see is the difference?

One is of my own species one is not. I can't think of a better reason for conflict then that. This has to end violence no matter how careful you are. It is the natural order of things. Only one species can be the dominant one.

I would be all for sentient freedom as well which is why we shouldn't create it. No good can come from it except more reasons to kill each other.


Vllad

That's our flaw and not their's. It's illogical thinking that leads to such things. I see it as an inevitability I just don't see it in my lifetime.

[OrsunVZ]

That's our flaw and not their's. It's illogical thinking that leads to such things. I see it as an inevitability I just don't see it in my lifetime.

Which is exactly why humans would be deemed inferior and why we should be erradicated from the Earth.

[Vllad]

It isn't illogical at all. In-fact it is completely logical.

With out this "flaw" as you call it some other speicies or non-sentient species would be running earth right now.

Any other species you create would eventually aquire this "flaw" no matter how logical they are because survival supercedes all else.

I will grant you that maybe their is some other template for life evolving in a different fashion but until you find that example the traits we show are the only one I have to go on. Two dominant species can't co-exist. They are either both change to become something else or one of them is destroyed.


Vllad

[Vanraw]

That's our flaw and not their's. It's illogical thinking that leads to such things. I see it as an inevitability I just don't see it in my lifetime.

Why do you think an AI machine would be any more logical then us? That's all we are, an unbelievable awesome biological machine.

When you say

That's our flaw and not their's.

They don't exist. You make huge assumptions on what a AI based machine would be. There is no logical reason to even build one.

[Vanraw]

Speaking of AI, looks like they are close to Artificial Nerves. Course this is targeted towrds the medical usage, but I thought it was appropriate.

This is amazing stuff really.

http://www.physorg.com/news166109773.html

[Thudz]

That's our flaw and not their's. It's illogical thinking that leads to such things. I see it as an inevitability I just don't see it in my lifetime.

Why do you think an AI machine would be any more logical then us? That's all we are, an unbelievable awesome biological machine.

When you say

That's our flaw and not their's.

They don't exist. You make huge assumptions on what a AI based machine would be. There is no logical reason to even build one.

There is a very good reason to build them. Evolution.

[Slamz]

As an aside, a sentient computer would not be "artificially intelligent", it would just be "intelligent".

We probably misuse the term "AI". Artificial intelligence as we have today is artificial in that the computer is incapable of coming up with anything new. It approaches each problem with a list of pre-determined answers. It's like it comes to a T intersection and it only has 3 choices: turn left, turn right or turn around. It can make an "intelligent" decision about which of the 3 is best for a given result but it is not capable of making up spontaneous choices ("take a shortcut over the berm, I think I could make it", "sit here and eat a cheeseburger", "flag down passing car to ask directions"). It only has the options it was programmed with.

If it was really intelligent, it would be able to spontaneously invent new options.

You might say that the A in AI means intelligence made with man-made parts (as opposed to organic parts) but I think that's a less useful bastardization of the original meaning. "AI" means "not actually intelligent".

There's no particular reason to think that actual intelligence made with minerals is any worse than intelligence made with meat.

And we probably can't avoid it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE[/youtube]

[Vanraw]

Yea, When I say AI, I am referring to self aware independent thought. This doesn't exist today. I think people that / companies have started miss using the term for marketing purposes.

[Vanraw]

There is a very good reason to build them. Evolution.

This is a terrible reason. Lets play god for no other reason then to play....