The next step toward skynet

[Thudz]

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....

Who said anything about God? This is man and what man is capable of.

[Slamz]

If the definition of evolution is "life spawning more evolved life" then intelligent robots could fit the definition of "evolution". We are simply creating a more evolved lifeform. Rather than doing it in the primitive egg-and-sperm way, we just build it in a factory. (We probably aren't that far off from making humans in a factory, for that matter.)

[Riz]

Well I for one, welcome our robot overlords.

[Thudz]

If the definition of evolution is "life spawning more evolved life" then intelligent robots could fit the definition of "evolution". We are simply creating a more evolved lifeform. Rather than doing it in the primitive egg-and-sperm way, we just build it in a factory. (We probably aren't that far off from making humans in a factory, for that matter.)

And that is my point. I believe that with our technologies increasing at an expotential rate our human brain has a hard time keeping up. Look at all the research being done by computers today, work that would take the human brain billions of years to do. In order for technology to continue to advance at the current rate I see this type of advancement as the next step. Computers are doing more and more of the work each day, it's just a matter of time before they replace us as the dominent force on this planet.

[Vllad]

And that is my point. I believe that with our technologies increasing at an expotential rate our human brain has a hard time keeping up. Look at all the research being done by computers today, work that would take the human brain billions of years to do. In order for technology to continue to advance at the current rate I see this type of advancement as the next step. Computers are doing more and more of the work each day, it's just a matter of time before they replace us as the dominent force on this planet.

All I hear when you say this is:

blah blah blah possibly creating our own exstinction blah blah.

If our brain has a hard time keeping up then we will eventually evolve until it does. Creating tools to speed up the process is a very bad idea. Their are no short cuts.

This doesn't fit the definition of evolution. In fact it isn't even close.


Vllad

[Thudz]

And that is my point. I believe that with our technologies increasing at an expotential rate our human brain has a hard time keeping up. Look at all the research being done by computers today, work that would take the human brain billions of years to do. In order for technology to continue to advance at the current rate I see this type of advancement as the next step. Computers are doing more and more of the work each day, it's just a matter of time before they replace us as the dominent force on this planet.

All I hear when you say this is:

blah blah blah possibly creating our own exstinction blah blah.

If our brain has a hard time keeping up then we will eventually evolve until it does. Creating tools to speed up the process is a very bad idea. Their are no short cuts.

This doesn't fit the definition of evolution. In fact it isn't even close.


Vllad

Vllad do you agree that we are at a very unique point in human evolution where our accomplishments are exceeded our mental ability to advance them further at the rate they have been advanced to this point? I'm not limiting the definition of evolution to biology I believe we are to the point where we start to leave our biology behind because it's become a limiting factor to our advancement and we don't have the patience to wait for Darwin's evolution.

Just my opinion, I embrace this, I don't fear it. We don't live long enough to fear the future.

[Dustie]

I think we all know who the Gaius Baltar among us will be =)

[Slamz]

This doesn't fit the definition of evolution. In fact it isn't even close.

Why not?

Religious matters aside, when you die, you are dead. There is no evolution for you. The best you can do is create another intelligent lifeform to continue on in your place after you're gone -- children.

I'm not convinced that whether you do this the fun way or via cloning in a vat or via assembly line manufacture really matters in the grand scheme of things. If the thing you have created can be called "intelligent life" and fits all definitions including being able to go forth and make more of itself then it would seem you are still playing the evolutionary game, regardless of the methods employed.

My argument basically boils down to "life is life" and whether you are replaced with a bouncy baby boy or a bouncy baby XK29-R, they both accomplish the same thing, which is the continuation of life. You may say "homo sapiens" becomes extinct but that's not much different than saying that "homo erectus" is extinct or your great-grandfather is extinct. Life went on.

[Thudz]

Seems fitting for this topic.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5324...latestnews

Battlefield robot soldiers that feed off dead bodies. Wonderful.

[Vllad]

Why not?

Evolution is a natural process that takes a life form and changes it to something different because of any variety of reasons.

We are talking about creating this paticular life form and creating it artifically. This AI will not come from that which is natural. It will have a starting point from the time it is switched on in the lab. This is a unnatural state of existance and therefore not evolution since evolution must be a natural process.

It can't evolve by the very definition until it is alive. While man may create a sentient or non sentient being it will not start to evolve until such time that it exist with in the world. It may evolve days months or even years after it is created but something can't evolve unless it already exist. This again is not evolution it is programming.

Programming is not evolution either. In evolution the entity must change itself. That is not to say it can't have influences. For example seedless grapes. Man hates seeds in his grapes so he kills all plants that produce seeds in the fruit. Therefore the grape plants that survive are ones that produce seedless grapes. The original seedless grape was a defect and man help promote the defect and killed the normal plant therefore the defect becomes the norm.

While man influenced this that plant still produced its own defect that survived by producing more defects. This is evolution.

Programming would be like producing a clone of the grape plants and making sure at the DNA level that its fruit doesn't produce seeds. This is change but it is not evolution.


I totally agree with you that life goes on however the question is which life? Nature decided in the past which life that was. I have no problem with that. The rules are pretty fair in nature. When man starts goofing around with this stuff you now have the potential for some asshole that lives in corner office making the final decision unknown to him that decides the future of mankind 100 years from now.

This same asshole could be some guy who can't get a date cuz he keeps forgetting to brush his teeth and thinks American Idol is the greatest TV show of all time. Is this asshole really the guy we want deciding our future? That sounds like idiotic seleciton to me.


Vllad





Vllad

[Vllad]

Vllad do you agree that we are at a very unique point in human evolution where our accomplishments are exceeded our mental ability to advance them further at the rate they have been advanced to this point? I'm not limiting the definition of evolution to biology I believe we are to the point where we start to leave our biology behind because it's become a limiting factor to our advancement and we don't have the patience to wait for Darwin's evolution.

Just my opinion, I embrace this, I don't fear it. We don't live long enough to fear the future.

I don't know what makes this point in time unique. What are we doing now that requires the mental ability to advance further? We have more effective tools but we are doing pretty much the same things we have over the last 5,000 years. I do think man can continue to evolve but nothing we do today will effect that.

Change our enviorment like put man into space for 10,000 years and he will adapt. Change our oxegen content for 10,000 years and we might see some changes. Things don't evolve unless they have to. Evolving to keep up with our tools don't make any sense at all. Well not unless our tools start killing us anyway.

If man kind doesn't have the patience for Darwin then man kind deserves what it gets. I can't stress this next sentence enough.

Evolutionary changes normally do not come from changes that are simple and easy. Evolution comes from very dramatic life altering events.


Vllad

[Thudz]

Vllad do you agree that we are at a very unique point in human evolution where our accomplishments are exceeded our mental ability to advance them further at the rate they have been advanced to this point? I'm not limiting the definition of evolution to biology I believe we are to the point where we start to leave our biology behind because it's become a limiting factor to our advancement and we don't have the patience to wait for Darwin's evolution.

Just my opinion, I embrace this, I don't fear it. We don't live long enough to fear the future.

I don't know what makes this point in time unique. What are we doing now that requires the mental ability to advance further? We have more effective tools but we are doing pretty much the same things we have over the last 5,000 years. I do think man can continue to evolve but nothing we do today will effect that.

Change our enviorment like put man into space for 10,000 years and he will adapt. Change our oxegen content for 10,000 years and we might see some changes. Things don't evolve unless they have to. Evolving to keep up with our tools don't make any sense at all. Well not unless our tools start killing us anyway.

If man kind doesn't have the patience for Darwin then man kind deserves what it gets. I can't stress this next sentence enough.

Evolutionary changes normally do not come from changes that are simple and easy. Evolution comes from very dramatic life altering events.


Vllad

We have mapped the human genome, we are on the verge of creating human life from the most basic of human materials. We have the ability to replicate the environment only before known to our own sun here on Earth and harness it. We are unlocking more secrets of quantum physics everyday like being able to teleport subatomic particals from one point to another instaneously. We have broke the Petaflop barrier. Just in my lifetime we have seen our technology advance more then in the past one hundred lifetimes combined. It can't continue to advance at this rate without our own tools doing more and more of the work. Eventually it will not be us making these advancements at all but our tools making them on their own.

[Thudz]

If man kind doesn't have the patience for Darwin then man kind deserves what it gets. I can't stress this next sentence enough.

Evolutionary changes normally do not come from changes that are simple and easy. Evolution comes from very dramatic life altering events.


Vllad

The day mankind creates sentient life our definition of evolution will be changed forever.

[Vllad]

We have mapped the human genome, we are on the verge of creating human life from the most basic of human materials. We have the ability to replicate the environment only before known to our own sun here on Earth and harness it. We are unlocking more secrets of quantum physics everyday like being able to teleport subatomic particals from one point to another instaneously. We have broke the Petaflop barrier. Just in my lifetime we have seen our technology advance more then in the past one hundred lifetimes combined. It can't continue to advance at this rate without our own tools doing more and more of the work. Eventually it will not be us making these advancements at all but our tools making them on their own.

Pluck a 6 month old child from 3000 BC and he can be tought to do all of the things humans do today. Better tools and learning how things work around us doesn't equate to humans changing.

I would dispute that humans have advanced in your lifetime more then the 100 generations before you. That is a misnomer. Making a machine that is 100 times better then 25 years ago doesn't equate to a 100 times greater advancement. That is your computer self talking.

The basic principles that lead to the advancements in this century go back before the 20th century. The greatest advancements in human history came between the 15th and 19th century. We live in an age where we can finally apply the things that were done pre 20th century but their are very few non medical advancements in the last 50 years that could be considered true advancements. Refined yes. true advancements, very few.

Let me name a few

*Issac Newton and Leibniz- with out calculas you can forget going to moon let alone the world of physics.

*Tesla- The godfather of electricity.

*Internal Combustion Engine- Same damn engine in todays car's that were in use in 1830. Different fuel, same engine. Da Vinci actually worked this out in 1509.

*Tsiolkovsky and Von Braun- They knew how to go to the moon by 1932. If not for WWII man might have stepped on the moon by the mid 1940's.

*Edison, Loomis and Orsted- They had radio and television down before the 20th century. This allowed people like Randolf Hearst to have cable radio by 1915. He could listen to any of his radio stations across the country via cable with the touch of a button.

*Telephone- Another 19th century idea. See Edison above.

*Analog computers have been around since the 1920's. Punch card computers long before that.

*Flight- Principles of Aerodynamics have changed very little since the 1920's.

*Physics- Most of the biggest break throughs came before 1950.

*Splitting the atom- We succeeded in 1945. We knew we could do it by 1920.


My point is math, the engine, the phone, television, radio, electricity, computers, flight, rocket science, atomic power and principles of industry dwarf the advancements that have happened in the last 50 years. We have refined them, made them smaller, made them more complicated but we haven't really changed them. We have made some medical advancements but that is pretty much it.

If you can name 100 more advancements that are more important then the ones I listed above that came about during your lifetime then I will buy into your theory.


Vllad

[Jakensama]

Our biological evolution is stymied in that the least fit members of society reproduce the most and we don't just let them die out as nature intended.

Too bad Hitler ruined eugenics for us.

[OrsunVZ]

they're made out of meat...

Actually, that is really an interesting notion. Thanks for that.

[Zouji]

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry:
evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation:
\ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date:
1622
1: one of a set of prescribed movements
2 (a) a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding (b) the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission (c1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (c2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing
4 (a) the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny (b) a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations ; also : the process described by this theory
5: the extraction of a mathematical root
6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena


From the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2. (a) The process of developing. (b) Gradual development.
3. Biology - (a) Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. (b) The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics - The extraction of a root of a quantity.


From the Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition:
evolution
Noun
1. Biol a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations
2. a gradual development, esp. to a more complex form [Latin evolutio an unrolling]
evolutionary adj


The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
evolution (v-lshn)
1. The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection. The modern understanding of the origins of species is based on the theories of Charles Darwin combined with a modern knowledge of genetics based on the work of Gregor Mendel. Darwin observed there is a certain amount of variation of traits or characteristics among the different individuals belonging to a population. Some of these traits confer fitness; they allow the individual organism that possesses them to survive in their environment better than other individuals who do not possess them and to leave more offspring. The offspring then inherit the beneficial traits, and over time the adaptive trait spreads through the population. In twentieth century, the development of the the science of genetics helped explain the origin of the variation of the traits between individual organisms and the way in which they are passed from generation to generation. This basic model of evolution has since been further refined, and the role of genetic drift and sexual selection in the evolution of populations has been recognized.
2. A process of development and change from one state to another, as of the universe in its development through time.
A Closer Look Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection assumed that tiny adaptations occur in organisms constantly over millions of years. Gradually, a new species develops that is distinct from its ancestors. In the 1970s, however, biologists Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed that evolution by natural selection may not have been such a smooth and consistent process. Based on fossils from around the world that showed the abrupt appearance of new species, Eldridge and Gould suggested that evolution is better described through punctuated equilibrium. That is, for long periods of time species remain virtually unchanged, not even gradually adapting. They are in equilibrium, in balance with the environment. But when confronted with environmental challenges -sudden climate change, for example- organisms adapt quite quickly, perhaps in only a few thousand years. These active periods are punctuations, after which a new equilibrium exists and species remain stable until the next punctuation.

[Jakensama]

Yes, but with swords you kind of have to hack your way to the source as opposed to shooting him with a sniper rifle from 2 miles away.

[Moristans]

Religious matters aside, when you die, you are dead. There is no evolution for you. The best you can do is create another intelligent lifeform to continue on in your place after you're gone -- children.

If you are talking about Darwinian Evolution, individuals do not evolve at all. Populations evolve over concurrent generations. Darwinian Evolution does not require "advancement". All it requires is changes in allele frequencies. Speciation requires the aquisition of new traits.

The best any individual can do to participate in Darwinian Evolution is reproduce their own genes, or, have enough individuals in their immediate family to reproduce those genes for them. Remember, you share half of your siblings genes and a quarter of your first cousin's genes. If your family reproduces enough, they have effectively reproduced the same genes you carry.

There's tons of debate on whether or not modern humans are still "evolving". The fact of the matter is, when we achieved the ability to significantly alter our environment to suit our particular genotype, we effectively removed one of the most important variables driving changes in gene frequency and the establishment of new traits for Darwinian Evolution. Gene frequencies can drift, but there's nothing to really sort them out.

The problem is, our genetic variability between and within populations is already practically nil with 99% of our allele frequencies fixed. You can't push allele frequencies in any way shape or form if you do not have genetic variability to select upon.

Too bad Hitler ruined eugenics for us.

In all seriousness, Eugenics fails for the same reason throughbred breeding of any species has failed to produce anything resembling a super organism. You can't purge gene defects as long as recessive alleles persist, and you can't push selection for a hand full of traits in one direction indefinitely. Eventually, you fix allele frequencies and run out of variation to select upon.


What any of this has to with robots or AI, I have no idea.

I'm just waiting for my kids to finish an exam.