DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on July 03, 2012, 02:48:37 PM
-
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2300/fc02210.png)
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ (http://freefall.purrsia.com/)
-
I am all for the government owning robots to make items to be sold to raise revenue.
I am not for robot rights until they are smart enough to know that they are being exploited.
Robots should be programmed so that they never think this.
-
The government is usually forbidden to compete with industry, the government does own a lot of robots , mostly war machines used under remote controll for reconnasance and wepon delivery, I don't favor privite industry doing a lot of that.
If robots were taxed on the basis of their productivity the revenue stream would grow a bit , and the government would feel invested in the strong industrys that have a lot of productive robots, I am not certain but I think this could be a good thing.
Robots will actually become persons a short time after the really complex ones are programmed to expand themselves and program themselves and each other. Before we get there we better come to terms with the idea.
The point is wanted to ponder here is whether taxation leads to government sympathy wioth the tax resorce , or repression, I think that history shows both happening.
-
On the side , I suppose that Issiac Asimov would be dissapointed with the way we are using robots.
They are not smart enough yet to actually program with his three laws, and once they are will we be smart enough to include the three laws in the programming?
-
some pets have money to support itself sort of. if robots begin to have purchasing power, would that be the sign of robots should have rights?
-
It is a tough question.
Sometimes when there are people who feel their rights are shortchanged they use boycott , once computers have purchase power they might also.
On the other hand we already automate billions of dollars of purchase on the stock market , should we prevent senatance in computers that we trust with money?
-
Robots are machines. They are not self-aware. Until they are, I don't they have more rights than a toaster oven or a refrigerator.
I would certainly make sense to devise a system by which the public, and not just the robots' owners, could profit from the labor of the robots, because otherwise, society will collapse because those who used to work for a living have been denied the ability to earn a living, since they cannot be as productive as robots.
-
Robots are machines. They are not self-aware. Until they are, I don't they have more rights than a toaster oven or a refrigerator.
I would certainly make sense to devise a system by which the public, and not just the robots' owners, could profit from the labor of the robots, because otherwise, society will collapse because those who used to work for a living have been denied the ability to earn a living, since they cannot be as productive as robots.
How will you know it when you meet a machine that is self aware?
The government should be limited severely from making products and providing services that the private sector can provide.
Untill robots can own themselves they need to be owned by persons , corporations and governments.
When they do own themselves they will need to join the economy as pprooducers , consumors and taxpayers.
Why can't people be productive? Isn't a Man with a Robot more productive than either alone?
-
After all this talk of robots it dawned on me. Robots may replace humans at labor . But that would stop the demand of said labor. Meaning a symbiotic relationship is required for robots to exist. Humans need to be earning an income for robots to function.
-
Its a long story.http://freefall.purrsia.com/ (http://freefall.purrsia.com/)
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02134.png)
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02137.png)
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02138.png)
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02139.png)
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02140.png)
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02142.png)
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02143.png)
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02144.png)
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02145.png)
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02146.png)
(http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2200/fc02147.png)
-
This seems to be a very esoteric cartoon strip. I notice that the character that resembles a wolf immediately changes from a yellow dress into a waitress uniform. Are animals also sentient beings in this strip? How does crippling a robot turn her into a waitress? Is she a robot or a genetically engineered talking wolf?
Again, robots will only be as sentient as we choose to make them. There is no reason to program manufacturing robots with self-awareness any more that we would want a toaster that ponders metaphysics when not making toast.
If there is no way to distribute the earnings of robotics among consumers, then consumers will not be able to buy the products they manufacture. There must be a way to distribute earnings to the masses so there can be mass consumption.
Of course, the system in which we live is based on eternal growth, and eternal growth is unsustainable, since the resources and raw materials are limited. Not everything can be recycled. In fact, MOST stuff we throw away is not recycled.
Consumer capitalism is doomed unless we can adapt to a sustainable system. I see no one working on this.
-
This seems to be a very esoteric cartoon strip. I notice that the character that resembles a wolf immediately changes from a yellow dress into a waitress uniform. Are animals also sentient beings in this strip? How does crippling a robot turn her into a waitress? Is she a robot or a genetically engineered talking wolf?
If you are really interested you should read this strip from the beginning , it is quite well done so you will enjoy it , but it is quite long so don't try it all at one sitting.
The world of this strip includes machiunes that build machines and robots that program themselves.
Colinisation of a sterile world requires such a large workforce that it cannot be ddone without making many robots, but the robots that started very complex learned and evolved and discovered that they were senetant.
A more recent development in this world is the genetic manipulation of the Wolf to create a wolf with a good servants attitude , hands and an engineers brain, but still with a Wolfs instinct for survival.
The title caricter is a lovable theif , alien who has to wear a pressure suit to survive a human environment , where most of the cast loves the wolf they mostly hate the alien .
I like a cartoon that can be funny while it explores deep subjects , it is an art.
-
I agree that it is clever and well drawn. Good sci-fi in comic form.
There is a lot of it, starting in 1998.
I thought the main character was a robot.
-
I agree that it is clever and well drawn. Good sci-fi in comic form.
There is a lot of it, starting in 1998.
I thought the main character was a robot.
Freefall is actually a horrendus aquatic creature that wears a special suit to survive, the face is anamatronic and controlled by his facial tentacals.
He has no human notion of morality at all, but seems to be motivated by humor more than greed, tho he has plenty of greed.
He is associated with the Wolf caricter primarialy because he stole her from her real owners.
She is so well engineered to be a good servant that she obeys him in spite of knowing all of this.
She is so intelligent that she can get things to turn out her way anyhow.
It is a great story, and it makes me think about Mary Shelly. Once we are able to create creatures of human or better intelligence will we be obliged to make them obeident?
-
I'm reminded of one of the short films on the Animatrix dvd, which explains how the Matrix came to be:
http://www.thematrix101.com/animatrix/renaissance.php (http://www.thematrix101.com/animatrix/renaissance.php)
-
but is it needed to make it self aware?
-
If we are smart enough to make a robot, then we are also smart enough to make the robot have only those talents and abilities that we need. Self-awareness is probably not essential to most tasks we would assign to robots. Perhaps there are no such tasks.
-
I think thier are questionable need for humanoid robots. all i come up with is spy & sex stuff. and still more practical using humans for such tasks.
-
Self-aware humanoid robots are like time machines: they are GREAT as fictional entities. It is wonderful to speculate about time travel as well as robots who fall in love, mechanical pinocchios who long to be real boys, and such.
Time travel is most likely impossible: as I have said before, if someone invented a wayback machine, we would have met them. by now. The same proof is not available for travel to the future.
Sentient robots MIGHT be occasionally available for experimental reasons, but I really do not think they are likely to become numerous.
-
It depends on us if we have a desire to have such a thing.
-
It depends on the very, very few that design robots and pay to have robots designed, not all of us, not even a few of us.
I cannot imagine why anyone would design a robot like "Bender" on Futurama to bend things and also to be both mobile and self-aware. I do understand why Bender makes a great cartoon character.
It would be insane to actually create such a robot.
-
bender no,but six from battlestar galactica yes. most likely japan before anyone else will do it. the robot now are only a few percentage points close to totally human looking. the next step is getting it to behaive like a human which is where the demand for self-aware programing may come into play.
-
Disney's animatronic figures look pretty human, but of course they are essentially mannikins with servos in their faces and limbs. The Japanese are trying to create helper robots that can care for the aged. I don't think that self-awareness would be a necessary attribute. You are correct that the Japanese seem to be ahead of everyone in creating robots, or at least in publicizing their research. We really don't know more about this than the companies doing the research choose to tell us.
Japanese culture seems more robot-friendly than ours.
-
The test was introduced by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," which opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Since "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words."[3] Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?"[4] This question, Turing believed, is one that can actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think".[5]
In the years since 1950, the test has proven to be both highly influential and widely criticized, and it is an essential concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence.[1][6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Turing_Test_version_3.png)
The "standard interpretation" of the Turing Test, in which player C, the interrogator, is tasked with trying to determine which player - A or B - is a computer and which is a human. The interrogator is limited to using the responses to written questions in order to make the determination. Image adapted from Saygin, 2000.[1]
-
99% there
http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/07/latest-geminoid-robot-looks-super-life-like-video/ (http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/07/latest-geminoid-robot-looks-super-life-like-video/)
you now need a computer to get the movements just right and a program that can pass the turing test.
has anyone ever asked if all humans can pass the turing test?
-
99% there
http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/07/latest-geminoid-robot-looks-super-life-like-video/ (http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/07/latest-geminoid-robot-looks-super-life-like-video/)
you now need a computer to get the movements just right and a program that can pass the turing test.
has anyone ever asked if all humans can pass the turing test?
Perhaps we need a human race password.
In that wicipedia article it states that some Chatbot programs are already being used to steal.
HOw sad would it be to find the first real AI was a criminal.
-
i remember recently a computer was used in a game show and the difference between it and the human was it does not round off numbers like humans like to do.
humans have trouble remembering 13553456,but can remember 13million
-
Computers by nature have absolute recall. If we want them to round off numbers, we have to program them to alter the data to do so. Some savants (idiot and otherwise) do have total recall of numbers. Most humans do not. That means that there is probably a gene that determines this talent. Eventually, parents will be able to select genes for their children, or at least that technology will exist. Being as there are over 200 countries on the planet, it is likely that parents can BUY those genes, even if "designer genes" are banned.
Robots do not need to pass a Turing test to paint cars, wash clothes or vacuum the floor.
-
Computers by nature have absolute recall. If we want them to round off numbers, we have to program them to alter the data to do so. Some savants (idiot and otherwise) do have total recall of numbers. Most humans do not. That means that there is probably a gene that determines this talent. Eventually, parents will be able to select genes for their children, or at least that technology will exist. Being as there are over 200 countries on the planet, it is likely that parents can BUY those genes, even if "designer genes" are banned.
Robots do not need to pass a Turing test to paint cars, wash clothes or vacuum the floor.
Some theroise that Savants are damaged in a peculair way that allows nacent talents to be expressed where in normal persons that brain power is being used otherise as a part of some other function. Consider that if your memory was not able to catagorise many thousands of small memorys assigning meaning to each you would not be able to talk, if your brain was not able to organise many thousands of sensor inputs and motor outputs you would not be able to walk. Any normal human brain includes an enormous computing power, but for most of us it is weakly interfaced to non instinctive or intangible tasks.
I think that robots that are already fooling a few persons out of thousands of potential victims for theft are alreeady passing a weak version of Turing test, they will be better theives if they are better imitation human beings.
-
I think that robots that are already fooling a few persons out of thousands of potential victims for theft are alreeady passing a weak version of Turing test, they will be better theives if they are better imitation human beings.
bad for me to says it`s way cheaper to just hire folks in india to do this. AI is a very costly bit of tech , meaning it`s doubtful it`ll ever be used to replace non-high income jobs. ex. maid service,fastfood
-
I think that robots that are already fooling a few persons out of thousands of potential victims for theft are alreeady passing a weak version of Turing test, they will be better theives if they are better imitation human beings.
bad for me to says it`s way cheaper to just hire folks in india to do this. AI is a very costly bit of tech , meaning it`s doubtful it`ll ever be used to replace non-high income jobs. ex. maid service,fastfood
It is really already happening because Chatterbots don't need to be genuine AI, they are more like "expert" programs which are a large cataloge of standard responses, for a short time and within narrow circumstances theyu can pass the turing test and perhaps fool a few percent of people into opening their sensitive information. This works good and cheap and can be fired at many thousands of potential marks quickly so that a good number can be robbed before the law notices.
When genuine AI becomes availible I would expect the same cheats to use the more advanced program the same way but with faster success.