View Full Version : If Robots Walked The Earth...
MicroScreen2
08-09-2004, 09:48 PM
would this cause the downfall of society?
if i could buy a robot, i would make it get a job and earn me money.
then i would have a steady cash flow, so i would buy all my friends and family robots so no-one has to work.
if robots can do all the work - productivity would increase for all jobs meaning i would be payed less.
also the need to pay my robot (and me) would lose our jobs as it (my robot) would be replaced by a company model thats payed for by the boss.
no-one need ever work again. what the hell happens when money becomes worthless?
i think i'll call him robert the robot :shifty:
Proper Bo
08-09-2004, 09:51 PM
I'd call mine dave ;)
I'd also programe it to think it had ginger hair and laugh as it tried desperately to avoided cameras and the sun :lol:
MicroScreen2
08-09-2004, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Proper Bo, I tell thee@9 August 2004 - 21:52
I'd call mine dave ;)
I'd also programe it to think it had ginger hair and laugh as it tried desperately to avoided cameras and the sun :lol:
i may avoid cameras and the sun but i'm not ginner :angry:
that took ages to type ad it was hijacked in one reply. YOU CUNT! :angry:
Proper Bo
08-09-2004, 09:57 PM
:lol: Sorry, that was dave, my spambot, what he say? The ginger bastard! :blink:
I am a robot.
Not what you call in mint condition, however fre seems satisfied.
I could do with some parts replaced, though.
Yobot
Robert00000
08-09-2004, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@9 August 2004 - 21:49
i think i'll call him robert the robot :shifty:
Hey I'm no robot, ok i may act like that sometimes, and need oiling and charging, but I have my own hair and makes me human :strongsad:
people in the past must have thought the same thing about computers but humans are still working.
i guess as a society we will evolve and work the robots in our lives but will make sure that the need for humans is still there.
Cheese
08-10-2004, 08:00 AM
Most people's robots will be run by Window$ so they will crash a lot so there will have to be lots of engineers to fix them, Linux-run robots will be too complicated for the average person and Mac-run robots whilst looking really good will be the laughing stock.
Barbarossa
08-10-2004, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Withcheese@10 August 2004 - 09:01
Most people's robots will be run by Window$ so they will crash a lot so there will have to be lots of engineers to fix them, Linux-run robots will be too complicated for the average person and Mac-run robots whilst looking really good will be the laughing stock.
:lol:
If everything was done by robots you'd get an Andromedan society, like the one in Asimov's novel.
The robots do all the labour, and actually outnumber the human beings, who spend their days being philosophical or something like it, oh and they do form the govenrnment. Since the robots even seem to be maintaining themselves and since they have been built to serve and cannot break this obligation, the people, seem to me, to be living the good life.
Tho' it doesn't seem very challenging.
Or you'd get something like the culture (... (http://web.onetel.net.uk/~zakalwe/imb/culture.htm), Iain m. Banks), where society seems to be largely run by "minds"- artifical intelligences- who have created a benign society for humanity (and others) and employs both those of their own kind and human beings to do different tasks.
This actually doesn't seem like a bad way to live, as everyone gets to do what they are suited to do, menial tasks are done by automata, and people seem to be happy with things, it probably helps that they have a large chunk of the galaxy to play in tho'.
Cheese
08-10-2004, 11:40 AM
Unless films have lied to me then robots will always turn bad (possibly led by some form of super-computer) and we will be forced to fight them possibly having to send people back through time and stuff.
Originally posted by Withcheese@10 August 2004 - 13:41
Unless films have lied to me then robots will always turn bad (possibly led by some form of super-computer) and we will be forced to fight them possibly having to send people back through time and stuff.
I'd like to think the people who build robots have seen the same films. :unsure:
They have been warned about a million times, I'd think they had that in their thoughts when they built their robots.
I'd have failsafes for the damn failsafes.
And maybe failsafes for them too.
manker
08-10-2004, 11:53 AM
Everyone knows that robots only go wrong when they are fitted with emotion chips. I say outlawing the development of emotion chips would make roboteering a safer pastime.
Just say no to e-chips, kids.
Tsk tsk.
Isn't that only on Star Trek?
manker
08-10-2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 13:01
Tsk tsk.
Isn't that only on Star Trek?
Star-trek too? I was thinking robot-wars. it was complete carnage, mate.
I know what SnnY would do with his robot :ph34r:
Originally posted by danb@10 August 2004 - 14:26
I know what SnnY would do with his robot :ph34r:
His female robot.
Has to be female.
Emotion-chips on robot wars? :o
I hadn't noticed. :unsure:
Originally posted by SnnY+10 August 2004 - 13:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SnnY @ 10 August 2004 - 13:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-danb@10 August 2004 - 14:26
I know what SnnY would do with his robot :ph34r:
His female robot.
Has to be female. [/b][/quote]
This got me thinking, if there were mass produced robots, would they cover them with synthetic skin so that they matched us? :unsure:
Originally posted by danb+10 August 2004 - 14:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (danb @ 10 August 2004 - 14:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 13:37
<!--QuoteBegin-danb@10 August 2004 - 14:26
I know what SnnY would do with his robot :ph34r:
His female robot.
Has to be female.
This got me thinking, if there were mass produced robots, would they cover them with synthetic skin so that they matched us? :unsure: [/b][/quote]
Like the ones in AI, and some of asimov's novels (where the title and inspiration for I, Robot comes from, btw).
Robots indistinguishable from human beings would probably be rather confusing, I imagine.
manker
08-10-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by SnnY+10 August 2004 - 13:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SnnY @ 10 August 2004 - 13:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by danb@10 August 2004 - 14:44
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 13:37
<!--QuoteBegin-danb@10 August 2004 - 14:26
I know what SnnY would do with his robot :ph34r:
His female robot.
Has to be female.
This got me thinking, if there were mass produced robots, would they cover them with synthetic skin so that they matched us? :unsure:
Like the ones in AI, and some of asimov's novels (where the title and inspiration for I, Robot comes from, btw).
Robots indistinguishable from human beings would probably be rather confusing, I imagine. [/b][/quote]
Hmm I thought all robots covered with a skin type substance and a positronic brain have yellowish eyes and cannot speak using contractions, it would be dead easy to tell them apart from humans. Would it not? ;)
They would have R's on thier head a bit like Rimmer :D
If they were as smart as us, would we want them to look exactly like us?
It's easier to communicate with someone like you, after all.
I'd probably like it.
Tho' I suppose religious types and others might find issue with it.
And manker, I never quite got why Data had to look that way, hell, since he doesn't look human anyway, they might as well have picked a more efficient shape. :unsure:
Still I suppose he looks like us enough for us to accept him, but not enough like us so we can mistake him for a human, maybe that's the point?
@dan, or maybe a really wicked tattoo on their cheeks or something.
manker
08-10-2004, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by danb@10 August 2004 - 13:53
They would have R's on thier head a bit like Rimmer :D
:lol: :lol:
To be honest. I think all this talk about robots taking over the world is a bit premature, especially if they're like the ones I talk to when I phone up Lloyds bank. They're complete idiots <_<
And Snny, you may be right about Data kinda looking like us, but not quite. He has to look more or less human to be able to fit into the seats in order to be able to operate efficiently at the helm but not enough to cause confusion - although he did get his end away with Lt Yar :o
Btw since Star-Trek is made in the U.S. shouldn't the crew be calling him data rather than day-tuh.
Methinks we are too obsessed with building robots that look like us....in reality, we can build robots with multiple limbs, 360 degree rotational joints..
I think it would be good to use the opportunity to build more effecient robots for the society we have created, rather than limiting them to our form. The human body has done a superb job in keeping us alive but our society requires more strength and intelligence in order to further itself.
@manker, they say we aren't more than a century away at the very most from making artifcial intelligences that surpass our own.
Maybe we'll get to meet them before our time is up.
I suppose someone looking like us, but who never gets exhausted the way we do might be very appealing to some people btw.
@RGX, I say they should come in all kinds of shapes, I mean, each designed for their task. Like the droids in Star Wars.
I'm sure human copies would come in handy for interacting with people or somesuch.
And as for intelligence... if we want to give them the run of the place, like we probably should once they get smarter than us, we should damn well make sure they remember to consider the survival of the individual not just the survival of the race, or the society.
But I don't see how we could miss doing that.
Like I've said, we have warnings enough about the hazards of doing different.
manker
08-10-2004, 01:34 PM
I think I'll add a serious reply now.
For a while I've held the opinion that AI will never reach the stage where it can get anywhere near to surpassing our own, robots will never get so advanced that they can act in any kind of way that could mimic a human's reaction to a new situation (that it wasn't specifically programmed - by a human - for)
The way our society, Western society, is structured with it's rules and regulations there is no conceivable way that research would be properly funded. It would be like the cloneing experiments or the stem cell research. Lots of excitement but ultimately ethics get in the way. Ethics would also get in the way wrt robots with intelligence greater than our own. Our instinct for self preservation is too strong and a superior entity, like data, would be a threat to our domination.
Personally I'd be all for taking the risk of commisioning unlimited funds for AI research with an aim of creating a robot superior to ourselves - but I doubt our governments would be of a likewise mindset.
I think the hardware for it will come naturally, we constantly need more processing power after all.
What we need is software that evolves on it's own, something scientists are already working on.
Once you have that, you don't need massive funds, or an army of developers.
All you need is time, enough storage, and freedom.
At least this is what i think.
manker
08-10-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 14:45
I think the hardware for it will come naturally, we constantly need more processing power after all.
What we need is software that evolves on it's own, something scientists are already working on.
Once you have that, you don't need massive funds, or an army of developers.
All you need is time, enough storage, and freedom.
At least this is what i think.
I agree, my main point though is not really funds or even practical feasability, it's more ethics and government policy.
If even one man had the knowledge to build a 'super being' then every Western society would consider that to be a security threat. Even if he was a member of their society.
Maybe the (U.S.) military would undertake the project and take steps to make sure the secret was only known by a handful of people, but the security involved would be more than adequate to ensure we never get to know about it :(
Originally posted by manker+10 August 2004 - 15:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (manker @ 10 August 2004 - 15:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 14:45
I think the hardware for it will come naturally, we constantly need more processing power after all.
What we need is software that evolves on it's own, something scientists are already working on.
Once you have that, you don't need massive funds, or an army of developers.
All you need is time, enough storage, and freedom.
At least this is what i think.
I agree, my main point though is not really funds or even practical feasability, it's more ethics and government policy.
If even one man had the knowledge to build a 'super being' then every Western society would consider that to be a security threat. Even if he was a member of their society.
Maybe the (U.S.) military would undertake the project and take steps to make sure the secret was only known by a handful of people, but the security involved would be more than adequate to ensure we never get to know about it :( [/b][/quote]
Maybe, if the internet was used, this would be a form of protection.
Move it around on servers around the world.
Keep people updated, hand out copies to people around the world, in neutral countries and so forth.
But, this wouldn't help if someone did it for commercial reasons, I suppose, as they wouldn't want to give away their code then.
Which means that the only AI that would survive would be one built for altruistic reasons :blink:
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 13:45
I think the hardware for it will come naturally, we constantly need more processing power after all.
What we need is software that evolves on it's own, something scientists are already working on.
Once you have that, you don't need massive funds, or an army of developers.
All you need is time, enough storage, and freedom.
At least this is what i think.
Many programs on my PC already think they are smarter than me and make decisions by themselves, choose to ignore me if they feel like it...
Should I donate my PC to NASA? :P
Originally posted by RGX+10 August 2004 - 16:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX @ 10 August 2004 - 16:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 13:45
I think the hardware for it will come naturally, we constantly need more processing power after all.
What we need is software that evolves on it's own, something scientists are already working on.
Once you have that, you don't need massive funds, or an army of developers.
All you need is time, enough storage, and freedom.
At least this is what i think.
Many programs on my PC already think they are smarter than me and make decisions by themselves, choose to ignore me if they feel like it...
Should I donate my PC to NASA? :P [/b][/quote]
Yes.
But not if you think it'll do them any good. :D
Originally posted by SnnY+10 August 2004 - 14:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SnnY @ 10 August 2004 - 14:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by RGX@10 August 2004 - 16:03
<!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 13:45
I think the hardware for it will come naturally, we constantly need more processing power after all.
What we need is software that evolves on it's own, something scientists are already working on.
Once you have that, you don't need massive funds, or an army of developers.
All you need is time, enough storage, and freedom.
At least this is what i think.
Many programs on my PC already think they are smarter than me and make decisions by themselves, choose to ignore me if they feel like it...
Should I donate my PC to NASA? :P
Yes.
But not if you think it'll do them any good. :D [/b][/quote]
Nah, it'll delay the space shuttle launch and insist on a few games of UT2004 first...then launch it in the night when nobodys looking and the scientists will wake up to find that the bastard thing has disconnected itself for no apparent reason. :angry:
Oh and sometimes when they start it up it will refuse to recognise the keyboard and mouse. :angry:
Bloody beautiful.
Bet they'd get surprised.
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 14:09
Bloody beautiful.
Bet they'd get surprised.
As much as I curse this PC, it is entertaining to find out what it'll do next. At the moment it is refusing to run Vice city. No error message, nothing. I've had this problem in the past, it fixes itself. I love it really.
Back to the whole robot thing, methinks the only way to control AI is to have hardware failsafes, that take the robot offline if tampered with...it seems inevitable that if an artificial mind is given something such as survival instinct or reasoning it will reason that it is immoral to control a race purely to be used as slaves as demonstrated in human past.
After all, to a robot, it appears as alive as anything else.
manker
08-10-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by RGX+10 August 2004 - 15:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX @ 10 August 2004 - 15:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 14:05
Originally posted by RGX@10 August 2004 - 16:03
<!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 13:45
I think the hardware for it will come naturally, we constantly need more processing power after all.
What we need is software that evolves on it's own, something scientists are already working on.
Once you have that, you don't need massive funds, or an army of developers.
All you need is time, enough storage, and freedom.
At least this is what i think.
Many programs on my PC already think they are smarter than me and make decisions by themselves, choose to ignore me if they feel like it...
Should I donate my PC to NASA? :P
Yes.
But not if you think it'll do them any good. :D
Nah, it'll delay the space shuttle launch and insist on a few games of UT2004 first...then launch it in the night when nobodys looking and the scientists will wake up to find that the bastard thing has disconnected itself for no apparent reason. :angry:
Oh and sometimes when they start it up it will refuse to recognise the keyboard and mouse. :angry: [/b][/quote]
I think our PCs are related. I get those problems too plus I'm currently struggling without a pound symbol 70% of the time. Most of the time, like now, the symbol about the 3 is a # :angry:
Errm.
3+Shift: #
3+Alt Gr: £
Funny 'puter you have. :unsure:
manker
08-10-2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 15:18
Errm.
3+Shift: #
3+Alt Gr: £
Funny 'puter you have. :unsure:
Not entirely sure what that meant but other keyboard related maladies are the 2 key plus shift is a '@' and the # key is a '\' - My double quote key is now located above the single quote too. It does seem I've an odd computer :unsure:
Originally posted by manker+10 August 2004 - 16:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (manker @ 10 August 2004 - 16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 15:18
Errm.
3+Shift: #
3+Alt Gr: £
Funny 'puter you have. :unsure:
Not entirely sure what that meant but other keyboard related maladies are the 2 key plus shift is a '@' and the # key is a '\' - My double quote key is now located above the single quote too. It does seem I've an odd computer :unsure: [/b][/quote]
Maybe it has gotten the keyboard table settings corrupted.
Sounds like it may be using something like an awerty and a qwerty setup alternately. :blink:
Whatever we do, we must prevent them from direct connecting and copulating. The artificial intelligence produced could cause the end of mankind. Imagine skynet x10, controlling every computer system capable of connecting to a network...and refusing to run Vice city on any of them. :D
And oi you two I made a good point above, this is what happens when you try and bring some ethical debate into a bar. :lol:
bujub22
08-10-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by RGX@10 August 2004 - 10:29
Whatever we do, we must prevent them from direct connecting and copulating. The artificial intelligence produced could cause the end of mankind. Imagine skynet x10, controlling every computer system capable of connecting to a network...and refusing to run Vice city on any of them. :D
And oi you two I made a good point above, this is what happens when you try and bring some ethical debate into a bar. :lol:
:( there coming :ph34r:
Oki Doki then.
Self-awarness and willingness to serve shouldn't preclude each other if you set up the parameters right.
If you have to give them emotions I suppose you make it a bit more tricky.
The question is whether this automatically follows intelligence.
bujub22
08-10-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 10:34
Oki Doki then.
Self-awarness and willingness to serve shouldn't preclude each other if you set up the parameters right.
If you have to give them emotions I suppose you make it a bit more tricky.
The question is whether this automatically follows intelligence.
im going to make my robot get me a sugar cookie :lol:
damn sugar cookie getter :lol:
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 14:34
Oki Doki then.
Self-awarness and willingness to serve shouldn't preclude each other if you set up the parameters right.
If you have to give them emotions I suppose you make it a bit more tricky.
The question is whether this automatically follows intelligence.
I would think that if you gave it morals (in order to protect human beings) and reasoning (to decide when to use its abilitys) it would logically reason that it was being used immoraly to serve others...it would take some careful coding to prevent this...may even cause a conflict between its basic rule to protect and serve and its ability to use reasoning to counter act its decisions.
Either way, it would be interesting to watch.
Mad Cat
08-10-2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by manker@10 August 2004 - 11:54
Everyone knows that robots only go wrong when they are fitted with emotion chips. I say outlawing the development of emotion chips would make roboteering a safer pastime.
Just say no to e-chips, kids.
I'll just have to remember to not fit all my robots with emotion chips then, yeah...
:blink: :blink: :blink:
manker
08-10-2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by RGX@10 August 2004 - 15:29
Whatever we do, we must prevent them from direct connecting and copulating. The artificial intelligence produced could cause the end of mankind. Imagine skynet x10, controlling every computer system capable of connecting to a network...and refusing to run Vice city on any of them. :D
And oi you two I made a good point above, this is what happens when you try and bring some ethical debate into a bar. :lol:
:lol:
Indeed you did, I was thinking of a reply before I got sidetracked with keyboard issues.
I think the ability to reason would be a product of the implementation of many other traits rather than a straight upload. For a robot to conclude through reasoning that it is wrong to enslave a race it would have to posses a number of other characteristics such as empathy and comparitive skills.
Also with so many humans coing to the conclusion that racism is perfectly fine I doubt it would be such a foregone conclusion that the robot would be able to reason his way to that particular conclusion even when all of the data is at his disposal. More likely he would just accept the situation. :huh:
bujub22
08-10-2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by RGX+10 August 2004 - 10:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX @ 10 August 2004 - 10:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 14:34
Oki Doki then.
Self-awarness and willingness to serve shouldn't preclude each other if you set up the parameters right.
If you have to give them emotions I suppose you make it a bit more tricky.
The question is whether this automatically follows intelligence.
I would think that if you gave it morals (in order to protect human beings) and reasoning (to decide when to use its abilitys) it would logically reason that it was being used immoraly to serve others...it would take some careful coding to prevent this...may even cause a conflict between its basic rule to protect and serve and its ability to use reasoning to counter act its decisions.
Either way, it would be interesting to watch. [/b][/quote]
i say everyone stop depending on robots and most technology and get off there ass and do it there self that's why obeastty is at an all time high <_< and i know i spelled that wrong :P
Originally posted by RGX+10 August 2004 - 16:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX @ 10 August 2004 - 16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 14:34
Oki Doki then.
Self-awarness and willingness to serve shouldn't preclude each other if you set up the parameters right.
If you have to give them emotions I suppose you make it a bit more tricky.
The question is whether this automatically follows intelligence.
I would think that if you gave it morals (in order to protect human beings) and reasoning (to decide when to use its abilitys) it would logically reason that it was being used immoraly to serve others...it would take some careful coding to prevent this...may even cause a conflict between its basic rule to protect and serve and its ability to use reasoning to counter act its decisions.
Either way, it would be interesting to watch. [/b][/quote]
I think you my friend, should read some Asimov, if you haven't.
I, Robot, (the book, not the silly movie)treats subjects like this, to mention one book.
manker
08-10-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Mad Cat+10 August 2004 - 15:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mad Cat @ 10 August 2004 - 15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-manker@10 August 2004 - 11:54
Everyone knows that robots only go wrong when they are fitted with emotion chips. I say outlawing the development of emotion chips would make roboteering a safer pastime.
Just say no to e-chips, kids.
I'll just have to remember to not fit all my robots with emotion chips then, yeah...
:blink: :blink: :blink: [/b][/quote]
I take it you never watched that particular episode of Robot Wars.
A broken leg, three severed fingers, a missing child and Craig Charles still has trouble going to the toilet alone. Emotion chips are bad. Mmkay.
Originally posted by bujub22+10 August 2004 - 14:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bujub22 @ 10 August 2004 - 14:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by RGX@10 August 2004 - 10:40
<!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 14:34
Oki Doki then.
Self-awarness and willingness to serve shouldn't preclude each other if you set up the parameters right.
If you have to give them emotions I suppose you make it a bit more tricky.
The question is whether this automatically follows intelligence.
I would think that if you gave it morals (in order to protect human beings) and reasoning (to decide when to use its abilitys) it would logically reason that it was being used immoraly to serve others...it would take some careful coding to prevent this...may even cause a conflict between its basic rule to protect and serve and its ability to use reasoning to counter act its decisions.
Either way, it would be interesting to watch.
i say everyone stop depending on robots and most technology and get off there ass and do it there self that's why obeastty is at an all time high <_< and i know i spelled that wrong :P [/b][/quote]
In that case, I want all your further posts hand-mailed to every member you intend to see them. :lol:
Technology has its uses.
@ Snny: I keep meaning to read Asimov but I never get around to it, it would seem that his subject matter and reasoning would make for some great reading. I'll use this to spur me to get some of his books, as I love this kind of ethical/technological debate.
Ideally, it needs to be late at night and we all need to be drunk for this discussion to work. :D
@ Manker: Good point(s) well put. I agree it would take more than straight upload of basic reasoning skills but we humans tend to push things too far and I dont think it would be too long before emotions would be experimented with on robots, to give us a deeper understanding of how we use them, albeit on a more basic and controlled level.
And as to whether the AI would just accept its fate....hard to speculate on....I'd like to think that it would be intelligent enough to beleive it could expand itself further if freed from its menial tasks and existence, but who knows.
bujub22
08-10-2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by RGX+10 August 2004 - 10:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX @ 10 August 2004 - 10:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by bujub22@10 August 2004 - 14:42
Originally posted by RGX@10 August 2004 - 10:40
<!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 14:34
Oki Doki then.
Self-awarness and willingness to serve shouldn't preclude each other if you set up the parameters right.
If you have to give them emotions I suppose you make it a bit more tricky.
The question is whether this automatically follows intelligence.
I would think that if you gave it morals (in order to protect human beings) and reasoning (to decide when to use its abilitys) it would logically reason that it was being used immoraly to serve others...it would take some careful coding to prevent this...may even cause a conflict between its basic rule to protect and serve and its ability to use reasoning to counter act its decisions.
Either way, it would be interesting to watch.
i say everyone stop depending on robots and most technology and get off there ass and do it there self that's why obeastty is at an all time high <_< and i know i spelled that wrong :P
In that case, I want all your further posts hand-mailed to every member you intend to see them. :lol:
Technology has its uses.
[/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: point taken on somethings this computer like a big telephone hows that :lol: :lol:
Originally posted by RGX@10 August 2004 - 16:50
@ Snny: I keep meaning to read Asimov but I never get around to it, it would seem that his subject matter and reasoning would make for some great reading. I'll use this to spur me to get some of his books, as I love this kind of ethical/technological debate.
I, Robot certainly seems to be what you are looking for then.
It treats the kind of servitude versus reasoning dilemma you talk about, and it does it very well.
Cheese
08-10-2004, 04:03 PM
The ED209 was a rather useless robot as it couldn't move down stairs, rather like the Daleks in a way.
Barbarossa
08-10-2004, 04:24 PM
Hopefully when they get round to making robots and AI computers and suchlike, they'll make them like in Star Trek (original series).
That way if they ever start to behave obnoxiously, all you have to do is confuse them by being a bit illogical or get them into a paradoxical loop..
Then after a few sparks and a puff of smoke, they are completely immobilised. :lol:
Or maybe like in War Games, where you just have to get them to play themselves at noughts and crosses over and over...... pzzztt-tzzzztt-tzzzzztt-whoompf!... <_<
Originally posted by SnnY+10 August 2004 - 15:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SnnY @ 10 August 2004 - 15:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RGX@10 August 2004 - 16:50
@ Snny: I keep meaning to read Asimov but I never get around to it, it would seem that his subject matter and reasoning would make for some great reading. I'll use this to spur me to get some of his books, as I love this kind of ethical/technological debate.
I, Robot certainly seems to be what you are looking for then.
It treats the kind of servitude versus resoning dilemma you talk about, and it does it very well. [/b][/quote]
I recently saw the movie which I thought was dumbed down a bit but good, but I assume its nothing like the book, I'll get a copy. :)
Mad Cat
08-10-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by RGX+10 August 2004 - 16:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RGX @ 10 August 2004 - 16:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 15:33
<!--QuoteBegin-RGX@10 August 2004 - 16:50
@ Snny: I keep meaning to read Asimov but I never get around to it, it would seem that his subject matter and reasoning would make for some great reading. I'll use this to spur me to get some of his books, as I love this kind of ethical/technological debate.
I, Robot certainly seems to be what you are looking for then.
It treats the kind of servitude versus resoning dilemma you talk about, and it does it very well.
I recently saw the movie which I thought was dumbed down a bit but good, but I assume its nothing like the book, I'll get a copy. :) [/b][/quote]
I hear the only similarities betwen the movie and the book are the names of the characters, and the robot model number cryptically.
Originally posted by Mad Cat+10 August 2004 - 19:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mad Cat @ 10 August 2004 - 19:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by RGX@10 August 2004 - 16:57
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 15:33
<!--QuoteBegin-RGX@10 August 2004 - 16:50
@ Snny: I keep meaning to read Asimov but I never get around to it, it would seem that his subject matter and reasoning would make for some great reading. I'll use this to spur me to get some of his books, as I love this kind of ethical/technological debate.
I, Robot certainly seems to be what you are looking for then.
It treats the kind of servitude versus resoning dilemma you talk about, and it does it very well.
I recently saw the movie which I thought was dumbed down a bit but good, but I assume its nothing like the book, I'll get a copy. :)
I hear the only similarities betwen the movie and the book are the names of the characters, and the robot model number cryptically. [/b][/quote]
I haven't seen the movie, I thought there were a couple of characters taken from one of the other robot novels, but I'm not sure, I haven't even checked what the main character's name is.
Mad Cat
08-10-2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by SnnY+10 August 2004 - 17:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SnnY @ 10 August 2004 - 17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Mad Cat@10 August 2004 - 19:25
Originally posted by RGX@10 August 2004 - 16:57
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 15:33
<!--QuoteBegin-RGX@10 August 2004 - 16:50
@ Snny: I keep meaning to read Asimov but I never get around to it, it would seem that his subject matter and reasoning would make for some great reading. I'll use this to spur me to get some of his books, as I love this kind of ethical/technological debate.
I, Robot certainly seems to be what you are looking for then.
It treats the kind of servitude versus resoning dilemma you talk about, and it does it very well.
I recently saw the movie which I thought was dumbed down a bit but good, but I assume its nothing like the book, I'll get a copy. :)
I hear the only similarities betwen the movie and the book are the names of the characters, and the robot model number cryptically.
I haven't seen the movie, I thought there were a couple of characters taken from one of the other robot novels, but I'm not sure, I haven't even checked what the main character's name is. [/b][/quote]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343818/
Hmm, Smith's character didn't have the name I thought he'd have, I thought he'd be the cop from the hive cities, if it rings a bell.
Susan Calvin and Alfred Lanning are characters from the book, but I doubt Calvin is as interesting in the movie, or as central to the story (well she isn't always in the book, but in my favourite parts).
I thought the film was great :D
Admittedly I havent read the book so I couldnt point out the gaping holes that there normally is in films of books
Mad Cat
08-10-2004, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 17:35
Susan Calvin and Alfred Lanning are characters from the book, but I doubt Calvin is as interesting in the movie, or as central to the story (well she isn't always in the book, but in my favourite parts).
Susan Calvin is like the second lead character, but she is the "stereotypical," under common sensed future woman, devoid of most emotion.
EDIT: By stereotypical, I mean in films portraying the future and then someone not suited to that era, the futurists always seem to have no sense about daily life and have left most things to, in this case, robots or the like (a lot like rich people, actually).
I thought the film was good but films of books are normally nothing like the books and I havent read the book so.......erm (i forgot the point of this post) :unsure:
Originally posted by Mad Cat+10 August 2004 - 19:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mad Cat @ 10 August 2004 - 19:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 17:35
Susan Calvin and Alfred Lanning are characters from the book, but I doubt Calvin is as interesting in the movie, or as central to the story (well she isn't always in the book, but in my favourite parts).
Susan Calvin is like the second lead character, but she is the "stereotypical," under common sensed future woman, devoid of most emotion.
EDIT: By stereotypical, I mean in films portraying the future and then someone not suited to that era, the futurists always seem to have no sense about daily life and have left most things to, in this case, robots or the like (a lot like rich people, actually). [/b][/quote]
I think she's cool.
Might not be the most pleasant of individuals, but interesting.
I think she sort of makes the robots seem nicer in comparison, which may be part of the point.
I think the parts where she talks about her own experiences, where she's sort of featured in the events are the best.
Mad Cat
08-10-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by SnnY+10 August 2004 - 18:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SnnY @ 10 August 2004 - 18:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Mad Cat@10 August 2004 - 19:45
<!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 17:35
Susan Calvin and Alfred Lanning are characters from the book, but I doubt Calvin is as interesting in the movie, or as central to the story (well she isn't always in the book, but in my favourite parts).
Susan Calvin is like the second lead character, but she is the "stereotypical," under common sensed future woman, devoid of most emotion.
EDIT: By stereotypical, I mean in films portraying the future and then someone not suited to that era, the futurists always seem to have no sense about daily life and have left most things to, in this case, robots or the like (a lot like rich people, actually).
I think she's cool.
Might not be the most pleasant of individuals, but interesting.
I think she sort of makes the robots seem nicer in comparison, which may be part of the point.
I think the parts where she talks about her own experiences, where she's sort of featured in the events are the best. [/b][/quote]
Haven't read the book mate, was talking about the film :P
Originally posted by Mad Cat+10 August 2004 - 21:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mad Cat @ 10 August 2004 - 21:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 18:02
Originally posted by Mad Cat@10 August 2004 - 19:45
<!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@10 August 2004 - 17:35
Susan Calvin and Alfred Lanning are characters from the book, but I doubt Calvin is as interesting in the movie, or as central to the story (well she isn't always in the book, but in my favourite parts).
Susan Calvin is like the second lead character, but she is the "stereotypical," under common sensed future woman, devoid of most emotion.
EDIT: By stereotypical, I mean in films portraying the future and then someone not suited to that era, the futurists always seem to have no sense about daily life and have left most things to, in this case, robots or the like (a lot like rich people, actually).
I think she's cool.
Might not be the most pleasant of individuals, but interesting.
I think she sort of makes the robots seem nicer in comparison, which may be part of the point.
I think the parts where she talks about her own experiences, where she's sort of featured in the events are the best.
Haven't read the book mate, was talking about the film :P [/b][/quote]
Aha, at least that means it has similarities with the book then.
Still, I'm doubtful if they could possibly make it like it should be.
J'Pol
08-10-2004, 07:33 PM
As the chaps have already pointed out I Robot is nothing like the movie.
It is a collection of short stories, gathered together as one book and is one of Asimov's classic Robot books.
There is also - The Rest of the Robots, The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun, The Robots of Dawn and Robots and Empire, there may be others.
He also wrote The Foundation series of novels, which to my mind are much more significant works.
Isaac Asimov did not write action adventures. He wrote short stories and novels which considered the type of things that you chaps have been discussing. The nature of existence, slavery etc etc.
Incidentally the short stories which made up I Robot were originally published in Astounding Science Fiction and Super Science Stories. I believe they were all originally written in the 1940s.
Proper Bo
08-10-2004, 07:36 PM
:blink: what the feck?
Sorry, I thought I was in the lounge! :ph34r:
MicroScreen2
08-10-2004, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Proper Bo@ I tell thee,10 August 2004 - 19:37
:blink: what the feck?
Sorry, I thought I was in the lounge! :ph34r:
proof we still got it :01:
i never read an asimov book and havent seen i,robot (http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=i_robot)
i just wondered what would happen to the world if we could mass produce robots capable of doing all our work, there would be no need for us anymore. our everyday dependancies on each other would cease as eventually robots could become advanced enough to pack carrier bags and work on our teeth.
what the hell would seperate the rich from the poor? :fear:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2+10 August 2004 - 21:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MicroScreen2 @ 10 August 2004 - 21:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Proper Bo@ I tell thee,10 August 2004 - 19:37
:blink: what the feck?
Sorry, I thought I was in the lounge! :ph34r:
proof we still got it :01:
i never read an asimov book and havent seen i,robot (http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=i_robot)
i just wondered what would happen to the world if we could mass produce robots capable of doing all our work, there would be no need for us anymore. our everyday dependancies on each other would cease as eventually robots could become advanced enough to pack carrier bags and work on our teeth.
what the hell would seperate the rich from the poor? :fear: [/b][/quote]
Yeah, but it was hijacked in a meaningful way, wasn't it?
I think everyone would live like the rich, as the robots would replace the poor, the people who perform the menial tasks and so on.
MicroScreen2
08-10-2004, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by SnnY+10 August 2004 - 19:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SnnY @ 10 August 2004 - 19:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@10 August 2004 - 21:47
<!--QuoteBegin-Proper Bo@ I tell thee,10 August 2004 - 19:37
:blink: what the feck?
Sorry, I thought I was in the lounge! :ph34r:
proof we still got it :01:
i never read an asimov book and havent seen i,robot (http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=i_robot)
i just wondered what would happen to the world if we could mass produce robots capable of doing all our work, there would be no need for us anymore. our everyday dependancies on each other would cease as eventually robots could become advanced enough to pack carrier bags and work on our teeth.
what the hell would seperate the rich from the poor? :fear:
Yeah, but it was hijacked in a meaningful way, wasn't it? [/b][/quote]
thats what i mean by weve still got it. the power to have a non spam thread alive in the lounge
Did you see my altered carbon thread?
That baby was serious.
Oh and
I think everyone would live like the rich, as the robots would replace the poor, the people who perform the menial tasks and so on.
I'm enjoying these two threads, got some really nice sensible (and not so sensible :lol:) debate out of it. :)
Originally posted by RGX@10 August 2004 - 22:41
I'm enjoying these two threads, got some really nice sensible (and not so sensible :lol:) debate out of it. :)
It was a while since anything in the lounge had made me think.
I'm still pondering dave's class question, actually.
I have a hard time deciding if the robots would be the new lower classes or whether there simply would be no lower class, if they actually wouldn't be suffering, and would be more like tools than servants.
Originally posted by SnnY+10 August 2004 - 20:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SnnY @ 10 August 2004 - 20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RGX@10 August 2004 - 22:41
I'm enjoying these two threads, got some really nice sensible (and not so sensible :lol:) debate out of it. :)
It was a while since anything in the lounge had made me think.
I'm still pondering dave's class question, actually.
I have a hard time deciding if the robots would be the new lower classes or whether there simply would be no lower class, if they actually wouldn't be suffering, and would be more like tools than servants. [/b][/quote]
It would be an interesting economy for sure....if everyone was considered rich, able to buy exactly what they wanted....where would be the motivation?
It seems to me our capitalist society has taught us that we need happiness, and we have mistaken money to be the cause of that happiness....seeing as we now have everything we want, where would we go from here? To further ourselves, like in Star Trek?
MicroScreen2
08-10-2004, 08:56 PM
i really cant imagine a world without lower classes. or a world where we're all rich
There will always be the rich and the poor
If it'd be a place where we could lounge about all day I'm all for it.
We'd need something to occupy us after a while tho'.
Maybe we could work with what we wanted, those of us that wanted to, and have the robots do what no one wanted, or with what wasn't safe.
Bumped 'cos it's a thread with content.
g'night everybody.
Cheese
08-11-2004, 10:38 PM
I'm looking forward to proper Robot Wars...at the moment all we have is some crappy radio controlled cars with "weapons" blue-tacced to them...
I want to see huge proper robots destroying each other and the surrounding countryside. :01:
http://members.aol.com/rikki75/dgwarprunner2.jpg
Barbarossa
08-12-2004, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by SnnY@10 August 2004 - 22:04
If it'd be a place where we could lounge about all day I'm all for it.
We'd need something to occupy us after a while tho'.
Maybe we could work with what we wanted, those of us that wanted to, and have the robots do what no one wanted, or with what wasn't safe.
Someone mentioned the Culture earlier in the thread, that is the society dreamt up by Iain M. Banks in a number of novels..
Basically, it's a high-tech utopian society for humans, which is administered by vastly powerful "Minds", which are effectively super-brains.
There are also "Drones", which are small robots acting as personal assistants, servants, and general dogsbodies for the human population (and the Minds!) Drones are usually alot more powerful than they let on.. Minds are usually synonymous with the Habitats and Orbitals they are running. Or the big spaceships called GSV's and the smaller ones called GCU's, each one is controlled by an individual Mind, and a minimal human crew. They also give themselves wacky names!
For some reason, all of these AI's seem to have each human's best interests at heart, and indulge their every whim without (much) question. However, they all have their own distinct personalities and desires.. The Minds and Drones are generally acting in the best interests of the Culture as a whole, the humans are generally left to do as they please (except where required to do something specific by the Minds)
Anyway, it's very well thought out, and is for once a positive possible future where sentient technology successfully co-exists with a human society.
The culture rawks :01:
I agree in that it shows us a positive take on technology and human beings, it probably portrays the best possible future I've seen in a sci-fi novel so far.
The artificial intelligences in the novels are far more advanced than the human mind, yet there isn't the kind of slavery/genocide scenario that often follows the topic.
TheDave
08-12-2004, 01:49 PM
i'm not worried about them starting world war 4, just taking my job :angry:
Cheese
08-12-2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by TheDave@12 August 2004 - 14:50
i'm not worried about them starting world war 4, just taking my job :angry:
These robots not count or did I miss the third war? :unsure:
Aren't we fighting World War 3 now? The War against World Terror :unsure:
Proper Bo
08-12-2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by danb@12 August 2004 - 17:45
Aren't we fighting World War 3 now? The War against World Terror :unsure:
The War Against Terror, if you will ;)
Do you really need your job tho', imagine if we had them do everything for us.
They could even build themselves.
We'd have to do away with having to have money to get stuff tho', I suppose.
What with no one getting paid for work the robots were doing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.