'Smarter' robots: The effect on humanity

[The_Animus]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/12/11/honda.robot.ap/index.html

I though this could be put either in the philosophy or business section. If the mods wish to move it then so be it.

So currently the technology exists where robots are able to clean pools, vacuume houses, serve drinks, and recharge themselves when their battery gets low. It is also known that techonology seems to be 'evolving', by which I mean upgrading and becoming more impressive and complex, at an incredible rate. So it could be argued that 50 or 100 years from now robots will be able to do most 'low level' jobs.

How do you think this will affect humanity? What will happen when it becomes cheaper for businesses to buy robots for low level positions than to have human employees? What other ramifications would this have in all aspects of life?

[Lonewulf]

That's... a big question.

I'm not sure how to start to answer it.

Overall, I think that decent AI required for jobs that a human mind is better apt for are a long ways off. 50 to 100 years, though, is pretty far away. How will it affect humanity?

Well, I like to think that Transhuman Space, by Steve Jackson Games, has a pretty nifty perspective on that... and if we can get AIs that can simulate humans, it's only inevitable that we'll have humans become AIs, out of desire for longetivity. Lots of interesting concepts there. Greg Egan's Diaspora give some interesting perspectives of the long-term effects of people downloading themselves as digital information...

I think that humanity and the AI will be very integrated, though. I think that every person with any sort of economic clout will end up having a household AI that can run various routines. Call in to your AI and have it cook dinner for you; call it in and have it tell you where your daughter is. Call in to your AI and have it call the police, medical services, or whatever else. Have it store phone numbers, recipes, data, information; it's your home computer plus your work computer plus your phone book plus everything else that you could possibly have use for.

As for taking jobs... I'm not sure on that. It depends on the design on the machine. I think that making a machine with all of the capabilities of a human may end up not being that cheap, honestly; I'd imagine that robots would be better apt for handling, say, hazardous waste and the like. More dangerous jobs... but as their intelligence levels go up, who knows?

Either way, sooner or later we may end up with a business that's made up of dumb cybershells controlled by a much larger more intelligent AI.

[The Man]

Unfortunately, this was expected to have happened some 40 to 50 years prior to our current time. Scientists and the projected advance of technology are no better at describing the future then psychics. If one third of what was expected to happen had happened, as expected, we would now be flying around in air cars with publicly livable space stations and habitats on the moon and Mars.

What would happen if we had robots capable of doing all the menial tasks we do not prefer to do? Well, I guess we would not have the current concern of illegal immigrants taking those jobs and then those people might not have the jobs they need, or the chance to survive and flourish that most of our ancestors accomplished, creating this brave new world of ours.

[drkitten]

How do you think this will affect humanity? What will happen when it becomes cheaper for businesses to buy robots for low level positions than to have human employees?

You mean, what did happen when it became cheaper for businesses to buy robots for low-level positions than to have human employees?

You're halfway up a tree, wondering what will happen when your feet stop touching the ground. Look around you and you'll see your answer.

"Calculator" used to be a job description, not a piece of equipment. Large companies had rooms full of people who would just crunch numbers; if you needed to know the time value of a proposed loan, you would give it to Larry, the "calculator" and he would figure it out for you. Today you ask Excel, the spreadsheet.

Switchboards used to be operated by "operators," and if you wanted to connect to a person in the neighboring state, you dialed the "operator" and she connected you (eventually).

There used to be a little man in the elevator who drove it up and down to make sure that everyone got to their floors properly. There was another little man at the garage who measured out your gasoline for you, and a third man at the grocery store who rang up your purchases.

What happened to the world when we replaced switchboard girls with computerrs?

[Beerina]

"Computer", too, was a term for a human who crunched numbers.

There used to be a little man in the elevator who drove it up and down to make sure that everyone got to their floors properly

These still exist in Washington, where Congress, "frugal" with spending $2.2 trillion per year, feels it must have paid, unionized people in elevators pushing the buttons for you. Of course, we're civilized as well as modern, so they sit on chairs while pushing the buttons for you.

[Jimbo07]

As for taking jobs... I'm not sure on that. It depends on the design on the machine. I think that making a machine with all of the capabilities of a human may end up not being that cheap, honestly; I'd imagine that robots would be better apt for handling, say, hazardous waste and the like.

There are ways in which human life can be so de-valued, that you can get warm bodies to perform horrendous tasks for dirt-cheap. Oops! It's happening all over the world already.

Why would people invest in robots? Unless the robots could do it so much better, that significant savings would be achieved...

:mad:

[Lonewulf]

There are ways in which human life can be so de-valued, that you can get warm bodies to perform horrendous tasks for dirt-cheap. Oops! It's happening all over the world already.

Why would people invest in robots? Unless the robots could do it so much better, that significant savings would be achieved...

:mad:

Breathe, Jimbo. Breathe. In and out. Count to ten.

[Cello Man]

Ideas that intrigue me about AI:

What happens if we make robots with such a high upper limit to intelligence, problem solving, and intuition that their personality becomes indistinguishable from that of human beings? Since we have no real scientific yardstick for consciousness, how do we distinguish between "simulated" consciousness and ourselves, the "real deal"?

What happens then? Will these robots or other AI's petition for the right to vote? Will they have to generate income and pay taxes? Will there be a Robot Civil Rights Movement? Suppose they decide that human society is inherently flawed, and they move to establish a nation of their own.

It's fascinating to think about.

[drkitten]

Ideas that intrigue me about AI:

What happens if we make robots with such a high upper limit to intelligence, problem solving, and intuition that their personality becomes indistinguishable from that of human beings?

Why on Earth should we do that? One of the primary advantages of computers (and one of the main reasons that people want robots in the first place) is because they can demonstrate intelligence and problem solving without the limitation imposed by personallity. For example, the Google spiders do not get bored by the triviality of the task they are asked to undertake nor annoyed at the content of the web sites that they have to index.

The most successful robots so far have been the ones with the least degree of "personality." I see no compelling reason for this to change. The last thing I want is a robotic vacuum cleaner that gets pissy when I spill something or a robotic dishwasher that nags at me because it disapproves of the food I eat. If I wanted that, I have a friend whose wife I could probably borrow (he certainly wouldn't mind getting rid of her for a few days).

[Cello Man]

Why on Earth should we do that? One of the primary advantages of computers (and one of the main reasons that people want robots in the first place) is because they can demonstrate intelligence and problem solving without the limitation imposed by personallity.

I'm not arguing that it's something we should be doing. But look at the push towards creating more lifelike humanoid robots (especially the work being done in Japan) and it's obvious that at least one sub-field of AI is heading in that direction, for better or worse.

Humans invented gods thousands of years ago. Now we seem compelled to invent ourselves all over again.

[Lonewulf]

Why on Earth should we do that?

Personally, I think it's kinda funny how you don't see any possible potential applications in AI design... but I guess that's just me.

Don't really want an argument one way or the other, especially knowing how they tend to turn out on this forum.

[Jimbo07]

Breathe, Jimbo. Breathe. In and out. Count to ten.

Sorry. Actually, I was agreeing with you in a sense. I don't think computers will replace labour absolutely, it will just change some of it. On a unit-per-unit basis, you'll never be able to have a robot that replaces a human cheaply. The places where robots have worked the best (and machines in general, thank the industrial revolution) have been where the entire process can be redesigned and economies found. I just think it's a sad comment on the low value some place on human life.

...

On the issue of AI demanding its rights, I've stated my opinion before. When the machines are demanding them violently, the philosophers will be free to debate whether it's really consciousness, or a mere simulation, while being fed through the AIs' Puree-o-matic 2.0s!

:D

[The_Animus]

Well I was more referring to business application of the robots. Not AI to an equivalent level of human consciousness. I think that will be farther off.

Right now they can make robots that can distinguish between different types of drinks, they can pour those drinks and serve them to you. What happens when they can cook burgers and make fries too?

All restaurants will now have to decide between two choices. A one time expensive buy with occasional maintenance cost to get a robot employee who can work almost an unlimited number of hours, who doesn't complain, who doesn't ask for raises, who doesn't slack, or talk to other employees. Or continuing to hire people, who work less, have to be paid for every hour they work, who show up late, or call in sick, or quit, or ask for raises, or burn the fries, etc.

So assuming its cost effective, and I think that it will get to that point, you now have millions of people without a job. Now the same goes for sales clerks, bank tellers, bartenders, etc.

What are all these people going to do to pay their bills?

[Jimbo07]

So assuming its cost effective, and I think that it will get to that point, you now have millions of people without a job. Now the same goes for sales clerks, bank tellers, bartenders, etc.

What are all these people going to do to pay their bills?

That already happened for tellers with ATMs and branch closures. Canada is experiencing 30-year record-low unemployment figures right now.

This was debated with the coming of steam-driven pumps...

[rocketdodger]

So assuming its cost effective, and I think that it will get to that point, you now have millions of people without a job. Now the same goes for sales clerks, bank tellers, bartenders, etc.

What are all these people going to do to pay their bills?

Learn to be useful to the rest of us.

[rocketdodger]

Unfortunately, this was expected to have happened some 40 to 50 years prior to our current time. Scientists and the projected advance of technology are no better at describing the future then psychics. If one third of what was expected to happen had happened, as expected, we would now be flying around in air cars with publicly livable space stations and habitats on the moon and Mars.

Truth be told, technology has advanced far faster than they predicted before something like 1990.

What hasn't increased like they thought is humankind's desire to do something other than talk to our friends on cell phones all day long or boss each other around.

The lack of the "future, NOW" is due to motivation and nothing else.

[latent aaaack]

The more jobs went to cheap robots the more money would be centralized in fewer peoples' hands and the more angry jobless youth there would be. Past a certain point a form of communism or the government simply paying the jobless enough to live would be the only answer. It would just need to be an extension of social security. But what would happen if 50% of the population was without a task and just sat around getting paid for nothing? How would angst, crime, and depression be controlled?

Video games and porn? My guess is virtual reality games and virtual reality porn to keep the jobless, poor masses happy followed by the powerful making them go extinct without them realizing it while they're racking up kills and having sex with their favorite celebrities.

[Jimbo07]

Video games and porn?

That's what's happening with the surplus of males in China right now, only the porn isn't even virtual. Women are being put through sexual slavery. We don't need robots for any of this misery to occur...

[The_Animus]

No, but it would increase the problem.

People like to feel useful. Without it many people become depressed. Even now in a low level job people are still being useful. Someone has to do it. When you want pizza, someone has to make it.

But if robots took over all the low level jobs you would have many poor people without the skills needed to get another job. It's not like they have money to go to college to learn new skills. Even if they could get loans and such do you expect someone who is 40 to spend $30,000 and 4+ years in college to learn a new skill? What do they do for those years they are learning a new skill? It's not like they can get a job to pay the bills.

The only thing I could think is if the government stepping in and offered free living, food, and education for those who lost their jobs.

But the problem doesn't stop there. During the time that all these people are re-training the robot technology would also be improving and allowing them to be implemented in more jobs. To try to re-train people would become a continueous cycle of learning new skills and being replaced by robots who can do it better for cheaper.

[Jimbo07]

To try to re-train people would become a continueous cycle of learning new skills and being replaced by...

... people who would do the same thing much cheaper.

The problems already exist. It won't be compounded by A.I. because it's bad now! There are lots of disenfranchised people fighting wars around the world. Nothing productive to do? Kill someone!

These are not problems related specifically to A.I. is all...

[The_Animus]

Jimbo07 I appreciate your contributions to this discussion. I am not saying these issues don't already exist. I am well aware that there is sexual slavery in the world today. I am well aware that people working in low level jobs lose their jobs to illegal immigrants or people willing to work that same job for a lower wage. I understand this. I am saying that having robots take over these jobs would increase these same problems to a whole new level.

And there is also one key difference. Robots do not have rights. There is no legal minimum wage that would have to be paid to them. They have no unions. They don't need breaks other than to recharge and they can work 7 days a week, probably 18+ hours a day. No human being can compete with that.

So all the problems that unemployment cause today, all the idleness that results in gangs, sexual slavery, wars, killing would be multiplied immensely.

[Robin]

Jimbo07 I appreciate your contributions to this discussion. I am not saying these issues don't already exist. I am well aware that there is sexual slavery in the world today. I am well aware that people working in low level jobs lose their jobs to illegal immigrants or people willing to work that same job for a lower wage. I understand this. I am saying that having robots take over these jobs would increase these same problems to a whole new level.

And there is also one key difference. Robots do not have rights. There is no legal minimum wage that would have to be paid to them. They have no unions. They don't need breaks other than to recharge and they can work 7 days a week, probably 18+ hours a day. No human being can compete with that.

So all the problems that unemployment cause today, all the idleness that results in gangs, sexual slavery, wars, killing would be multiplied immensely.
Sure, there was hardly any sexual slavery, gangs, wars and killing before high technology.

Just the other day I was nearly abducted by a gang of idle lift attendants, personally I think we should go back to those halcyon days of the middle ages when everybody had employment and sufficient resources for their needs.

[Robin]

Sure, there was hardly any sexual slavery, gangs, wars and killing before high technology.

Just the other day I was nearly abducted by a gang of idle lift attendants, personally I think we should go back to those halcyon days of the middle ages when everybody had employment and sufficient resources for their needs.
Hold on, scratch that, I just thought of all the misery and unemployment caused by the printing press.

Maybe we should go right back to Eden and start scavenging on the corpses left behind by other carnivores and practising infanticide on the children we are not able to provide for.

[Jimbo07]

Jimbo07 I appreciate your contributions to this discussion. I am not saying these issues don't already exist. I am well aware that there is sexual slavery in the world today. I am well aware that people working in low level jobs lose their jobs to illegal immigrants or people willing to work that same job for a lower wage. I understand this. I am saying that having robots take over these jobs would increase these same problems to a whole new level.

... and all I'm saying is that anyone who doesn't care about these problems now, won't have that much reason to care as AI is adopted. The rich get richer n' all...

Now if, say, AI introduced the problem to a previously unaffected area? Well, there have already been big adjustments to sweeping layoffs. It's never easy on those in the middle, and never impacts those not directly affected. As well, if you're concerned about secondary effects, well...

... some people don't seem give a rat's patooty about the underlying causes of terrorism, now, anyway!

[technoextreme]

So currently the technology exists where robots are able to clean pools, vacuume houses, serve drinks, and recharge themselves when their battery gets low. It is also known that techonology seems to be 'evolving', by which I mean upgrading and becoming more impressive and complex, at an incredible rate. So it could be argued that 50 or 100 years from now robots will be able to do most 'low level' jobs.

I know you are talking about IRobot from your discussion about the vacuuming robots. No offense but "advance technology" had nothing to do with any of the consumer robots IRobot sells. It was just really creative engineering and probably $10.00 worth of electronics to create the AI.
... and all I'm saying is that anyone who doesn't care about these problems now, won't have that much reason to care as AI is adopted. The rich get richer n' all...
Sorry. Too late.:) Look up CNC machinary. It may not be pretty. It may not be spectacular but it's a robot and by gee golly it's used everywhere. This Asimo fluff is really masking the amount of adoption in robotics because it's only the "COOL" stuff that people care about. Not even the statistics are because of semantic reasons.

[The_Animus]

Well I think that is because right now it doesn't affect a big enough portion of the worlds population. Most people don't care because it simply doesn't affect them. Most people can continue on with their daily lives as if nothing is happening.

Right now there are people without jobs. People get layed off or fired. But look at every fast food place, every restaurant, every clerk from gas stations to bank tellers to many of your local department store employees. Now include factory workers, security guards, maybe even pilots, cab and truck drivers. All these people would be without a job.

When you have that many people without jobs its not nearly so easy to ignore. Especially when all these people have nothing to do, nothing to occupy their time but to cause trouble.

[technoextreme]

Well I think that is because right now it doesn't affect a big enough portion of the worlds population. Most people don't care because it simply doesn't affect them. Most people can continue on with their daily lives as if nothing is happening.

Right because manufacturing jobs are not a significant portion of the world's population. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:Go watch a bunch of episodes of How It's Made so you can learn how much of the process is basically automated by robotics. The Pretzel episode amazed me at the image recognition and robotic cells the used to package the boxes.

[The_Animus]

Assumed ignorance isn't needed in this thread, or in any for that matter.

I have watched many of those video's. They are very easily available online. Thanks.

And my response above was in reply to Jim. Not your post.

[Robin]

Among the many invalid assumptions being made here is that AI will only replace lower level jobs. But note how many investment analysts have been displaced by more effective adaptive automatic trading systems.

I will bet that we have a computer that can effectively replace the CEO of a company long before we have one that can fix my plumbing or plaster my walls.

[Robin]

... some people don't seem give a rat's patooty about the underlying causes of terrorism, now, anyway!
As I note that most terrorists seem to have come from jobs that are a good deal better than mine, I am pretty sure that poverty and unemployment are not among the underlying causes of terrorism.

[Robin]

Truth be told, technology has advanced far faster than they predicted before something like 1990.

For example?

[Roboramma]

While AI may replace some low level jobs it also opens up cheap small business opportunities.

At one point photo development was a large expense requiring considerable expertise. Now we have photoshop. When individuals can do things cheaper they can sell the skills that they have more easily. For instance, a photographer today doesn't need to invest in the skills and training to develop film, the space and chemicals for a dark room. All he needs is a good digital camera, a computer and decent photo editing software.
He might not even need to pay an accountant, because he can do his accounting on his own with the help of some software.

The point? "Robots" may take some jobs (both "high" and "low" level), but they will also open up new ones. They will (and are, and have) create new economic opportunities. And there's no reason that those opportunities will necessarily only be concentrated in the hands of the rich.

[The_Animus]

Thank you for your response Roboramma. I agree that it seems that while improved technology takes away some jobs its also creates new ones. So even if robots took over many service jobs such as those in fast food or restaurants it may also create new jobs.

I do recall reading articles that said that most jobs of the future haven't even been invented yet.

[The Man]

Thank you for your response Roboramma. I agree that it seems that while improved technology takes away some jobs its also creates new ones. So even if robots took over many service jobs such as those in fast food or restaurants it may also create new jobs.

I do recall reading articles that said that most jobs of the future haven't even been invented yet.


Very true, do not forget about people like me, who’s job it is to install, fix and maintain robots. The people displaced by robots might be outnumbered by the people needing to be employed to design, program and maintain those robots. That is until robots design, program and maintain themselves. Then we may be looking at an entirely different society

[The Man]

Truth be told, technology has advanced far faster than they predicted before something like 1990.

What hasn't increased like they thought is humankind's desire to do something other than talk to our friends on cell phones all day long or boss each other around.

The lack of the "future, NOW" is due to motivation and nothing else.



A primarily robotic AI workforce has been projected to be obtainable in the next 50 to 100 years for at least the past 50 to 100 years. If the technology has advanced faster then the projections why haven't we obtained that goal and why do some of the projections still put that goal some 50 to 100 years away?

I agree that a lot of what was expected to have happened has not happened due to a lack of motivation and commitment. The same is true about the future, it will only be what we make it and not what it could or people think it should or might be.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/robot


Word History: Robot is a word that is both a coinage by an individual person and a borrowing. It has been in English since 1923 when the Czech writer Karel Čapek's play R.U.R. was translated into English and presented in London and New York. R.U.R., published in 1921....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R._%28Rossum%27s_Universal_Robots%29

[drkitten]

A primarily robotic AI workforce has been projected to be obtainable in the next 50 to 100 years for at least the past 50 to 100 years. If the technology has advanced faster then the projections why haven't we obtained that goal and why do some of the projections still put that goal some 50 to 100 years away?

I'm not quite sure I understand what "a primarily robotic AI workforce" is supposed to mean in this context. Obviously, anyone displaced from his job by the introduction of a robot will have to find a new job. If you define "workforce" as "what humans are working as," then the idea of a "primarily robotic AI workforce" is oxymoronic.

On the other hand, if you look at what humans did fifty years ago, especially in the USA, I think it's quite reasonable to suggest that the workforce of 1950 (manufacturing, for the most part) has been replaced by robots.

In 1950, my brother would probably have worked in an assembly line and my sister would have worked as a secretary/typist. Today almost no one works as a secretary/typist because every executive has an AI-based word processor at their desk, and of course assembly jobs have been largely replaced by robots since the 1970s. So now my brother installs cable TV and my sister is a professional pet-sitter -- both jobs that largely didn't exist in 1950.

Sounds to me like the 1950s workforce has been replaced by a "a primarily robotic AI workforce" to me.

[rocketdodger]

A primarily robotic AI workforce has been projected to be obtainable in the next 50 to 100 years for at least the past 50 to 100 years. If the technology has advanced faster then the projections why haven't we obtained that goal and why do some of the projections still put that goal some 50 to 100 years away?

A colony on the moon has been obtainable since 1968, forty years ago. Why don't we have a colony on the moon?

[fagin]

Some jobs will be replaced by computers, others still unknown will open up. Some people will develope new skills, some will not. Some will prosper, some will suffer.
A few years before computers there was the industrial revolution. Same difference?

[The Man]

I'm not quite sure I understand what "a primarily robotic AI workforce" is supposed to mean in this context. Obviously, anyone displaced from his job by the introduction of a robot will have to find a new job. If you define "workforce" as "what humans are working as," then the idea of a "primarily robotic AI workforce" is oxymoronic.

On the other hand, if you look at what humans did fifty years ago, especially in the USA, I think it's quite reasonable to suggest that the workforce of 1950 (manufacturing, for the most part) has been replaced by robots.

In 1950, my brother would probably have worked in an assembly line and my sister would have worked as a secretary/typist. Today almost no one works as a secretary/typist because every executive has an AI-based word processor at their desk, and of course assembly jobs have been largely replaced by robots since the 1970s. So now my brother installs cable TV and my sister is a professional pet-sitter -- both jobs that largely didn't exist in 1950.

Sounds to me like the 1950s workforce has been replaced by a "a primarily robotic AI workforce" to me.



AI refers to artificial intelligence or the artificial capacity for learning, reasoning and understanding. Current robots do not have anything that could even remotely be considered artificial intelligence. The robots currently doing manufacturing are generally limited to the specific tasks they were created and programmed to perform. Some production robots have the capability to “learn”, in some regard, in that they can easily be reprogrammed to perform a task differently or a different task. This generally involves the operator placing the robot into a “learning” mode then manually moving the robot through the various steps once completed the robot remembers those steps and can repeat that operation automatically and with great precision. However this learning is merely a recording of certain positional and conditional inputs and involves no understanding or reasoning in the conventional sense.

Your example of a word processor is also not AI. A word processor is simply a glorified typewriter with additional functionality. A true AI writing system would collect the data, make the summary, draw the conclusions then write the report without the need for human intervention.

The robots I work with are used to deliver product from on part of the production process to the next. Although some of them operate fairly independently you could not take one outside that environment give it a pizza and a location then have it make that delivery. A true AI system, like a person, once given the basic understanding of the factors involved in making a delivery could apply that understanding to various environmental conditions.

[The Man]

A colony on the moon has been obtainable since 1968, forty years ago. Why don't we have a colony on the moon?


As we have both said a lot of things do not happen not because they can not happen but simply due to a lack of motivation. That lack of motivation kept a moon colony from being obtained back then and perhaps makes it even less obtainable now (since we would have to get back to the point we were then). At this time we have no heavy lift capability beyond low earth orbit. The Delta IV Heavy has a low earth orbit payload capability of 23,040 kg and an escape orbit payload capability of 9,306 kg the combined mass of the Apollo command, service and lunar modules was 46,768 kg. The shuttle can carry a payload of 50,000 kg but only into low earth orbit. Newer heavy lift vehicles are being developed. Even with a focused effort today to establish a permanent moon colony it may take a considerable amount of time for it to be obtained. Sure a moon colony may have been obtainable 40 years ago when we were making regular excursions to the moon. That goal is not obtainable today tomorrow or who knows when, until sometime after we again obtain the ability to reliably transport people and equipment to and from the moon. We certainly have the ability to regain that ability (lunar transport) should we chose to do so.

[Robin]

A colony on the moon has been obtainable since 1968, forty years ago. Why don't we have a colony on the moon?
The fact that we could land a man on the moon does not imply that a colony was obtainable. A colony would require fairly regular travel to and from it for supplies, personnel changes, medical aid etc and a trip to the moon is a deeply complex task requiring long planning, huge expense and a lot of risk.

NASA can barely sustain the technology required to maintain the space station, the idea that we could institute some kind of shuttle service to the moon even now is laughable.

[technoextreme]

Assumed ignorance isn't needed in this thread, or in any for that matter.

No offense intended but I know it's complete ignorance reading your first post. You managed to confuse varying complexities of AI and somehow managed to think that they are all advanced which is far from the case. Some of the technology in the current crop of consumer robotics is 21 years old. Not only that but you don't even think of the other implications. I can think of one such field where robotics can theoretically overcome physical limitations and in fact expand the length of a person's career. We are not at that point right now but it's theoretically possible.

[latent aaaack]

So what happens when robots are capable of doing all tasks except those requiring emotion, art, independent creative thought, and other high level tasks? Such tasks include the vast majority of jobs.

[Jimbo07]

So what happens when robots are capable of doing all tasks except those requiring emotion, art, independent creative thought, and other high level tasks? Such tasks include the vast majority of jobs.

Who says they won't be able to create art, or that we can:

Will Smith - Can you create a masterpiece?
Robot - No. Can you?

:D

(with apologies on the quotes)

[rocketdodger]

The fact that we could land a man on the moon does not imply that a colony was obtainable. A colony would require fairly regular travel to and from it for supplies, personnel changes, medical aid etc and a trip to the moon is a deeply complex task requiring long planning, huge expense and a lot of risk.

So what. It could have been done.

NASA can barely sustain the technology required to maintain the space station, the idea that we could institute some kind of shuttle service to the moon even now is laughable.

If so, it is because you are ignorant of how technologically advanced we are. Just because you can't buy something at Wal-Mart doesn't mean we can't make it.

[Robin]

So what. It could have been done.
No it couldn't. You could not have organised manned travel to the moon with the requisite reliability and regularity to support a moon colony in 1968 and you could not do it now. We just do not have that technology, or if we do I have not heard about it.
If so, it is because you are ignorant of how technologically advanced we are. Just because you can't buy something at Wal-Mart doesn't mean we can't make it.
Well enlighten me then, what technological advance are you talking about that I am ignorant of? What technological advance has been made between 1968 and now that would make shuttle trips to the moon feasible? (and why don't NASA have it?)

[rocketdodger]

No it couldn't. You could not have organised manned travel to the moon with the requisite reliability and regularity to support a moon colony in 1968 and you could not do it now. We just do not have that technology, or if we do I have not heard about it.

Then how were people able to travel to the moon and stay for over three days by 1972?

Are you also not aware of the Skylab space station?



Well enlighten me then, what technological advance are you talking about that I am ignorant of? What technological advance has been made between 1968 and now that would make shuttle trips to the moon feasible? (and why don't NASA have it?)

1) Reusable launch vehicles.

2) Computers.

3) Biology and biotechnology.

4) Material science.

5) Solar energy.

6) Nuclear energy.

7) Nutrition.

8) Medicine.

9) Communication.

[INRM]

I think if you allow AI to advanced at an unrestrained rate it could potentially have a bad effect on humanity. Even if programmed not to harm humans, if it is truely intelligent, it can re-evaluate what it was programmed to believe and could potentially after seeing what it sees and knowing what it knows on people might re-evaluate this belief that it must not harm human beings, and seeing them as a pest might decide to start knocking humans off...

Theoretically anyway

[Lonewulf]

Ah yes, the old "Hollywood AI" argument.

I never got why people assumed that AIs would automatically want to kill humans.

Must be the whole "THEY AIN'T GOT SOULS!" gig.

[The Man]

Ah yes, the old "Hollywood AI" argument.

I never got why people assumed that AIs would automatically want to kill humans.

Must be the whole "THEY AIN'T GOT SOULS!" gig.


Or something like that I guess. If AIs would be faster, more concise an encompassing a greater range of variables and possible results, then the human mind, they might be more adherent to a moral standard (like not killing) then we find ourselves.

Fortunately, Hollywood has been no better at predicting the future (or relating the past) then anyone else. Of course stories where everyone gets along and there is no conflict tend not to be very entertaining.

[Roboramma]

I think if you allow AI to advanced at an unrestrained rate it could potentially have a bad effect on humanity. Even if programmed not to harm humans, if it is truely intelligent, it can re-evaluate what it was programmed to believe and could potentially after seeing what it sees and knowing what it knows on people might re-evaluate this belief that it must not harm human beings, and seeing them as a pest might decide to start knocking humans off...

Theoretically anyway
Well, our experience with humans seems to show that they don't tend to "break their programming".

I mean, people in general are pretty good about not murdering their children, or siblings, for instance. (and when they do its more a case of the exception proving the rule).

Intelligence solves problems. But there's something else that determines what problems need to be solved - what matters and what doesn't. That comes down to priorities. For us those priorities are set by our emotions - things like love, pleasure, happiness, and their opposites.

The same could be done with any AI that was made to be intelligent in similar ways to humans.

Mind you, I'm with Dr Kitten - I don't see why we'd ever make such robots anyway - we've already got plenty of (too many I think) humans that can do the same thing. And those humans have parents who pay for their "construction" (via food, school bills, etc) someone else would have to pay for the construction of such robots.

The only real uses I can see for them is to fill people's emotional or sexual needs.

[Roboramma]

No it couldn't. You could not have organised manned travel to the moon with the requisite reliability and regularity to support a moon colony in 1968 and you could not do it now. We just do not have that technology, or if we do I have not heard about it.
Wouldn't it "just" have required an immense amount of money and an apathy toward a large number of astronaut's deaths?

If you can put people on the moon, then you can put more of them on the moon. If you can keep them there for a few days, and if you can get a rocket there before they have to leave that can either drop off supplies, or new people with supplies and take those who are there already home, then you've got a colony.

It's a useless colony, of course. And given the technology at the time (and now) sending people to the moon that often would be increadibly expensive (would the US have gone bankrupt trying to do so?) and many many astronauts would have been lost.

It seems rocketdodger is only saying that it could have been done. I'm not sure that he's right, but it seems likely. The only question is how expense (in both funds and human life) it would have been.

[drkitten]

AI refers to artificial intelligence or the artificial capacity for learning, reasoning and understanding. Current robots do not have anything that could even remotely be considered artificial intelligence.

Er, no. "Artificial intelligence," like "workforce," is a term that has changed over the years; the long-term tendency seems to be that it refers to anything that we can't get computers to do right now, but as soon as we develop the technology, it ceases to be AI.

For example, when the term was coined in the early 1950s (by John McCarthy), one of the big tasks that AI researchers were studying was so-called "automatic programming"; the task of generating machine-understandable code from a human-readable framework. Today we call programs like that "assemblers" and no one uses them any more, because AI researchers moved on to the next step, trying to develop "automatic programming" systems that would "understand" high-level descriptions of tasks and produce machine code to carry out the task. Today we call those "compilers."

Back in the early 70s, the idea of a program that would automatically typeset a document was AI of the highest order; by the 80s, DTP was a well-established field. In the 1970's, we developed dictionary-based spelling checkers, but "AI" was still considered necessary to build context-sensitive checkers or to build grammar checkers, both of which are commonly available today. In the 1980s we were building systems to read handwritten ZIP codes using "AI" techniques (neural networks were big for that, IIRC), and of course that's a commonplace today. And of course, today Google will apply AI techniques to read documents, determine their relevance, snd summarize them for you.

So, just as you don't get to shift the goalpost regarding "workforce," you don't get to shift it regarding "AI" either. What we have today was funded as AI research over the past fifty years to get us to where we are today.

[drkitten]

Wouldn't it "just" have required an immense amount of money and an apathy toward a large number of astronaut's deaths?

If you can put people on the moon, then you can put more of them on the moon. If you can keep them there for a few days, and if you can get a rocket there before they have to leave that can either drop off supplies, or new people with supplies and take those who are there already home, then you've got a colony.

Did we actually have that capacity? My understanding is that the Saturn V rocket took three months or so to build, and there's no way it could have delivered 300 person-days of food, water, and oxygen to the moon. So even keeping an Apollo crew alive on the Moon for the long-term would have outstripped our capacity to produce rockets.

I suppose we could have built more rocket factories, but that would mean substantial investments in infrastructure that would have slowed down the development of a lunar colony even further.

[Lonewulf]

Fortunately, Hollywood has been no better at predicting the future (or relating the past) then anyone else. Of course stories where everyone gets along and there is no conflict tend not to be very entertaining.

Yeah, pretty much. Utopias = makes for poor stories.

Still, though, I feel that a lot of hollywood conflicts are so dumbed down. I mean, I, Robot the book had far more interesting conflicts (IMO) than I, Robot, the film.

The book actually put robots in positive light, more or less... but that's going a little too far for Hollywood, I guess. :rolleyes:

[rocketdodger]

Did we actually have that capacity? My understanding is that the Saturn V rocket took three months or so to build, and there's no way it could have delivered 300 person-days of food, water, and oxygen to the moon. So even keeping an Apollo crew alive on the Moon for the long-term would have outstripped our capacity to produce rockets.

I suppose we could have built more rocket factories, but that would mean substantial investments in infrastructure that would have slowed down the development of a lunar colony even further.

If it was the primary concern for the entire population of Earth, it could have been done. That is my original point -- the reason we don't have a colony on the moon is that people have better things to do with their time.

[Lonewulf]

If it was the primary concern for the entire population of Earth, it could have been done. That is my original point -- the reason we don't have a colony on the moon is that people have better things to do with their time.

Or at least, that people have what they view as better things to do. If you ask me, getting into space and colonizing other worlds should be a higher priority than we make it.

We have too many eggs in our little tiny basket... :covereyes

[The Man]

Er, no. "Artificial intelligence," like "workforce," is a term that has changed over the years; the long-term tendency seems to be that it refers to anything that we can't get computers to do right now, but as soon as we develop the technology, it ceases to be AI.



So, just as you don't get to shift the goalpost regarding "workforce," you don't get to shift it regarding "AI" either. What we have today was funded as AI research over the past fifty years to get us to where we are today.


Based on your own assertions I did not move anything. Unless of course you think that it was because of me that, as you state, the meanings of those words have changed over the years?

I was applying the words in a current context and based on the past descriptions of a future robotic labor force. Sure we have plenty of robots doing manufacturing and other jobs but there are far more jobs that people do which robots can not as yet do. So we do not have a primarily robotic workforce (workforce meaning people or robots performing all jobs everywhere). I have already stated the context I was using for artificial intelligence.

If you think my use of those contexts are incorrect then just say so and I am more then happy to clarify my meaning or use some other words. If you think the goal posts have shifted due to the changing definitions of words then again just say so but don’t try to blame me for that fact. Nor am I trying to exploit that fact, if you think I am just ask, again I am more then happy to clarify.

So, I will try to clarify my assertion. My parents basement was (and I’m sure they still have some) full of “Analog” and other periodicals about science fiction and science fact. I grew up with these and one of the common themes of some of the science fiction stories was what we could call conscious android or robotic workers or characters and the interactions that ensued. Likewise one of the common topics of the scientific articles was advances in computer science. As a field engineer for IBM my father regularly exposed us to the capabilities of main frame systems (in the 60’s and 70’s) before most of my friends even knew what a computer was. It always just seemed another decade or so away before someone developed that seemingly conscious computer or system. So now decades latter it is still being projected to be another decade away. Also, as I have grown older my perspectives have changed and I realize that we were not really as close to that goal as I believed or was told we were. Perhaps the shift of the goal posts and the definitions are just other people’s similar realization that it’s not going to be as easy as everyone hoped it would be. Me, I am still waiting for that conscious android, robot (worker or not) to interact with but now I know it could be another 40 years and still be a decade away.

[The Man]

Or at least, that people have what they view as better things to do. If you ask me, getting into space and colonizing other worlds should be a higher priority than we make it.

We have too many eggs in our little tiny basket... :covereyes


I could not agree with you more. Everything we need is out there, living space, resources and a common unifying goal. Everything it would seem is out there, except of course us.

[rocketdodger]

Or at least, that people have what they view as better things to do. If you ask me, getting into space and colonizing other worlds should be a higher priority than we make it.

Yes. This is a huge topic, one that I like to call the "iphone" phenomenon because of the fact that iphones represent the pinnacle of human technology yet are used for little more than gossiping with friends and watching hip-hop videos.