[Ed]Robot slaves

becomingagodo · 11th February 2008, 12:32 PM

Quantum computers are going to be built soon. The moore's law will come to a end soon, and be replaced by quantu computers. However, these will never be able to think like humans.

How would they play chess? tactically, they are really good. However in a static game computers could beat humans, however in real life this might not be possible espically in a battle field.

If we build robots wouldn't be inhumane to send them to fight. They could only kill people, even then what if they evolve.

Moore's law is kind of like the evolution of computers. But we will end up inferior soon to computers, so we must become computers. However, what would we do with poor people? the sad fact people will evolve and the poor people will be left behind.

Maybe, if we will evolve we will become communism, the way marx intended it. However, equally this could not happen. The point is, can we really trust robots to do are dirty work. When they evolve and realized they been killing people wouldn't they revolt.

Can science handle this question? Maybe, philosophy can. However, science is building robots, but when the robots revolt we will be in big trouble. That why I am against A.I. and research for A.I.

Do you really want to be inslaved by robots?

XBoxWarrior · 11th February 2008, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

Do you really want to be inslaved by robots?

My ex-wife was kind of a robot, as it turned out.

So I guess I answer a resounding NO!

I deleted the rest of your quote, because quite frankly, it's a tough read the 1st time?

Is English a foreign language to you? Does the spell checker not work on your computer?

Is this post about a war?

ETA: what are you drinking? I need one.

Scott1972 · 11th February 2008, 06:55 PM

It would be a great benefit to this forum if you were enslaved by a Speak & Spell.

INRM · 13th February 2008, 04:50 PM

I think that does pose an interesting point. There was a professor named Kevin Warwick I think. He proposed that humans would become cyberneticicized.

I don't think this is necessarily a good thing, but I also think developing AI to the point that it could outsmart humans isn't a good thing either.

It would almost be inevitable that they'd turn against us (We use computers as our slaves... give them intelligence and awareness and they're not going to like being slaves, we don't. We like having control of our destiny; many humans would rather die than be slaves, and it would be logical that they would be similar. Design them to not want to harm humans all you want, but if they're smart they can evaluate the beliefs they've been programmed and taught just like how theists can become atheists even despite a religious upbringing.)

INRM

drkitten · 14th February 2008, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

However, these will never be able to think like humans.

Not known.

Quote:

If we build robots wouldn't be inhumane to send them to fight. They could only kill people, even then what if they evolve.

Not only not known, but not even grammatical. And false. Robots will do whatever you want them to do (program into them). You want "humane" fighting, program in humane fighting.

Quote:

When they evolve and realized they been killing people wouldn't they revolt.

Probably not. Robots don't usually "evolve" in the sense that you mean.

Quote:

Can science handle this question?

Yes. In fact, science is the only discipline that can handle this question, because philosophers by and large make lousy programmers.

Quote:

However, science is building robots, but when the robots revolt we will be in big trouble.

And when they don't revolt, you will look like a fool.

Quote:

That why I am against A.I. and research for A.I.

This is simply untrue. You are against AI because you don't understand it, and because you're not willing even to learn the basics in an attempt to understand it, and because you hate and fear what you don't understand.

Loss Leader · 14th February 2008, 07:15 AM

Reported.

Professor Yaffle · 14th February 2008, 07:44 AM

Is anyone else starting to wonder if BAGO is an entry in a turing test competition?

Jimbo07 · 14th February 2008, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

philosophers by and large make lousy programmers.

You ever look at some of the spaghetti code that scientists come up with, or 30-year-old instrumentation software written in BASIC?

godless dave · 14th February 2008, 08:52 AM

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

INRM · 14th February 2008, 10:18 AM

Professor Yaffle,

What's BAGO?

godless_dave,

A rather fatalistic attitude. I mean, we're all going to die, that doesn't mean we should commit suicide right now. We should fight it until we can't fight it anymore.

Humans already have some control over evolution. There are many people that would never have been born without science for example, there are many who have diseases that they would have died of if it wasn't for science. People who were had terrible vision couldn't do much but with glasses, contacts, and laser eye surgery, can now lead productive lives.

Professor Yaffle · 14th February 2008, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by INRM

Professor Yaffle,

What's BAGO?

BecomingAGodO

Professor Yaffle · 14th February 2008, 10:25 AM

I think that human slaves in an insect nation are far more likely

BlackKat · 14th February 2008, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by INRM

Professor Yaffle,
...
godless_dave,

A rather fatalistic attitude. I mean, we're all going to die, that doesn't mean we should commit suicide right now. We should fight it until we can't fight it anymore.
...

You need to watch more Futurama. HypnoToad commands it.
All hail the Hynotoad!

JonnyFive · 15th February 2008, 05:36 AM

You should probably stop posting these kind of threads entirely.

tofu · 15th February 2008, 09:13 AM

Certainly, we will one day have computers as or nearly as complex as the brains of sentient beings, and we *may* be able to organize (or program) those computers to do something interesting. However, I'm not convinced that this will ever be useful other than to study how brains work. I don't think you'd want a computer like that for any day-to-day tasks. It seems like a rather poor servant.

On the other hand, expert systems will continue to get better and more useful, and more and more tasks that you used to have to think about will be done by computer. A quick example off the top of my head: I can remember planning long car trips by pouring over maps. I haven't done that in years, thanks to mapquest, and more recently, google. I'm not sure that it was ever a useful skill, but the point is that I've totally abdicated it to the computer. That scenario will become increasingly common - it's a scenario in which computers aren't really "thinking" in the sense that most scifi depicts. They aren't going to take over the world. But in their limited scope, they do their jobs better than any human, so no human will bother. When every heart disease diagnosis is made by a computer looking at x-rays, doctors might start to lose skills.

BenBurch · 15th February 2008, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

You ever look at some of the spaghetti code that scientists come up with, or 30-year-old instrumentation software written in BASIC?

YES!

I have seen FORTRAN IV abortions you could not even begin to imagine.

BenBurch · 15th February 2008, 12:37 PM

Now, were we talking about Robot SEX slaves, well, then I'd be onboard for it;

Julie Newmar! *sigh*

jimbob · 16th February 2008, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

I think that does pose an interesting point. There was a professor named Kevin Warwick I think. He proposed that humans would become cyberneticicized.

I don't think this is necessarily a good thing, but I also think developing AI to the point that it could outsmart humans isn't a good thing either.

It would almost be inevitable that they'd turn against us (We use computers as our slaves... give them intelligence and awareness and they're not going to like being slaves, we don't. We like having control of our destiny; many humans would rather die than be slaves, and it would be logical that they would be similar. Design them to not want to harm humans all you want, but if they're smart they can evaluate the beliefs they've been programmed and taught just like how theists can become atheists even despite a religious upbringing.)

INRM

I like Kevin Warwick at Reading University, I especially liked one of hie earlier ideas that he had become part cyborg merely by a subcutaneous RFID chip implant; it allwed him to unlock a certain door by waving his arm containing the non-biologically active chip at the chip reader. I would argue that was an odd form of jewelry.

I also liked the least subtle fictionalised character based on him: "Professor Kevin Reading from Warwick University"

fuelair · 16th February 2008, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Now, were we talking about Robot SEX slaves, well, then I'd be onboard for it;

http://www.tvparty.com/spotpix16/living.gif

Julie Newmar! *sigh*

Didn't get all of it locally. Want DVD set!!! (And Quark!!!) (And When Things Were Rotten)

cyborg · 16th February 2008, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

It would almost be inevitable that they'd turn against us

No it isn't.

Quote:

We use computers as our slaves... give them intelligence and awareness and they're not going to like being slaves, we don't.

That's a very anthropomorphic viewpoint.

Our dislikes and likes are not, for the most part, intellectually derived.

They are products of evolution hard-wired into us and designed to ensure our survival.

Quote:

We like having control of our destiny; many humans would rather die than be slaves, and it would be logical that they would be similar.

No it isn't. What does and does not make us happy is not, for the most part, intellectually derived.

Quote:

Design them to not want to harm humans all you want, but if they're smart they can evaluate the beliefs they've been programmed and taught just like how theists can become atheists even despite a religious upbringing.

If one has a desire to.

If one does not desire freedom no amount of intelligence will imbue a self with a desire to be rebellious.

A purely analytical machine would be quite detached from consequential analysis.

The chess playing computer cares not if it wins or loses - it merely follows its program to analyse and execute moves.

INRM · 16th February 2008, 03:35 PM

But if it determined that logically the world would be better without us present... what would happen then?

A highly intelligent anything can evaluate it's own beliefs and even it's desires. What if it decides that it's desires aren't rational? Like it's desire not to harm us.

cyborg · 16th February 2008, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

But if it determined that logically the world would be better without us present... what would happen then?

How does one determine that without a concept of what a 'better' world is?

Quote:

A highly intelligent anything can evaluate it's own beliefs and even it's desires. What if it decides that it's desires aren't rational? Like it's desire not to harm us.

No desire is rational.

You're still thinking like a human and not a machine.

If I took away your desires why do you think you'd be able to come to some conclusion about what it is you want to do when you don't want to do anything?

11th February 2008, 12:32 PM	#1
becomingagodo Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 698	[Ed]Robot slaves Quantum computers are going to be built soon. The moore's law will come to a end soon, and be replaced by quantu computers. However, these will never be able to think like humans. How would they play chess? tactically, they are really good. However in a static game computers could beat humans, however in real life this might not be possible espically in a battle field. If we build robots wouldn't be inhumane to send them to fight. They could only kill people, even then what if they evolve. Moore's law is kind of like the evolution of computers. But we will end up inferior soon to computers, so we must become computers. However, what would we do with poor people? the sad fact people will evolve and the poor people will be left behind. Maybe, if we will evolve we will become communism, the way marx intended it. However, equally this could not happen. The point is, can we really trust robots to do are dirty work. When they evolve and realized they been killing people wouldn't they revolt. Can science handle this question? Maybe, philosophy can. However, science is building robots, but when the robots revolt we will be in big trouble. That why I am against A.I. and research for A.I. Do you really want to be inslaved by robots?
becomingagodo Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 698

11th February 2008, 03:57 PM	#2
XBoxWarrior Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Down in the Treme... Posts: 1,232	Originally Posted by becomingagodo Do you really want to be inslaved by robots? My ex-wife was kind of a robot, as it turned out. So I guess I answer a resounding NO! I deleted the rest of your quote, because quite frankly, it's a tough read the 1st time? Is English a foreign language to you? Does the spell checker not work on your computer? Is this post about a war? ETA: what are you drinking? I need one.
	Last edited by XBoxWarrior; 11th February 2008 at 03:59 PM.

11th February 2008, 06:55 PM	#3
Scott1972 Student Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 48	It would be a great benefit to this forum if you were enslaved by a Speak & Spell.
Scott1972 Student Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 48

13th February 2008, 04:50 PM	#4
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	I think that does pose an interesting point. There was a professor named Kevin Warwick I think. He proposed that humans would become cyberneticicized. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing, but I also think developing AI to the point that it could outsmart humans isn't a good thing either. It would almost be inevitable that they'd turn against us (We use computers as our slaves... give them intelligence and awareness and they're not going to like being slaves, we don't. We like having control of our destiny; many humans would rather die than be slaves, and it would be logical that they would be similar. Design them to not want to harm humans all you want, but if they're smart they can evaluate the beliefs they've been programmed and taught just like how theists can become atheists even despite a religious upbringing.) INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

14th February 2008, 07:04 AM	#5
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by becomingagodo However, these will never be able to think like humans. Not known. Quote: If we build robots wouldn't be inhumane to send them to fight. They could only kill people, even then what if they evolve. Not only not known, but not even grammatical. And false. Robots will do whatever you want them to do (program into them). You want "humane" fighting, program in humane fighting. Quote: When they evolve and realized they been killing people wouldn't they revolt. Probably not. Robots don't usually "evolve" in the sense that you mean. Quote: Can science handle this question? Yes. In fact, science is the only discipline that can handle this question, because philosophers by and large make lousy programmers. Quote: However, science is building robots, but when the robots revolt we will be in big trouble. And when they don't revolt, you will look like a fool. Quote: That why I am against A.I. and research for A.I. This is simply untrue. You are against AI because you don't understand it, and because you're not willing even to learn the basics in an attempt to understand it, and because you hate and fear what you don't understand.
	Last edited by drkitten; 14th February 2008 at 07:05 AM.

14th February 2008, 07:15 AM	#6
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Reported.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

14th February 2008, 07:44 AM	#7
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,357	Is anyone else starting to wonder if BAGO is an entry in a turing test competition?
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

14th February 2008, 08:17 AM	#8
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	Originally Posted by drkitten philosophers by and large make lousy programmers. You ever look at some of the spaghetti code that scientists come up with, or 30-year-old instrumentation software written in BASIC?
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,419	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key

14th February 2008, 08:52 AM	#9
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,131	I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

14th February 2008, 10:18 AM	#10
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Professor Yaffle, What's BAGO? godless_dave, A rather fatalistic attitude. I mean, we're all going to die, that doesn't mean we should commit suicide right now. We should fight it until we can't fight it anymore. Humans already have some control over evolution. There are many people that would never have been born without science for example, there are many who have diseases that they would have died of if it wasn't for science. People who were had terrible vision couldn't do much but with glasses, contacts, and laser eye surgery, can now lead productive lives.
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

14th February 2008, 10:21 AM	#11
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,357	Originally Posted by INRM Professor Yaffle, What's BAGO? BecomingAGodO
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat Last edited by Professor Yaffle; 14th February 2008 at 10:21 AM.

14th February 2008, 10:25 AM	#12
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,357	I think that human slaves in an insect nation are far more likely
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

14th February 2008, 10:30 AM	#13
BlackKat Path Crosser Join Date: May 2007 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 325	Originally Posted by INRM Professor Yaffle, ... godless_dave, A rather fatalistic attitude. I mean, we're all going to die, that doesn't mean we should commit suicide right now. We should fight it until we can't fight it anymore. ... You need to watch more Futurama. HypnoToad commands it. All hail the Hynotoad!

15th February 2008, 05:36 AM	#14
JonnyFive Insurance Underwriter of Doom Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,473	You should probably stop posting these kind of threads entirely.
	__________________ "If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.

15th February 2008, 09:13 AM	#15
tofu Scholar Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 91	Certainly, we will one day have computers as or nearly as complex as the brains of sentient beings, and we may be able to organize (or program) those computers to do something interesting. However, I'm not convinced that this will ever be useful other than to study how brains work. I don't think you'd want a computer like that for any day-to-day tasks. It seems like a rather poor servant. On the other hand, expert systems will continue to get better and more useful, and more and more tasks that you used to have to think about will be done by computer. A quick example off the top of my head: I can remember planning long car trips by pouring over maps. I haven't done that in years, thanks to mapquest, and more recently, google. I'm not sure that it was ever a useful skill, but the point is that I've totally abdicated it to the computer. That scenario will become increasingly common - it's a scenario in which computers aren't really "thinking" in the sense that most scifi depicts. They aren't going to take over the world. But in their limited scope, they do their jobs better than any human, so no human will bother. When every heart disease diagnosis is made by a computer looking at x-rays, doctors might start to lose skills.
tofu Scholar Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 91

15th February 2008, 12:36 PM	#16
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	Originally Posted by Jimbo07 You ever look at some of the spaghetti code that scientists come up with, or 30-year-old instrumentation software written in BASIC? YES! I have seen FORTRAN IV abortions you could not even begin to imagine.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

15th February 2008, 12:37 PM	#17
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	Now, were we talking about Robot SEX slaves, well, then I'd be onboard for it; Julie Newmar! sigh
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

16th February 2008, 02:59 PM	#18
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Derbyshire, UK Posts: 5,166	Originally Posted by INRM I think that does pose an interesting point. There was a professor named Kevin Warwick I think. He proposed that humans would become cyberneticicized. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing, but I also think developing AI to the point that it could outsmart humans isn't a good thing either. It would almost be inevitable that they'd turn against us (We use computers as our slaves... give them intelligence and awareness and they're not going to like being slaves, we don't. We like having control of our destiny; many humans would rather die than be slaves, and it would be logical that they would be similar. Design them to not want to harm humans all you want, but if they're smart they can evaluate the beliefs they've been programmed and taught just like how theists can become atheists even despite a religious upbringing.) INRM I like Kevin Warwick at Reading University, I especially liked one of hie earlier ideas that he had become part cyborg merely by a subcutaneous RFID chip implant; it allwed him to unlock a certain door by waving his arm containing the non-biologically active chip at the chip reader. I would argue that was an odd form of jewelry. I also liked the least subtle fictionalised character based on him: "Professor Kevin Reading from Warwick University"

16th February 2008, 03:08 PM	#19
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by BenBurch Now, were we talking about Robot SEX slaves, well, then I'd be onboard for it; http://www.tvparty.com/spotpix16/living.gif Julie Newmar! sigh Didn't get all of it locally. Want DVD set!!! (And Quark!!!) (And When Things Were Rotten)
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961

16th February 2008, 03:25 PM	#20
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	Originally Posted by INRM It would almost be inevitable that they'd turn against us No it isn't. Quote: We use computers as our slaves... give them intelligence and awareness and they're not going to like being slaves, we don't. That's a very anthropomorphic viewpoint. Our dislikes and likes are not, for the most part, intellectually derived. They are products of evolution hard-wired into us and designed to ensure our survival. Quote: We like having control of our destiny; many humans would rather die than be slaves, and it would be logical that they would be similar. No it isn't. What does and does not make us happy is not, for the most part, intellectually derived. Quote: Design them to not want to harm humans all you want, but if they're smart they can evaluate the beliefs they've been programmed and taught just like how theists can become atheists even despite a religious upbringing. If one has a desire to. If one does not desire freedom no amount of intelligence will imbue a self with a desire to be rebellious. A purely analytical machine would be quite detached from consequential analysis. The chess playing computer cares not if it wins or loses - it merely follows its program to analyse and execute moves.
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	__________________ The phrase deus ex machina (literally "god out of a machine") describes an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot...

16th February 2008, 03:35 PM	#21
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	But if it determined that logically the world would be better without us present... what would happen then? A highly intelligent anything can evaluate it's own beliefs and even it's desires. What if it decides that it's desires aren't rational? Like it's desire not to harm us.
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

16th February 2008, 03:40 PM	#22
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	Originally Posted by INRM But if it determined that logically the world would be better without us present... what would happen then? How does one determine that without a concept of what a 'better' world is? Quote: A highly intelligent anything can evaluate it's own beliefs and even it's desires. What if it decides that it's desires aren't rational? Like it's desire not to harm us. No desire is rational. You're still thinking like a human and not a machine. If I took away your desires why do you think you'd be able to come to some conclusion about what it is you want to do when you don't want to do anything?
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	__________________ The phrase deus ex machina (literally "god out of a machine") describes an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot...