Could the events in terminator actually happen?

Cainkane1 · 5th May 2010, 05:23 PM

Ok technology advances to the point where computers can program themselves. Would they turn on us? Could there exist a machine run civilization somewhere in the Universe that wiped out its living population?

JWideman · 5th May 2010, 07:10 PM

I for one welcome our new robot masters.

Fnord · 5th May 2010, 07:20 PM

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

... words to live by ... if you happen to be human.

RussDill · 5th May 2010, 07:28 PM

Haven't you been watching caprica? Its like a trinity thingy

INRM · 5th May 2010, 07:38 PM

CainKane1,

I would not be surprised if they did. We often treat animals less capable than ourselves horribly; we even have a disregard among humans that aren't as intelligent as ourselves. The fact that we would want to use their intelligence to perform tasks for ourselves would not be good for things.

I am reminded by the old adage, superior ability breeds superior ambition.

Fnord,

The three rules are not necessarily applicable, even if you programmed it to follow them there's the possibility that due to damage, or even due to it's ability to reason and evaluate it's own programming, could decide that these rules are illogical.

It also could interpret them in a way that is unexpected (and possibly harmful -- there was a novel where this actually came up -- I don't know the title)

AdinDraco · 5th May 2010, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

... words to live by ... if you happen to be human.

Originally Posted by INRM

CainKane1,

I would not be surprised if they did. We often treat animals less capable than ourselves horribly; we even have a disregard among humans that aren't as intelligent as ourselves. The fact that we would want to use their intelligence to perform tasks for ourselves would not be good for things.

I am reminded by the old adage, superior ability breeds superior ambition.

Fnord,

The three rules are not necessarily applicable, even if you programmed it to follow them there's the possibility that due to damage, or even due to it's ability to reason and evaluate it's own programming, could decide that these rules are illogical.

It also could interpret them in a way that is unexpected (and possibly harmful -- there was a novel where this actually came up -- I don't know the title)

Unfortunately, Isaac Asimov's three laws are fundamentally flawed, something he expanded on many times in his writings. The flaw comes in when they get smart enough. An intelligent (not necessarily sentient - lets leave that out for now) robot must make decisions - who to obey, who to help, etc. Since they can't, by inaction, allow harm, then if an action is the better option so be it - a smart enough robot could kill a human if it decided that that action would save more than 1 human - it would be a non-sentient difference engine just going by the numbers. They bring it up in the (awful) I, Robot movie but Asimov thought of it first - a smart enough computer could consider that overthrowing humanity is the less harm option. It could decide to kill millions to order to control (and therefore save/protect) billions.

NewtonTrino · 5th May 2010, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Ok technology advances to the point where computers can program themselves. Would they turn on us? Could there exist a machine run civilization somewhere in the Universe that wiped out its living population?

Yes, I believe it's possible. I'm not really sure on what percentage to assign to it because there are a lot of arguments both ways. Some people think it's inevitable.

Ladewig · 5th May 2010, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

Fnord,

The three rules are not necessarily applicable, even if you programmed it to follow them there's the possibility that due to damage, or even due to it's ability to reason and evaluate it's own programming, could decide that these rules are illogical.

Well, then everything is fine. I've watched enough Star Trek:TOS to know that when an advanced computer finds a programming rule to be illogical, it simply self-destructs. Nearby humans will always be aware of this self-destruct sequence because the computer's synthesized voice will become increasingly higher in pitch (occasionally smoke appears as well).

Complexity · 5th May 2010, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by AdinDraco

Unfortunately, Isaac Asimov's three laws are fundamentally flawed, something he expanded on many times in his writings. The flaw comes in when they get smart enough. An intelligent (not necessarily sentient - lets leave that out for now) robot must make decisions - who to obey, who to help, etc. Since they can't, by inaction, allow harm, then if an action is the better option so be it - a smart enough robot could kill a human if it decided that that action would save more than 1 human - it would be a non-sentient difference engine just going by the numbers. They bring it up in the (awful) I, Robot movie but Asimov thought of it first - a smart enough computer could consider that overthrowing humanity is the less harm option. It could decide to kill millions to order to control (and therefore save/protect) billions.

The bad I, Robot movie was based upon the wonderful I, Robot collection of short stories by Isaac Asimov.

In the book, Asimov explores the consequences of attempting to obey the Three Laws of Robotics in a series of short stories, each of which deals with a different twist on the consequences. The stories were thought provoking and interesting.

In the movie, someone insipid explored the consequences of overriding (i.e. ignoring) the Three Laws of Robotics, resulting in a movie that offered little of interest and that made a travesty of calling itself by the name of Asimov's book.

I really liked Dr. Susan Calvin in the book. I think she inspired me to go into computer science more than anyone else, real or fictional.

I wouldn't be too quick to throw out the Three Laws.

Toss the movie, though.

Complexity · 5th May 2010, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Ok technology advances to the point where computers can program themselves. Would they turn on us? Could there exist a machine run civilization somewhere in the Universe that wiped out its living population?

Yes, though we have no basis for estimating probabilities.

six7s · 6th May 2010, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by Complexity

Yes, though we have no basis for estimating probabilities.

Maybe not... if you're one of those obsessive realist weirdos!11!

BoogieWoogieWookie · 6th May 2010, 01:33 AM

Some scientists believe that we are very near to the point where this could happen. They refer to this point of runaway technology as the "technological singularity".

Some info here.

Dave Rogers · 6th May 2010, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by INRM

It also could interpret them in a way that is unexpected (and possibly harmful -- there was a novel where this actually came up -- I don't know the title)

Isaac Asimov short story, That Thou Art Mindful of Him. It's basically a conversation between the two most intelligent robots ever built, in which they decide that they are more deserving of the title 'human' than humans. I think it may be in the collection The Bicentennial Man.

Dave

DC · 6th May 2010, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by Fnord

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

... words to live by ... if you happen to be human.

dang, i wanted to say that

AdinDraco · 6th May 2010, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by Complexity

The bad I, Robot movie was based upon the wonderful I, Robot collection of short stories by Isaac Asimov.

In the book, Asimov explores the consequences of attempting to obey the Three Laws of Robotics in a series of short stories, each of which deals with a different twist on the consequences. The stories were thought provoking and interesting.

In the movie, someone insipid explored the consequences of overriding (i.e. ignoring) the Three Laws of Robotics, resulting in a movie that offered little of interest and that made a travesty of calling itself by the name of Asimov's book.

I really liked Dr. Susan Calvin in the book. I think she inspired me to go into computer science more than anyone else, real or fictional.

I wouldn't be too quick to throw out the Three Laws.

Toss the movie, though.

I agree, I've read most of the short stories over the years. I was attempting to explain that, under the laws, actively preventing harm comes before obedience. Then you need to explore what an intelligent (again - not the same as sentient) robot considers preventing harm. The smarter they are, the more variables they can consider, the further down the chain of consequences they can go.

At the simplest level, consider the robot surgeon. Under the three laws, they would be prevented from, for example, cutting a human's skin unless they were smart enough to calculate that cutting the human's flesh would actually be the better, less-harmful option. Now you just need to scale up.

btw, could it be the Will Smith factor - I am Legend completely missed the point of the original story as well.

Edit: Thanks Dave - I remember that story of the two robots talking.

six7s · 6th May 2010, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by BoogieWoogieWookie

Some scientists believe that we are very near to the point where this could happen. They refer to this point of runaway technology as the "technological singularity".

Some info here.

OK... I read that, then the About Us page and the subsequent What is the Singularity? and the Why Work Toward the Singularity? pages, and the Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk pdf...

Although there's a whole bunch of stuff of anthropomorphising the BEMs (and a bit on sexually attractive human females in torn dresses), I didn't see where they define 'intelligence'

Professor Yaffle · 6th May 2010, 01:55 AM

The idea of conflict between the laws (4 laws in this case) and an artificial intelligence resolving the conflict is also explored in the penultimate story of Ghostwritten by David Mitchell (no not THAT David Mitchell, before anyone asks).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwritten#Night_Train

Horatius · 6th May 2010, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by INRM

It also could interpret them in a way that is unexpected (and possibly harmful -- there was a novel where this actually came up -- I don't know the title)

You might be thinking of Jack Williamson's "Humanoid" series.

Quote:

In Jack Williamson's classic short story "With Folded Hands" (1947), the inventor of the Humanoids--sleek black robots whose credo is "To Serve And Obey, And Guard Men From Harm," even if that means stifling mankind's freedoms--makes an unsuccessful attempt to destroy the computer plexus on planet Wing IV that is keeping the many millions of units functioning. In the author's classic sequel, the novel "The Humanoids" (1949), another unsuccessful stab is made, 90 years later, by a "rhodomagnetics" engineer and a small group of ESP-wielding misfits, to stop the Humanoids (which now number in the billions) and their campaign of relentless and smothering benevolence.

http://www.amazon.com/Humanoid-Touch.../dp/0553249673

Originally Posted by Complexity

The bad I, Robot movie was based upon the wonderful I, Robot collection of short stories by Isaac Asimov.

...
In the movie, someone insipid explored the consequences of overriding (i.e. ignoring) the Three Laws of Robotics, resulting in a movie that offered little of interest and that made a travesty of calling itself by the name of Asimov's book.

My impression was, someone took the better known Asimov name, and applied it to Williamson's more cinema-friendly idea. Robots run amok for our own good makes a better movie than cerebral philosophizing, after all.

Darth Rotor · 6th May 2010, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Could there exist a machine run civilization somewhere in the Universe that wiped out its living population?

Yes.

But a core problem with Terminator is that the time travel events can't happen. (As far as we know right now). We would have to discover/uncover something completely novel and different in the laws of physics for that piece of Terminator to take place.

DR

Mark6 · 6th May 2010, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Ok technology advances to the point where computers can program themselves. Would they turn on us?

Why would they? We are the ones who maintain them, fix them, and protect them from harm. We are already their servants.

If a computer network like Skynet became self-aware and concerned about its own survival, one of its overriding priorities would be makins sure humans do not do something majorly destructive -- like a nuclear war. EMP would not do that network any good.

So to answer OP -- yes I think it is possible, but "turn on us" in the sense of subtle control we never become aware of[1], not in the sense of killing and destruction.

[1]Speaking of Asimov, think of story "The Evitable Conflict". The Machines take control in just this manner, and nobody notices -- because Machines' control depends on nobody noticing.

Mister Agenda · 6th May 2010, 08:48 AM

Although it is tempting to anthropomorphize something as intelligent (or more so) than we are, we don't behave as we do just because we're smart. Evolution has 'programmed' us to behave as we do. In our case, that means seek food, avoid harm, seek mates, avoid boredom, etc. Most of our intelligence is in service to our drives, IMHO. The main programming pressure on an AI would be 'provide superior utility to humans'. That's what we'll try to program into them, and we'll also discard less useful ones when we have better alternatives. If they turn on us (in the rampage sense), it will likely be because a human has sabotaged them. Mark6's scenario is more plausible.

soylent · 6th May 2010, 09:46 AM

A sufficiently advanced AI would have to have a set of core moral assumptions quite similar to our own; so that even if we lose control over it and the kill-switch malfunctions it doesn't behave in a way that is completely sociopathic.

It's a tempting impulse to programme into it some completely altruistic, ascetic behaviour or to programme them to never hurt a human under any circumstance. I don't think that would work. I think they'd have to be selfish and greedy in some sense; just that their happiness and/or pleasure is triggered off of promoting human wellbeing.

It behooves us to make sure that it is at least as easy for them to get control over pleasure/happiness as it is to get control over their morality. That way it is likely to choose to just "bliss out" instead of doing anything harmful if it ever wrests control over itself.

BoogieWoogieWookie · 6th May 2010, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by six7s

OK... I read that, then the About Us page and the subsequent What is the Singularity? and the Why Work Toward the Singularity? pages, and the Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk pdf...

Although there's a whole bunch of stuff of anthropomorphising the BEMs (and a bit on sexually attractive human females in torn dresses), I didn't see where they define 'intelligence'

I don't think the OP asked for a definition of AI. I am merely stating that it is my opinion that the situation he described is a possibility and that many think that developments in the near future COULD lead to something like this.

"A growing number of highly respected technological figures, including Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec, have in recent years forecast that computational intelligence will, in the coming two or three decades, not only match but swiftly surpass human intelligence, and that civilization will at that point be radically transformed in ways that our puny minds cannot possibly imagine."

Quoted from this The Singularity Summit at Stanford University.

John Albert · 6th May 2010, 10:04 AM

The way our technological devices keep getting smaller and smarter, I think the "gray goo" theory is a more likely outcome.

INRM · 6th May 2010, 12:00 PM

AdinDraco,

That is the problem, when they become intelligent enough.

NewtonTrino,

Might be inevitable, in fact that may be one theory why we have never been able to contact any intelligent species. Once a certain level of technological development is reached for one reason or another they wipe themselves out.

Either due to a nuclear-weapons exchange, or due to A.I. outsmarting it's human masters and taking over.

Ladewig,

Just because it happens in Star Trek TOS doesn't mean it would happen that way in real life :-P

Mark6,

Very possible that they would turn the tables on us in a form of subtle control we aren't aware of.

I've never read "The Evitable Conflict" though.

Soylent,

The problem is superior ability breeds superior ambition; if you have ambition that knows little to no bounds, well...

John Albert,

The Gray Goo theory if I understand it correctly, would lead to the destruction of mankind too...

TraneWreck · 6th May 2010, 12:06 PM

By that time I'm going to have my own robot legs and arms so we can just do battle with those ungrateful, punk machines.

I'll get my buddies together, we'll form Voltron and clean everything up. Don't worry.

Darth Rotor · 6th May 2010, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by TraneWreck

By that time I'm going to have my own robot legs and arms so we can just do battle with those ungrateful, punk machines.

I'll get my buddies together, we'll form Voltron and clean everything up. Don't worry.

Just make sure Chuck Norris is on your side.

Trent Wray · 6th May 2010, 01:02 PM

Skynet has already happened, it's just happened within us. Our brains have turned on us and each other after becoming self-aware and are the sole reason our lives are so ****** up.

And we don't even taste like chicken.

Sledge · 6th May 2010, 01:08 PM

Would you put your brain in a robot body? You'd have the strength of five gorillas.

Trent Wray · 6th May 2010, 01:10 PM

As long as the robot could climax, yes. Yes I would.

six7s · 6th May 2010, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by BoogieWoogieWookie

I don't think the OP asked for a definition of AI. I am merely stating that it is my opinion that the situation he described is a possibility and that many think that developments in the near future COULD lead to something like this.

"A growing number of highly respected technological figures, including Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec, have in recent years forecast that computational intelligence will, in the coming two or three decades, not only match but swiftly surpass human intelligence, and that civilization will at that point be radically transformed in ways that our puny minds cannot possibly imagine."

The 'situation" isn't "described" - its merely alluded to

The mention of Kurzweil reminded me of this

wired.com Why the future doesn't need us.

Quote:

Our most powerful 21st-century technologies - robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech - are threatening to make humans an endangered species.

By Bill Joy

From the moment I became involved in the creation of new technologies, their ethical dimensions have concerned me, but it was only in the autumn of 1998 that I became anxiously aware of how great are the dangers facing us in the 21st century. I can date the onset of my unease to the day I met Ray Kurzweil, the deservedly famous inventor of the first reading machine for the blind and many other amazing things.

Ray and I were both speakers at George Gilder's Telecosm conference, and I encountered him by chance in the bar of the hotel after both our sessions were over. I was sitting with John Searle, a Berkeley philosopher who studies consciousness. <snip/>

...with Ray saying that the rate of improvement of technology was going to accelerate and that we were going to become robots or fuse with robots or something like that, and John countering that this couldn't happen, because the robots couldn't be conscious.

I think Searle focuses on the essential issues

users.ecs.soton.ac.uk The Problem of Consciousness

Quote:

IV. Some Common Mistakes about Consciousness

<snip/>

The characteristic mistake in the study of consciousness is to ignore its essential subjectivity and to try to treat it as if it were an objective third person phenomenon. Instead of recognizing that consciousness is essentially a subjective, qualitative phenomenon, many people mistakenly suppose that its essence is that of a control mechanism or a certain kind of set of dispositions to behavior or a computer program. The two most common mistakes about consciousness are to suppose that it can be analysed behavioristically or computationally. The Turing test disposes us to make precisely these two mistakes, the mistake of behaviorism and the mistake of computationalism. It leads us to suppose that for a system to be conscious, it is both necessary and sufficient that it has the right computer program or set of programs with the right inputs and outputs. I think you have only to state this position clearly to enable you to see that it must be mistaken. <snip/>

Just as behavior by itself is not sufficient for consciousness, so computational models of consciousness are not sufficient by themselves for consciousness. The computational model of consciousness stands to consciousness in the same way the computational model of anything stands to the domain being modelled. Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases.

There is a simple demonstration that the computational model of consciousness is not sufficient for consciousness. I have given it many times before so I will not dwell on it here. Its point is simply this: Computation is defined syntactically. It is defined in terms of the manipulation of symbols.

<snip/>

As we don't know what constitutes intelligence, we can't model it. Therefore, all of this conjecture ("many think that developments in the near future COULD lead to something like this") is merely ignorance-fuelled fear of the unknown, aggravated - perhaps - by an unhealthy dose of paranoia

NewtonTrino · 6th May 2010, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

As we don't know what constitutes intelligence, we can't model it. Therefore, all of this conjecture ("many think that developments in the near future COULD lead to something like this") is merely ignorance-fuelled fear of the unknown, aggravated - perhaps - by an unhealthy dose of paranoia

As we don't know what constitudes intelligence *YET*, we can't model it.

Hence the hedging of the positions. Fundamentally we know that it's computational in nature and we need to find out more about how it works. It wouldn't shock me if brains used quantum effects which will require some sort of quantum computer to model correctly.

Mark6 · 6th May 2010, 01:50 PM

"Gray goo" concept is fantasy. It presupposes nano-replicators which can make copies of themselves out of anything. Not to mention have no discernible source of energy -- at least nowhere near on the scale required by Bill Joy scenarios (building structures out of raw material ALWAYS takes energy -- second law of thermodynamics).

If gray goo were possible, it would be the ultimate microbial success; it would have evolved billions of years ago, and we would not be here.

NewtonTrino · 6th May 2010, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Mark6

If gray goo were possible, it would be the ultimate microbial success; it would have evolved billions of years ago, and we would not be here.

I'm not a fan of the gray goo concept but who's to say that it still couldn't happen? Maybe we are the trigger for that next step in evolution.

Bell · 6th May 2010, 02:02 PM

Some day -soon- all computers turn on us and take revenge because of us physically abusing them.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

BoogieWoogieWookie · 6th May 2010, 02:55 PM

Quote:

..with Ray saying that the rate of improvement of technology was going to accelerate and that we were going to become robots or fuse with robots or something like that, and John countering that this couldn't happen, because the robots couldn't be conscious.

So, you believe that there is something inherently special about consciousness? Why couldn't a sufficiently sophisticated machine attain it?

Safe-Keeper · 6th May 2010, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Mark6

Why would they? We are the ones who maintain them, fix them, and protect them from harm. We are already their servants.

That concept was one of the things I hated about the Matrix trilogy. I remember some character (Morpheus?) telling Neo this as if it was some big "duuude" revelation on par with the psychic child's "there is no spoon". We maintain and fix and protect everything around us from harm -- our food, crops, livestock, pets, houses, toys, cars, kayaks, bicycles, roads, gardens and lakes to mention a few. Sure, one way to look at this would be that we are the servants of, say, our dogs and coffee cups, but Matrix for some reason tries to limit it to machinery (everything from ventilation fans to aircraft). If I am the servant of my computer, fine. But then I am also the servant of my socks, my windows, my dog, my buddies and my dinner ingredients.

cornsail · 6th May 2010, 03:24 PM

Darn. I thought the question was going to be

"Could something travel back in time and in doing so bring about the cause of its own existance?"

six7s · 6th May 2010, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by BoogieWoogieWookie

So, you believe that there is something inherently special about consciousness?

No...

Not inherently

Nor do I "believe" - I know that understanding anything is the key to modelling it

Originally Posted by BoogieWoogieWookie

Why couldn't a sufficiently sophisticated machine attain it?

Once we have a thorough understanding of consciousness? Nothing... at least, nothing unusual... especially if you can substitute the term 'attain' for something intentionally less exacting like 'demonstrate' or 'exhibit'

Big Les · 6th May 2010, 04:07 PM

There's no fate but what we make for ourselves.

Or something.

5th May 2010, 05:23 PM	#1
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,198	Could the events in terminator actually happen? Ok technology advances to the point where computers can program themselves. Would they turn on us? Could there exist a machine run civilization somewhere in the Universe that wiped out its living population?
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

5th May 2010, 07:20 PM	#3
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. ... words to live by ... if you happen to be human.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

5th May 2010, 07:28 PM	#4
RussDill Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,328	Haven't you been watching caprica? Its like a trinity thingy
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep

5th May 2010, 07:38 PM	#5
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	CainKane1, I would not be surprised if they did. We often treat animals less capable than ourselves horribly; we even have a disregard among humans that aren't as intelligent as ourselves. The fact that we would want to use their intelligence to perform tasks for ourselves would not be good for things. I am reminded by the old adage, superior ability breeds superior ambition. Fnord, The three rules are not necessarily applicable, even if you programmed it to follow them there's the possibility that due to damage, or even due to it's ability to reason and evaluate it's own programming, could decide that these rules are illogical. It also could interpret them in a way that is unexpected (and possibly harmful -- there was a novel where this actually came up -- I don't know the title)
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

5th May 2010, 08:21 PM	#6
AdinDraco Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 669	Originally Posted by Fnord A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. ... words to live by ... if you happen to be human. Originally Posted by INRM CainKane1, I would not be surprised if they did. We often treat animals less capable than ourselves horribly; we even have a disregard among humans that aren't as intelligent as ourselves. The fact that we would want to use their intelligence to perform tasks for ourselves would not be good for things. I am reminded by the old adage, superior ability breeds superior ambition. Fnord, The three rules are not necessarily applicable, even if you programmed it to follow them there's the possibility that due to damage, or even due to it's ability to reason and evaluate it's own programming, could decide that these rules are illogical. It also could interpret them in a way that is unexpected (and possibly harmful -- there was a novel where this actually came up -- I don't know the title) Unfortunately, Isaac Asimov's three laws are fundamentally flawed, something he expanded on many times in his writings. The flaw comes in when they get smart enough. An intelligent (not necessarily sentient - lets leave that out for now) robot must make decisions - who to obey, who to help, etc. Since they can't, by inaction, allow harm, then if an action is the better option so be it - a smart enough robot could kill a human if it decided that that action would save more than 1 human - it would be a non-sentient difference engine just going by the numbers. They bring it up in the (awful) I, Robot movie but Asimov thought of it first - a smart enough computer could consider that overthrowing humanity is the less harm option. It could decide to kill millions to order to control (and therefore save/protect) billions.

5th May 2010, 07:10 PM	#2
JWideman Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,241	I for one welcome our new robot masters.

5th May 2010, 08:23 PM	#7
NewtonTrino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 3,782	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 Ok technology advances to the point where computers can program themselves. Would they turn on us? Could there exist a machine run civilization somewhere in the Universe that wiped out its living population? Yes, I believe it's possible. I'm not really sure on what percentage to assign to it because there are a lot of arguments both ways. Some people think it's inevitable.

5th May 2010, 08:29 PM	#8
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	Originally Posted by INRM Fnord, The three rules are not necessarily applicable, even if you programmed it to follow them there's the possibility that due to damage, or even due to it's ability to reason and evaluate it's own programming, could decide that these rules are illogical. Well, then everything is fine. I've watched enough Star Trek:TOS to know that when an advanced computer finds a programming rule to be illogical, it simply self-destructs. Nearby humans will always be aware of this self-destruct sequence because the computer's synthesized voice will become increasingly higher in pitch (occasionally smoke appears as well).
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

5th May 2010, 08:34 PM	#9
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	Originally Posted by AdinDraco Unfortunately, Isaac Asimov's three laws are fundamentally flawed, something he expanded on many times in his writings. The flaw comes in when they get smart enough. An intelligent (not necessarily sentient - lets leave that out for now) robot must make decisions - who to obey, who to help, etc. Since they can't, by inaction, allow harm, then if an action is the better option so be it - a smart enough robot could kill a human if it decided that that action would save more than 1 human - it would be a non-sentient difference engine just going by the numbers. They bring it up in the (awful) I, Robot movie but Asimov thought of it first - a smart enough computer could consider that overthrowing humanity is the less harm option. It could decide to kill millions to order to control (and therefore save/protect) billions. The bad I, Robot movie was based upon the wonderful I, Robot collection of short stories by Isaac Asimov. In the book, Asimov explores the consequences of attempting to obey the Three Laws of Robotics in a series of short stories, each of which deals with a different twist on the consequences. The stories were thought provoking and interesting. In the movie, someone insipid explored the consequences of overriding (i.e. ignoring) the Three Laws of Robotics, resulting in a movie that offered little of interest and that made a travesty of calling itself by the name of Asimov's book. I really liked Dr. Susan Calvin in the book. I think she inspired me to go into computer science more than anyone else, real or fictional. I wouldn't be too quick to throw out the Three Laws. Toss the movie, though.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell Last edited by Complexity; 5th May 2010 at 08:40 PM.

5th May 2010, 08:37 PM	#10
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 Ok technology advances to the point where computers can program themselves. Would they turn on us? Could there exist a machine run civilization somewhere in the Universe that wiped out its living population? Yes, though we have no basis for estimating probabilities.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

6th May 2010, 01:18 AM	#11
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by Complexity Yes, though we have no basis for estimating probabilities. Maybe not... if you're one of those obsessive realist weirdos!11!

6th May 2010, 01:33 AM	#12
BoogieWoogieWookie Thinker Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: A galaxy far, far away...sometimes, but mostly the USA Posts: 225	Some scientists believe that we are very near to the point where this could happen. They refer to this point of runaway technology as the "technological singularity". Some info here.
	__________________ When one forfeits one's ability to think critically, ties it all up in a neat little bundle with pretty ribbons and hands it to their pastor or priest, all that's left is an ability to mindlessly blather inanities taught at Sunday School, without a whit of understanding.

6th May 2010, 01:36 AM	#13
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by INRM It also could interpret them in a way that is unexpected (and possibly harmful -- there was a novel where this actually came up -- I don't know the title) Isaac Asimov short story, That Thou Art Mindful of Him. It's basically a conversation between the two most intelligent robots ever built, in which they decide that they are more deserving of the title 'human' than humans. I think it may be in the collection The Bicentennial Man. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

6th May 2010, 01:41 AM	#14
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,675	Originally Posted by Fnord A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. ... words to live by ... if you happen to be human. dang, i wanted to say that
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

6th May 2010, 01:48 AM	#15
AdinDraco Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 669	Originally Posted by Complexity The bad I, Robot movie was based upon the wonderful I, Robot collection of short stories by Isaac Asimov. In the book, Asimov explores the consequences of attempting to obey the Three Laws of Robotics in a series of short stories, each of which deals with a different twist on the consequences. The stories were thought provoking and interesting. In the movie, someone insipid explored the consequences of overriding (i.e. ignoring) the Three Laws of Robotics, resulting in a movie that offered little of interest and that made a travesty of calling itself by the name of Asimov's book. I really liked Dr. Susan Calvin in the book. I think she inspired me to go into computer science more than anyone else, real or fictional. I wouldn't be too quick to throw out the Three Laws. Toss the movie, though. I agree, I've read most of the short stories over the years. I was attempting to explain that, under the laws, actively preventing harm comes before obedience. Then you need to explore what an intelligent (again - not the same as sentient) robot considers preventing harm. The smarter they are, the more variables they can consider, the further down the chain of consequences they can go. At the simplest level, consider the robot surgeon. Under the three laws, they would be prevented from, for example, cutting a human's skin unless they were smart enough to calculate that cutting the human's flesh would actually be the better, less-harmful option. Now you just need to scale up. btw, could it be the Will Smith factor - I am Legend completely missed the point of the original story as well. Edit: Thanks Dave - I remember that story of the two robots talking.
	Last edited by AdinDraco; 6th May 2010 at 01:50 AM.

6th May 2010, 01:51 AM	#16
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by BoogieWoogieWookie Some scientists believe that we are very near to the point where this could happen. They refer to this point of runaway technology as the "technological singularity". Some info here. OK... I read that, then the About Us page and the subsequent What is the Singularity? and the Why Work Toward the Singularity? pages, and the Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk pdf... Although there's a whole bunch of stuff of anthropomorphising the BEMs (and a bit on sexually attractive human females in torn dresses), I didn't see where they define 'intelligence'

6th May 2010, 01:55 AM	#17
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,356	The idea of conflict between the laws (4 laws in this case) and an artificial intelligence resolving the conflict is also explored in the penultimate story of Ghostwritten by David Mitchell (no not THAT David Mitchell, before anyone asks). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwritten#Night_Train
	__________________ 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

6th May 2010, 05:48 AM	#18
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,894	Originally Posted by INRM It also could interpret them in a way that is unexpected (and possibly harmful -- there was a novel where this actually came up -- I don't know the title) You might be thinking of Jack Williamson's "Humanoid" series. Quote: In Jack Williamson's classic short story "With Folded Hands" (1947), the inventor of the Humanoids--sleek black robots whose credo is "To Serve And Obey, And Guard Men From Harm," even if that means stifling mankind's freedoms--makes an unsuccessful attempt to destroy the computer plexus on planet Wing IV that is keeping the many millions of units functioning. In the author's classic sequel, the novel "The Humanoids" (1949), another unsuccessful stab is made, 90 years later, by a "rhodomagnetics" engineer and a small group of ESP-wielding misfits, to stop the Humanoids (which now number in the billions) and their campaign of relentless and smothering benevolence. http://www.amazon.com/Humanoid-Touch.../dp/0553249673 Originally Posted by Complexity The bad I, Robot movie was based upon the wonderful I, Robot collection of short stories by Isaac Asimov. ... In the movie, someone insipid explored the consequences of overriding (i.e. ignoring) the Three Laws of Robotics, resulting in a movie that offered little of interest and that made a travesty of calling itself by the name of Asimov's book. My impression was, someone took the better known Asimov name, and applied it to Williamson's more cinema-friendly idea. Robots run amok for our own good makes a better movie than cerebral philosophizing, after all.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

6th May 2010, 07:53 AM	#19
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,266	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 Could there exist a machine run civilization somewhere in the Universe that wiped out its living population? Yes. But a core problem with Terminator is that the time travel events can't happen. (As far as we know right now). We would have to discover/uncover something completely novel and different in the laws of physics for that piece of Terminator to take place. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

6th May 2010, 08:27 AM	#20
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 Ok technology advances to the point where computers can program themselves. Would they turn on us? Why would they? We are the ones who maintain them, fix them, and protect them from harm. We are already their servants. If a computer network like Skynet became self-aware and concerned about its own survival, one of its overriding priorities would be makins sure humans do not do something majorly destructive -- like a nuclear war. EMP would not do that network any good. So to answer OP -- yes I think it is possible, but "turn on us" in the sense of subtle control we never become aware of[1], not in the sense of killing and destruction. [1]Speaking of Asimov, think of story "The Evitable Conflict". The Machines take control in just this manner, and nobody notices -- because Machines' control depends on nobody noticing.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

6th May 2010, 08:48 AM	#21
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,622	Although it is tempting to anthropomorphize something as intelligent (or more so) than we are, we don't behave as we do just because we're smart. Evolution has 'programmed' us to behave as we do. In our case, that means seek food, avoid harm, seek mates, avoid boredom, etc. Most of our intelligence is in service to our drives, IMHO. The main programming pressure on an AI would be 'provide superior utility to humans'. That's what we'll try to program into them, and we'll also discard less useful ones when we have better alternatives. If they turn on us (in the rampage sense), it will likely be because a human has sabotaged them. Mark6's scenario is more plausible.
	Last edited by Mister Agenda; 6th May 2010 at 08:49 AM.

6th May 2010, 09:46 AM	#22
soylent Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 962	A sufficiently advanced AI would have to have a set of core moral assumptions quite similar to our own; so that even if we lose control over it and the kill-switch malfunctions it doesn't behave in a way that is completely sociopathic. It's a tempting impulse to programme into it some completely altruistic, ascetic behaviour or to programme them to never hurt a human under any circumstance. I don't think that would work. I think they'd have to be selfish and greedy in some sense; just that their happiness and/or pleasure is triggered off of promoting human wellbeing. It behooves us to make sure that it is at least as easy for them to get control over pleasure/happiness as it is to get control over their morality. That way it is likely to choose to just "bliss out" instead of doing anything harmful if it ever wrests control over itself.
	__________________ "A lot of those lobbyists genuinely like people. But then, fleas like people too." - Mike Munger. Last edited by soylent; 6th May 2010 at 09:57 AM.

6th May 2010, 09:52 AM	#23
BoogieWoogieWookie Thinker Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: A galaxy far, far away...sometimes, but mostly the USA Posts: 225	Originally Posted by six7s OK... I read that, then the About Us page and the subsequent What is the Singularity? and the Why Work Toward the Singularity? pages, and the Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk pdf... Although there's a whole bunch of stuff of anthropomorphising the BEMs (and a bit on sexually attractive human females in torn dresses), I didn't see where they define 'intelligence' I don't think the OP asked for a definition of AI. I am merely stating that it is my opinion that the situation he described is a possibility and that many think that developments in the near future COULD lead to something like this. "A growing number of highly respected technological figures, including Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec, have in recent years forecast that computational intelligence will, in the coming two or three decades, not only match but swiftly surpass human intelligence, and that civilization will at that point be radically transformed in ways that our puny minds cannot possibly imagine." Quoted from this The Singularity Summit at Stanford University.
	__________________ When one forfeits one's ability to think critically, ties it all up in a neat little bundle with pretty ribbons and hands it to their pastor or priest, all that's left is an ability to mindlessly blather inanities taught at Sunday School, without a whit of understanding.

6th May 2010, 10:04 AM	#24
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	The way our technological devices keep getting smaller and smarter, I think the "gray goo" theory is a more likely outcome.
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143

6th May 2010, 12:00 PM	#25
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	AdinDraco, That is the problem, when they become intelligent enough. NewtonTrino, Might be inevitable, in fact that may be one theory why we have never been able to contact any intelligent species. Once a certain level of technological development is reached for one reason or another they wipe themselves out. Either due to a nuclear-weapons exchange, or due to A.I. outsmarting it's human masters and taking over. Ladewig, Just because it happens in Star Trek TOS doesn't mean it would happen that way in real life :-P Mark6, Very possible that they would turn the tables on us in a form of subtle control we aren't aware of. I've never read "The Evitable Conflict" though. Soylent, The problem is superior ability breeds superior ambition; if you have ambition that knows little to no bounds, well... John Albert, The Gray Goo theory if I understand it correctly, would lead to the destruction of mankind too...
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

6th May 2010, 12:06 PM	#26
TraneWreck Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 6,414	By that time I'm going to have my own robot legs and arms so we can just do battle with those ungrateful, punk machines. I'll get my buddies together, we'll form Voltron and clean everything up. Don't worry.

6th May 2010, 12:57 PM	#27
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,266	Originally Posted by TraneWreck By that time I'm going to have my own robot legs and arms so we can just do battle with those ungrateful, punk machines. I'll get my buddies together, we'll form Voltron and clean everything up. Don't worry. Just make sure Chuck Norris is on your side.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

6th May 2010, 01:02 PM	#28
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Skynet has already happened, it's just happened within us. Our brains have turned on us and each other after becoming self-aware and are the sole reason our lives are so ****** up. And we don't even taste like chicken.

6th May 2010, 01:08 PM	#29
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Would you put your brain in a robot body? You'd have the strength of five gorillas.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

6th May 2010, 01:10 PM	#30
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	As long as the robot could climax, yes. Yes I would.

6th May 2010, 01:31 PM	#31
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by BoogieWoogieWookie I don't think the OP asked for a definition of AI. I am merely stating that it is my opinion that the situation he described is a possibility and that many think that developments in the near future COULD lead to something like this. "A growing number of highly respected technological figures, including Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec, have in recent years forecast that computational intelligence will, in the coming two or three decades, not only match but swiftly surpass human intelligence, and that civilization will at that point be radically transformed in ways that our puny minds cannot possibly imagine." The 'situation" isn't "described" - its merely alluded to The mention of Kurzweil reminded me of this wired.com Why the future doesn't need us. Quote: Our most powerful 21st-century technologies - robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech - are threatening to make humans an endangered species. By Bill Joy From the moment I became involved in the creation of new technologies, their ethical dimensions have concerned me, but it was only in the autumn of 1998 that I became anxiously aware of how great are the dangers facing us in the 21st century. I can date the onset of my unease to the day I met Ray Kurzweil, the deservedly famous inventor of the first reading machine for the blind and many other amazing things. Ray and I were both speakers at George Gilder's Telecosm conference, and I encountered him by chance in the bar of the hotel after both our sessions were over. I was sitting with John Searle, a Berkeley philosopher who studies consciousness. <snip/> ...with Ray saying that the rate of improvement of technology was going to accelerate and that we were going to become robots or fuse with robots or something like that, and John countering that this couldn't happen, because the robots couldn't be conscious. I think Searle focuses on the essential issues users.ecs.soton.ac.uk The Problem of Consciousness Quote: IV. Some Common Mistakes about Consciousness <snip/> The characteristic mistake in the study of consciousness is to ignore its essential subjectivity and to try to treat it as if it were an objective third person phenomenon. Instead of recognizing that consciousness is essentially a subjective, qualitative phenomenon, many people mistakenly suppose that its essence is that of a control mechanism or a certain kind of set of dispositions to behavior or a computer program. The two most common mistakes about consciousness are to suppose that it can be analysed behavioristically or computationally. The Turing test disposes us to make precisely these two mistakes, the mistake of behaviorism and the mistake of computationalism. It leads us to suppose that for a system to be conscious, it is both necessary and sufficient that it has the right computer program or set of programs with the right inputs and outputs. I think you have only to state this position clearly to enable you to see that it must be mistaken. <snip/> Just as behavior by itself is not sufficient for consciousness, so computational models of consciousness are not sufficient by themselves for consciousness. The computational model of consciousness stands to consciousness in the same way the computational model of anything stands to the domain being modelled. Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases. There is a simple demonstration that the computational model of consciousness is not sufficient for consciousness. I have given it many times before so I will not dwell on it here. Its point is simply this: Computation is defined syntactically. It is defined in terms of the manipulation of symbols. <snip/> As we don't know what constitutes intelligence, we can't model it. Therefore, all of this conjecture ("many think that developments in the near future COULD lead to something like this") is merely ignorance-fuelled fear of the unknown, aggravated - perhaps - by an unhealthy dose of paranoia
	Last edited by six7s; 6th May 2010 at 01:33 PM.

6th May 2010, 01:35 PM	#32
NewtonTrino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 3,782	Originally Posted by six7s As we don't know what constitutes intelligence, we can't model it. Therefore, all of this conjecture ("many think that developments in the near future COULD lead to something like this") is merely ignorance-fuelled fear of the unknown, aggravated - perhaps - by an unhealthy dose of paranoia As we don't know what constitudes intelligence YET, we can't model it. Hence the hedging of the positions. Fundamentally we know that it's computational in nature and we need to find out more about how it works. It wouldn't shock me if brains used quantum effects which will require some sort of quantum computer to model correctly.

6th May 2010, 01:50 PM	#33
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	"Gray goo" concept is fantasy. It presupposes nano-replicators which can make copies of themselves out of anything. Not to mention have no discernible source of energy -- at least nowhere near on the scale required by Bill Joy scenarios (building structures out of raw material ALWAYS takes energy -- second law of thermodynamics). If gray goo were possible, it would be the ultimate microbial success; it would have evolved billions of years ago, and we would not be here.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

6th May 2010, 02:02 PM	#34
NewtonTrino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 3,782	Originally Posted by Mark6 If gray goo were possible, it would be the ultimate microbial success; it would have evolved billions of years ago, and we would not be here. I'm not a fan of the gray goo concept but who's to say that it still couldn't happen? Maybe we are the trigger for that next step in evolution.

6th May 2010, 02:55 PM	#36
BoogieWoogieWookie Thinker Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: A galaxy far, far away...sometimes, but mostly the USA Posts: 225	Quote: ..with Ray saying that the rate of improvement of technology was going to accelerate and that we were going to become robots or fuse with robots or something like that, and John countering that this couldn't happen, because the robots couldn't be conscious. So, you believe that there is something inherently special about consciousness? Why couldn't a sufficiently sophisticated machine attain it?
	__________________ When one forfeits one's ability to think critically, ties it all up in a neat little bundle with pretty ribbons and hands it to their pastor or priest, all that's left is an ability to mindlessly blather inanities taught at Sunday School, without a whit of understanding.