Originally posted by debbiejo
😆 😆Plastic thingy.....How educational we are..
Robots may have a place, but I don't think it's there, and the facts are that they will be there...They'll have little names and little costumes...Just like the movie AI.
Hmm, possible..the movie AI wasn't to bad.......I wouldn't mind how it worked out in the end.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, possible..the movie AI wasn't to bad.......I wouldn't mind how it worked out in the end.
that was one of my favorite movies....It made me cry 3 drifferent times...He just wanted his mother to love him....See...This is a bad thing, besides they could never love...not really...And they shouldn't be made to love.
Originally posted by debbiejo
that was one of my favorite movies....It made me cry 3 drifferent times...He just wanted his mother to love him....See...This is a bad thing, besides they could never love...not really...And they shouldn't be made to love.
Well exactly...so the whole point of the movie is well...not there.....
It was a very touching movie but not really the way robots should be in reality.
The thing is humans could maybe love robots but robots (except for maybe few exceptions) can not really love humans...well ecept if you call love behaving according to the Laws
Originally posted by debbiejo
Love laws? But that would have no free Will and be predictable...It would become boring and maybe even abusive...Abusive for robots that is...Though I guess that really wouldn't matter.
Indeed...and that wouldn't be Love Laws...it would be the three laws of robotics
And it doesn't matter a robot would probably be pleasesd, plesing its owner
Originally posted by debbiejo
Ok pleasing their owner and does that also mean to protect?
Well of course:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well of course:1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
May a robot protect it's self? Because it doesn't change the fact that people would hate, vandalize and destroy them.
Yes you see law three says that a robot may.....but if a human orders the robot something he has to do it.......still if someone destroys a robot he will be punished according to the current law...which considering the price and emotional value of a robot would probably be enough to ensure the safety of robots
Originally posted by debbiejo
I guess you've been giving this a lot of thought? Maybe you'll get to live your fantasy... 😎
I nwon't live to see that ideal come true...nor is it mine...it is mostly Isaac Asimovs...but I hope I can take some part in the advancement of robots (a sidenote in the History Books would be nice 😛)
Mind enhancing drugs, anybody ?
From The Sunday Times, the science minister Lord Sainsbury, restrictions on the use of brain-enhancing chemicals that can improve intelligence, memory and decisiveness may be removed.
A.I. doesnt necessarily mean machines. The next step towards AI could be "cosmetic neurology".
Drugs that enhance the brain are already emerging:
Modafinil: Improves alertness and decisiveness
Ritalin and ampakines: Can aid concentration and memory. Although intended to treat disordersthey have been adopted by healthy people across the social spectrum because of their ability to enhance performance.
Anti-memory drugs: New drugs could block painful memories.
Who would use them ?
Students: A fifth of American college students use brain-enhancing drugs.
Airline pilots: Enhanced concentration could improve safety on long flights
Military: The army has experimented with drugs to reduce need to sleep.
Executives: Drugs that improve decision-making could give an edge over rivals.
Missing the point?
It seems to me that before you discuss the moral issues surrounding human rights vs AI rights, you first have to consider what exactly is intelligence?
Just because something looks human and acts human does not necessarily mean that it is. Likewise, just because something is completely different from us, doesn't mean that it's not worthy of respect and consideration.
It all boils down to what we consider to be intelligence. Don't any of you realize that intelligence is something which we as a race have tried in vain to define since Plato?
What is intelligence? Is it the ability to use tools? Is it the ability to adapt to new situations? Is it the ability to "feel" (whatever that means)?
And if ... IF ... we as human beings are capable of creating something as intelligent as ourselves, should we? Shouldn't we seriously consider the ramifications? If we are not ready to treat each other with equality, what makes us think that we can treat another recognizeable form of intelligence fairly?
The movie, AI, had so many messages, but this was one of the more obvious ones.
If you think that machines haven't been replacing human labor since the industrial revolution, then you're seriously myopic! The thing is, technology always, ALWAYS, provides both benefit and detriment. It makes life easier for some, yet makes life hard for others. But guess what, whatever the final definition, we all agree that humans are intelligent, and we all agree that a part of that intelligence is adaptation. We'll adapt. We can only hope that radicals, both liberal and conservative alike, won't muddy the issues with closed-minded ignorance.
Technology has allowed the majority of us not to have to go out and hunt or to get up at the crack of dawn to milk the cows. I'm sure that none of you will complain about that. But have you thought of the people who were put out of work by the technology that allows us to enjoy our present luxuries? If you're going to piss and whine about AIs displacing labor, you should foresake all your current luxuries and go live in the jungle.
The issue is not whether AIs will displace humans. The issue is whether humans are ready to accept AIs. Have we reached an average level of education and wealth that will allow humanity to maintain productivity without having to engage in menial labor? The answer is a definite NO. Have we reached an average level of personal introspection and philosophy that will allow each of us to accept a second form of intelligence on this planet, artificial or otherwise? The answer is another definite NO.
When humans stop killing one another in the name of oil, and persecuting one another in the name of religion, and treating one another unequally because of skin color, then we may, and only MAY, be ready to consider the moral consequences of AI.
But all this may be totally moot for the time-being because the state of AI today is LIGHT-EONS away from popular fictional conceptions.
Originally posted by GCG
I believe that the use of the drugs mentioned in my previous post shows just how close and involved we already are in Artificial Intelligence.
Not really sure how drugs can be linked to AI, except in the context of cultivated biological neural networks. If you're applying drugs to human beings to either enhance or alter cognition, how is that Artificial Intelligence?
In my mind artificial intelligence connotes an intelligence entirely constructed with no direct basis in human intelligence. But I suppose my definition could be expanded to include artificially induced intelligence.
But still, the drugs of which you speak only serve to enhance aspects of intelligence which are already present in natural intelligence.
I prefer to look at Artificial Intelligence development as a means to aid people suffering from disabilities. This form of aid will come maintaing the indipendance of the human body without the exterior mechanical interfierance.
Implementing silicone chips into the brain. Meshing nerve cells with electronics has become a hot new field in science -- and has long been a staple of science fiction.
If the use of drugs is already possible and is a system tha works, its a matter time until the organic brain and artificial chips weave together to form the ultimate Artificial Intelligence, Yes yes.
Originally posted by GCG
I prefer to look at Artificial Intelligence development as a means to aid people suffering from disabilities. This form of aid will come maintaing the indipendance of the human body without the exterior mechanical interfierance.Implementing silicone chips into the brain. Meshing nerve cells with electronics has become a hot new field in science -- and has long been a staple of science fiction.
If the use of drugs is already possible and is a system tha works, its a matter time until the organic brain and artificial chips weave together to form the ultimate Artificial Intelligence, Yes yes.
Ok. I hear what you're saying. I'd prefer to describe technological enhancement of the human body/mind as cybernetics, but I can see how AI can also be included as a cognitive aid, expanding our mental abilities.