2

2/14/2006 10:36:36 AM

Quote :

"It seems that what makes us "us" is our memories, which might explain why we cling to them so often, even when it doesn't do us justice."

I'd add one more element to that; beliefs. It seems to me that when you ask "Who are you?" that what you're likely to hear is a combination of what a person remembers and what he believes.

Your point about the false nature of the "error case" is well-noted. I don't see how people consider it an error at all for exactly the same reason.

As for the broader topic, humans will almost certainly create robotic life. We'll probably create complex, human-like life in a piecemeal fashion; building replaceable parts for our bodies (including the brain) first, improvements to our bodies next (improving logic, recall, etc.), and finally a wholesale, purely robotic homonid. The last step would probably be developed to explore environments in which we can't survive (outer space, other planets, deep sea, volcanic fissures, etc.).

We have a lot of cultural growing up to do before we could make effective use of them, though.

2/14/2006 11:50:48 AM

No logical, robotic being would have use for humanity after a point.

You better damn well hope the things understand sentimental value.

2/14/2006 11:55:04 AM

^ I disagree.

It wouldn't SEE a use for humanity after a point.

A large amount of humanity's ability to survive hinges on acting irrationally. A combination of both (nearly) flawless computational power, and the ability to think without being 100% caged by logic would be ideal.

2/14/2006 12:16:40 PM

Thing is, even if a robot had no use for humanity, it doesn't necessarily mean that the robots would attempt to exterminate us James Cameron-style. They'd probably just ignore us and go about their merry way into space. It's not like they'd have any reason to stick around on Earth.

2/14/2006 12:59:51 PM

^ That's right. It'd be more "logical" to not risk extermination and the cost of a drawn out war.

2/14/2006 1:00:46 PM

Yeah. I don't know why people usually assume that artificially intelligent robots would be as territorial as humans, or limit themselves to the confines of the surface of the Earth when there's so much more room in space.

2/14/2006 1:03:21 PM

I don't know why anybody thinks artificially intelligent robots would be "logical".

2/14/2006 1:05:57 PM

I don't see why anyone would think they'd be purely logical either. What's your point?

2/14/2006 1:14:51 PM

Irrational human's wouldn't allow it.

Since war is man's very nature, logic would dictate the most efficient means of extermination or reducing humanity to the point where it can't possibly pose a threat.

No war is necessary, unleash biological agents that don't effect machines.

I mean really there's absolutely no point to humanity if true artificial intelligence is created.

2/14/2006 1:36:25 PM

There's a gap in your logic chain that I'm missing. How do you get from "they wouldn't need us" to "therefore they would destroy us?"

2/14/2006 1:37:19 PM

^ Too many science fiction books.

Edit:

Quote :

"I don't know why anybody thinks artificially intelligent robots would be "logical"."

Probably because many cognitive science endeavors are top-down. This means most people, as opposed to taking an "evolutionary" approach to developing intelligence in machines, try to create intelligence by piecing together bits of intelligent function. The leading idea is that if you piece together enough reasoning functions, you get a reasoning being that's as intelligent/alive/whatever as a human.

This means that you have to come up with basic rules for reasoning/thinking, rules that are ALWAYS used. When you program a computer, the code gets run and that's that. A computer program is a big lattice of a metric shit-ton of logic. That's why anybody thinks artificially intelligent robots would be logical in their thought processes. Of course, we could program erratic behavior -- but what is the point of that?


[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 1:57 PM. Reason : grammar ]

2/14/2006 1:46:35 PM

I'd think we'd design them to be more proficient with logic than ourselves, but that they'd have a limited means of "consciously(?)" deviating from that pattern of processing information when the situation demanded. IOW, it wouldn't be purely logical (i.e. Spock) all the time, but it'd have a much higher capacity for logical thought than we do.

2/14/2006 2:18:35 PM

I think we'll end up copying human intelligence first. This means that AIs won't be much more logical than we are.

2/14/2006 4:58:01 PM

Quote :

"haha, but i was not just talking about i,robot... more along the lines of P.K. Dick and Asimov"

ROFL

2/14/2006 7:09:30 PM

no, not truely

emulations and mimics sure


but the real deal?

no

2/14/2006 11:27:01 PM

Could you elaborate why you feel a technical issue of complexity will never be solved?

2/15/2006 1:19:33 AM

Or, for fun, explain how our own actions are different from emulation and immitation?

2/15/2006 3:28:59 AM

in a word, choice.

2/15/2006 4:50:35 AM

Quote :

"I don't know why anybody thinks artificially intelligent robots would be "logical""

well, I'd say it's because computers are built with logic circuits. by definition, they're "logical."

2/15/2006 8:48:36 AM

Quote :

"in a word, choice."

Until you explain choice and make a convincing argument for its existence, and HOW it can exist, saying "choice" is like saying "magic".

2/15/2006 9:37:07 AM

2/15/2006 12:01:50 PM

2/15/2006 12:06:04 PM

Quote :

"Until you explain choice and make a convincing argument for its existence, and HOW it can exist, saying "choice" is like saying "magic"."

I choose not to. Think about that McEinstein.

2/15/2006 5:54:10 PM

Wow, choice looks an awful lot like copping out.

2/15/2006 6:01:41 PM

damnit dirtygreek

i was just coming to post that

2/15/2006 6:02:59 PM

haha i love those dino comics... except the ones i don't understand (But i understand that one!!!!!1)

2/16/2006 1:26:26 AM