Robot evolution

The real difficulty in AI isn't getting the robots or androids to perform as if they are actually consciously aware. That's the easy part actually as is evidenced by all the computer programs which can easily beat the vast majority of chess players and others which can play at master and grandmaster levels.

The really challenging thing is to endow the computer with the same self awareness that we take so much for granted and which seems impossible to replicate. In short, mimicry isn't self-awareness no matter how identical the manifestations might seem. Lets consider a chess position. First, the computer isn't seeing a chess board.The computer is only dealing with mathematical problems. In short, it beats the experienced chess player who is indeed seeing a board in from of him by doing math. In fact, it's un-self-aware, brainless approach can be understood when we consider that the computer examines thousands of positions that are totally unnecessary before moving whereas the chess player dismisses those areas at a glance based on general principles and experience.
 
Radrook said:
Lets consider a chess position. First, the computer isn't seeing a chess board.The computer is only dealing with mathematical problems. In short, it beats the experienced chess player who is indeed seeing a board in from of him by doing math. In fact, it's un-self-aware, brainless approach can be understood when we consider that the computer examines thousands of positions that are totally unnecessary before moving whereas the chess player dismisses those areas at a glance based on general principles and experience.
Click to expand...

Yes, a chess player dismisses those unnecessary moves at a glance, and a computer mind considers them. But how much slower is it? If it's much slower, future models will be faster. Eventually they'll be much faster than a chess player dismissing those moves at a glance.

And that's just chess. Robotic reaction times are quickening (see the video of a robot arm catching a mobile phone, for example). Everything robots do has improved since this thread first began documenting their progress.
 
Harpo said:
Yes, a chess player dismisses those unnecessary moves at a glance, and a computer mind considers them. But how much slower is it? If it's much slower, future models will be faster. Eventually they'll be much faster than a chess player dismissing those moves at a glance.

And that's just chess. Robotic reaction times are quickening (see the video of a robot arm catching a mobile phone, for example). Everything robots do has improved since this thread first began documenting their progress.
Click to expand...
Present-day chess-playing computers aren't slow in reaching decisions. In fact, superior velocity is the main characteristic differentiating computers from the human brain. What distinguishes the human brain is its consciousness whose source is still under investigation and eludes complete analyses. Some have suggested that consciousness is a product of the subatomic or quantum sphere of reality. If indeed that turns out to be true-then producing it in a non-organic android would necessitate a thorough understanding of exactly how such consciousness is being generated within those parameters.
 
What would be the practical difference between telepathy and robots with computer brains linked by internet (or some sort of future robonet). Not much.
The only way I can see for humans to achieve telepathy is by having robotic computerised implants in their brains.
It may or may not happen.
 
Alexa said:
Our press showed us a few moments. Robots were quite a mess after that battle.
Click to expand...

Actually, they weren't robots at all. The battle might better be called a battle between mecha - both machines were piloted.
 
I've finally (started weeks ago!) read all the way through this thread and viewed the links along the way.
Some of the proposals are way scary but apart from the military view I can't envisage people wanting a robot around the house.

Why would you really? Maybe a status symbol for a year or two until the price drops, but surely amongst the 'moneyed classes' you'd get a hint of "he he he, they can't afford real servants like us"
 
I can see two other reasons:

1. some can afford to pay for one, especially those who didn't work for those money
2. some are really fans and do anything to have one around

In Japan those who cannot have a real pet because of the landlord, have a dog pet robot instead.
 
Radrook said:
The real difficulty in AI isn't getting the robots or androids to perform as if they are actually consciously aware. That's the easy part actually as is evidenced by all the computer programs which can easily beat the vast majority of chess players and others which can play at master and grandmaster levels.

The really challenging thing is to endow the computer with the same self awareness that we take so much for granted and which seems impossible to replicate. In short, mimicry isn't self-awareness no matter how identical the manifestations might seem. Lets consider a chess position. First, the computer isn't seeing a chess board.The computer is only dealing with mathematical problems. In short, it beats the experienced chess player who is indeed seeing a board in from of him by doing math. In fact, it's un-self-aware, brainless approach can be understood when we consider that the computer examines thousands of positions that are totally unnecessary before moving whereas the chess player dismisses those areas at a glance based on general principles and experience.
Click to expand...
In general, I agree with your analysis here, with this exception: we humans are not only unable to replicate "self awareness," we can't be sure we would recognize it if it happened.
To say that robots and/or AI can only reflect what humans have designed for a creation seems to me to be a brand of arrogance, suggesting that nothing can happen with a collection of parts and/or programs except what the designers have intended. The fact is that human programming makes mistakes -- that is, creates connections that result in "glitches" that were certainly never intended by the designers -- "Garbage in, garbage out" need not be an axiom: recall that many theories of how life began on earth seem to feature pools of random mixtures of chemicals...and might not there be an analogy to, let us say, random mixtures of software?

Does "self-awareness" equate with "intelligence"?
I think we're aware that "intelligence" is not the only possible outcome of evolution...we should be aware that there can be outcomes we don't even recognize as an outcome.
 
dannymcg said:
I've finally (started weeks ago!) read all the way through this thread and viewed the links along the way.
Some of the proposals are way scary but apart from the military view I can't envisage people wanting a robot around the house.

Why would you really? Maybe a status symbol for a year or two until the price drops, but surely amongst the 'moneyed classes' you'd get a hint of "he he he, they can't afford real servants like us"
Click to expand...

Quite frankly I'd rather hire humans. They need jobs, need money, and need things to do. Why are we so intent on replacing ourselves? When we have no gods, we make new ones, it seems.
 
Eventually , they are going demand the right to vote. :unsure:
 
Cathbad said:
I have every confidence they'd be a more conscientious, knowledgeable and sure Electorate than the one we currently have!!
Click to expand...

Yes , but the consensus of designers , programers and marketing division executives is that robots if given the vote , will likely vote Republican.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Extollager Mushroom-robot partners Science & Nature 0
MrCHansen Isaac Asimov Audiobook - (Robot Dreams) Book Discussion 5
Brian G Turner Spooky robot action SFF Lounge 1
T Boston Dynamics' New Humanoid Robot Science & Nature 0
Jeffbert Study says a revolution in the sex robot industry is on the way-- (TECHSPOT) Science & Nature 3

Similar threads


Back
Top