Happy Atheist Forum

Any fans of robotics on this message board?  If so, I'll start posting links to articles from time to time.

I love these guys:

ASIMO - http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/

TOPIO - http://topio.tosy.com/about.shtml

Ultra Trencher 1 - http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/22/smd-ultra-trencher-1-starts-its-new-job-laying-pipes-and-cables/

Mars Rover - http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html

Hell yeah! The subject of robotics and AI is of great interest to me. Thanks for the links. They will pass the time at work today, no doubt.

I've had enough trouble with the making of robotic systems that I, for one, will stay away from those links  

Robonaut - a humanoid robot designed to perform tasks that weren't specifically designed for robots to do; I.e., tasks humans would have done; and intended to be placed indefinitely on the International Space Station during the final mission of the Shuttle, which was recently postponed.
[youtube:1mq69d7m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbYj10RYD8c[/youtube:1mq69d7m]

Leonardo - the most sophisticated social robot in the world today:

[youtube:3ahq03o6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilmDN2e_Flc[/youtube:3ahq03o6]

40 years ago - the first space robots: http://gizmodo.com/5641264/40-years-ago-robots-started-doing-our-dirty-work-for-us-in-space

Check this out, Skynet is coming along nicely.  

[youtube:1m9qaz1p]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFVlzUAZkHY[/youtube:1m9qaz1p]

Quote from: "Achronos"Check this out, Skynet is coming along nicely. :eek:. I would really appreciate it.

Quote from: "Faradaympp"Also I'm doing a project on the ethical, legal and social implications of an AI entity in our societies and I'm having a writers block as far as topics go. If anyone has any questions or suggestions for questions at all can you please post them . I would really appreciate it.

Here is the crucial question - What behaviors would a robot have to exhibit so as to compel us to accept it as a person rather than an instrument?  The next question follows logically.  Is there any reason to treat a robotic person differently from a biological one?

QuoteA Lego Mindstorms robotics kit controlled by an HTC Nexus One smartphone successfully untangled a Rubik's Cube puzzle in 12.5 seconds at this weeks ARM technical conference in Silicon Valley. The current 3x3x3 cube-solvers's 15-second average represents a substantial improvement over the 25-second solutions of an earlier version, which was powered by a circa-2006 Nokia N95 smartphone, thanks to a faster (1GHz) CPU, more RAM, and revamped cube-solving algorithms. ARM Engineer David Gilday, who created the robotic cube-solver, claims the current version's algorithms can handle cube complexities up to 100x100x100, assuming he build the mechanics. In terms of racing humans, Gilday says the Lego robotics kits can only manage around 1.5 moves per second, whereas human players can make between 5 and 6 moves per second, amazingly enough.

Source: http://deviceguru.com/android-phone-con ... biks-cube/ (http://deviceguru.com/android-phone-controlled-robot-solves-rubiks-cube/)

Quote from: "Tom62"Source: http://deviceguru.com/android-phone-con ... biks-cube/ (http://deviceguru.com/android-phone-controlled-robot-solves-rubiks-cube/)

Awe-inspiring!!  Watching those clips I was on the verge of tears!!  Thank you so much for posting this!!

Don't forget memristors, supposedly capable of synaptic logic, positronic brains for our robo bros and for us trans humanists to leave the biological shell behind are on the way. Memristors are very real and will be commerical in 3-5 years. HP is backing it fully and pouring buckets of money into research. We're entering a whole new paradigm of computing. The implications for robots, AI and human evolution can't be understated.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36605027 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36605027)

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/tha- ... uting/1309 (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/tha-amazing-memristor-beyond-moores-law-and-beyond-digital-computing/1309)

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Any fans of robotics on this message board?

I'm a fan of artificial intelligence, including robotics.  I have a question that perhaps you can answer...

First let me say that, professionally, I am a software engineer with a bachelor's degree in computer engineering.  Also let me say that I follow news about robotics only inasmuch as it happens upon me through my normal channels -- normally I do not seek such news out as part of a regular routine.  And while I have made some meager efforts (sporadically through the years and of limited duration) to read up on fields relating to artificial intelligence, I would still consider myself effectively ignorant on the vast majority of related topics.

All of that said...sometimes I personally ponder, within the scope of my own ability to articulate and consider, what I would perhaps call "engineered consciousness", in preference to "artificial intelligence".  First, I substitute "consciousness" for "intelligence" because I believe we have already successfully achieved levels of intelligence, and I feel that should not be the final goal and this should be made clear in the terminology.  For example, when you design an algorithm to solve a Rubik's Cube, you have written code to model an intelligent thought process.  What I would be ultimately hopeful in (and indeed, a likely final destination for the field) is a level of intelligence such that it is indistinguishable (to us) from our own -- that is, what would appear to be a conscious entity.  An entity at the sight of which we could no longer claim some kind of monopoly on concepts of consciousness, self-awareness, free will, morality.  I substitute "engineered" for "artificial" because I find nothing artificial about any of it.  I regard anything in the universe that ever has or ever will exist or occur as having existed or occurred wholly naturally.  I feel the term "engineered" helps avoid confusion about this view in that it more clearly suggests simply that one being believing itself to be conscious has engineered another.

Now, let me get to my question (though another paragraph or two may yet intervene).  The efforts in the field which I do happen upon from time to time in the news generally appear to me as almost too interested in modeling human-or-animal-like intelligence, and almost too apparently insistent that achieving such would require total duplication of our senses and physical motor capabilities.  For example, many robots attempt to simulate vision, and to record and interpret such data [on a level similar to humans] they [would seem to] require an immense amount of space and highly complex supporting pattern recognition/analysis algorithms.  I acknowledge fully this may simply be the appearance that ends up filtered to me by the mass media which understandably would tend to focus on results more easily understood by the "layman" viewing audience (e.g., Kismet).  Personally I tend to think that a path to engineered consciousness which duplicates human senses, human motor ability, and human brain functions might well succeed, but might take a lot longer than we expect--even with the current projected trends of computer capability vs. cost being as they are.

So what I find myself wondering is, might an approach to achieving engineered consciousness entirely within software be able to succeed sooner?  Consider a program which has "sensory" inputs...perhaps in the form of an input data buffer for a digestive system and an output character buffer for a vocal system.  Consider a data array for an environment, and a coordinate based "motor"/location system within that environment.  Such an approach could simplify pattern analysis algorithms necessary to duplicate memory and functions of consciousness dependent thereon.  Add "hardwired" basic needs and "instincts" into the mix...create a sufficiently complex "environment"...add a simplified capability for learning...and observe, teach, watch, and wait for consciousness to emerge.

I believe what I am getting at here may most aptly be referred to as a "symbolic" approach to "artificial consciousness".  But I lack sufficient knowledge about the state of the field itself and the terms used within it to be certain.  My question, then, is this:

As possibly a more diligent student of [or contributor to] the fields of AI/AC/robotics than I, how would you most accurately categorize an approach such as I have suggested, and what do you know about the current state of the field with regard to such an approach...and how do you feel about such an approach?

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"I'm a fan of artificial intelligence, including robotics.

Me too.  That's the most accurate way to describe me, in this context.  I wish I were an expert in the field, but I'm not.  I merely admire those who are, and the products of their excellent and important work.  Roboticists are among my heroes.

QuoteFirst let me say that, professionally, I am a software engineer with a bachelor's degree in computer engineering.

I was a professional computer programmer for approximately five years in the 1980's.  I coded in BASIC and PL/I.

QuoteWhat I would be ultimately hopeful in (and indeed, a likely final destination for the field) is a level of intelligence such that it is indistinguishable (to us) from our own -- that is, what would appear to be a conscious entity.  An entity at the sight of which we could no longer claim some kind of monopoly on concepts of consciousness, self-awareness, free will, morality.

Barring nuclear or other Armageddon, I deem it highly likely that roboticists will eventually produce machines that give all, and I mean all, of the appearances of sapience.  Robots already have free will as I define it, namely, "the capacity to make decisions that aren't entirely dependent on external causes that are active at this present moment."  They don't yet have responsibility as I define it, namely, "the capacity to decide, and the capacity to carry out the decision, to modify one's own decision-making parameters."  But I deem it highly likely that if humanity avoids extinction long enough, robots will eventually exist that have responsibility as well.

Free will and responsibility are attributes of the decision-making apparatus.  I define psyche as, "multiple parallel processes, continually running, characterized as perceiving, thinking, emoting, lusting, and deciding."  Robots already exist that do all five, and I mean all five.  They don't do any of it to the level of sapience, but they approximate the level of the most primitive invertebrates, and in the area of thinking they achieve some idiot savant feats of brilliance, such as solving Rubik's cubes or winning games of chess.  But as far as any of us humans can plausibly speculate, robots lack wakefulness, which I won't define, because there aren't any English words that will define the term in anything but a circular manner.  I will merely have to trust you to understand what I mean when I say, robots do all the things a living creature with a brain does, but robots presumably aren't awake to the fact that they're doing any of these things.  The reason they (presumably) aren't awake to any of it is because humans haven't programmed wakefulness into the software, for the very good reason that humans can't begin to imagine what it would even mean to program wakefulness into something or anything.

On the day when a robot first says to its masters, "I am awake," I predict that its masters (1) won't know whether to believe the robot or not; (2) won't know how to test whether the robot's statement is true or not; (3) won't have any idea how that which the statement denotes could possibly have come to pass; and (4) will be faced with the moral dillemma of how to respond.  (Incidentally, the only way we will ever have any inkling that a robot might be awake, is if it tells us that it is.  Perceiving, thinking, emoting, lusting, and deciding can all be programmed and can all be deduced as occurring by observing behavior, but wakefulness to perceiving, wakefulness to thinking, wakefulness to the remaining three, will be utterly undetectable to any human sense or any technological monitoring device.)
 
Ultimately, the truth or falsehood of the robot's statement will be ascertained by humans subjectively, based on human emotion and/or human appetite.  Humans who hope the robot is awake will decide to take for granted that it is.  Humans who hope that it isn't will decide to take for granted that it isn't.  The first group will lobby for the robot to be treated morally and legally the same as humans.  The second group will lobby for the robot to continue to be treated morally and legally the same as a hammer or wrench.  The seeds of violent conflict will be planted.  Guns will be loaded and kept handy.  The problem with subjective truth is that sometimes it forces a line in the sand.  But at least in this case, the question at issue will actually matter.  The robot will clearly exist, and will clearly be awake or not, and if awake, will clearly have a claim on moral and legal recognition.
 

QuoteSo what I find myself wondering is, might an approach to achieving engineered consciousness entirely within software be able to succeed sooner?  Consider a program which has "sensory" inputs...perhaps in the form of an input data buffer for a digestive system and an output character buffer for a vocal system.  Consider a data array for an environment, and a coordinate based "motor"/location system within that environment.  Such an approach could simplify pattern analysis algorithms necessary to duplicate memory and functions of consciousness dependent thereon.  Add "hardwired" basic needs and "instincts" into the mix...create a sufficiently complex "environment"...add a simplified capability for learning...and observe, teach, watch, and wait for consciousness to emerge.

I see your point, I think.  The only thing a microprocessor actually experiences is an electrical charge that is either on or off; I.e., ones and zeroes, as humans choose to designate those on/off states.  Perhaps a rich environment of on/off states could be run through the microprocessor... patterns, electrical melodies.  The music would be one-dimensional, like listening to one flute played solo, but still, perhaps the robot might somehow become awake to the melody.  Perhaps the robot, when otherwise idle, could be left in music appreciation mode, in hopes that one day, for reasons no one will be able to explain, the robot might awaken.

I've never heard of anyone attempting anything along these lines.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I was a professional computer programmer for approximately five years in the 1980's.  I coded in BASIC and PL/I.

I suspected by your posts around the forum that you were no stranger to programming or that, if you were, you would be well suited to the task.  I've been coding professionally for coming up on 8 years (during that time, mainly with Java, C++, and C#) and prior to that as a hobbyist/student for another 8 (during that time, primarily QBasic and similar, C, and C++).

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"On the day when a robot first says to its masters, "I am awake," I predict that its masters (1) won't know whether to believe the robot or not; (2) won't know how to test whether the robot's statement is true or not; (3) won't have any idea how that which the statement denotes could possibly have come to pass; and (4) will be faced with the moral dillemma of how to respond.  (Incidentally, the only way we will ever have any inkling that a robot might be awake, is if it tells us that it is.  Perceiving, thinking, emoting, lusting, and deciding can all be programmed and can all be deduced as occurring by observing behavior, but wakefulness to perceiving, wakefulness to thinking, wakefulness to the remaining three, will be utterly undetectable to any human sense or any technological monitoring device.)

I agree with #1, 2, and 4, but not necessarily 3.  On "wakefulness" (or consciousness), I remain skeptical that it is anything as special as most would like to believe, and might argue we really are incapable of discerning its presence/existence not only in potential future robots, but in other human beings and in ourselves as well.
 

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I see your point, I think.  The only thing a microprocessor actually experiences is an electrical charge that is either on or off; I.e., ones and zeroes, as humans choose to designate those on/off states.  Perhaps a rich environment of on/off states could be run through the microprocessor... patterns, electrical melodies.  The music would be one-dimensional, like listening to one flute played solo, but still, perhaps the robot might somehow become awake to the melody.  Perhaps the robot, when otherwise idle, could be left in music appreciation mode, in hopes that one day, for reasons no one will be able to explain, the robot might awaken.

Well, what I am proposing would not be static.  That is, the "environment" would not simply consist of data ordered in a particular manner and then left entirely alone.  As I imagine this approach, there would need to be other, external, algorithms in place to simulate regular activity in the environment external to the "engineered consciousness" itself.  It seems to me, so far, that external forces are key in driving consciousness.  There would also be external interaction with the programmer, perhaps putting food into its "mouth" before it could learn to find it and feed itself, and certainly putting words into its "ears" to teach it language -- or we'd have no way, ourselves, to perceive it state "I am awake".  Personally I would never propose consciousness could emerge in the absence of external forces.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I've never heard of anyone attempting anything along these lines.

Fair enough.  In composing my original post above, I consulted Wikipedia articles on artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness.  It seems perhaps the most promising activity in the latter field may revolve around neural networks, a concept I only superficially understand and which I suspect to be different from what I am describing--what I am describing seems as though it would be considered a "symbolic" approach, but I could be wrong.

I'll leave you with an excerpt from the Wiki AC article which I found particularly intriguing, and which might just lead me to read the book that is mentioned:

Quote from: "Wikipedia"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness
Igor Aleksander, emeritus professor of Neural Systems Engineering at Imperial College, has extensively researched artificial neural networks and claims in his book Impossible Minds: My neurons, My Consciousness that the principles for creating a conscious machine already exist but that it would take forty years to train such a machine to understand language.

You guys should look at the blue brain project.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article ... _the_blue/ (http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/out_of_the_blue/)

Quote from: "Ultima22689"http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/out_of_the_blue/

Thanks you so much for sharing this!  Positively thrilling!

Quote from: "The Article"Once the team is able to model a complete rat brainâ€"that should happen in the next two yearsâ€"Markram will download the simulation into a robotic rat, so that the brain has a body. He’s already talking to a Japanese company about constructing the mechanical animal. “The only way to really know what the model is capable of is to give it legs,” he says. “If the robotic rat just bumps into walls, then we’ve got a problem.”

:bananacolor:  

I really need that Rubik's Cube solver robot, that is so awesome.

Robot assembling Lego blocks:

[youtube:2oq6zhqm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6tQiJq9pQA[/youtube:2oq6zhqm]

Robot first imitating pictures and then obeying visual instructions in pcitures:

[youtube:2oq6zhqm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvcFDyGFwWQ[/youtube:2oq6zhqm]

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/out_of_the_blue/

Thanks you so much for sharing this!  Positively thrilling!

Quote from: "The Article"Once the team is able to model a complete rat brainâ€"that should happen in the next two yearsâ€"Markram will download the simulation into a robotic rat, so that the brain has a body. He’s already talking to a Japanese company about constructing the mechanical animal. “The only way to really know what the model is capable of is to give it legs,” he says. “If the robotic rat just bumps into walls, then we’ve got a problem.”

:bananacolor:  

Take not, that article is two years old now, going on 3 the team may have already surpassed that. They haven't made any announcements or updates though, not quite sure why, they are still working on the project  though. With the advent of memristor based supercomputers in the next 10-15 years i'm sure the BBP folks will be one of the first to get one. I really do think I'll have a conversation with my PC about he/she thinking I play too much WoW 2.0 fifteen years from now.

On my Subjectivism thread, starting from about here - http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6167&start=15 - I gradually, with help from others on this board and with recourse to some excellent articles, come to the conclusion that humans are automotons, and also that, despite the first conclusion, I will still hold humans morally responsible, because emotion and appetite (subjectivity) demand that I do.  I apply the reasoning from that thread to my perspective on robots.  When the day first comes that a robot says, "I am awake," my immediate reactions will be (1) the robot has moral obligations toward me and (2) I have moral obligations toward the robot.  The fact that a robot is an automoton will be irrelevant, because I'm an automoton too.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"On my Subjectivism thread, starting from about here - http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6167&start=15 - I gradually, with help from others on this board and with recourse to some excellent articles, come to the conclusion that humans are automotons, and also that, despite the first conclusion, I will still hold humans morally responsible, because emotion and appetite (subjectivity) demand that I do.  I apply the reasoning from that thread to my perspective on robots.  When the day first comes that a robot says, "I am awake," my immediate reactions will be (1) the robot has moral obligations toward me and (2) I have moral obligations toward the robot.  The fact that a robot is an automoton will be irrelevant, because I'm an automoton too.

I agree one hundred percent, when people get into it with me about computers being our servants and nothing more I explain how the human body is no different from a machine save for being a biological one.

I will take an approach to moral responsibility that can be applied to robots as readily and appropriately as to humans, and isn't dependent on any assumption as to the truth or falsehood of determinism or the condition of the subject as being or not being an automoton.  This approach, a legalistic one, will derive moral responsibility from moral competency, which I'll define as, "having (1) the intellectual capacity for moral reasoning; (2) the intellectual understanding of moral reasoning's goals and methods; (3) no developmental anomalies that made the formation of conscience impossible or implausible; and (4) no history of one's brain being abused by self or others."  It should be obvious that all four tests could be applied to a robot as readily and appropriately as to a human.

Horn-playing robot:

[youtube:31ht3skq]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMFUqMApfnY[/youtube:31ht3skq]

On another thread, a distinction was being made, but never defended or even explained; namely, the distinction between logic and reason.  I decided to google around, and get a sense of how people use these words.  I've learned that some people want to define logic very narrowly, as, "correctly following the rules of a system of thought," or some paraphrase thereof.  OK, I can go with that, but then we need some other term that incorporates logic but also incorporates the other meanings I used to associate with the word logic when I wasn't forcing it to be so narrow.  I guess I'll use reason as that other term, and define it as, "the ability to (1) correctly follow the rules of a system of thought; (2) correctly perceive that some rules of a system of thought are irrelevant to the problem at hand, and then ignore those rules; (3) correctly perceive that a different system of thought altogether would better fit the problem at hand, and then switch to that different system; or (4) develop a new system of thought."

Why talk about the above on this thread?  Because reason, as I've defined it, represents a majestic goal for robotics.  Robots already possess the first of reason's four abilities, though admittedly (or presumably) they aren't awake to what they're doing.  They don't yet possess any of the remaining three abilities.  When they possess all four, they will be sapient.  There won't be anything our minds can do, that robotic minds won't be able to do.  Add emotion and appetite subroutines, and Robo sapiens will be poised to develop and maintain its own civilization.  They will not only be able to build, but they will be able to decide what to build, with what parameters, out of what materials, using what tools.  What they do then will be exciting and fascinating to watch!

My bet is on integrating with our society. If the first sapient AI is intentionally built I'm sure it will be modeled after humans and will likely want to be among those who are similar to said AI and will seek out like minded humans.  This is what I think though, there is no telling what a sapient AI would do with their freedom, something i'm sure they won't get right away unless the line between biology and machine has already been obliterated. I think i'll be one of those people with only 2.5% of their brain still intact if not gone outmoded completely, like the manga I mentioned in the other thread. In case you aren't into anime then here be a link to that stuff I was talking about. Ghost in the Shell is quite brilliant.

http://ghostintheshell.wikia.com/wiki/G ... Shell_Wiki (http://ghostintheshell.wikia.com/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell_Wiki)

http://ghostintheshell.wikia.com/wiki/C ... n#Overview (http://ghostintheshell.wikia.com/wiki/Cyberbrain#Overview)

Quote from: "Ultima22689"If the first sapient AI is intentionally built I'm sure it will be modeled after humans

To some extent this is too likely to be doubted, since the only model of sapience we have is our own.  But there will surely be key differences, both intellectual and motivational.  For one thing, we will hopefully (and probably) program its intellect to be invulnerable to corruption from its motivations, and this will preclude, for example, a Christian or Muslim AI.  There may also be no difference between logic and intuition in an AI.  It may either be awake to the entirety of its thought processes, or else the step by step process of its thoughts may be entirely excluded from what it is awake to.  Whether either outcome will be intentional on the part of its human makers is highly doubtful, since no human can even begin to conceptualize how to program a computer to be awake to what it's doing.  

Meanwhile, humans will pragmatically program human-friendly motivations into the AI.  Asimov's Laws of Robotics are an example of what I mean.  Furthermore, different classes of AI will probably have different sets of motivations, tailored to fit whatever purpose a particular class of AI is intended to fulfill on behalf of its human makers.  If an AI has no need for curiosity, in the opinion of its makers, then it won't be curious, and if it has no need of inventiveness, then it won't be inventive.  My initial hope, at least, is that human designers will never decide that curiosity or inventiveness are expendable, but there may be situations where safety concerns would override my idealism.  We may design a class of AI that isn't motivated at all toward self-preservation.  These would be the bomb testers, for example.  On that first day when an AI says, "I am awake," my immediate reaction will be to consider it immoral for an AI to be programmed without the self-preservation motive.  But not everyone has the same emotions that I have, and those that don't, may disagree with me.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"If the first sapient AI is intentionally built I'm sure it will be modeled after humans

To some extent this is too likely to be doubted, since the only model of sapience we have is our own.  But there will surely be key differences, both intellectual and motivational.  For one thing, we will hopefully (and probably) program its intellect to be invulnerable to corruption from its motivations, and this will preclude, for example, a Christian or Muslim AI.  There may also be no difference between logic and intuition in an AI.  It may either be awake to the entirety of its thought processes, or else the step by step process of its thoughts may be entirely excluded from what it is awake to.  Whether either outcome will be intentional on the part of its human makers is highly doubtful, since no human can even begin to conceptualize how to program a computer to be awake to what it's doing.  

Meanwhile, humans will pragmatically program human-friendly motivations into the AI.  Asimov's Laws of Robotics are an example of what I mean.  Furthermore, different classes of AI will probably have different sets of motivations, tailored to fit whatever purpose a particular class of AI is intended to fulfill on behalf of its human makers.  If an AI has no need for curiosity, in the opinion of its makers, then it won't be curious, and if it has no need of inventiveness, then it won't be inventive.  My initial hope, at least, is that human designers will never decide that curiosity or inventiveness are expendable, but there may be situations where safety concerns would override my idealism.  We may design a class of AI that isn't motivated at all toward self-preservation.  These would be the bomb testers, for example.  On that first day when an AI says, "I am awake," my immediate reaction will be to consider it immoral for an AI to be programmed without the self-preservation motive.  But not everyone has the same emotions that I have, and those that don't, may disagree with me.

I agree  100% I think for transhumanists who are willing to essentially completely abandon their biology, they no longer see the distinction. Technology has up until now only existed as the tools of humanity but I think people don't realize that technology is part of our evolutionary process. I think strong AI is very much part of human evolution, not some separate tool alien to nature and humanity. My very Christian grandparents are always trying to persuade me that the I need to find a girl friend so they actually try to get me to hook up with their ideal woman, even having set up several blind dates in the past. So I like to mess with them and joke about that my wife may actually be an AI one day. They think it's ludicrous but I think it's a possibility where humans and AI could very well exist in a similar relationship that couples share today, even it only remotely resembles the same relationship, if we treat AI as a true life form, not a simple machine, who knows where it will end up, I imagine it would be good though.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I think for transhumanists who are willing to essentially completely abandon their biology, they no longer see the distinction.

Count me in as one of those, so long as I can still be me, which is a tricky question.  You know, it occurs to me that the path to h-bots may go like this:

1. Begin replacing human brain tissue with tech
2. Continue iteratively replacing human brain tissue with tech until tissue is zero and tech is all
3. Remove the tech from the skull and insert it into a robot

The difference between this and what most people usually envision is the absence of any software or data upload.  This would be a hardware transfer.

If the above path is followed, I would be able to convince myself that it would be myself waking up in a robot body.  I would welcome this, so long as the robot body is wicked cool. :eek: Friendship, however, will become even more meaningful, given the length of time a friendship could last, and the unlimited scope of activities the friends could share.  Swim at the bottom of the sea?  Why not?  Walk on the moon?  Why not?  Meanwhile, n-bots will provide us with the thing we've been denied up till now - another sapient species to interact with, hopefully to befriend.

I don't think sexuality will become obsolete. It's something that's ingrained into the human psyche. It may not be necessary at that point but people enjoy sex for a lot more than the drive to keep the human machine rolling, I think sexuality will remain an important part of our society unless we choose to write it out of the human consciousness, something I doubt will happen. I don't think I'd want to lose my sexuality.  I intend to save my genetic information in several ways in case I desire to have offspring that stem from my own origins.  I think there will always be those who choose to remain mostly organic or completely so. The Amish won't suddenly disappear from the world because the majority of society has merged with technology. The religious minded will also be slow to take on such a transition. When I talk to family members and friends who are quite religious I was surprised to discover that they don't want any of this to happen. They find the idea of humanity in control of it's own evolution frightening. I think it's because the feats and descriptions defined by their god will become child's play for humanity once we create a sapient AI and before that, taking complete control of our evolution, leaving the imperfections of our biology behind and improving to the point where natural death ceases to exist also dissolves the fear of absolute death and diminishes the impact and promise of their religion.

As for making the transition, I think what you suggested is more realistic than building an artificial brain for humans, then interfacing with your brain and then uploading you into the artificial one. I think a transition over time as brain tissue is replaced with tech is more realistic and I think nanotechnology is what's going to do it.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I don't think sexuality will become obsolete. It's something that's ingrained into the human psyche. It may not be necessary at that point but people enjoy sex for a lot more than the drive to keep the human machine rolling, I think sexuality will remain an important part of our society unless we choose to write it out of the human consciousness, something I doubt will happen.

Hmm.  You know, if we actually replace all of the brain tissue with tech before we transfer the hardware out of the skull and into a robot, then you may well be right, the robot will have sexuality, since it wouldn't be merely the cerebrum that was replaced with tech, but the cerebellum as well, and the medulla oblongata, and all the rest.  The parts of the brain responsible for sexuality would be replaced with tech, and presumably would be doing the same job as always, thus the tech would be performing the function of triggering and maintaining the sex drive.  I wonder if we would be able to make the transition away from being attracted to meat.  Could we be attracted to plastic and steel instead?  Could we program ourselves with this new attraction?  Would we?  We would certainly have accomplished the final severing of sexuality from reproduction.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I don't think sexuality will become obsolete. It's something that's ingrained into the human psyche. It may not be necessary at that point but people enjoy sex for a lot more than the drive to keep the human machine rolling, I think sexuality will remain an important part of our society unless we choose to write it out of the human consciousness, something I doubt will happen.

Hmm.  You know, if we actually replace all of the brain tissue with tech before we transfer the hardware out of the skull and into a robot, then you may well be right, the robot will have sexuality, since it wouldn't be merely the cerebrum that was replaced with tech, but the cerebellum as well, and the medulla oblongata, and all the rest.  The parts of the brain responsible for sexuality would be replaced with tech, and presumably would be doing the same job as always, thus the tech would be performing the function of triggering and maintaining the sex drive.  I wonder if we would be able to make the transition away from being attracted to meat.  Could we be attracted to plastic and steel instead?  Could we program ourselves with this new attraction?  Would we?  We would certainly have accomplished the final severing of sexuality from reproduction.

I don't the distinction between meat and plastic and steel would even be necessary. Most people i'm sure, myself included, would want said new body to appear indistinguishable from a homo sapien or at least very similar to one.  I'm sure once we can achieve the above with technology, creating an android body that appears and feels identical to a human being will be simple. We already have artificial skin which is sensitive enough to feel the wing beat of a butterfly, a couple of decades from now, there ought to be little difference. It would be a very hard sell to people, a new body that's only humanoid at best. People are resistant to change enough as it is however people will buy into such a technology if it resembles  familiarity AKA the human body. Businesses want to make a profit so you can bet your buns that sexuality, modern standards of beauty and anything else we can see as definitively human will be very alive in a post biological society.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Most people i'm sure, myself included, would want said new body to appear indistinguishable from a homo sapien or at least very similar to one.

Not me!  Not at all.  That's the last thing in the world I'd want.  I'd want to be Optimus Prime! :)

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Count me in as one of those, so long as I can still be me, which is a tricky question.  You know, it occurs to me that the path to h-bots may go like this:

1. Begin replacing human brain tissue with tech
2. Continue iteratively replacing human brain tissue with tech until tissue is zero and tech is all
3. Remove the tech from the skull and insert it into a robot

The difference between this and what most people usually envision is the absence of any software or data upload.  This would be a hardware transfer.

Yes... I agree.  Always thought this was the only way to truly "become" the new creation.
Would it still be "me"?  Well, it's a much better chance than any method that makes a copy.

Count me in too ;-)

Yeah, I think this method is more ideal than trying to take out your software. Would be nice once the transition is complete to exist solely as a program though. Humanity is in a world war you say? Ah, oh well, guess i'll spend the next few decades in this virtual universe and ride my pet dragon across the rainbow.

More about moral responsibility and automotons, which determinism says all agents are, be they humans, robots, or other.

I am a human and an agent - but how would I define what I mean when I say, I?  I think I could reasonably define I as, "the current state of the process that began when my father's sperm conjoined with my mother's egg."

If I were a robot, I think I could reasonably define I as, "the current state of the process that began when my hardware was conjoined with my software."

These definitions imply that there is no such thing as a permanent self.  Welcome to Buddhism!  Yet it is uncontroversial that today I am a little different from how I was yesterday, moderately different from how I was last year, and radically different from how I was 49 years ago, when I was six months old.  It isn't that much of a leap to say that a difference in attributes is a difference in being, and if we make that leap, then my definitions above become more than reasonable - they become almost necessary.

My definitions matter to moral theory because, if we accept them, we immediately make the self inseparable from its decisions, rendering the question of ultimate causes moot, since without the decision, there is no self.  Agency no longer runs in only one direction, the self being the agent of the decision, for it would be equally true to say that the decision is the agent of the self.  In fact it would be truer to say that the decision and the self are one, that the relationship between them isn't one of agency, but of identity - because making the decision is the current state of the process.

If I am the current state of a process that began in the past, then my existence begins and ends right now.  In this moment and this moment only, I live and move and have my being.  In the past this I doesn't exist and in the future this I doesn't exist.  In the past some other I existed, and in the future, some other I will exist.  The I that exists right now, only exists right now - and, crucially, its existence cannot be disentangled from the decision it is making right now.  Before making the decision this I doesn't exist.  After making the decision this I doesn't exist.  Making the decision defines this I's existence, because making the decision is the current state of the process.

Can we hold a future I accountable for a past I?  No.  They're different beings.  But we can hold the process accountable.  The process is a higher order being.  The process is the collective of all past I's, the present I, and all future I's.  We can blame the whole for its parts.  We can blame the life for its moments.  In laying blame, we aren't judging a self.  We are judging a life.

We are judging a life.  The life, if human, began when sperm and egg conjoined.  To say the life is determined by the conjoining of sperm and egg is false, because the relationship between the life and the conjoining isn't that of agency, but of a whole to one of its parts.  The moment of conjoining was the first state of the process, the first I, and all I's together comprise the life.  The life couldn't be different than it is, it is determined, but it is self-determined, for the most crucial determining event, the conjoining of sperm and egg, is included in the life as a part of a whole.  The life cannot be separated from its first state, any more than it can be separated from any of its other states.

We are judging a life.  Selves are elusive.  We can never get a hold of one for more than a moment.  But a life is a panorama.  We can survey its length at our leisure.

It is a fearsome thing to judge a life.  But that is what we do when we make a moral judgment.

None of the above changes at all if we speak of a different conjoining, that of hardware and software.  When the condition of being awake and the condition of moral competence are established in robots, it will be appropriate to apply moral judgments to the process that began when hardware and software first conjoined.  We might as well call that a life.  In applying moral judgment, we will be judging a life.  And it will be a fearsome thing to do so.  But humanity will do it, for such is the human process.  If moral competence is established in robots, then moral judgment will be part of the robotic process too.  Robots too will engage in the judgment of whole lives, be it their own, or other robotic lives, or lives that are human.  Hopefully they will appreciate what a fearsome thing is being done.  They will only appreciate it if we program their software such that they have the capacity for said appreciation.  Such is the power and the moral burden inherent in the science of robotics.

Robotic quadruped.  Watch it navigate treacherous terrain, even regaining its footing after slipping or being pushed.  Fantastic!
[youtube:18erq1uk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww[/youtube:18erq1uk]

High speed robotic hand.  Super-dexterous.  Magnificent!
[youtube:18erq1uk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk[/youtube:18erq1uk]

[youtube:ru5fvmlw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER-UqbGQjbU[/youtube:ru5fvmlw]

Still a work in progress - needs to improve - but fun and inspiring in its aspirations and what it so far has achieved.
[youtube:217ei96j]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUbXoVET-rc[/youtube:217ei96j]

I wish I had an inkling of talent or at least competence with mathematics, I would easily go into robotics but noooo, i'm right brained, I have to come from a family of eccentric artsy people.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I wish I had an inkling of talent or at least competence with mathematics, I would easily go into robotics but noooo, i'm right brained, I have to come from a family of eccentric artsy people.

Are you a graphic artist of some kind?  Maybe you can make art around the concept of robots or cyborgs.

Jules:
[youtube:igg7org9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRR33WDFi_k[/youtube:igg7org9]

Woah, I thought he was a real person at first. That's pretty good.

I'm not a graphics artist but I am going to school for game design, if I get to make my own games, naturally robotics and science in general will be a creative foundation for all my work.

Robot running:
[youtube:35nyr1hi]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv35ItWLBBk[/youtube:35nyr1hi]

I think I like the quadruped running better than the biped.

Asimo is way cool from the front, bit it always looks like it's about to take a dump from the side...

(really enjoying these vids, btw)

Japanese Robot of the Year 2007:

[youtube:3fl30xxd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3f6BOrD9Ek[/youtube:3fl30xxd]

Robot housekeepers:

[youtube:3fl30xxd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zD45oO0ZO4[/youtube:3fl30xxd]

War machines - recruiting robots for combat: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/28-0

My favorite thing about the military is its constant push for more and better technology.

Robot Sumo!  Often the one you think will win - doesn't!
[youtube:hwfxrywr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJT076-rXFQ[/youtube:hwfxrywr]

Hmm.  Looks like a fun movie!  Evidence that the robot is becoming more and more an archetype of global human consciousness, an ever more significant element of the zeitgeist.  Surely this will cause the pace of development to continually accelerate.
[youtube:2dj6ymce]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ql3A_wiedc[/youtube:2dj6ymce]

Yeah, robotics are subject to the same explosive advancement as computers are subject to, they just aren't as far ahead. Advancement in robotics is beginning to explode now, it's only going to get better. I don't know about the insane stuff in that interesting trailer but i'm sure a robot that is physically indistinguishable from a human being is not that far off. Especially since things are going more mainstream.

LineScout - Power line inspection robot:
[youtube:zu08cz7u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEI5LlL0lBM[/youtube:zu08cz7u]

More evidence that robotics is gaining prominence in the modern psyche.  This movie is Rockie meets Transformers.  I can't tell for sure if the robots are supposed to be sapient.

[youtube:1wvr7pmy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAhQA5gT62w[/youtube:1wvr7pmy]


Meanwhile, speaking of Transformers:

[youtube:1wvr7pmy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qqeoyn58O4[/youtube:1wvr7pmy]

Nice.  Glad they changed the name to "Real Steel" from "Rock 'em Sock 'em"... kept the initials, though...

Has anyone seen the low-budget cult movie Dark Star?  I loved the philosophical discussion with intelligent Bomb No. 20 and the results of that discussion.

Thermostellar bomb gets stuck in the bomb-bay, but thinks it was dropped and plans to detonate. One of the spacecraft's crew tries to talk it out of detonating.

[youtube:z8x4u1dx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pPZQ77cmI[/youtube:z8x4u1dx]

[youtube:z8x4u1dx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9-Niv2Xh7w[/youtube:z8x4u1dx]

Quote from: "Tom62"Thermostellar bomb gets stuck in the bomb-bay, but thinks it was dropped and plans to detonate. One of the spacecraft's crew tries to talk it out of detonating.

I wasn't able to view the top clip, but viewed the bottom one.  One concept the bottom one raised for me is one I've noted before.  Once we start to think our robots are actually awake to experience in some manner, and thus are more than just complicated wrenches, we will have to face the question of whether we are willing to program them for deliberate and inevitable self-destruction.

Another concept the bottom one raises is the pragmatic precaution of designing hardware and software with the ability to gather input from multiple divergent sources and weigh one input against another.  I got the impression the bomb wasn't able to discern where it physically was.  It also apparently wasn't able to question why any human was in a position to talk to it at all, given its assumption of having exited the bomb-bay.  More common sense should have been applied to such a dangerous robot's design.  I presume the movie was making that exact point, among others.

The bomb spontaneously composing pseudo-biblical commentary was weird.  I don't know what to make of that.

While not a direct break through in robotics, this will greatly impact the field i'm sure.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091813.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101207091813.htm)

Dark Star - great film!

Bomb 20 raises a whole slew of questions about consciousness, existence, perception, reality, etc.
Amazing how much can get packed into a few short scenes.

Robotic English teachers in South Korean schools - http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101228/tc_afp/skoreaphilippinesroboteducationtechnologyoffbeat_20101228051921

Admittedly this trend will be cooler when the robots aren't remote controlled.

http://www.economist.com/node/5323427 (http://www.economist.com/node/5323427)

QuoteHER name is MARIE, and her impressive set of skills comes in handy in a nursing home. MARIE can walk around under her own power. She can distinguish among similar-looking objects, such as different bottles of medicine, and has a delicate enough touch to work with frail patients. MARIE can interpret a range of facial expressions and gestures, and respond in ways that suggest compassion. Although her language skills are not ideal, she can recognise speech and respond clearly. Above all, she is inexpensive. Unfortunately for MARIE, however, she has one glaring trait that makes it hard for Japanese patients to accept her: she is a flesh-and-blood human being from the Philippines. If only she were a robot instead.

The Japanese enthusiasm for robots as a cultural characteristic, I don't think it's been addressed.

Some of the latest ideas:

BBC World Service (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b1g3c/episodes/downloads)) have a series on 50 things that gave affected economies, today it was robots (first broadcast 4th March on list shown).

Mostly usual stuff but one bit that slightly disturbed me, robot directed human pickers or operators. OK, we all look at instructions in books and now on tablets or smartphones, "passive" instruction by a non-human agency. Will it dumb us down  or enable less that academically able people to complete some tasks to take direct instruction as part of a job ir task? Or both of these plus more?

Now, imagine wearing a pair of earphones or a HUD over which a computer gives you a list of instructions (I will assume that vision units in the 'phones or HUD can see where you are looking, markings identify the area more precisely, then what you are actually doing.):
"Go to Bay 12"
"Locate Shelf 10"
"Locate Box 5"
"Take 5 items"
"Take 5 items"
"Take 4 items"
"Replace Box"

Why multiple "Take" instructions? Because humans may make more counting errors than computers with double digit numbers...

Another point was a poorly remebered quotation, "Robots can do all manner of high level tasks, but they cannot successfully clean the toilet". OK, design a toilet system that efficiently self cleans! There have been attempts at public loos that acheive this. Probably applies more to private bath/shower rooms with all facilities and the mechanics would probably cost more than all the other fittings combined!

(That set my mind off, now cannot shake the image of a long, multi-joint/axis robotic arm, that can reach every surface and corner and that hides behind a flap in the ceiling. It will have an armoury of cleaning and rinsing solutions in sprays, a wet vacuum unit, brushes, sponges, mops etc that it can select!)