Joined: Jan 2003
From: Tokyo, London, Singapore, KL, Space
With the jaw-dropping magics of Hollywood portrait to all humans every year, I can't help to wonder how will the future looks like for robots & AI. While some can argue that robots and AI are partly of two separate categories, this is where we discuss how 20-50 years down the road, whether those two are really different, or by then had merged into one entity.
On the general knowledge of the public, the opinions on the best robots today varies alot. By usage, the best robots would be those in manufacturing factories, making cars and other jobs that would be troublesome for humans. By research, perhaps its about those bi-pedal robots that were developed to mimic the human beings.
The same goes with AI. Best of all AI? Perhaps its that chess computer. Usage-wise? It depends again on what humans want them to do.
Then if we look into the future, its not possible that whatever we see in those sci-fi flicks, to become a reality. From the human-like robots that is equipped with AI mimicking human emotions & mingle around with us everyday, to the human-robots/AI war possibility, due to the AI assuming position that humans are doing more harm to our planet than preserving them for the later generations.
This post has been edited by firedauz: Jul 1 2009, 01:31 PM
With the jaw-dropping magics of Hollywood portrait to all humans every year, I can't help to wonder how will the future looks like for robots & AI. While some can argue that robots and AI are partly of two separate categories, this is where we discuss how 20-50 years down the road, whether those two are really different, or by then had merged into one entity.
On the general knowledge of the public, the opinions on the best robots today varies alot. By usage, the best robots would be those in manufacturing factories, making cars and other jobs that would be troublesome for humans. By research, perhaps its about those bi-pedal robots that were developed to mimic the human beings.
The same goes with AI. Best of all AI? Perhaps its that chess computer. Usage-wise? It depends again on what humans want them to do.
Then if we look into the future, its not possible that whatever we see in those sci-fi flicks, to become a reality. From the human-like robots that is equipped with AI mimicking human emotions & mingle around with us everyday, to the human-robots/AI war possibility, due to the AI assuming position that humans are doing more harm to our planet than preserving them for the later generations.
bi pedal humanoid robot is probably the worst type of robot there is out there if you've ask me.
Why walk when you can put wheels on yourself? Why build a head when you can contain everything within a 'torso' unit and protect with tons and tons of armor?
Reason for them to exist is technologist want to make them more 'human'. Logical perspective into consideration like cost, efficiency etc. Humanoid robot IMO is best used as, guess what? A non-organic pet
Artificial Intelligence is well, artificial. It's all scripted and the robot simply follows a logic path. A scenario in I-Robot where the main character(Will Smith) fell into the water with another small kid. The robot rescued him instead of the kid because analysis worked out that he has a better chance of survival and in that kind of scenario, all AI with the same code/script/design will do the same thing. Human intelligences permit other outcome to such scenario even if we're given the odds of survival.
Self learning robot is still far from reality. Scientist claim they're able to make robot learn by themselves. I take another scenario. A self-learning robot picks up a cube, using sensor and determined it as a cube, what if I remove the programming that was placed inside of it's processor before activation to recognize cube? Well, the bot can take out the encycloped... oh wait, do they even know what a book is?
What's behind the scene that drives human intelligence is something eluded scientist. I don't believe we're anywhere near in developing it, let alone perfecting it. Robots and AI still need the creator, us(humans) to give them the power of thought. The infamous fictional Skynet can be a reality one day, it's dangerous to have too much intelligence(even artificial one) minus the proper amount of humanity backing it up.
Artificial Intelligence is well, artificial. It's all scripted and the robot simply follows a logic path. A scenario in I-Robot where the main character(Will Smith) fell into the water with another small kid. The robot rescued him instead of the kid because analysis worked out that he has a better chance of survival and in that kind of scenario, all AI with the same code/script/design will do the same thing. Human intelligences permit other outcome to such scenario even if we're given the odds of survival.
Self learning robot is still far from reality. Scientist claim they're able to make robot learn by themselves. I take another scenario. A self-learning robot picks up a cube, using sensor and determined it as a cube, what if I remove the programming that was placed inside of it's processor before activation to recognize cube? Well, the bot can take out the encycloped... oh wait, do they even know what a book is?
What's behind the scene that drives human intelligence is something eluded scientist. I don't believe we're anywhere near in developing it, let alone perfecting it. Robots and AI still need the creator, us(humans) to give them the power of thought. The infamous fictional Skynet can be a reality one day, it's dangerous to have too much intelligence(even artificial one) minus the proper amount of humanity backing it up.
+1.. We humans need to create a brain that functions like a human brain for the robots to function like us and we are nowhere close to that.. The human brain is way too complex to be constructed..
Joined: Jul 2009
From: behind you.... Status : Wanted by se7en
QUOTE(vivienne85 @ Jul 6 2009, 10:07 AM)
+1.. We humans need to create a brain that functions like a human brain for the robots to function like us and we are nowhere close to that.. The human brain is way too complex to be constructed..
I am waiting for the floor washing robot to be reliable enough for me to buy a few at home. And, when the price went down to USD $200, we can replace quite a few of those foreign maids.
I am waiting for the floor washing robot to be reliable enough for me to buy a few at home. And, when the price went down to USD $200, we can replace quite a few of those foreign maids.
Dreamer
Well, we're not talking about just any robot that fulfill a single role, it's more about robots that have sentient mind without artificial scripts programmed by human.
Well, we're not talking about just any robot that fulfill a single role, it's more about robots that have sentient mind without artificial scripts programmed by human.
SeaGates,
Here we go again.. If it works, who cares whether it is SENTIENT??
Now, what is SENTIENT to begin with??
Awareness?? Consciousness?? Most human beings live like a robot to begin with. Aka with no awareness and consciousness.
Given that some human being only fill one role to begin with. Aka, sweep the floor. So, why should we expect the robot to go above that??
<<without artificial scripts programmed by human. >>
We are BRAIN WASHED aka PROGRAMED by our society and education system aka human being. So, how different is this from robot anyhow??
You are DEBATING from philosophical standpoint aka SCIENTIST point of view. I am looking from Engineering aka FUNCTIONAL MODEL. If it works, I do not care what is inside.
1) How many human beings CHOOSE to feel to begin with??
2) Philosophically, how many human being choose to LIVE instead of pure existence only??
Are you LIVING now??
Most human beings ONLY exists. They live without DREAM or PASSION. They just exists. So, there is NO DIFFERENT between most human being and robot.
So, do you LIVE or EXIST?? Do you know the difference??
Before you start flaming me, I spent substantial amount of time studying psychotherapy. And. the MAJOR problem with most people is they CHOOSE not to feel.
What's with all the post bashing in a science labs? Dreamer merely state his view from the engineering point of view which is valid.
Anyway, I don't think robots and AI are the same thing, and this topic is somewhat ambiguous. Robots can include a variety of things including those robotic arms that put pieces together in an assembly line, or those explorer bots that are sent into narrow/dangerous-to-human places to search for survivors. In essence, robots carries out a series of pre-programmed task.
What is AI on the other hand is still a highly debatable subject. The arguments about souls, feelings, sentient, minds, they are all part of the big debate about AI if anyone is interested to talk about. The Turing Test which is essentially propoesed to test for machine intelligence has been conceived since 1950 and until now none has been able to passed the test. This just shows how little we understand about AI and how far away we really are from those sci-fi books and movies. Btw I don't agree with the Turing test concept, I'm a strong proponent of the Chinese Room Argument.
So what is Artificial Intelligence? Are we just commenting on those seemingly intelligent robotic pets that can response to their owner or otherwise show their moods on lcd screens or those AI bots on the internet that you can apparently chat with?
bi pedal humanoid robot is probably the worst type of robot there is out there if you've ask me.
Why walk when you can put wheels on yourself? Why build a head when you can contain everything within a 'torso' unit and protect with tons and tons of armor?
Reason for them to exist is technologist want to make them more 'human'. Logical perspective into consideration like cost, efficiency etc. Humanoid robot IMO is best used as, guess what? A non-organic pet
Artificial Intelligence is well, artificial. It's all scripted and the robot simply follows a logic path. A scenario in I-Robot where the main character(Will Smith) fell into the water with another small kid. The robot rescued him instead of the kid because analysis worked out that he has a better chance of survival and in that kind of scenario, all AI with the same code/script/design will do the same thing. Human intelligences permit other outcome to such scenario even if we're given the odds of survival.
Self learning robot is still far from reality. Scientist claim they're able to make robot learn by themselves. I take another scenario. A self-learning robot picks up a cube, using sensor and determined it as a cube, what if I remove the programming that was placed inside of it's processor before activation to recognize cube? Well, the bot can take out the encycloped... oh wait, do they even know what a book is?
What's behind the scene that drives human intelligence is something eluded scientist. I don't believe we're anywhere near in developing it, let alone perfecting it. Robots and AI still need the creator, us(humans) to give them the power of thought. The infamous fictional Skynet can be a reality one day, it's dangerous to have too much intelligence(even artificial one) minus the proper amount of humanity backing it up.
Biological creations are the best model ever. Be it physically(hardware) or mentally(software). Why aren't human or any living objects moving with wheels-like limb in the first place ?
One of the good example I found is the one developed by Boston Dynamics.
Even when we talk about A.I , an ideal A.I itself is trying to imitate some/little human mind/brain functions like you said self learning.
I like the way Michael Crichton wrote about A.I and nanotechnology in Prey.
A frequently mentioned reason for the likelihood of human-equivalent AI being created within decades rather than longer is the fact that affordable computing power is approaching most estimates of human brain processing power.
100 billion neurons firing at 200 Hz — this is a basic neurological fact. Yes, there are many additional shades of complexity, including dendritic spines, neurotransmitter concentrations, and so on. Still, all of these put together seem to change the estimated computational requirements by no more than 2-3 orders of magnitude.
I can tell that I am speaking with an ideologue when they are unaware of the facts mentioned above, are informed of them, but that information then has no impact whatsoever on their subjective probability estimates of human-equivalent AI being created in the next few decades. Many people seem to act as if computing power has no influence whatsoever.
In contrast, Ray Kurzweil, Hans Moravec, and some other advocates of strong AI have seemingly acted as if computing power is everything — that when we have human-equivalent computing power, we’ll immediately have human-equivalent AI. That is wrong too.
It is easy to take the middle path. Particularly when the notion of human-equivalent computing power being available is combined with neural data from extremely high-resolution brain scans (a brute force argument for the eventual plausibility of human-equivalent AI if there ever was one), critics begin to sound incredulous when they do not revise their probability estimates for AI whatsoever.
One particular confused meme that has been making the rounds for decades is the notion that some fundamental breakthrough in computing would be necessary to implement human-equivalent AI. A digital computer can simulate any possible analog signal, as long as it has the computing power — the inverse is not true. This is proven thousands or millions of times daily as old VHS and other magnetic tapes are converted into the digital medium.
If I had a computer faster than most expert estimates of human brain computing power and an extremely high resolution scan of the human brain, the burden of proof would be on the critics to say why I couldn’t create a human-equivalent AI immediately. The objections here tend to circulate around dualism, mysticism, biology-worship, quantum mumbo-jumbo, etc.
QUOTE(vivienne85 @ Jul 6 2009, 10:07 AM)
+1.. We humans need to create a brain that functions like a human brain for the robots to function like us and we are nowhere close to that.. The human brain is way too complex to be constructed..
Yet, if we had sufficiently high-resolution scanners, we could just copy the brain’s design without understanding it.
Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
QUOTE(dreamer101 @ Jul 7 2009, 11:25 AM)
vivienne85,
1) How many human beings CHOOSE to feel to begin with??
2) Philosophically, how many human being choose to LIVE instead of pure existence only??
Are you LIVING now??
Most human beings ONLY exists. They live without DREAM or PASSION. They just exists. So, there is NO DIFFERENT between most human being and robot.
So, do you LIVE or EXIST?? Do you know the difference??
Before you start flaming me, I spent substantial amount of time studying psychotherapy. And. the MAJOR problem with most people is they CHOOSE not to feel.
Dreamer
People can't help themselves to NOT feel, dreamer101.
To LIVE, they have to stop worrying about SURVIVAL.
Here we go again.. If it works, who cares whether it is SENTIENT??
Now, what is SENTIENT to begin with??
Awareness?? Consciousness?? Most human beings live like a robot to begin with. Aka with no awareness and consciousness.
Given that some human being only fill one role to begin with. Aka, sweep the floor. So, why should we expect the robot to go above that??
<<without artificial scripts programmed by human. >>
We are BRAIN WASHED aka PROGRAMED by our society and education system aka human being. So, how different is this from robot anyhow??
You are DEBATING from philosophical standpoint aka SCIENTIST point of view. I am looking from Engineering aka FUNCTIONAL MODEL. If it works, I do not care what is inside.
Dreamer
I've said earlier, specialist robot is the best for what it do. The entire sentience thingy is related to creating a robot that THINKS like a human and not for only a specialist purpose.
We are programmed by our society and education system, but we can still defy and question what has been said. Given an AI with 10000 times the power of a single human brain, they wouldn't conceive basic thoughts that sparks many scientific breakthrough we've seen. AI is still a piece of software that will work only within it's parameter.
Well this topic is about robot and AI anyway, I was discussing about AI and since you do not care I don't think you should be discussing anything about it, no?
QUOTE(dreamer101 @ Jul 7 2009, 11:25 AM)
vivienne85,
1) How many human beings CHOOSE to feel to begin with??
2) Philosophically, how many human being choose to LIVE instead of pure existence only??
Are you LIVING now??
Most human beings ONLY exists. They live without DREAM or PASSION. They just exists. So, there is NO DIFFERENT between most human being and robot.
So, do you LIVE or EXIST?? Do you know the difference??
Before you start flaming me, I spent substantial amount of time studying psychotherapy. And. the MAJOR problem with most people is they CHOOSE not to feel.
Dreamer
1) Everybody can feel, and inevitably they can't escape feeling everything around them. The only way to defy that law is to live in a state of denial but when it's in denial it's a world fabricated out of one's fantasy, that's no longer science.
2) Existence is physical, meaning if you're dead, people still know you. Living is part of existence.
You said most, that means not all, and with the option to CHOOSE to feel or not that's the biggest difference between us and an AI system. AI system can't be selective in what it absorb; A chess playing AI will never put up a bluff in a poker game UNLESS it's scripted to do so.
QUOTE(igor_is300 @ Jul 7 2009, 06:43 PM)
Biological creations are the best model ever. Be it physically(hardware) or mentally(software). Why aren't human or any living objects moving with wheels-like limb in the first place ?
One of the good example I found is the one developed by Boston Dynamics.
Even when we talk about A.I , an ideal A.I itself is trying to imitate some/little human mind/brain functions like you said self learning.
I like the way Michael Crichton wrote about A.I and nanotechnology in Prey.
Biological creations are the best model only when they fit the intended function. I am saying a bi-pedal robot is the worst possible design in specialist function because they're made into jack of all trade.
I gave example when I said wheels, now tell me, is running on 2 legs faster than 2 wheels if you were tasked to move through every single city of Europe?
I've said earlier, specialist robot is the best for what it do. The entire sentience thingy is related to creating a robot that THINKS like a human and not for only a specialist purpose.
We are programmed by our society and education system, but we can still defy and question what has been said. Given an AI with 10000 times the power of a single human brain, they wouldn't conceive basic thoughts that sparks many scientific breakthrough we've seen. AI is still a piece of software that will work only within it's parameter.
Well this topic is about robot and AI anyway, I was discussing about AI and since you do not care I don't think you should be discussing anything about it, no? 1) Everybody can feel, and inevitably they can't escape feeling everything around them. The only way to defy that law is to live in a state of denial but when it's in denial it's a world fabricated out of one's fantasy, that's no longer science.
2) Existence is physical, meaning if you're dead, people still know you. Living is part of existence.
You said most, that means not all, and with the option to CHOOSE to feel or not that's the biggest difference between us and an AI system. AI system can't be selective in what it absorb; A chess playing AI will never put up a bluff in a poker game UNLESS it's scripted to do so. Biological creations are the best model only when they fit the intended function. I am saying a bi-pedal robot is the worst possible design in specialist function because they're made into jack of all trade.
I gave example when I said wheels, now tell me, is running on 2 legs faster than 2 wheels if you were tasked to move through every single city of Europe?
SeaGates,
<<I was discussing about AI and since you do not care I don't think you should be discussing anything about it, no?>>
You as in all other SCIENTIST type is trying to create AI in an image of HUMAN BEING. But, why??
There are MORE THAN one way to view and define INTELLIGENCE.
From Engineers' point of view, as long as something FUNCTION intelligently, we do not care whether it use the same method as human being.
<<AI system can't be selective in what it absorb;>>
Who say so?? Human being IGNORE things and event all the times. That is ONE of the greatest sign of intelligence. Knowing what is important.
<<I gave example when I said wheels, now tell me, is running on 2 legs faster than 2 wheels if you were tasked to move through every single city of Europe?>>
Jul 1 2009, 01:30 PM, updated 17y ago
Quote
0.0250sec
0.59
5 queries
GZIP Disabled