Assume this is possible (always good to be positive in this fantasy realm). They will not be able to violate the 3 rules since they are computers governed by the prime directive. As 4nerzhul pointed out, they need to first grow a self awareness. What do we assume to cause this phenomena? Some lightning surge as often protray in the movies. Is this scientifically possible?

Maybe you should hear to some innovator talks in WWW.TED.COM , there are people trying to make computer like our brain system. If he could achieved that, our computer would have high processing power than before using little amount resource and is able to develop an AI system..

Although AI system is very complicated but i am sure that AI that is self-aware ( even 50% of human) can be achived in the next few decades...

Progress in AI and selfwareness of robot is very slow actually.
It is not easy to mimick human brain function. Nature is actually very amazing, they are self adjusted, self created. Even with current modern technology, human still don't fully understand how human brain work.
The most amazing part is that, when you injured, your tissue, bone is self repairing, it is never going to be achieved with AI robot, be is self-awareness or not.

This is the difficult part, so far the progress is not moving much in this direction.

I would say, please stop using terminator, movie as a source of discussion. This is not happening in reality. This is no such thing of indestructable machine. Even there is, you just need to get rid of their power source/electricity then shut down already, or injected virus programme into them, AI system goes hair wired already. They cannot self repairing their programme.

what la....AI being like human is pipe dream for now.....cant they even make an AI that behaves like insects?

No way! Hahaha

---

Added on May 21, 2010, 6:28 pmEh? Since nobody had ever seen an alien except in Aliens movie, would you also tell NASA to stop spending billions on the SETI program?

This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 21 2010, 06:30 PM

i want number 8




but of course it is better to have number 3 and number 6 join in the fun



the cylon in the new BSG bring up a interesting scenaria, what if the machine does not rebel due to desire to dominate, but because of religious different with human and want to correct the flaws of human.

Just go and watch, and you will be amazed by how simple thing can be sometime...

No, it is not the message.

Just movie and reality is 2 different story.

In movie, you can have indestructible body in terminator, in reality is not.
In movie, someone fast enough can catch the bullet, in reality, it is not. Even mythbuster also show this myth before.
In movie, a person get shot, still can run as fast as 100M spring, fight with others, in reality, the pain is severely enough even standup also cannot.

Also in theory, many thing looks simple, want this want that,
in reality when come hand on, electric-mechanical time, or application, it could be hell a problem to solve.

Just like you want to design a robot that can walk on its own with 2 feet in an uneven ground or going up stepcase.
In theory, it is simple, just put gyroscope, sensor as input to compensate the uneven ground so that the robot can compensate the force/movement based on the uneven ground scan.
But in practical, it is hell of problem to solve when put up to work time.
It could be much difficult than to workout an airplace that can fly.

Computer AI is a set of codes, codes that cant change. Being self aware is more than a bunch of codes punching and crunching numbers to a work flow.
Humans are unique because no set of DNA, our equivalent to codes, are alike.
Computer AI cannot achieve that or even in our lifetime.
Supercomputers only crunch faster and make statisitical and prediction models better

Yes, I know, and thanks for stating your stand. If you had read the original post title carefully, could you kindly point to me where did it say "Shall we discuss how the Terminator will kill us all, just like the movie?" It said, "Will the Terminator-style doomsday ever happen?" Do you know the difference? In English, style means, "In the manner of", not to be confused with "This is the real thing."

Now I notice you are a moderator and assume you have placed this prohibition officially as a moderator. If yes, then please delete this thread in its entirety and modify your TOS to include "You are not allowed to make reference to any movies that the moderators feel is not "real" in any threads in Lowyat.net." If you do decide to let this thread continue, then please withdraw your prohibition. Thanks.

The discussion about is good, just this is a science topic discussion, what my intention is just we don't way out of reality.
Imagination is good, as imagination lead to creativity which is source of new invention, but we have to know the reality and limitation of physic and science as well.

Just like one may dream about becoming millionaire, but still need discussion/thinking of how to become then.

I still see it a good discussion thread so far, nothing wrong with the topic, just don't go too far away from reality.
Cheers.

Thanks for understanding.

So, they cant make an anriod like arnold. Good point on walking on stair case Cherroy, I remember the stability science experiment (high base versus low base). I think our feet supporting our body, in contrast to this experiment, would come under very unstable. We just cant assume it will be another arnold. Maybe r2d2 is more ideal for stability. It is not necessary to be in human form. Ohhh, I forgot I was on the opposition. Well some ideas wont hurt. As Cherroy said "imagination lead to creativity which is source of new invention". Like I said, "good to be positive in fantasy realm". I still need people to convince me how AI can grow a self conciousness.

First we have to define what consciousness is because apparently the psychologists, neurologists, philosophers and computer scientists don't agree on the definition.

Consciousness in Latin means "1. having joint or common knowledge with another, privy to, cognizant of; 2. conscious to oneself; esp., conscious of guilt". Let's try to apply it to a machine.

Cognizance: By being equipped with sound and motion sensors, I could say that a home alarm is aware of sound and movement. It fits this criteria.

Conscious to oneself: I can interrogate the home alarm system via internet and ask, what's your status? The system does a self check and reports back that everything's normal. No different than A asking B "Are you all right?" and B looking at his arms and legs and saying "I'm fine."

Conscious of guilt: If a human is taught to distinguish between right & wrong, he will develop a basis for guilt. There is a prerequisite conditioning. Similarly I can also program do's and don'ts into a computer and with that prerequisite it too will be able to distinguish between a do and a don't in its actions.

So from a linguist's definition, a computer can be conscious.

Now how do you define self-conscious?

I see it like Rene Decartes no matter how bias this point may be. It is not just thinking therefore exisitng. It is about the mind versus the brain. Given the prime directive I can choose to freely deviate from it because I have a mind of my own (isn't this what humans in movie like to say when the machine goes haywire). As someone pointed out, we dont even understand the complexities of our mind, you expect the computer (who gets input from us) to know.

even if you dont fully understand something, does not mean you cannot make one, farmer never understand how plant user nutrien and sun light, but they grow plant for thousand of year before science finally understand how the plant work.

IBM is working on recreating the entire function of human brain in ten years time, their have already simulated a cat brain which is an improvement over the previous rat brain simulation. and a cell by cell recreation of the visual cortex have been completed. i believe that we will have gain a large amount of knowledge of the human brain from doing this research.






http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91118133535.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...achines/4337190

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/...00414184218.htm

the project is funded by DARPA which want to create a artificial brain can operate with low power like the human brain that use only 20 watt, and when DARPA is involve, the potential of artificial brain killing machine is certainly there.

This post has been edited by robertngo: May 24 2010, 03:27 PM

You assume the mind and the brain is one, Robert. we can go through the same thing of mind versus brain as in one previous thread. Monkeys had brains too. They do not have the mind.

what is the different between the mind and brain function?

Mind is non physical and non material, it is thought. Thought is not located in space, and occupies a private universe of it own. E.g. yours mind belongs to you, his mind belongs to his. We can not tap into other people's mind.

Brain is a physical organ located in space. E.g the part of brain that controls the optics will process the signal arrives from the retina. Technically the entire processes of optical behavior could be studied in reductionism science.

This is what we called when physical world meets mental world. To study AI, scientists need to understand if matter acts on mind or mind acts on matter? Also, to study AI, need to understand determinism (algorithm based control) or free will (how could the machine make decision of it owns).

Let me branch out a bit. One question, how do you know your neighbour John has a mind? Is it because you have a mind and he behaves like you, by using deduction, you make a conclusion he has a mind too?

This deduction is actually an act of faith. Why, because you could never ever experience his consciousness, if you could, then that person is no longer him, he is you......So how could you conclude that he has a mind? It appears that everyone makes assumption that they have mind and also have faith to assume that others have mind too.

Now, how can we deduce that a machine (with AI capability) has a mind??

At the end of the day, sciences is just a prime mover for us to explain the universe, no matter how far and how well our sciences and technology advancement, a lot of the big questions would still need to rely on philosophy and potentially metaphysics.

I think, therefore, I am - Rene Descartes

there is no really reason to believe that if we are able to simulate the complete working state of a brain, that the mind will not be simulated as well.