Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Science Will the Terminator-style doomsday ever happen?, A question about AI & robotics

views
     
SUSDeadlocks
post May 30 2010, 03:40 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(teongpeng @ May 30 2010, 03:38 PM)
u bengang betul la bro....really.....thats why i told u the problem is our own programming with a faulty logic. and u write a whole essay about something agreeing to something u are trying to rebut.  doh.gif
*
That's only because you miss the question that was on the first lines of my entire post.

Can you see it? Of course you can. Do you want to see it? That's the question.
teongpeng
post May 30 2010, 03:42 PM

Justified and Ancient
*******
Senior Member
2,003 posts

Joined: Oct 2007


QUOTE(Deadlocks @ May 30 2010, 01:33 PM)
I think the logic that was inputted as according to the Three Laws is reasonable. Aside from the flaw that you might have seen, how else then, can this "logic" be improved an ensure humanity's total protection from harm?
Yes.

rule number 1. = robots may not harm human.
rule number 2. = robots protect human.

End.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 30 2010, 03:45 PM
SUSDeadlocks
post May 30 2010, 04:26 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(teongpeng @ May 30 2010, 03:42 PM)
Yes.

rule number 1. = robots may not harm human.
rule number 2. = robots protect human.

End.
*
What if the humans harm themselves without being detected by the robots? And what if protecting a human also means harming another human (to advocate the use of sheer/brute force) to stop him from harming another one? And logically speaking, wouldn't that mean the robots have already FAILED to uphold two of rules?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: May 30 2010, 04:27 PM
teongpeng
post May 30 2010, 04:42 PM

Justified and Ancient
*******
Senior Member
2,003 posts

Joined: Oct 2007


QUOTE(Deadlocks @ May 30 2010, 04:26 PM)
What if the humans harm themselves without being detected by the robots? And what if protecting a human also means harming another human (to advocate the use of sheer/brute force) to stop him from harming another one? And logically speaking, wouldn't that mean the robots have already FAILED to uphold two of rules?
*

the robot oughta find another way to prevent the harm from being done in the first place. duh. you're not very good at problem solving are u?

robertngo
post May 31 2010, 11:19 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,027 posts

Joined: Oct 2004


QUOTE(nice.rider @ May 29 2010, 08:07 PM)
The question is not whether the mind is separated from the brain, but whether matter acts on mind or mind acts on matter.

Thought occupies a private universe of it own means thought is a personal experience. If I can tap onto your thought, that means, I can see the world as you see it ....or simply put...I am you. The question is how do I know you have a mind if I could not access it? Same can be said on AI.

To say that you have a mind or AI has a mind could only be based on deduction. Because mind is thought and can not be shared as we know it today. Actually you can not prove that you have a mind to anybody else except to yourself.
*
do you think matter acts on mind or mind acts on matter.


Added on May 31, 2010, 11:20 am
QUOTE(teongpeng @ May 30 2010, 04:42 PM)
the robot oughta find another way to prevent the harm from being done in the first place. duh. you're not very good at problem solving are u?
*
the logical outcome is to control human so they cannot do harm to themself and others.

This post has been edited by robertngo: May 31 2010, 11:20 AM
TSBeastboy
post May 31 2010, 11:26 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
242 posts

Joined: Nov 2009


QUOTE(robertngo @ May 31 2010, 11:19 AM)
the logical outcome is to control human so they cannot do harm to themself and others.
*
Sounds like why parents curfew their kids. Cannot go out after dinner ler... laugh.gif

ComposMentis
post May 31 2010, 02:08 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
420 posts

Joined: May 2010
QUOTE(Beastboy @ May 31 2010, 11:26 AM)
Sounds like why parents curfew their kids. Cannot go out after dinner ler...  laugh.gif
*
sounds more like being treated like a bunch of domestic animals
altan
post May 31 2010, 03:03 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
188 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
From: Either PJ, JB or SG but not at your house!


Robots armed with weapons can kill... Here is an example sweat.gif

Robot Cannon Goes Berserk, Kills 9
SUSDeadlocks
post May 31 2010, 06:28 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(teongpeng @ May 30 2010, 04:42 PM)
the robot oughta find another way to prevent the harm from being done in the first place. duh. you're not very good at problem solving are u?
*
This is what you've been saying from a few posts earlier, and it's what makes me asked the question:

What is that "ANOTHER" way that you're talking about?
teongpeng
post May 31 2010, 06:44 PM

Justified and Ancient
*******
Senior Member
2,003 posts

Joined: Oct 2007


QUOTE(Deadlocks @ May 31 2010, 06:28 PM)
This is what you've been saying from a few posts earlier, and it's what makes me asked the question:

What is that "ANOTHER" way that you're talking about?
*

what la....im not the robot...thats for the robot to find out ma....maybe contruct a protective barrier or sumthing or wutever...so many ways la...depends on the threat.


Added on May 31, 2010, 6:46 pm
QUOTE(robertngo @ May 31 2010, 11:19 AM)
the logical outcome is to control human so they cannot do harm to themself and others.
*

ya something like how a parent would protect a kid that always get into trouble.


This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 31 2010, 06:46 PM
SUSDeadlocks
post May 31 2010, 06:48 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(teongpeng @ May 31 2010, 06:44 PM)
what la....im not the robot...thats for the robot to find out ma....maybe contruct a protective barrier or sumthing or wutever...so many ways la...depends on the threat.
*
Exactly what I've pointed out. Unless the robot is omniscient towards all human tendency of harming himself, humans will always be able to commit suicide, resulting in the robot failing the First Law, and resulting in the rebellion I was talking about earlier.
teongpeng
post May 31 2010, 06:48 PM

Justified and Ancient
*******
Senior Member
2,003 posts

Joined: Oct 2007


QUOTE(Deadlocks @ May 31 2010, 06:48 PM)
Exactly what I've pointed out. Unless the robot is omniscient towards all human tendency of harming himself, humans will always be able to commit suicide, resulting in the robot failing the First Law, and resulting in the rebellion I was talking about earlier.
*

me no understand la.... how can failing first law result in rebellion wan? rclxub.gif


Added on May 31, 2010, 7:02 pmrule number 1. = robots may not harm human.
rule number 2. = robots protect human.
rule numer 3 = when there is a clash between rule 1 and rule 2, rule 1 overwrites.

there. isnt that fool proof? see dude...the problem is in the logic.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 31 2010, 07:02 PM
nice.rider
post May 31 2010, 10:35 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
109 posts

Joined: Aug 2009
QUOTE(robertngo @ May 31 2010, 11:19 AM)
do you think matter acts on mind or mind acts on matter.
*

Very good question. Can we put a rock and Tuesday together. Can we find "Pi, 3.142" in the space. Does it make sense to say I own the number seven?

Seven is an abstract idea. It can be illustrated using monitor screen, from the toy number seven, or written on a blackboard. We can not say a chalk (matter) gives raise to seven as seven is an idea and non physical.

Similary, we can not immediately adopt the materialism/reductionism approach in saying that matters would give raise to mind.

Matter is physical and occupying spaces and could be located. While mind is a holistic idea that can not be located in space, and can not be measured.

In a more philosophical explaination, should Latin language was not documented, and non of the Latin citizen exists now, hence we would normally say that Latin language is dead.

We can not say that we can find Latin language (abstract idea) on a physical body of a Latin citizen (matters), as this is a wrong approach.

Latin language is a holistic idea and can not be equate to a physical body (matters) in reductionism.

Same can be said to mind and matter. Mind is a holistic view of an abstract idea of thought and can not be bridge directly to physical matter in reductionism.

Consider asking the following question, is mind attached to a brain cell, a group of cells, or the entire brain? This is the wrong question to begin with.
Lamb Of Dog
post May 31 2010, 10:38 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
387 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
gotta remind myself to get a terminator bodyguard,preferably T-101 model with arnold Schwarzenegger skin
robertngo
post Jun 1 2010, 11:55 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,027 posts

Joined: Oct 2004


QUOTE(nice.rider @ May 31 2010, 10:35 PM)
Very good question. Can we put a rock and Tuesday together. Can we find "Pi, 3.142" in the space. Does it make sense to say I own the number seven?

Seven is an abstract idea. It can be illustrated using monitor screen, from the toy number seven, or written on a blackboard. We can not say a chalk (matter) gives raise to seven as seven is an idea and non physical.

Similary, we can not immediately adopt the materialism/reductionism approach in saying that matters would give raise to mind.

Matter is physical and occupying spaces and could be located. While mind is a holistic idea that can not be located in space, and can not be measured.

In a more philosophical explaination, should Latin language was not documented, and non of the Latin citizen exists now, hence we would normally say that Latin language is dead.

We can not say that we can find Latin language (abstract idea) on a physical body of a Latin citizen (matters), as this is a wrong approach.

Latin language is a holistic idea and can not be equate to a physical body (matters) in reductionism.

Same can be said to mind and matter. Mind is a holistic view of an abstract idea of thought and can not be bridge directly to physical matter in reductionism.

Consider asking the following question, is mind attached to a brain cell, a group of cells, or the entire brain? This is the wrong question to begin with.
*
you really did not answer the question

ComposMentis
post Jun 2 2010, 12:12 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
420 posts

Joined: May 2010
QUOTE(Lamb Of Dog @ May 31 2010, 10:38 PM)
gotta remind myself to get a terminator bodyguard,preferably T-101 model with arnold Schwarzenegger skin
*
i prefer T-X
hot yet powerful enough to annihilate loads of enemies that stand before her smile.gif

6 Pages « < 4 5 6Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0160sec    0.49    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 26th November 2025 - 07:17 AM