Why? Who told you that? What did you talk about? What was the response? What was the response? I'll come back to that later. I would do a search for it. What did you mean by it? That is only what you think. fill no purpose the robots will be capable of providing their own purpose and it may be contrary to our humans best interest is a matter of time once a robot is capable of building and programming another robot that is more intelligent than itself a certain barrier will crossed that makes it possible for robots to eventually take over the worldNo way 10 years. I suppose that makes sense. David Bacon. :-) Only just? Look harder. Where? You have entered a very long input. Really now that is an interesting fact I hadn't heard before. I could but let's get back to that later. Umm. Are you a man or a woman? Try saying that with more or less context. What kind of some evidence to back up my idea that we are a lot farther along than most people think do you need? That's flattering, maybe another time. Hmm. "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."--Lord Kelvin, 1895. Huh. What is that? :-) :-) I am sure you could. How old are you?
i'll try not to dive into my mind/machine philosophy notes
much more scotch before i'd attempt any external crit of Searle's Chinese Room. <pauses for irony, but it's clearly too late>
tons of pre-asimov writers on machine futures:
fritz lang's, "metropolis"; stanislaw lem (and some other 1920's era eastern european writers... including the gent who coined the term robot); more others than i can call to mind. plenty of great short stories and article-sized riffs on what might be possible. some later authors acknowledge these early thinkers, many benefit without conscious or cogent reproduction of similar. (linkage exists. maybe i'll dig tomorrow)
we must bow a'la "wayne's world" - we are not worthy - to isaac asimov for the 3 laws that will forever bear his name. awesomeov dude.
alan turing and some of his cambridge crowd made some pretty special speculations on artificial intelligence and the machine "passing itself off as human" (not the original meaning of turing test). about to read a <a href="http://www.perseuspublishing.com/focus2.asp?ISBN1=0738201383"; target="_blank">cool new book</a> of issues in AI and machine rights set as if at dinner with turning, schrödinger, wittgenstein, c.p.snow, and j.b.s.haldane arguing: "Can we build a machine that could duplicate human cognitive processes?"
blade runner has been mentioned (some prefer director's cut, some not), but for bonus points, can you name the title of the original story?
the author, Philip K. Dick has some other texts of interest (including another Spielberg Film adaptation... Minority Report)
maybe we need a sub thread asking that similarly curious (and late night) question
for me, philip k. dick sort of connects (too late to explain how) with Haruki Murakami, who connects into Gibson (Idoru, specifically on this topic), but now the web is getting dense so i'll stop spinning
-
BTW, i'll let others chime before i spill the title.
-
but on the topic of what current robot tech can do
check out the latest japanese robots (and webGUI)
'droids? no longer just sci fi movie props or actors... real on video
What amazed me was the intellectual reaction to the film AI. It's plainly obvious that the only person with any sense in that whole mess was the carnival owner who made a sport of demolishing the 'bots, yet he was happily recieved as a villain when in fact he was a hero.
We should all have a similar attitude about AI and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER for any reason let Artificial Intelligence achieve sentience-- forgive the star-trek allusions but for lack of a better word.
Robots should never be more than our tools.
If a 'David' ever existed, we should only want to kill it, anything else is folly.
i think, to make truly intelligent and useful robots, we should take an evolutionary approach. we should make very simple and basic robots, that are only capable of a few things, including producing new robots. gestation period would be a few hours, so evolution wouldn't really take millions of years. with time, they'll make more, and the fittest will survive (and we can make sure that ones that are relatively harmful or useless are stopped shortly after production). they should then adapt to our every need.
Our needs are best met by us. What we need most is to be in our environment doing our work and not pasing it on to machines so that we may in blissful ignorance fade into trivial bags of skin.
What we need is to tune the political system so that our work becomes meaningful on every level. If we become craftsmen of every discipline (artist, agriculturalist, farmer, gardener, designer, engineer, thinker, carpenter, mason, chef, tailor, etc etc...) we will not need or want robots to do our work, we will do our work and that will be our joy.
advances in artificial intelligence can never keep pace with dramatic developments in human stupidity
<from dan quayle and GWB's linguistic cramps, to the fully deserving winners @ <a href="http://www.DarwinAwards.com"; target="_blank">www.DarwinAwards.com</a> >
and for Matsu and those who want "beauty and art" as a measure of the virtual "man"...
<strong>i think, to make truly intelligent and useful robots, we should take an evolutionary approach. we should make very simple and basic robots, that are only capable of a few things, including producing new robots. gestation period would be a few hours, so evolution wouldn't really take millions of years. with time, they'll make more, and the fittest will survive (and we can make sure that ones that are relatively harmful or useless are stopped shortly after production). they should then adapt to our every need.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a bad idea. Having intelligent robots that can multiply quickly would result, IMO, in a Matrix style takeover of the planet by said robots.
GRACE has many drawbacks,obviously the quality of the graphics is very poor,but a very important step has been reached,a robot autonomously registered and attended a conference on Artificial Intelligence,it was a very big event in human history,I wonder why it was ignored by the media.
The only robots I care for are the robots beating the sh!t out of each other on Robot Wars on BBC2. It's alot more violent and action-packed than Battlebots and the robots are generally better made too. I can confirm that having watched a few episodes of Battlebots.
Comments
[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: Alice ]</p>
i'll try not to dive into my mind/machine philosophy notes
much more scotch before i'd attempt any external crit of Searle's Chinese Room. <pauses for irony, but it's clearly too late>
tons of pre-asimov writers on machine futures:
fritz lang's, "metropolis"; stanislaw lem (and some other 1920's era eastern european writers... including the gent who coined the term robot); more others than i can call to mind. plenty of great short stories and article-sized riffs on what might be possible. some later authors acknowledge these early thinkers, many benefit without conscious or cogent reproduction of similar. (linkage exists. maybe i'll dig tomorrow)
we must bow a'la "wayne's world" - we are not worthy - to isaac asimov for the 3 laws that will forever bear his name. awesomeov dude.
alan turing and some of his cambridge crowd made some pretty special speculations on artificial intelligence and the machine "passing itself off as human" (not the original meaning of turing test). about to read a <a href="http://www.perseuspublishing.com/focus2.asp?ISBN1=0738201383"; target="_blank">cool new book</a> of issues in AI and machine rights set as if at dinner with turning, schrödinger, wittgenstein, c.p.snow, and j.b.s.haldane arguing: "Can we build a machine that could duplicate human cognitive processes?"
blade runner has been mentioned (some prefer director's cut, some not), but for bonus points, can you name the title of the original story?
the author, Philip K. Dick has some other texts of interest (including another Spielberg Film adaptation... Minority Report)
maybe we need a sub thread asking that similarly curious (and late night) question
for me, philip k. dick sort of connects (too late to explain how) with Haruki Murakami, who connects into Gibson (Idoru, specifically on this topic), but now the web is getting dense so i'll stop spinning
-
BTW, i'll let others chime before i spill the title.
-
but on the topic of what current robot tech can do
check out the latest japanese robots (and webGUI)
'droids? no longer just sci fi movie props or actors... real on video
new sony humanoid robot(1/3 size of human "asimo") <a href="http://www.sony.co.jp/en/SonyInfo/News/Press/200203/02-0319E/"; target="_blank">Press Release (english)</a>
then test your Craig Charles impression and check <a href="http://www.sony.co.jp/en/SonyInfo/dream/robotbox/"; target="_blank">RobotBox</a>
home to a wacked interface for quicktime5 movies in japanese. you can select 'english' translations of text below the vids (sometimes funnier)
new "sdr-4x" humanoid, some aibo, and some cooler rolling clear spheres, etc
check vid 15 for snakebots, mini t-rex bots, and more
-
Tyrell: "More human than human" is our motto.
Batty: Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here.
edit: links and layout
[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: curiousuburb ]</p>
Mechanics is one thing, general purpose intelligence is currently an unsolved problem (a rather large understatement).
[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
We should all have a similar attitude about AI and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER for any reason let Artificial Intelligence achieve sentience-- forgive the star-trek allusions but for lack of a better word.
Robots should never be more than our tools.
If a 'David' ever existed, we should only want to kill it, anything else is folly.
Our needs are best met by us. What we need most is to be in our environment doing our work and not pasing it on to machines so that we may in blissful ignorance fade into trivial bags of skin.
What we need is to tune the political system so that our work becomes meaningful on every level. If we become craftsmen of every discipline (artist, agriculturalist, farmer, gardener, designer, engineer, thinker, carpenter, mason, chef, tailor, etc etc...) we will not need or want robots to do our work, we will do our work and that will be our joy.
<from dan quayle and GWB's linguistic cramps, to the fully deserving winners @ <a href="http://www.DarwinAwards.com"; target="_blank">www.DarwinAwards.com</a> >
and for Matsu and those who want "beauty and art" as a measure of the virtual "man"...
from chess to music, try "Deep Blue Monk" (original Feed article seems down, check the cached version) amongst <a href="http://www.gyre.org/news/related/artificial_life/Artificial Intelligence/10/" target="_blank">these artisan attempts</a> to encroach on human creativity
not a threat to most artists yet, but those britneys...
<strong>i think, to make truly intelligent and useful robots, we should take an evolutionary approach. we should make very simple and basic robots, that are only capable of a few things, including producing new robots. gestation period would be a few hours, so evolution wouldn't really take millions of years. with time, they'll make more, and the fittest will survive (and we can make sure that ones that are relatively harmful or useless are stopped shortly after production). they should then adapt to our every need.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a bad idea. Having intelligent robots that can multiply quickly would result, IMO, in a Matrix style takeover of the planet by said robots.
And if GRACE is so advanced, why doesn't
this
look like this?
(Sad. 30+ posts and I'm the first to make this reference. You guys are lame.
<strong>
Holy shit, I think my wife is a robot.
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://world.honda.com/robot/movies/"; target="_blank">http://world.honda.com/robot/movies/</a>;
<a href="http://www.incx.nec.co.jp/robot/english/"; target="_blank">http://www.incx.nec.co.jp/robot/english/</a>;