when we ever see the presence of androids?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Sceintifically does anyone know when we might see the presence of androids. i mean we already have asimo http://world.honda.com/news/2002/c021205.html



but i mean human robots.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    discocowdiscocow Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    kids:



    Are we there yet?



    Quote:

    driver:



    We'll get there when we get there.





    And that's all I know....
  • Reply 2 of 18
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Considering they don't even have intelligent software yet I can't see it happening any time soon.
  • Reply 3 of 18
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Visual recognition systems cannot yet begin to match humankind's own system. Matching images of three dimensional objects to their physical counterparts remains a feat easiestly accomplished by the living brain.



    I think we'll see consumer "robots" popping up in the next eight years. Consumer devices like robot vacuum cleaners mark the inroad to domestic automatation.
  • Reply 4 of 18
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Well, as long as it's not a Paranoid Android
  • Reply 5 of 18
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    The apple branded android....iRobot











    (asimov fans will get it )
  • Reply 6 of 18
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    We've made great strides in artificial intelligence. But compared to anything in nature we're still about at the level of an insect brain. Getting to the level where machines can make there own choices and adapt to new situations is a big stumbling block.



    We'll get there but it will probably be awhile. Unless someone has a big breakthough in computer design and programing I'd say maybe as far away as 200 years.
  • Reply 7 of 18
    liquidrliquidr Posts: 884member
    originally posted by Wrong Robust

    Quote:

    The apple branded android....iRobot



    what were the rules of robots again?
  • Reply 8 of 18
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by drewprops

    Visual recognition systems cannot yet begin to match humankind's own system. Matching images of three dimensional objects to their physical counterparts remains a feat easiestly accomplished by the living brain.



    Yeah. The things that people find easy - recognition, language, etc., computers suck at. The things people find hard - chess, math, etc., computers are great at.
  • Reply 9 of 18
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    We've made great strides in artificial intelligence. But compared to anything in nature we're still about at the level of an insect brain. Getting to the level where machines can make there own choices and adapt to new situations is a big stumbling block.



    We'll get there but it will probably be awhile. Unless someone has a big breakthough in computer design and programing I'd say maybe as far away as 200 years.




    that number (200 yrs) seems excessive. i think we can get reasonable ai within a decade or two. i think if we approach ai from an evolutionary perspective it will come sooner. once we can get an evolution chain going, we can work on optimizing the [fake] evolution, and ai will come sooner. unless we are able to reverse engineer the brain and how it does all the groovy things it does on a low-level, then we have to come up with a way of making the brain without really knowing whats going on; i think evolution is the key there. (ai would be so much easier if [god] had made brains open-source.)
  • Reply 10 of 18
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    Funnily enough, the issue of androids needing AI first is a chicken and egg riddle. The answer, it seems, is more strongly becoming that you need both developing at the same time in one corpus.



    There was a AI project called Psyche (Google for Psyche) that tried to teach human reasoning and gave the program the ability to come up with it's own conclusions. The one I remember most is "When Lincoln was in Washington, D.C. so were his legs." Incredibly obvious to you and I, but for a program in a box that's a milestone.



    And the fact that the AI's are in a box it turns out is the problem. Researchers in the field (Cog for example) are realizing that the best way to teach an AI 3d spatial relations is for it to learn it just like a toddler does: two eyes and two arms and playing catch.



    If you want a human-like AI, you must give it human-like mobility and human-like senses. The lads at Honda with Asimo are progressing the field more than these "What is conscienceness?" philosophy hunts.



    Less HAL (or Deep Thought) and more Pinocchio (or Astro Boy)!



    Screed
  • Reply 11 of 18
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Yeah. The things that people find easy - recognition, language, etc., computers suck at. The things people find hard - chess, math, etc., computers are great at.





    Good point.
  • Reply 12 of 18
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    20 years tops for robots that can live autonomously.
  • Reply 13 of 18
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rick1138

    20 years tops for robots that can live autonomously.





    Yeah I used to say things like that.........about 20 years ago. This age has some pretty interesting things but the future just isn't quite what we thought it would be. I think it'll happen. It'll just be awhile before it does.
  • Reply 14 of 18
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    I wonder how disappointed people will be when they discover that you can't have artificial intelligence without artificial stupidity.
  • Reply 15 of 18
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    hopefully never, the only place financially feasible I hear is Japan because they don't have access to cheap labor there, like europe and USA, so they just have to make someone flip their patties don't need AI for that.
  • Reply 16 of 18
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    president of androids?
  • Reply 17 of 18
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    In a Cylon voice : Smoke.....them.......out.
  • Reply 18 of 18
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LiquidR

    originally posted by Wrong Robust





    what were the rules of robots again?




    Asimov's three laws of robotics:



    1. A robot can not, under any circumstances, hurt a human, or through inaction allow a human to come to harm.



    2. A robot must obey all human commands unless those commands conflict with the Law number 1.



    3. A robot cannot allow itself to come to harm unless if conflicts with Law number 1 or Law number 2..
Sign In or Register to comment.