Robot At SXSW Says She Wants To Destroy Humans | The Pulse | CNBC

[IWantGod]

Robot At SXSW Says She Wants To Destroy Humans | The Pulse | CNBC

Robotics is finally reaching the mainstream and androids - humanlike robots - are everywhere at SXSW Experts believe humanlike robots are the key to smoothing communication between humans and computers, and realizing a dream of compassionate robots that help invent the future of life.

youtube.com/watch?v=W0_DPi0PmF0

Humanoid Robot Tells Jokes on GMB! | Good Morning Britain

youtube.com/watch?v=kWlL4KjIP4M

Should we give genuinely sentient robots human rights?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Should we give genuinely sentient robots human rights?

Of course. Just like to apes or dolphins if and when they exhibit sapience - NOT to be confused with “sentience”. (google.com/search?q=sentient+vs+sapient&oq=sentient+vs.+&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0i22i30k1l2j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1.12280.14785.0.17422.6.6.0.0.0.0.128.711.0j6.6.0…0…1.1.64.psy-ab…0.6.705…0j0i67k1j0i20k1.y9NRV_jfSX0) When the first such being will pass the Turing test it will finally put the concept of “soul” to the heap of unnecessary ideas.

 

[IWantGod]

When the first such being will pass the Turing test it will finally put the concept of “soul” to the heap of unnecessary ideas.

Why? We are like biological machines anyway. The existence of true AI would not be evidence of a physical-mind. It would just be evidence that the mind can emerge in others kinds of physical processes. We would be no closer to identifying what the mind actually is or why it exists in relation to any particular set of processes.

The mind-body problem would still exist.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Why? We are like biological machines anyway. The existence of true AI would not be evidence of a physical-mind. It would just be evidence that the mind can emerge in others kinds of physical processes. We would be no closer to identifying what the mind actually is or why it exists in relation to any particular set of processes.

The mind-body problem would still exist.

No. It is just another nonsensical question. If you don’t have a problem with accepting that “walking” is just an activity of the muscles in your leg, you should not have any problem with understanding that thinking (or the mind) is the activity of the brain. Of course the mind is only partially the activity of the “grey cells”. Most of it happens in the subconscious (in the white cells). But as soon as some AI will exhibit thinking, the necessity for the assumption of some “mysterious”, supernatural “soul” will disappear. Of course it will take some time for it to go out of fashion. After all even today there is considerable segment of people, who try to bring up some “intelligent design” or something equally nonsensical.

 

[Crusaderbear]

GIGO… Garbage in, garbage out! Robots are programmed, they do not think. Likewise, they are it’s, not he’s or she’s!

 

[IWantGod]

No. It is just another nonsensical question. If you don’t have a problem with accepting that “walking” is just an activity of the muscles in your leg, you should not have any problem with understanding that thinking (or the mind)

LOL. comparing the activity of walking to the mind does not in anyway make sense of subjectivity.

 

[Wesrock]

The Turing Test isn’t concerned about answering the question about what thoughts are, it’s about identifying what’s susceptible to scientific study and limiting oneself to inquiry on that. It makes as much sense as a drunk looking for his keys only under a light post because that’s the only place there’s enough light to find his keys.

Furthermore, imitating behavior of a person who thinks is not the same thing as thinking. It also doesn’t follow that it is actually thinking instead of following a program put into it by someone who thinks, anymore than a watch has any innate ability to tell time, but is only executing a program made by a thinking mind and only outputting certain effects which only have any meaning regards the telling of time to the mind who reads it.

Turing also didn’t seem to believe that passing the Turing Test meant that machines could think, only that imitation was the only thing he was able to empirically study. And the Turing Test wasn’t even designed to fool experts, it was designed to fool the average man. If I can manufacture pyrite to imitate gold such that the average man can’t tell the difference, that doesn’t make the pyrite gold.

AI can at best imitate, in my opinion, and imitation is not true sapience. There is still the unresolved problem of intentionality for the materialist. So however well AI imitates human behavior, it should not be granted human rights. It has no true understanding.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Of course. Just like to apes or dolphins if and when they exhibit sapience - NOT to be confused with “sentience”. (google.com/search?q=sentient+vs+sapient&oq=sentient+vs.+&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0i22i30k1l2j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1.12280.14785.0.17422.6.6.0.0.0.0.128.711.0j6.6.0…0…1.1.64.psy-ab…0.6.705…0j0i67k1j0i20k1.y9NRV_jfSX0) When the first such being will pass the Turing test it will finally put the concept of “soul” to the heap of unnecessary ideas.

Given some posters at CAF would fail the test I wouldn’t hold your breath.

 

[xNoOnex]

According to my programmer friend, AI is incapable of ever being sentient. While it may be able to emulate a human personality or act on its own, it cannot act outside of its programming. Basically, no matter how matter how human-like it might be, it’s just coding.

It that’s the case, no.

But for the sake of the argument, let’s say that AI advances beyond these restrictions and machines become indistinguishable from humanity outside of their synthetic birth… Well, that would complicate things.

If we basically made our own Frankenstein’s monsters, we should grant them rights. I doubt we’d be able to do that.

When the first such being will pass the Turing test it will finally put the concept of “soul” to the heap of unnecessary ideas.

This wouldn’t put the concept of a soul to rest, but open the debate if souls would be granted to synthetic life.

GIGO… Garbage in, garbage out! Robots are programmed, they do not think. Likewise, they are it’s, not he’s or she’s!

To be fair, I don’t think it would be that odd to refer to a robot with a masculine or feminine personality “he” or “she”. Some folks already refer to their cars as “she”.

 

[Ghosty]

Of course. Just like to apes or dolphins if and when they exhibit sapience - NOT to be confused with “sentience”. (google.com/search?q=sentient+vs+sapient&oq=sentient+vs.+&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0i22i30k1l2j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1.12280.14785.0.17422.6.6.0.0.0.0.128.711.0j6.6.0…0…1.1.64.psy-ab…0.6.705…0j0i67k1j0i20k1.y9NRV_jfSX0) When the first such being will pass the Turing test it will finally put the concept of “soul” to the heap of unnecessary ideas.

Given the fact that the Turing Test is not designed to evaluate the presence of an immaterial soul, nor is it directed at those aspects of mind that are said to be immaterial, your assertion is flatly false.

The Turing Test evaluates fluid communication, not the processing of abstract concepts and the application of disparate ideas to form new ones that are not based on material experience. It can’t be used to evaluate the presence or absence of an immaterial soul or mind.

Peace and God bless!

 

[IWantGod]

Given the fact that the Turing Test is not designed to evaluate the presence of an immaterial soul, nor is it directed at those aspects of mind that are said to be immaterial, your assertion is flatly false.

The Turing Test evaluates fluid communication, not the processing of abstract concepts and the application of disparate ideas to form new ones that are not based on material experience. It can’t be used to evaluate the presence or absence of an immaterial soul or mind.

Peace and God bless!

I didn’t know that. Popular media has always presented the Turing test as as test for true sentience.

 

[Ghosty]

I didn’t know that. Popular media has always presented the Turing test as as test for true sentience.

The Turing Test is essentially an evaluation of a conversation between a human being and an A.I.

If the observer can’t determine which is the A.I. and which is the human, then the A.I. “passes” the Turing Test. There are variations, but this is what it fundamentally boils down to. The flaws with such an evaluation are numerous, not the least of which is that it isn’t actually evaluating the “thought” process of the A.I. at all, merely the external resemblance to human speech and thought and the assessment skills of the observer (there is no truly objective standard, and different observers will come up with different conclusions depending on their biases and skill level).

A real evaluation of an immaterial mind would require identifying abstract processing of ideas and the formulation of new concepts from these abstracted ideas, to name just one important factor. When an A.I. can communicate via a metaphor that it creates on its own, then I will begin to question the existence of an immaterial soul.

Keep in mind that popular media, and most materialists in general, don’t really grasp what makes the human mind so unique and problematic. Robust and fluid communication and problem solving isn’t really the mystery, poetry is.

Peace and God bless!

 

[fisherman_carl]

A robot is composed of elements from other things that have different ends than being a robot. Thus, it is artificial and not alive. Things that are alive are composed of things that naturally have ends toward being that particular being. Thus, they are natural and not artificial. The components that make up an artificial being can not naturally serve the end of being a robot never mind a consciousness or anything that resembles natural life. The best an artificial construction can do is to imitate something alive without actually being alive, like a puppet. A puppet composed of wood which has the natural end of being a tree.

 

[inocente]

GIGO… Garbage in, garbage out! Robots are programmed, they do not think. Likewise, they are it’s, not he’s or she’s!

These days most AI is not programmed. One technique is called deep learning, where the robot learns for itself by repetition. It’s hard or impossible for a human programmer to work out the logic the robot learns, which can be passed to other robots, and done autonomously by wifi.

These devices are progressing rapidly. For instance a commercially available computer board for developing applications can do 24 trillion deep learning operations per second. - nvidia.com/object/drive-px.html

 

[tonyrey]

A robot is composed of elements from other things that have different ends than being a robot. Thus, it is artificial and not alive. Things that are alive are composed of things that naturally have ends toward being that particular being. Thus, they are natural and not artificial. The components that make up an artificial being can not naturally serve the end of being a robot never mind a consciousness or anything that resembles natural life. The best an artificial construction can do is to imitate something alive without actually being alive, like a puppet. A puppet composed of wood which has the natural end of being a tree.

In addition to which robots don’t have insight or free will.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Keep in mind that popular media, and most materialists in general, don’t really grasp what makes the human mind so unique and problematic. Robust and fluid communication and problem solving isn’t really the mystery, poetry is.

And as soon as the AI will deliver that self-composed poem the naysayers will complain that the AI is just a “rhymester” or a “verse-monger” and not a “true” poet. I suggest that you read “The Cyberiad” (raley.english.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/Reading/Lem-cyberiad.pdf) especially the First Sally of Trurl’s Electronic Bard.

The point is that imitation which cannot be told apart from the “real McCoy” is not an imitation any more. Just look at the incredible achievement of Watson, the machine that beat the living daylight of the best champions in Jeopardy. And that machine is now used to help doctors to diagnose patients - hundreds of them simultaneously. The technique of “deep learning” will create true intelligence. The best chess playing computer programs have not been “programmed” any more. They learn just like humans learn - except much faster.

 

[IWantGod]

And as soon as the AI will deliver that self-composed poem the naysayers will complain that the AI is just a “rhymester” or a “verse-monger” and not a “true” poet. I suggest that you read “The Cyberiad” (raley.english.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/Reading/Lem-cyberiad.pdf) especially the First Sally of Trurl’s Electronic Bard.

The point is that imitation which cannot be told apart from the “real McCoy” is not an imitation any more. Just look at the incredible achievement of Watson, the machine that beat the living daylight of the best champions in Jeopardy. And that machine is now used to help doctors to diagnose patients - hundreds of them simultaneously. The technique of “deep learning” will create true intelligence. The best chess playing computer programs have not been “programmed” any more. They learn just like humans learn - except much faster.

These AI’s operate faster then we do and self learn and yet they are not self-conscious. This leads me to think 2 things

1. They are missing something
2. The principles of deep-learning and computation does not necessitate the existence of self-consciousness (self consciousness is certainly not a necessary prerequisite), and so further development in this arena doesn’t seem to promise the existence of self-awareness.

 

[Ghosty]

And as soon as the AI will deliver that self-composed poem the naysayers will complain that the AI is just a “rhymester” or a “verse-monger” and not a “true” poet. I suggest that you read “The Cyberiad” (raley.english.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/Reading/Lem-cyberiad.pdf) especially the First Sally of Trurl’s Electronic Bard.

The point is that imitation which cannot be told apart from the “real McCoy” is not an imitation any more. Just look at the incredible achievement of Watson, the machine that beat the living daylight of the best champions in Jeopardy. And that machine is now used to help doctors to diagnose patients - hundreds of them simultaneously. The technique of “deep learning” will create true intelligence. The best chess playing computer programs have not been “programmed” any more. They learn just like humans learn - except much faster.

We will have to see if machines are capable of creating metaphors. As it stands now there doesn’t appear to be any way they could, and “someday you’ll see” isn’t an argument of any substance.

Performing material processes faster than a human brain can, as Watson does, demonstrates nothing more than a forklifting picking up more weight than a human body can.

Furthermore, imitation that can’t be told apart from the real thing is certainly still imitation by definition. In such cases the discernment of the observer is just as much a factor as the capability of the observed subject; my inability to perceive the difference between the real and the fake does not change the nature of the fake, only my response towards it. While I would be wrong to shoot an image of a child that I can’t distinguish from the real thing, this does mean that the image is really a child.

An A.I. that appears human to 99% of human observers might require a change in how we act towards it, if only for the sake of playing it safe, our perception of this A.I. and our behavior towards is not what what would define it as alive, any more than your perception of me makes me what I am.

Peace and God bless!

 

[IWantGod]

We will have to see if machines are capable of creating metaphors. As it stands now there doesn’t appear to be any way they could, and “someday you’ll see” isn’t an argument of any substance.

Performing material processes faster than a human brain can, as Watson does, demonstrates nothing more than a forklifting picking up more weight than a human body can.

Furthermore, imitation that can’t be told apart from the real thing is certainly still imitation by definition. In such cases the discernment of the observer is just as much a factor as the capability of the observed subject; my inability to perceive the difference between the real and the fake does not change the nature of the fake, only my response towards it. While I would be wrong to shoot an image of a child that I can’t distinguish from the real thing, this does mean that the image is really a child.

An A.I. that appears human to 99% of human observers might require a change in how we act towards it, if only for the sake of playing it safe, our perception of this A.I. and our behavior towards is not what what would define it as alive, any more than your perception of me makes me what I am.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Posting via touchscreen phone has its disadvantages. Clearly I meant forklift and not forklifting, and the image does not become a real child from my inability to properly identify it.