Robotics and Artificial Intelligence

[mikekle]

I recently saw a video of a competition for the dept of defense, teams had to build terminator looking robots that could function just like a human. There is multiple videos online of these things, it is scary to see how life like some of them are, although they are tethered to loads of people on computers, but at some point I believe we will have robots that look exactly like humans and it would be hard to tell the difference.

There is plenty these robots could be used for, military purposes, jobs no one else wants to do, they could work them 24 hrs a day 7 days a week, they would not make a single mistake, and be much more intelligent than any human, so I can see why they want to create such a being, but in doing this, I think eventually the robots will become self aware, of course this was the premise for all the Terminator movies, but in this case, something like this could very well happen, and the worst part, these robots/beings, will not have a soul, so right from wrong would be a non-issue, it would only be what the robots limits are.

Im sure robots like this will be clunky and odd at first, but give it time, and think 20 yrs down the road, then 50…100 yrs later…by then, I think it may be difficult for anyone to tell who is human and who is not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Spiders do not have a “brain” like humans have. They cannot “learn”, they are already born with all the knowledge they ever need. Humans have only a minimal “built-in” ability, the most important one is the affinity to learn languages. Without languages there can be no discursive thinking. If you doubt, just try it, and see the result.

This does not refute my point that the behavior is still goal-oriented. You said a human raised without contact with others would not have goals. I simply disagreed with that statement. And it is still speculation on your part. The experiment you described has not actually been done. And even in rare cases where something similar has happened, like humans being raised by wild animals, the result showed their speech suffered, but it still did not support your contention, which I guess is that there is little essential difference between humans and machines that are designed to display intelligence, since you were attempting to refute edwest’s contention that they are essentially different.

 

[Bagheera]

LeafByNiggle:

This does not refute my point that the behavior is still goal-oriented. You said a human raised without contact with others would not have goals.

Sorry, it was a misunderstanding. Of course that being would feel hunger, and instinctively it would set a “goal” to alleviate it. Has nothing to do with the spiders and the topic of the thread.

mikekle:

I recently saw a video of a competition for the dept of defense, teams had to build terminator looking robots that could function just like a human. There is multiple videos online of these things, it is scary to see how life like some of them are, although they are tethered to loads of people on computers, but at some point I believe we will have robots that look exactly like humans and it would be hard to tell the difference.

There is plenty these robots could be used for, military purposes, jobs no one else wants to do, they could work them 24 hrs a day 7 days a week, they would not make a single mistake, and be much more intelligent than any human, so I can see why they want to create such a being, but in doing this, I think eventually the robots will become self aware, of course this was the premise for all the Terminator movies, but in this case, something like this could very well happen, and the worst part, these robots/beings, will not have a soul, so right from wrong would be a non-issue, it would only be what the robots limits are.

Im sure robots like this will be clunky and odd at first, but give it time, and think 20 yrs down the road, then 50…100 yrs later…by then, I think it may be difficult for anyone to tell who is human and who is not.

I think you are right. What will really be the non-issue is the concept of a “soul”.

 

[edwest2]

An AI could be smarter than any human but it would have no desires at all. Even if a “desire” was programmed into it, it would not be self-aware. It would only be an imitation and never a human, just a replica. Technically, as new techniques are developed, it could get upgrades. It could be put into a very strong body. Again, it would be a utility device used only by the military. Even if I could buy an advanced version in 20 years for $100.00, I wouldn’t.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tafan]

…

Im sure robots like this will be clunky and odd at first, but give it time, and think 20 yrs down the road, then 50…100 yrs later…by then, I think it may be difficult for anyone to tell who is human and who is not.

I disagree with this. Having studied AI in the past, the technology is a long ways from evolving into an actual intelligence/ sentience. Actually, I think it is a chasm that cannot be breached.
Admittedly, some of my thinking is due to my philosophical belief that our consciousness is a result of our soul/brain working together. But the ways that computers are built to perform complex tasks (eg play chess better then people, do extraordinary searches on the web, or Siri interaction with an iPhone) has little or nothing to do with what we know of the human brain and there is not even a hint of true consciousness being built into any of the algorithms.
So even from a purely scientific standpoint, if the possibility of building a true sentient robot exists, we have barely taken one step down the path of doing so. Although, admittedly, we are past the point of showing that the Turing test was never a valid means of measuring a machine’s ability to truly think. So, AI, has come a long ways.

 

[Bagheera]

edwest2:

An AI could be smarter than any human but it would have no desires at all.

What is a desire? It is the recognition of some kind of deficiency and an attempt to overcome it. A well functioning system can realize that there is some data missing to solve a problem, and it can take steps to acquire that data. That would be a “desire”.

edwest2:

Even if a “desire” was programmed into it, it would not be self-aware.

Again, what is “self-aware”? It would be looking into a mirror, and pointing at the image, saying: “That is my reflection”. And looking at something else, and saying: “That is not I”. Does not sound like an insurmountable problem. Face recognition is a very hard problem, but it can be solved. Comparing one image with another is not hard at all.

edwest2:

It would only be an imitation and never a human, just a replica.

What is the difference between a very good (possibly perfect) replica and the original? That is the point you need to contemplate. What would be a perfect “clone”? What would be an artificially grown “twin”? Would it be a “human” or just a “replica”?

 

[vz71]

Yes, but only if you wish to stay on rational ground. I have no problem to discuss what the church teaches, as long as it is the logical corollary of a rational argument. But not as an a-priori assumption.

Look at where you are.
Teaching and tradition of the church are a given here.
The soul is very well defined.
Anywhere else, and you may have a point to deal with.
But then, anywhere else and I would not argue the soul.

Actually she is very smart. There is no clear dividing line between plans and animals. Just like there is no clear dividing line between living and inanimate matter.

Other than the parts that characterize a plant and separate ones that characterize animals.
Plant cells are very distinctive from animal cells, for instance.

Yes, let’s hope so.

I’ll agree with you there. If for no other reason then I want the flying cars science promised nearly a century ago.

Dreaming is the temporary cessation of conscious thought, when the neurons will fire in a random fashion…

Actually, no. There is nothing random about the firing pattern.
But that is actually well beside the point.
My apologies. I had figured you also read 2001, and knew the literary allusion.
It is a reference to life itself.

Since you read Asimov’s stories, I am sure you realize that mobile units will have a non-wired power supply. But regardless of that, I was referring to the act of “turning off” a sentient being, which is an act of hostility, and maybe the robot would resent that…

Only if they are told to.
In point of fact, to be anywhere close to violent, the action must be against the will of the one acted upon. So far we have not a shred of evidence of a will.
In other words - my vacuum cleaner does not care if it is unplugged.
It is the same for all of my tools. I expect it will be the same for all the tools to come as well.

My fundamental assertion is this: “It does not matter what the underlying hardware (or wetware) is made of, as long as it functions in a specific manner”. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “Human is as human does”.

Sorry, the Gump paraphrase is misguided.
And you have admitted such earlier in the thread when you recognized the humanity of a comatose patient in a vegetative state.
Human is more then action. It is also the soul at work.

 

[vz71]

What is a desire? It is the recognition of some kind of deficiency and an attempt to overcome it. A well functioning system can realize that there is some data missing to solve a problem, and it can take steps to acquire that data. That would be a “desire”.

But that is not desire.
The desire people speak of when defining what it is to be human is not what you find from a science text as much as it is found in a literature book.

Again, what is “self-aware”? It would be looking into a mirror, and pointing at the image, saying: “That is my reflection”. And looking at something else, and saying: “That is not I”. Does not sound like an insurmountable problem. Face recognition is a very hard problem, but it can be solved. Comparing one image with another is not hard at all.

Facial recognition is a poor indicator of self awareness.
How about the person that can recognize their own unique personality juxtaposed against many others. Perhaps it is also the ability to not recognize our own faults…to very effectively deceive ourselves into believing our behavior is different then it really is.
Perhaps it is a combination of all of these.
That a term is not well defined does not give license to define it yourself to suit.

What is the difference between a very good (possibly perfect) replica and the original? That is the point you need to contemplate. What would be a perfect “clone”? What would be an artificially grown “twin”? Would it be a “human” or just a “replica”?

No matter how perfect, even if we duplicate every atom, our creation lacks a soul.
So it cannot be a perfect replica.

 

[Bagheera]

vz71:

My apologies. I had figured you also read 2001, and knew the literary allusion.
It is a reference to life itself.

Of course I read it. Biological life and intellectual life are not the same, and that is precisely the problem we are discussing.

vz71:

Sorry, the Gump paraphrase is misguided.

I don’t think so. Does someone lose the label “human”, when part of his body is replaced with an artificial prosthesis? (Say, a dental replacement?) Even if every part is replaced from the neck down? And if we replace the neurons with electronic counterparts, will it be still a “human”? At what point will it lose its “humanness”? Is a cyborg with a human brain still a “human”, with a whole lot of prostheses? Is a clone of human grown in a vat (android) a new human?

vz71:

And you have admitted such earlier in the thread when you recognized the humanity of a comatose patient in a vegetative state.

Being immobile is not contradictory to being a human. But you are a little mistaken. When someone is in irreversible coma, and is sustained by artificial means, then we consider him a “human” for sentimental reasons only. Death is defined as the cessation of brain activity. Once the brain is gone – like in the case of Terry Schiavo – there is only a “has been” on the bed.

vz71:

In other words - my vacuum cleaner does not care if it is unplugged.

Your vacuum cleaner is not sentient.

vz71:

But that is not desire.
The desire people speak of when defining what it is to be human is not what you find from a science text as much as it is found in a literature book.

Give me a break! You throw in something, and I challenge it. Then you say that the definition is not correct, but don’t offer anything in return. You need to do better than that.

vz71:

No matter how perfect, even if we duplicate every atom, our creation lacks a soul.
So it cannot be a perfect replica.

This is getting tedious and boring. If you really wish to drag in that “soul”, you need to do the following:

1. Define what the soul is. Explicitly, please.
2. Demonstrate that it exists. The method should be repeatable by the skeptics.
3. Show where that “soul” is connected to our body / mind.
4. Show how the “soul” interacts with our body and mind.
5. Present a method to detect when the “soul” gets connected to the body / mind.
6. If a zygote undergoes a spontaneous “split” and two (or more) maternal twins come to being, what happens to the “soul”?
   Otherwise the “soul” is just another baseless and useless assertion. And do it, please, in another thread, because in this one the topic is robotics and artificial intelligence.

 

[vz71]

This is a forum for Catholic Moral Theology.
The Soul is accepted fact.
The church has defined it already and you have been provided the reference material.
I am not sure what more can be done to provide you with an answer.
Perhaps you are rejecting it because you do not like the answer?

 

[vz71]

Of course I read it. Biological life and intellectual life are not the same, and that is precisely the problem we are discussing.

Terms that are not defined.
The real irony is that the machine apparently has the desire to be alive programmed into it, but is nothing more than a tool.

I don’t think so. Does someone lose the label “human”, when part of his body is replaced with an artificial prosthesis? (Say, a dental replacement?) Even if every part is replaced from the neck down? And if we replace the neurons with electronic counterparts, will it be still a “human”? At what point will it lose its “humanness”? Is a cyborg with a human brain still a “human”, with a whole lot of prostheses? Is a clone of human grown in a vat (android) a new human?
Being immobile is not contradictory to being a human. But you are a little mistaken. When someone is in irreversible coma, and is sustained by artificial means, then we consider him a “human” for sentimental reasons only. Death is defined as the cessation of brain activity. Once the brain is gone – like in the case of Terry Schiavo – there is only a “has been” on the bed.

You are making little sense here.
You make the case that a human is a human even if parts are taken away, but then go on to tell us all that someone that is clearly both human and alive is not.

Your vacuum cleaner is not sentient.

My dog does not think so.

Give me a break! You throw in something, and I challenge it. Then you say that the definition is not correct, but don’t offer anything in return. You need to do better than that.

I do not think anyone issued the challenge except yourself.
I simply disagree with your definition there.
That you do not have a logical answer is not my fault.

This is getting tedious and boring. If you really wish to drag in that “soul”, you need to do the following:

1. Define what the soul is. Explicitly, please.

Done. You were told specifically where the definition is down to the exact book and paragraph numbers.

1. Demonstrate that it exists. The method should be repeatable by the skeptics.
2. Show where that “soul” is connected to our body / mind.
3. Show how the “soul” interacts with our body and mind.
4. Present a method to detect when the “soul” gets connected to the body / mind.

Not necessary in the forum you have chosen.

1. If a zygote undergoes a spontaneous “split” and two (or more) maternal twins come to being, what happens to the “soul”?

A very interesting question.
Of course, you are assuming only a single soul is present.
I have heard it argued that God placed two souls there and that caused the split.
I have also heard it argued that God knew of the split and placed two souls in place for the purpose.

Otherwise the “soul” is just another baseless and useless assertion. And do it, please, in another thread, because in this one the topic is robotics and artificial intelligence.

In a thread concerning robotics and artificial intelligence, I fail to see why the defining characteristic that will always separate us from our own tools is irrelevant.

 

[Bagheera]

vz71:

Bagheera:

Your vacuum cleaner is not sentient.

My dog does not think so.

I know you appended a smiley to your “argument”. Nevertheless it is “par for the course” as far as the quality of your posts go. Have a wonderful day, but I am not about to waste more time on you.

 

[edwest2]

What is a desire? It is the recognition of some kind of deficiency and an attempt to overcome it. A well functioning system can realize that there is some data missing to solve a problem, and it can take steps to acquire that data. That would be a “desire”.

Again, what is “self-aware”? It would be looking into a mirror, and pointing at the image, saying: “That is my reflection”. And looking at something else, and saying: “That is not I”. Does not sound like an insurmountable problem. Face recognition is a very hard problem, but it can be solved. Comparing one image with another is not hard at all.

What is the difference between a very good (possibly perfect) replica and the original? That is the point you need to contemplate. What would be a perfect “clone”? What would be an artificially grown “twin”? Would it be a “human” or just a “replica”?

It’s a device, nothing more.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

We have flying cars that work. The FAA just won’t let people drive them. Might crash into a house or building or pedestrian. Accidents on the ground are bad enough.

Ed

 

[vz71]

We have flying cars that work. The FAA just won’t let people drive them. Might crash into a house or building or pedestrian. Accidents on the ground are bad enough.

Ed

rats

 

[edwest2]

I know, but the prototypes have been around for a while.

davidszondy.com/future/Flight/connvaircar.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[mikekle]

We have flying cars that work. The FAA just won’t let people drive them. Might crash into a house or building or pedestrian. Accidents on the ground are bad enough.

Ed

I think they were talking about hovering cars, like we see in most sci fi movies, the current flying cars are really nothing more than small planes designed for limited paved surface use, so not really a flying car.

The only thing holding back these kinds of hover cars are room temp superconductors, once someone develops them, we will start seeing all the sci fi technology come to life.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is fascinating to speculate on the possibilities of technological development. But the original question of this thread related to what ethical or moral considerations might be involved in this development. Regardless of how “real” a robot appears, I don’t think there is any moral problem in making such robots, unless the purpose of such a development is deception in order to take unfair advantage of someone. In that case the moral implications are the same as for any other, less technological, deception. The high technology factors really do not enter in to the question at all. If it is wrong to send someone a letter claiming to be someone who you are not, then it is wrong to make a robot deceive someone into thinking the robot is someone who it is not. If the deception is just part of an innocent game, then the moral problem is less serious, or non-existent.

Another possible moral question is what, if anything, we “owe” to a man-made intelligence. Note that in the sequel to 2001 a Space Odyssey (called 2010), Hal and Dave form a bond where Dave feels he owes Hal the kind of respect one would normally accord to a human. This is a mistake. There is no moral debt incurred toward a machine just because it mimics human intelligence. The only moral debt I can see is the normal responsibility to be good stewards of the resources entrusted to you. If you have the power to destroy a robot that is the result of expensive effort, then this would not be good stewardship, any more than going to Mount Rushmore and blasting away the faces carved in stone (supposing I purchased Mount Rushmore first). The respect is due to the craftsmen who labored over its construction, and to the meaning it has to millions of people, not to the thing itself.

Even when restricted to unintelligent machines, like old cars (pre-microprocessors), people sometimes develop a feeling of concern for the machine that goes beyond just the machine’s utility to us. These are feelings, not expressions of morality.

Actually, there is another set of moral questions that parallel these questions of robotic intelligence, and that is animal intelligence. It is generally recognized that to torture or kill unnecessarily an animal like a dog or a cat is immoral. However torturing or killing an earthworm is less serious. It seems that we recognize the immorality of animal cruelty to the extent that we recognize the similarity with us in intelligence and sentience. However none of these concerns rise to the same level as the moral problem in torturing or killing a human.

 

[edwest2]

I think they were talking about hovering cars, like we see in most sci fi movies, the current flying cars are really nothing more than small planes designed for limited paved surface use, so not really a flying car.

The only thing holding back these kinds of hover cars are room temp superconductors, once someone develops them, we will start seeing all the sci fi technology come to life.

Skycar M400

auto.howstuffworks.com/flying-car2.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It is fascinating to speculate on the possibilities of technological development. But the original question of this thread related to what ethical or moral considerations might be involved in this development. Regardless of how “real” a robot appears, I don’t think there is any moral problem in making such robots, unless the purpose of such a development is deception in order to take unfair advantage of someone. In that case the moral implications are the same as for any other, less technological, deception. The high technology factors really do not enter in to the question at all. If it is wrong to send someone a letter claiming to be someone who you are not, then it is wrong to make a robot deceive someone into thinking the robot is someone who it is not. If the deception is just part of an innocent game, then the moral problem is less serious, or non-existent.

Another possible moral question is what, if anything, we “owe” to a man-made intelligence. Note that in the sequel to 2001 a Space Odyssey (called 2010), Hal and Dave form a bond where Dave feels he owes Hal the kind of respect one would normally accord to a human. This is a mistake. There is no moral debt incurred toward a machine just because it mimics human intelligence. The only moral debt I can see is the normal responsibility to be good stewards of the resources entrusted to you. If you have the power to destroy a robot that is the result of expensive effort, then this would not be good stewardship, any more than going to Mount Rushmore and blasting away the faces carved in stone (supposing I purchased Mount Rushmore first). The respect is due to the craftsmen who labored over its construction, and to the meaning it has to millions of people, not to the thing itself.

Even when restricted to unintelligent machines, like old cars (pre-microprocessors), people sometimes develop a feeling of concern for the machine that goes beyond just the machine’s utility to us. These are feelings, not expressions of morality.

Actually, there is another set of moral questions that parallel these questions of robotic intelligence, and that is animal intelligence. It is generally recognized that to torture or kill unnecessarily an animal like a dog or a cat is immoral. However torturing or killing an earthworm is less serious. It seems that we recognize the immorality of animal cruelty to the extent that we recognize the similarity with us in intelligence and sentience. However none of these concerns rise to the same level as the moral problem in torturing or killing a human.

The problem is that the military will control the most advanced AI’s. They would be used for combat. Humanoid robot frames exist. Neural circuits are in development. One type of robot learns to a limited degree. Once the military is certain that an artificial intelligence can distinguish the enemy from not the enemy, a strike force will be sent ahead of human troops. These should be able to handle small arms fire and keep on functioning. No pain. No fear. The same is being planned with UAVs which are smaller and more stealthy than manned aircraft. Sweep in, do as much damage as possible, and follow up with manned fighter-bombers to take out targets that were not destroyed and targets of opportunity.

Eventually, the goal is to launch fully autonomous systems in the air and on the ground. No body bags, no grieving loved ones. War becomes images on a series of video screens at a remote command bunker. Mixed companies of human troops with robots on the perimeter, who never sleep or get bored, will secure the area. Mini-UAVs can scout ahead.

Peace,
Ed