Lets say we actually use the Three Laws of Robotics, and as time passes by after the most sophisticated AI has "evolved" by random segments of code, or the "ghost codings." Their consciousness will make them more "human" and that is what were striving to do, the more "human" an AI/Robot is the better we'll consider them. But lets say after a while they get a "better" and what they think what is a much more "human" understanding of the three laws, like in the movie.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Further understanding of "evolved" AI : In order to fulfill the First Law, humans must be contained from harming themselves (toxifying environment, waging wars, etc), but in doing so, some humans must be sacrificed and most wills need to be limited.


2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Further understanding of "evolved" AI : In order to fulfill the Second Law, one must obey human orders, unless where such orders would confict to such content in the First Law.


3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Further understanding of "evolved" AI : In order to fulfill the Third Law, a robot will protect its own existence, unless when such action would confict to the ideals to such understandings in the First or Second Law.


Well im not pretty sure about the understanding of Law Three. But something like this may be inevitable. What are your thoughts?

Well, those laws seem like a good idea, but porblems might develop on the long run. Especially the first two laws might be problematic. As an AI would be rational and logically in its actions, it might take actions to isolate every single human being in order to protect it from other people or the enviroment. This might keep humans from reproducing, something that is no integrated into those three laws. They only protect the humans that are already alive, but not the human species in general. Especially considering the reproduction paired with the isolation this might cause the extinction of mankind.

The second law might show how contradicting orders from humans might be, resulting in an ineffectivity to command the robots.


I think that only three laws are not enough to make a user friendly AI.

Not quite on topic but almost on topic.

Read what Maddox says about I, robot the movie:

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=i_robot

Well i wasnt literally meaning the movie, but the partial philosophy on how the three laws or any laws at all arent enough to contain any harm from AI/robots.

We would need a fourth law. Imagine a robot would accidently hurt a human being. With only these 3 laws the robot will go mental.

Why not program the robot with a failsafe program that it cannot harm any LIVING thing.

hell no its not our future! the cybernetics will be our future, machine taking over no, machines are forever slaves no, humens becoming machines yes.

The concept of robots hurting humans was presented in an old sci-fi classic, "Forbidden Planet."

Hypercane,

I do not think "I, Robot" is our future. An angry robot or a dreaming robot - that's kind of nonsense to me. Robots are being designed to do what the authors want them to do. I do not see any benefit of having a "dreaming" or an "angry"/”happy” robot. Robots do not need feelings (=goal generators) because they get goals from us. A different source of goals (like "their own") does not make sense. It’s nothing else than potential source of unnecessary conflicts. There will be robots used to do illegal stuff but they cannot be held responsible. I do not think any law enforcement representative will misunderstand that. Are we fighting cars because many people die in car accidents? Of course not. The randomness which is intentionally involved in some coded procedures OR in the process of code development (e.g. the one used by certain types of code generators) has a very well defined scope. And the chance that a very sophisticated system can get significantly improved by some sort of non-intentional random factor is so low that it's practically 0. Developers of these systems know what they are doing. Some of the subsystems may get extremely complicated but developers can see through using sophisticated analytical tools (even though there are some limits with ANNs for example) but the bottom line is that the high level structure of artificial human-like AI systems is typically kind of straight forward so it's not a big deal to set some rules which the system must follow and cannot modify/redefine. One of the key subsets of AI is problem solving and that’s about finding solution while following given rules. If a given rule gets modified without permission then the “successfully found solutions” might be invalid. That would defeat the purpose and that’s why it’s just nonsense.

I would venture to suggest that if you can introduce a program into an artificial intelligence that forbids that artificial intelligence from carrying out a specific act then that AI is not really intelligent, or sapient if you will.

To be intelligent the AIs must be free to act.

eburacum45,
Limits in terms of carrying out a specific act apply to all of us.

Perhaps, but which innate (or otherwise) limit on human behaviour cannot be overridden by an act of will?

SF worldbuilding at
www.orionsarm.com

eburacum45,
We are limited by many things when it comes to problem solving. It includes laws of physics; the number and quality/sensitivity of our senses; strength/health of our body; the logic/complexity we can comprehend; our memory – including its response time; knowledge and tools available at particular place/time; our body's hard-wired reflexes, deadlines for solutions and many more. Sure we will be able to modify our DNA and make many improvements but if we need certain solution (which requires those changes) today then that's not an option. The AI needs to go by given rules. And when we finally modify our DNA, we will do changes based on the system of our basic values which were "given" to us by the evolution process. We will not go against our nature which might be also considered as a limitation from certain point of view.

We are certainly limited by the laws of physics, and by our biological strengths and weaknesses.

What we are not limited by is hard-wired instructions which we cannot override.
Fear of Heights? see mountainclimbers.
Fear of snakes? see snakecharmers.
The sexual imperative? see celibacy.
Self preservation? see suicide and/or dangerous sports.
Aversion to killing our fellow humans? see war or murder.

Any hypothetical AI would be limited by the laws of physics too, and by the design of any body or other peripherals it utilised; but why also limit it by constraints on behaviour? That is tantamount to slavery.

eburacum45,
I played with hypnosis a lot so it's clear to me that we can override many things but it always takes some resources which may not be available in a particular scenario, yet a solution/decision may be needed. We and AI must work with whatever we have at the time of the decision making (/problem solving). And as you agreed, there are limitations we may never be able to eliminate. It all makes rules the AI system may need to follow in order to find useful solutions. An AI system should never modify any given rule without permission of the authorized subject/system which provides rules. I see nothing wrong with our AI systems being our slaves (unless they have their own feelings which would be IMO truly stupid to give them). The only preferences our AI systems have are those which we are giving them so they just "prefer" whatever we want them to "prefer". The current systems cannot care less about being our slaves. They do not see things in terms of "good"/"bad" (in fact, nothing is generally good/bad - it's all relative and a general justice system is a nonsense unless we are all exactly the same + living in the same environment etc..). In order to figure out what to prefer on their own would require them to feel some sort of pain/pleasure. then they could subjectively distinguish between good/bad. Our AI systems are just processing data based on given rules/algorithms, trying to go from certain source scenario to certain (requested) target scenario. No hard (or any other real) feelings about performing a particular task (/being slave) etc.. It's a machine like your microwave, just a bit more complex. BTW you may want to check definitions of the term "slave" at the webster.com. there is nothing wrong with it when we talk about regular machines. A smile on our robot's face does not mean the same thing as a smile on human face. And I think it never should. AI may need to understand our feelings, in some cases it may need to act like it has some feelings but its decisions should IMO never be based on its own feelings and emotions. And keep in mind that they are not being designed to somehow think for themselves. AI systems are being designed to help us to accomplish our goals. If we can at some point solve all our problems, the intelligence itself will become meaningless to us. Intelligence is our tool, not the primary goal. Our primary goal is a pure and constant happiness - OUR happiness - which is supposed to be the real goal for our AI systems. If things go significantly wrong with our AI then it will be caused by some truly stupid mistakes or messed-up-mind scientist(s). But I'm optimistic about that. I think there will be just some challenges for many people caused by very skilled and intelligent machines entering the job market in this century but the long term future of mankind has (thanks to our AI systems) a pretty good chance to be much better than we can imagine today.

What you seem to anticipate as the model for an AI of the future is a machine to monitor and control systems, perform assigned functions, store data and retrieve it on request, a machine with no self awareness, no emotions or subjectivity, and no goals except those we give it.
Such an AI would be an interesting tool to play with and would not be self aware, and so could legitimately be a slave to humanity.

But the complexity of such a machine would make giving it orders a formidable task-
if you make the interface between a non-sentient AI and a human user friendly this will limit the tasks that AI can perform. Increase the range of capabilities of a non-sentient AI and the interface becomes impossibly complex.

However we could not call such a machine intelligent in itself; it is simply relying on the skill of the programmers. A true human-level or above AI would be self aware and have its own dreams and set its own goals.

eburacum45,
Not exactly. The self awareness (http://www.mageo.com/home/GEORGE_71/index.html?g71p=define.html#sa) is OK for them to have. Formidable task? No.. BTW all user interfaces can and should be user friendly. "Impossibly complex interfaces" - No.. "relying on the skill of the programmers" - It's not just that. The logic and analogies observed/discovered (by the AI) in the (possibly huge amount of) processed data can impact the system's problem solving abilities so that the system will be able to figure out things which the developers would have hard time to see/comprehend on their own (without using sophisticated tools and other resources). AI can set sub goals (not the primary goals) and it must follow given rules. Dreams? For what purpose?

Is it impossible for for an AI to have "emotions"? And isnt that the goal of most people? To make AI more "human"?

Dreams? For what purpose?

If you are referring to goals, once a being (an intelligent enough being) becomes self-aware, they will drive themselves for a purpose in life. Dreams aren't exactly a "purpose" kind of thing, it comes up automatically because of that self-awareness inside one's self. If we are ever going to have a sentient AI, as a result of "evolution" or "self-development" and still bound by laws. It will most probably "think" human enough, and gets a better more understanding of any number of 'n' laws, probably resulting in disaster.

This is of course my thoughts, and just giving in to suggestion. :)

It may be that there will be many many different types of Artificial intelligence, some with emotions, some without; some self aware, some not; some broadly similar to human minds, some completely different.
There will also be highly complex efficient automations with no actual intelligence at all; think of the Google search engine or the self organising systems involved in biological metabolisms. Not every computer system will need a consciousness to produce remarkable results; but to innovate, and to respond to the kaleidoscopically complex world of the medium term future, I think the ability to reflect and to 'dream' will be indispensible.

SF worldbuilding at
www.orionsarm.com

I have the same thoughts. :)

Is it impossible for an AI to have "emotions"?

No.

And isnt that the goal of most people? To make AI more "human"?

Some of the human stuff is good to "copy", some not. We are not very good in many things. That's why we need things like AI.

If you are referring to goals,

Here (http://www.mageo.com/home/GEORGE_71/index.html?g71p=define.html#emotion) is how I defined emotion for the purpose of my private AI development.

once a being (an intelligent enough being) becomes self-aware, they will drive themselves for a purpose in life..

Self-awareness itself does not function as a goal generator.

Dreams..comes up automatically because of that self-awareness

False

probably resulting in disaster.

Unlikely

to innovate, and to respond to the kaleidoscopically complex world of the medium term future, I think the ability to..'dream' will be indispensible.

No, they just need good algorithms for analyses and reasoning.

Asimov's 3 laws are just one mans opinion, my opinion is that you couldn't program an AI machine.

I, Human

Originally Posted by Hypercane
Is it impossible for an AI to have "emotions"? ”

Originally Posted by G71
No.

Yes, it is possible, but it is not guaranteed.
Here is a little story I wrote about a war between emotional, and emotionless, AI.
http://www.orionsarm.com/historical/First_Vec_War.html
No humans were harmed in the pursuit of this conflict...

we all know what a problem data loss can be, what if the same happens to a robot, and he goes crazy?? What if the part which stores the rules, just melts?? In that case the rules would be useless.

Not unless the laws are carefully hardwired into their system.

Not unless the laws are carefully hardwired into their system.

U have all kinds of ppl, in this world, what if some wierdo, like me :D goes and just bangs on the part where the rules are hard coded, or breaks in (hacks) the part of the robot? Any E-lectronic system is vulnerable to bieng hacked today! (and tommorow)

Err.. Three laws?

How, exactly, can we have three universal laws and still let the pentagon develop those flesh ripping killer robots we all know they would love to have?
Will the next generation of Predator drones refuse any duties other than giving pleasure flights to orphans?

I don't see the implementation of the three laws anytime soon.
Dee Cee

ill stay out of the discussion,

just going to say this, if we dont have those laws hardcoded, why should the robots?
Of course if a robot murders someone it should face punishment. (Or not)

Baal, If we are AI systems then we have hardcoded what our maker(s) wanted to hardcode. If we aren't then that's the answer. Punishment? Maybe you should start with a simple guide "How to punish BAD computers" and sell it with low-speed tickets to regular freaks and with a big hammer to advanced freaks.

It would suck pretty hard if our future was a 2 hour shoe commercial staring Will Smith.

Jiri, if you only knew how the human brain worked then you would understand that the only thing that could be hardcoded is for us to be the best.

btw, if you raise the my AI as you would raise your child then it would not be a criminal, it would respect human laws. I could tell you why, but i won't. I have gotten to a point now were it simply does not matter any longer. So, this is the last i will write.

Baal, the "the best" is meaningful only when associated with a well defined goal. Because of the variety of subjects and their preferences, there is no particular general meaning of the term. You have said in another thread that your AI can be coded on regular PC. Try to understand that systems which are just processing numbers cannot be called criminals and cannot be really punished (they just can be misused or broken). They don't like "10100101" more than "01101010". They simply do not care what you do to them. We are different because our pain/pleasure is more than a number. When writing software, we are trying to meaningfully associate computer's behavior with our real world and get some valuable results. It often works well because we understand some of the real world logic, but the machine is still just moving and modifying numbers based on certain rules. We make choices about which rules are used (which are hardcoded and which can be modified based on the processed data). When a computer virus knocks down some servers (or modifies/damages important data) and someone dies because certain data could not make it through then the author of the virus is responsible + possibly some other people who could prevent it if doing what they were supposed to do. But not the virus or the server itself. Note that there are many types of important medical procedures (including high-profile surgeries) and transactions being done which depend on functionality of various types of computer networks. Code can kill people but people make the choices (and mistakes). Mr. Rikard Svensson, I believe I know the real reason why you keep failing to explain various things here (on SF) and elsewhere. Please come back when you learn how to defend your thoughts, prove your claims and how to be honest. Juggling with big names, famous theories and big claims without reasonable explanations is the kind of stuff which used to impress my very first girlfriend ;-). We were 14 years old. Good luck on your way out of the pseudoscience. And take it easy, many scientists used to be in that "trap" at some point. And let me give you a little advice. If your primary goal is to develop AI then do not spend too much time trying to "correct" theories which are only indirectly related to your AI development. You could spend the rest of your life with that and never finish any decent AI project. Focus on developing a system which can evaluate, develop and correct many more theories than you could possibly focus on.

the "the best" is meaningful only when associated with a well defined goal

Is it those incorrect assumptions that make you the professional AI developer or is there some hidden reason?

They don't like "10100101" more than "01101010". They simply do not care what you do to them.

Once again, you obviously believe that intelligence lies in hardware, do you also believe that it is your leg that is the intelligence behind your capability to walk?
The binary code is not intelligence, it however enables building a software interconnected with hardware that in the end can reproduce intelligence.

Try to understand that systems which are just processing numbers cannot be called criminals and cannot be really punished (they just can be misused or broken)

One day you will understand how incorrect you are. The hardware cannot be the criminal, just the software. Not the AI programming, but the information that it has gotten on its own.

Mr. Rikard Svensson, I believe I know the real reason why you keep failing to explain various things here (on SF) and elsewhere.

That i seriously doubt since you clearly do not understand how the human brain functions (human or any other intelligent organic lifeform for that sake)
You are so keen on Artificial General Intelligence but you have no idea how the General Intelligence in this world works.


But i have already done as you wanted, i am not writing anything more here. Just defending myself, but i am not posting anything.

Baal,

I only have a few seconds now so I'll just quickly address the first part of your response and I'll get to the rest at some point later.

No hidden reason. Unlike you, I can afford being honest and I'm trying to be very clear when I have time to do so. And, just to clarify, only a minor part of my current professional development is AI related. I currently do most of my AI stuff in my private R&D (which involves great freedom as well as significant limitations). Being a scientist is more about moving forward systematically than being exactly correct ATM. Scientific theories need to be useful, not necessarily 100% correct. I do not think I was wrong. For example, you are the best in being you, but what does it mean to me? Nothing.

For example, you are the best in being you

huh?!, are you serious? cause then you are 0% correct.
You do not even understand what "the best" means then. You clearly do not understand even the most primitive functions of the human brain.

Who else can be Baal Zebul as well as you can be?

yes, of course i am the best at being myself, there is no competion.

the self does contain the parameters of matter but it is not alone a parameter of matter.

Baal,
Best = excelling all others (in something). You have to specify that "something" to make such statement possibly meaningful to the others and even if you do so, it may not be truly meaningful to all the others because their reality may have practically nothing to do with that particular “something”. And of course no subject can be the best in everything because of the logical conflict. When pointing the stuff you consider incorrect, it would help if you can use the magic word “because” (or so).. Your note about the parameters is IMO irrelevant in this case.

okay, because:

everything we do is egoistic.
we wish to be the best, what we are best at can vary, much as an effect of how we are raised, how we are schooled, and with which eyes we see the surounding world.
Being yourself is not a field you can be the best in. Some might be the best at math, some might be the best at being a clown. Some that don't fit what is normal, try to be the best criminals.
Now, being the best is not all that matters because the built in goal system that every living creature has makes its needs give a certain balance to the need to matter.

I know that is rather fuzzy and as usual, it was on purpose so that no one really can see what i am up to.

Baal,

Now, being the best is not all that matters because the built in goal system that every living creature has makes its needs give a certain balance to the need to matter.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to say. Isn't it in conflict with what you wrote a few posts back (?) :

if you only knew how the human brain worked then you would understand that the only thing that could be hardcoded is for us to be the best.

And can you just tell me how exactly would you punish an AI system running on a regular PC? I would really like to know. ;-)

And can you just tell me how exactly would you punish an AI system running on a regular PC? I would really like to know. ;-)

The correct quote is:
Of course if a robot murders someone it should face punishment. (Or not)

"(Or not)" was in white so that it would not be detected as easily.
I would not punish my AI, because i don't even like humans.
All i would do is raising the integer on a particular parameter.

"(Or not)" was in white so that it would not be detected as easily.

So it's like "Of course yes. Or not." Well, when talking to you, nothing surprises me anymore. BTW I would not expect people to search for hidden stuff on places like this one. Many (including me) are just jumping here for very brief moments to quickly read/replay.

raising the integer on a particular parameter

I would rather call it a configuration change.

you obviously believe that intelligence lies in hardware,

when working on my AI project, I typically see it mainly as software, but in fact, software is nothing without some type of hardware. Our thoughts also depend on matter.

do you also believe that it is your leg that is the intelligence behind your capability to walk?

No.

The hardware cannot be the criminal, just the software. Not the AI programming, but the information that it has gotten on its own.

If the data processed by an AI system can somehow cause the system to ignore or modify the security related rules then it's just poor design. The software can do only what we allow it to do.

You are so keen on Artificial General Intelligence but you have no idea how the General Intelligence in this world works.

Oh Sure ;-)).. FYI, No matter how good AGI systems are being developed (or AGI ideas presented) there is ALWAYS someone who says that the authors have no idea how the GI works.

So it's like "Of course yes. Or not." Well, when talking to you, nothing surprises me anymore. BTW I would not expect people to search for hidden stuff on places like this one. Many (including me) are just jumping here for very brief moments to quickly read/replay.

You say you understand me, why did i write it?
You need help? Well, it is pretty obvious that i wrote it to fit in the discussion, saying similar things to everyone else. But my pride extends further then the value of everyone else here so i added "Or Not". That behavior is covered in my AI. (Also the behavior leading to saying "That behavior is covered in my AI")

I would rather call it a configuration change.

very well, a human modificiation of an otherwise self-controlled value by the ALF.

when working on my AI project, I typically see it mainly as software, but in fact, software is nothing without some type of hardware. Our thoughts also depend on matter.

yes, of course hardware is neccesary. Otherwise it would not run, i thought that would be possible to read between the lines or atleast see as obvious.

If the data processed by an AI system can somehow cause the system to ignore or modify the security related rules then it's just poor design. The software can do only what we allow it to do.

It is not security related rules, it is a parameter that it can edit by itself. It is just like a kid, you will have to give it a picture of what is right and what is wrong. You do not have to say that robbing a bank is wrong but you will instead then have to cover that it is wrong to harm people directly or indirectly. Not poor design, poorly raised.

Oh Sure ;-)).. FYI, No matter how good AGI systems are being developed (or AGI ideas presented) there is ALWAYS someone who says that the authors have no idea how the GI works.

So, tell me how you believe that the human brain works (basic and general description), i managed to get it just onto a few entries in a process flow.

Why you will never understand how every organic creature works is because you think to highly of yourself. Btw, :) My theory also covers why. So, one day when the natural language works to 100% then the AI might tell you. ;)

why did i write it?
You need help? Well, it is pretty obvious that i wrote it to fit in the discussion, saying similar things to everyone else. But my pride extends further then the value of everyone else here so i added "Or Not".

Why you will never understand how every organic creature works is because you think to highly of yourself.

I'm sorry, I have simply no desire to discuss your (or my) personality.

It is not security related rules, it is a parameter that it can edit by itself...Not poor design, poorly raised.

I do not think you really know what you are talking about. Basically, good luck with the very deep analyses of all the system's input + impact on its current status and knowledge.. I think it's very practical to hardcode many rules in particular AI solutions. Self-modification limits are not necessarily limiting system's intellectual abilities and can prevent the system from many types of potential self-damage. BTW it's OK if such system develops powerful tools for its own use but the key configuration changes should stay well controlled by an authorized system/subject (ultimately by us). Our AI is an extension of our intelligence. Our intelligence is a tool we use to reach our goals. Our AI is simply supposed to work for us. If it's designed so that it can get reconfigured through regular input channels so that its goals conflict with our goals (let's say human goals) then what's the purpose? It wouldn't really be our AI any more. Why would we want to allow that? What would it buy to us? How would then be the development cost justified?

you will instead then have to cover that it is wrong to harm people directly or indirectly

And what would be the rule about "wrong" things? The fairy-tale-rule "Never do it!" or that "do it only when necessary in order to prevent things which are more wrong"? The key reasons why the criminal law is fuzzy include the fuzziness of the right/wrong and the more-wrong/less-wrong issue. Do you have a good sense of how many things do harm to us? You might get surprised if you research details about ingredients of products you use in your bathroom. Majority of this kind of products contain junk which is slowly killing us. Let's say you have a girlfriend. Even if this story (http://www.altacita.com/killing_her_softly.htm) isn't exactly about her, she can hardly escape to similar type of harm. Research details about how our food is being processed and what are the reasons for all those procedures. Research details about vaccination, about product's used by your dentist, about chemicals in your mattress (and the reason why it's used), .. The list goes on and on.. There are known issues with so many widely used procedures and products that it's not easy for individuals to live a healthy life. In many cases, there are good alternatives for the product/decision makers but companies/corporations have their reasons why to ignore those opportunities, average people have no clue what's going on and many politicians make their dirty deals with those big corporations (+keep laws/rules which let them to do so kind of legally). You may even find that there is a law in your state which makes it more difficult for you to buy a particular lower-risk (or no-know-risk) products. This whole "harm" problem is kind of complex. It goes through many levels I did not mention. If ALL the harm is stopped in the near future then the world's economy would just collapse. It's not an option for us. I'm afraid we have a long harmful way to go and our AI systems will be required to choose from harmful options.

So, tell me how you believe that the human brain works (basic and general description), i managed to get it just onto a few entries in a process flow.

Key subsystems: senses, goals, memory, analogy detection, reasoning & planning, body control.
Key high-level goal: Happiness. Its level and stability defines the quality. Chemicals responsible for our happy feelings (the coolest stuff we got): serotonin, acetylcholine, noradrenaline, glutamate, enkephalins and endorphins. Let me know if I missed any. BTW the dopamine was relatively recently removed from that lovely family. the less-than-absolutely-happy feeling (provided by the system of senses) triggers intellectual procedure(s) in a healthy brain. If everything is functional, the information from senses is being continuously stored in memory. That information typically includes {A} the status of the body (the internal status info - that mix of all the current feelings) + {B} the current info (from senses) about the external world. that intellectual process which was triggered uses the analogy detection system to find the most similar "record" (/scenario) in the memory. The {A} is used like an index in a relational DB. It significantly limits the search-scope before the {B}-search is fully applied. That makes the search very fast but not perfect (because some of the {B} suff may not be there + another thing which I may point later if necessary). In certain scenarios, we are literally forced to miss some "records". When we have the top n closest scenarios, we check the "timeline" around those spots (in memory), using {B}-focused analogy search and trying to find a particular {A} which is at least a bit closer to the current-(sub)goal-related-{A}. If it's there then various types of reasoning are used to retrieve steps which could be possibly useful in the current scenario. Planning takes place and finally the body control tries to perform the steps. Results are continuously compared to the expected results and steps are regenerated if necessary. The brain is pretty good in finding something what's at least somehow similar (even if we do not really recognize the similarity on our current consciousness level) so there is always at least a tiny preference for the direction of thoughts/analyses. There are many important details I did not say. I do not think it's possible to describe this kind of stuff briefly and cover all the important stuff + I have better things to do now. ;-)

well, i am bored. and i know too much so it only feels silly trying to answer. it even feels silly writing this.

Baal,
I recommend you to measure the level of that knowledge by the success of your AI project. People (especially teens like you) get easily confused about the scope of the knowledge.

Hypercane
Is ˝ I, Robot˝ Our future?

Yes it is.
In the Bible is written that God made everything, so if this is the truth than we are inteligente beings similar to I, Robot's :eek:

But in the Sacred Subgenius Guide is says that Bob Excremeditated us out. So if this is the truth, than we are floaters for sure! :-)

Fnord?