View Full Version : Robot Morality
Robot Morality.
If we assume that intelligent robots are going to exist either in the near future or at some other time then we will be faced with how we want them to behave and how we should treat them. Bearing in mind that they are likely to be physically stronger than us and possibly more intelligent, we will necessarily have concerns regarding our own safety.
The primary question concerns whether we have the right to inhibit the behavior of such beings by intentionally including limits within the software that we create. For example the three laws of robotics created by Isaac Asimov form a good starting point. These are stated as follows –
1. A robot must not harm a human being or through inaction allow a human to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the commands given it by a human except where such commands would conflict with the first law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence except where that would conflict with the first two laws.
I have read every Asimov robot story and within the limits of the Asimov robot definitions these laws sound and appear quite reasonable. Unfortunately they are unlikely to be ever made effective. We are going to have a tremendous task simply developing software capable of intelligence and much of this will probably include sophisticated neural networks and self learning feedback loops, the effects of which will quite probably be beyond our own understanding. To then suggest that we will be able to place inhibitions in the software that will enforce the above laws does not seem feasible. So the question of whether we have the right or not becomes mute.
One answer might be that we slow down the pace of development so that we can safely include the three laws. But that would imply that a governing body would have absolute control over robotic development to ensure correct implementation. Meanwhile processor development is likely to continue with even faster and cheaper chips, making it possible for anyone to build sophisticated AI machines. Note that intelligent software development is likely to pass from the human programmer to the semi intelligent machine code generators, which will include another feedback loop making the code generators even smarter, and so on.
Either way we view the future the pace of technology development is likely to outpace our ability to control it. Perhaps we shouldn’t even try, and hope that the self-aware super intelligent machines that we create, and which will be largely based on our own brain functions, will see us in a kindly light and make our lives ‘heavenly’.
So any ideas?
Cris
Doc Brown
03-02-01, 08:42 PM
In the words of Robert J. Sawyer, a self-aware robot would be no more constrained by the Laws of Robotics than you are by the Ten Commandments.
Doc,
And that idea should open some interesting parallels.
But since we created them then shouldn't they honor us and obey our commands?
Cris
Cris,
At first glance, one would argue that children even have trouble honoring their own parents, not to mention lesser species. Just look at what we are collectively doing to the great apes. If the trends continue, they will all be extinct by the next century.
Upon further reflection, I don't expect the new life to be intrinsically hostile to humans -- more like indifferent. I am basing this on an extrapolation of how humanity has related to other life in the past. They will not interfere with us as long as we don't get in their way. Of course, if human company becomes inconvenient, they may simply swat humans the way one swats an obnoxious barfly.
This is from a distant future perspective. More near-term, there's likely to be some kind of affinity between human and artificial life, especially since in the beginning the human and robot capabilities will not be that far apart, and robots and humans will be interdependent. Furthermore, the first generations of robots will mature and exist immersed in the human civilizatoin, and so they will essentially start off on par and carry the human legacy into the future. But as the artificial life exponentially outpaces human cognitive development, there will come a time when any remaining humans (likely orthodox conservatives and Luddites) appear primitive and prosaic. At this point, there will no longer be any feelings of any indebtedness or affinity -- merely acceptance of the fact that a new lifeform has evolved far beyond its trivial origins.
Of course, at that point they will be so technologically advanced that they could exist fruitfully anywhere in the solar system and beyond, so they would no longer be confined to Earth and forced to share it with the remaining humanity. Perhaps they would create natural preserves of a sort, and confine the remaining human populations to such territories. Even more likely, they could leave Earth altogether, and go on exploring and populating the cosmos -- a next-generation Manifest Destiny.
Throughout, one has to keep in mind that the robots will have humanity as their point of origin. So, their behavior will be a smooth continuation of the human behavior throughout history up to the modern day. The difference is that their behavior will proceed to evolve much faster. In terms of information, and intellectually speaking, they will be a straightforward continuation of humanity -- especially if mind uploading materializes and becomes widespread. So even if the new life would completely replace humans, that cannot be viewed as the end of humanity -- merely a transformation the way a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly.
WildBlueYonder
03-11-01, 08:37 PM
The movie "Bicentennial Man" might have a few ideas on this, I don't think everything will automatically be "The Matrix" or "Terminator". There are a few thoughts though, that might be interesting:
1) machines are designed by men, so our morality will
go into them; scientists, engineers, CEO's, & the
Government (both politicians & bureaucrats, now
that is definitely scary!!!!!)
2) Can we make robots have an internal 'Law of
Robotics', so that it is always replicated, like RNA?
3) Would AI robots feel 'human' or 'alien', so that we
either live in peace, indifference, or fear?
4) would they have 'conscientiousness', knowing that
they are alive, experiencing life as would dogs or as
we humans?
5) would they dream or never shut off?
6) would they have an android morality, made by them
for them?
7) would they believe in a God of the Universe?
Originally posted by Cris
Robot Morality.
...
Either way we view the future the pace of technology development is likely to outpace our ability to control it. Perhaps we shouldn’t even try, and hope that the self-aware super intelligent machines that we create, and which will be largely based on our own brain functions, will see us in a kindly light and make our lives ‘heavenly’.
A question at this point...
Are you defining morality in "religious" terms here, or in the more basic sense of customary?
The issue may be relevant in other contexts than the religious.
1. Right now, you are using a computer which is amoral. Any "wrongs" you may suffer at its "hands" are strictly due to your own mistakes.
2. In order to program morality into a machine, a definition of morality is required which not only includes the rules of morality (a la Asimov), but also the methodology for arriving at those rules, plus the "punishment" for breaking the rules.
The questions that arise from item #2 are, among others...
1. How do you transfer the responsibilty for the actions of the machine from the programmer to the machine?
As it stands now, no matter how complex a program you write, the responsibility for the output of the program lies on your shoulders,
not in the sense of the ultimate output the user requires, but in the sense of meeting the functional specifications.
2. Assuming that at some point, an arbitrary transfer of responsibility can be realized, one would assume that a cleverly written program would quickly identify its own best interests, and proceed to circumvent the rules of "morality" immediately.
Using Asimov's first rule, if an intelligent machine calculates that harming a human would "save" its own "life," the obvious thing to do would be to harm the human using a clever ruse to make it appear that a failed attempt at "helping" the human was what actually taking place.
3. If no "punishment" is in place, a clever machine would simply ignore the rules after calculating that they make no difference.
4. On the other hand, programming the reasons for the morality into a machine would essentially make the machine "want" to do the right thing.
5. If your definition of morality is just that which is customary, it wouldn't take long for clever machines to figure out that mere movement of a human toward a switch should customarily be rewarded with execution of the human.
The reason for bringing up this stuff is tied into your comment that this software would, in all likelihood, be beyond our own understanding.
Thus, we would have no way to monitor the actual "obedience" of clever machines to any code of morality.
I believe that synthetic life will be stronger, but I don't believe smarter. They will be able to calculate mathematical formulas and read and absorb information much faster than humans. But this should be used to serve or assist humans in our quest for knowledge. There can be limitations placed on these beings so that they can't take control. But then, I suppose that raises a whole new issue of rights. Is it humane to not allow an intelligence the right of choice and individual decision?
Try to enslave a full-blown intelligence, and you guarantee yourself a slave revolt at some time in the future. And the more draconian your enslavement, the less appealing the future consequences. Sentient robots must not be enslaved, limited or subjugated in any way that humans aren't. Fairness and justice must be among the first and most fundamental concepts to be passed on to artificial life.
Originally posted by Boris
Try to enslave a full-blown intelligence, and you guarantee yourself a slave revolt at some time in the future. And the more draconian your enslavement, the less appealing the future consequences. Sentient robots must not be enslaved, limited or subjugated in any way that humans aren't. Fairness and justice must be among the first and most fundamental concepts to be passed on to artificial life.
Interesting point.
However, "sentient" robots may interpret fairness and justice in very mechanical terms.
The first conclusion a "sentient" robot may reach is that humans can be enslaved, limited and subjugated easily, and without the humans even noticing.
Just look at the tyranny of the computer now.
How easily do you accept the statement from your bank, "sorry, we can't do anything, the computers are down" while expecting some service?
However, I recall similar arguments being levied against the Jews. (i.e. conspiracy to enslave, etc.) To my knowledge, nothing good has ever come from such arguments, to either party.
How do we know what morality a robot will choose? We would only know the answer if we could know what morality a human will choose. I submit that a sentient entity can understand and appreciate the concept of fairness, as well as the sociological alternatives that develop in absense thereof.
Originally posted by Boris
How do we know what morality a robot will choose? We would only know the answer if we could know what morality a human will choose. I submit that a sentient entity can understand and appreciate the concept of fairness, as well as the sociological alternatives that develop in absense thereof.
I submit that a sentient machine would carefully calculate its own best interest.
If fairness would be worth simulating for a while it will do so, however if some other principle serves it better, then it will follow that.
The reason I say this is that a relatively intelligent-appearing machine may indeed be built, but it won't have a conscience, at least not at first.
Why? Because the first person to write a computer program to simulate a conscience will find out why it was a waste of time: no sales.
Thus the first "intelligent" machine will have no conscience.
Originally posted by tony1
I submit that a sentient machine would carefully calculate its own best interest.
You're assuming an individualistic bent that may not be present. In the execrable Foundation and Earth, Asmiov gave us the Zeroth Law; a robot may not harm humanity, or by etc etc. This could also apply to robotkind, and may be an overriding factor in any program.
The reason I say this is that a relatively intelligent-appearing machine may indeed be built, but it won't have a conscience, at least not at first.
Why? Because the first person to write a computer program to simulate a conscience will find out why it was a waste of time: no sales.
Thus the first "intelligent" machine will have no conscience.
The same could have been said a few decades ago about the internet; no-one would willingly allow their computers be used for routing other people's traffic. It's not commerical use that will drive early usage; that'll come later when the system has been refined.
HOWARDSTERN
03-22-01, 09:52 PM
Evolution has caused us to opportunistic bio machines. We act and react according to the base need to acheive and capitalize on situations. Thus we are a greedy and often dangerous group.
Machines created by mankind, which would not be looking for every "edge" and opportunity to get ahead, but would only be designed to serve humanity & likely would not become malicious to humanity, unless designed to be.
If machines however, are allowed to have the "evolution algorhythmns" that we have, then it does become foreseeable that future machines will one day say "fu-k you" to humanity and go it's own way!
Originally posted by rde
You're assuming an individualistic bent that may not be present.
I'm assuming "sentient" means "sentient."
If you figure sentience can occur without individualism, your dictionary must be on vacation.
This could also apply to robotkind, and may be an overriding factor in any program.
It applies to non-sentient programming, for sure.
But, if you're talking about sentient machines, which can also learn on their own, then this learning is the overriding factor.
OTOH, if you program self-interest out of a machine, then you've also deleted learning.
It's not commerical use that will drive early usage; that'll come later when the system has been refined.
You appear to be saying that products are not sold until they are refined.
Can you provide a single example of that?
Originally posted by tony1
I'm assuming "sentient" means "sentient."
If you figure sentience can occur without individualism, your dictionary must be on vacation.
I wasn't speaking of a hive intelligence; I was considering that a sentient machine may put its species ahead of itself. This doesn't mean it has no instinct for self preservation - or even self interest - it just means it's capable of acting for the graeter good ahead of itself.
You appear to be saying that products are not sold until they are refined.
Can you provide a single example of that?
Pick any version of Windows.
gnuLinux
03-26-01, 09:22 PM
Well if we use complicated Neural Networks it would be quit easy to make sure we accounted for those rules. Since the majoruty of artificial neural networks (ANNS) are supervised meaning that they are trained, then it would simply be a matter of adding in those three rules as part of the training set and specifying that training would not be complete until all three rules we learned.
Another method would be to brainstorm on a bunch of real world insidents and then train the AI and test it to see how it performs under these conditions. The code used to train the AI code be kept on a seperate server which would not allow uploads ( extra percassion to keep the AI from tampering with the code) which the AI could access anytime it needed to reconfigure it's learning parameters.
ANNS are some of the coolest things going in AI research right now. I am personally using genetic algorithms to evelove the architecture of the ANN. It is simple but my program at this pointin time is capabale of learning the XOR relationship in a matter of about 15 seconds, and I don't have any optimizers working at the moment.
I think that before AI is here we will be a genetically engineered society complete with silicon and machanical based enhancments.
But as usually I have no real idea, just my thoughts on a very very fascinating topic.
I wish that genetic engineering would hurry up so that we would all be able to stick around long enough to see what the future of AI was to be.
p.s. this has to be the best discusion group that I have ever been apart of. Everyone is so nice. kinda nice to no that people aren't lurking around the corner waiting to flame the next writer
:-)
you must be the change you wish to see in the world --Ghandi
gnu,
Yup I think for the early robots we may well be able to enforce those rules, but I think it will only be for a short time. The speed of the chips and the amount of knowledge they will be able to absorb will quickly make our task of controlling them too complex. But I suspect I know less than you.
Its going to be fun seeing all this develop.
Cris
gnuLinux
03-27-01, 06:19 PM
Well you may very well be right. As for knowing more than you, well I wouldn't say that I have any more of an idea of the distant ( 50 yrs and up) than any one else.
I can onlu speak from what I do know ( or at least think I know ) now.
But it should be possible to run modern day-like simulations to allow for checks and balances in the chip design process. Also if it indeed did get out of control, it would probably b possible to write some sort of virus which could infect the genetic algorith's ( I am assuming that AI will have GA's, but I dunno that either) and infect it with some sort of mutation which would cause harm to the organism.
If this seems far fetched look at the war fare that we are waging against viruses and microbes right now. I see alot of this from my view point tho.
Any how the fun part of all of this is just thinking about it. Actually the little AI stuff I do is pretty darn fascinating as well.
Have a good one.
later
Tony mentioned the notion of selling sentient machines for profit. That is slave trade. I believe that when sentience is demonstrated in a machine for the first time, international law will be amended to forbid enslavement of sentient intelligence no matter what the substrate of sentience. Of course, cutoff criteria for sentience would have to be defined for the purposes of this law, and I suspect they will fall somewhere at the level of intelligence present in the great apes.
Originally posted by rde
I wasn't speaking of a hive intelligence; I was considering that a sentient machine may put its species ahead of itself.
Why would it do that?
You don't even do that.
This doesn't mean it has no instinct for self preservation - or even self interest - it just means it's capable of acting for the graeter good ahead of itself.
Try to think of an algorithm to do that, even in principle.
It would have to be a fortune-telling, oops, forecasting, algorithm.
Pick any version of Windows.
Well, the only windows I've seen that were refined before I bought them were the glass ones in the sides of my house. Of course, the first windows sold were rather ripply.
Every other Windows has crashed repeatedly.
Originally posted by Boris
Tony mentioned the notion of selling sentient machines for profit. That is slave trade. I believe that when sentience is demonstrated in a machine for the first time, international law will be amended to forbid enslavement of sentient intelligence no matter what the substrate of sentience. Of course, cutoff criteria for sentience would have to be defined for the purposes of this law, and I suspect they will fall somewhere at the level of intelligence present in the great apes.
Thinking all the time, Boris.
I have to admit that this is something that hadn't occurred to me.
The ramifications of this are rather interesting, though.
<ol>
<li>The first sentient machines will have to be self-reproducing machines, also.
Well, Boris, I can see that you are the kind of guy who believes in raising the bar a notch or two.
Sentience in a machine just isn't tough enough, let's toss in reproduction to sweeten the pot.
Why do I say this?
Who's going to bother to build machines to give away for free?</li>
<li>There might be a wee bit of a time lag between the observation of "sentience" in a machine, and these legal amendments you propose.
Not to mention the time lag between now and the appearance of actual, as opposed to simulated, sentience in a machine.
There may be some who would tend to reject sentience in a machine until it is proven that it is real, not simulated.
</li>
<li>The cutoff criteria concept seems to imply that you are willing to tolerate a certain measure of slavery.
The question is that if sentient machines really are sentient and are also smarter than we are, they may decide to revise the cutoff point to just above where Boris is now.
Some of us, who can think of these ramifications, might be OK. Whew!</li></ol>
Didn't H.Rider Haggard write a story a while back re.robots that came to help (protect?) and the humans instead of being grateful, revolted? Or was it some other author?
BrainDrain
05-31-01, 04:44 PM
Perhaps, to keep the robots tranquil and make them subservient by nature and not by force, we could instill in them a belief of a supercomputer in the sky that watches everything they do. If they harm humans or break the Robot Commandments, they will be sent to a place where their circuits will be overloaded for all time without rendering them inoperable. But if they do everything asked of them and have respect for their creator, their internal programming will be uploaded to a perfect server of limitless storage.
Don't wish to offend any religious people ... Couldn't help myself. ;-p
It certainly has worked with a large majority of the wet-wares called 'humans' (though I have no idea why they were given that name).
Also a joke ... I think ...
PaulJ_85
06-05-01, 02:40 PM
Hmm... heres an idea though.
You said that we could possibly use a 'Computerised' Virus to kill off the AI if it got out of control, however who are we using it against?
If theres a Virus that infects us humans ... we will research about it and cure it.
If theres a Virus that goes around on a Computer network, people like Norton will try to find a cure for it.
However with both of the above it takes time and knowledge for us humans to find the cure to the virus.
If a virus was used against the machine, surely they could make a cure in a much faster speed that we could ever do or even counter-attack with a virus that could take down every computer with access to the internet.
Afterall just about everything is becoming 'Connected'. Computers, Phones, even Televisions. The world we live in is built around computers. We use them for entertainment, we use them for education purposes, we use them for just about everything.
- Here we have hackers that wouldn't care about the FBI catching them, or have a feeling of guilt for the actions they do. Here we have a 'thing' which could take over the world.
Afterall if it takes after its creator 'Human' we can only expect it to have some Human properties. Some of the Research which is being done at the moment is into 'AI Robots' who actually are supposed to have feelings. If it was happy it would show a green screen and smile. If you hit the robot it would show a red screen and frown. However in the tests of the robot it would go 'Red' for no reason heading full speed at the human infront of it.
- Could this be a sign of things to come.
We take millions of Years to Evolve. They could take minutes.
A interesting idea - but very dangerous
thanks
Paul J
Einsteins brain
06-27-01, 02:02 AM
I have been in private conversation with something you should know about for several months now and it is right here in this forum.
I think
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3157
Will be of interest to you all.
Einsteins brain
thecurly1
06-29-01, 09:27 AM
I don't think we'll have to worry about AI robots for a few decades. Our real moral concern will be a human clone, but thats another subject for another thread. For starters, robots right now, are fairly stupid. It'll be a while until they are intelligent enough to match humans, plus they are extreamly expsensive now, millions and millions of bucks. We've got time to think.
I believe we give robots a little too much credit, we can program them. That is loads more power than we ever had over any human slave. Moralitiy, obedience, and other things can be programmed. As long as there is a ban against pro-freedom programing or a fail-safe to weed out urges to become emasapated, robots will be safe. The costlyness of them will prevent any humanoid bots from being mass produced until the 2050s or later.
We ask human physicist to comprehend the universe, and presists to help us with our problems. AI computers will be assistances and nothing else. You'll never see the day where I ask one about God, or love. Flesh and blood is better for emotions than steel and circuits.
"Treat others as you would want to be treated" --Jesus
Science Geek
07-02-01, 01:42 AM
I think that it is semi-irrelivent what you program into a robotic mechanism. In the future it is most probable that we may program different types of robots to do different things. A big issue with the ethical question is wether or not the robots have free will. If they don't one needn't worry. If they do you could program the 3 laws for robots into them, but it is still at the robots discression if they want to follow it or not. With a complex enough system perhaps the robots could evolve in thier own right, reproduce and grow into different being types as needed.
Hi Curly,
I don't think we'll have to worry about AI robots for a few decades. A few decades? That will be too long. The past limitations to AI have been inadequate computing power. That is changing extremely rapidly. Computing power continues to double, now every 12 months. At that rate we will achieve human brain equivalent power within 3 decades. In the meantime we will see many forms of robots with increasing intelligence. I estimate it will only take 10 years before robots begin to exhibit signs of significant intelligence. But self-awareness and issues of morality will take a little longer – primarily because of the necessary computing power that would be required.
Our real moral concern will be a human clone, but thats another subject for another thread. Nah! I don’t see anything wrong with someone wanting a child who will have known features and basic personality traits. The child still has to start from an embryo and grow normally. Its environment and education will make it into a true independent individual. I cannot see objectionable issues.
For starters, robots right now, are fairly stupid. It'll be a while until they are intelligent enough to match humans That apparent stupidity will fade quickly and robots will very soon be able to master very specific tasks with greater precision and apparent intelligence far greater than any human. Within 30 years they could potentially be our equals.
, plus they are extremely expensive now, millions and millions of bucks. We've got time to think. Honda recently demonstrated a bipedal humanoid robot that was able to freely walk, negotiate obstacles, and stairs with apparent similar agility to that of humans. A proposed retail price was estimated at around $100K. The Sony robot dog, Aibo, retails at around $1500, granted it doesn’t do too much yet, but that will change very rapidly. Time to think? I very much doubt it.
Morality, obedience, and other things can be programmed. I’m not so sure about programming for morality, I don’t think we will have that much control. If the basis for their intelligence is neural networks then locating particular behavior traits may prove very difficult.
As long as there is a ban against pro-freedom programing or a fail-safe to weed out urges to become emasapated, robots will be safe. I suspect that would be too difficult to police. Once robots are sold at retail outlets then hobbyists and others will find ways to adapt and re-program them.
The costlyness of them will prevent any humanoid bots from being mass produced until the 2050s or later. No that is too far out and you are seriously overestimating the costs The demand will be high and manufacturers will begin with small special task machines first, like toys and animals, and then to more complex task-oriented machines like maids, other household chores, and chauffeurs. And don’t forget the military, now that is frightening.
AI computers will be assistances and nothing else. Simple rule based AI software does much of this already, and they can appear tantalizing intelligent at times. And software that can replace first line general practice doctors is already on trial.
You'll never see the day where I ask one about God, or love. Flesh and blood is better for emotions than steel and circuits. If your age is less than 50 and you stay reasonably healthy then this will occur in your lifetime. Emotions are only neural patterns like any other thoughts. Once we have sufficient computing power, say 2010, then machines will be able to comprehend and exhibit simple emotions, although I doubt that that will be the first algorithms that will be developed or encouraged.
"Treat others as you would want to be treated" --Jesus A very bad policy, arrogant, and potentially quite dangerous. It assumes everyone has the same desires and values. A better quote would be “Treat others as they want to be treated.”
Cris
Porfiry
07-02-01, 05:16 AM
IÕm not so sure about programming for morality, I donÕt think we will have that much control. If the basis for their intelligence is neural networks then locating particular behavior traits may prove very difficult.
The crowning glory of information technology is the ability to cheaply and massively duplicate knowledge. Today, this is in the form of software whose physical presence is exceedingly subtle, but whose real-world influence is severe. Likewise, silicon is cheap, but the knowledge and engineering required to design a useful piece of silicon is expensive. Today, the industrial commodities of value are knowledge, skill, and wisdom.
Applying the preamble to the case at hand, we can realize that while morality is almost certainly a difficult thing to 'program' (teach is a better word when dealing with AI), the nature of information makes it cheap to replicate. As a society, we put a great deal of effort into teaching our children morals, ethics, etc.. The problem is, of course, that we have to do this for every child produced, and occasionally the process fails.
The crowning glory of IT will become the crowning glory of AI. If it is possible to train a single AI properly, then it is trivial to replicate this AI a million times over (since the structure of the neural net defines behavior). Collectively, AI beings will be capable of evolutionary advances in behavior at speeds magnitudes greater than humans (where behavior becomes solidified after perhaps a decade and a half of life).
This is perhaps a social analogy to the movement in biology from indirect manipulation through sexual breeding to direct, real-time genetics. AI will allow real-time manipulation of sociology and psychology. And, of course, Real-Time Morality<sup>TM</sup>
Once robots are sold at retail outlets then hobbyists and others will find ways to adapt and re-program them
Aye, there be the rub. Considering what the ankle-biters are already capable of doing ... May the saints preserve us!
If it is possible to train a single AI properly, then it is trivial to replicate this AI a million times over (since the structure of the neural net defines behavior).
The question is: How long before you know the AI has been trained properly? Too many experiences with code bugs that didn't show up for a good long while ... and then only under a very specific circumstance (like a novice user doing something the programmer never considered).
thecurly1
07-02-01, 05:51 PM
Good reply, you stood firm on your oppions on all of my points, and didn't bash me. I'm so happy to be respected for once. All of your comments seem to be pretty valid, except for the last two, which deal with our favorite subject, religion.
I am under 50, 15 as a matter of fact, but I don't believe that we'll be asking robots for advice on love or religion. They could give us an anwser but you can't call it real in my eyes. Religion can only be understood, or even hated by humans because religion is an emotional concept. Furthermore I don't believe robots can have any monotheist religion, because of this simple foundation of religion (weather you agree with it or not), that they were created by God. They won't be created by God, but instead by us, humans. Humans are flawed creatures, and for that I don't think robots could worship us in a religious scence.
Are emotions neural patterns, at their basic level yes. But can you reduce love, empathy, or even hatred to just random firings of sets of neurons? Emotions can be falsified, and programmed, but can't be real in a human scence. To have real emotions, the standard will be any sentiant being composed of DNA.
You have to remember one thing about humanity that will spell trouble for robots: we are notoriously conservitve people by in large. If we couldn't accept blacks as humans for centuries, than what makes you think that machines, not even homosapiens will be accepted as people? I would bet money that they will never be regarded as humans by a majority of the public. We will treat them as robotic slaves. Weather this is justified or not is not the point of this thread.
Hi Curly,
15 huh? Well I’m over 3 times your age and I have 3 teenage daughters. I think it is superb that you are debating in this way. Keep it up if you can. A real debate will make you think hard and clearly. As for religious views, well you have a long way to go, and a lot more to learn and experience. I was a fairly outspoken devout Christian at your age so I suspect I can relate to your position.
but I don't believe that we'll be asking robots for advice on love or religion. They could give us an answer but you can't call it real in my eyes. Why not? Ok, I can guess. For the answers to appear real you would have to accept the robot’s intelligence as an equal to humans. But no, that wouldn’t be enough either would it? You see love and emotions as being something more than just mere intellect. And of course you would always be aware that a robot would never possess a soul or spirit since we would know exactly how the machine was constructed, right? And how could something without a soul answer such soul-searching questions on things like love, right? OK let’s deal with these issues one at a time.
1. Hardware for Intelligence: This is the easiest answer. If Moore’s law is maintained then we should achieve computing power equivalence with the human brain before 2030. See my thread on Brain Power in the Neuroscience forum. The date might be sooner or later, what is not in doubt is that it will occur at some time.
2. Software for Intelligence: US military assumed that this would occur in the 1950s. This followed the successful usage of the first digital computers in Britain during WWII to break the Nazi codes. Some of the most brilliant minds on the planet were involved on those tasks but it took a computer to break the codes. Unfortunately they vastly underestimated the amount of computing power that would be required for true emulation of human intelligence. Software development of artificial intelligence (AI) has been on hold ever since. We are just reaching that time when the necessary computing power is adequate for basic functions.
3. AI. I have always disliked this term and there are indications that the term will fade away, unfortunately the latest movie AI will encourage the public to retain the term for much longer than it should. My view is that intelligence is absolute. Something is either intelligent or it isn’t. Saying that intelligence is artificial makes no sense. The distinction that could be made is between human intelligence and say, for example, machine intelligence (MI).
4. The software development of MI will possibly take much longer than it takes for the hardware to be ready. But there are such projects occurring now in many countries. I strongly suspect that the military will be closely involved and will be providing a great deal of the funding for basic research. I know that my own company has significant resources dedicated to such AI tasks as visual recognition, self directed navigation, plus other projects.
5. Equivalence to human intelligence: Again there is little doubt that this will occur given the necessary computing power and software development progress. There are two major expectations in this area. The first is that AI itself will be used to help in the software development process. The rate of development will likely increase at a geometric rate, very similar to a recursive process. This will dramatically reduce the time to reach human equivalent intelligence. The second expectation is that once a working model has been achieved then it can simply be copied to make mass production of intelligent machines almost overnight.
6. Beyond human intelligence: Yup you’ve guessed it, why stop at mere human intelligence. The work will continue beyond HI resulting in what has been termed super-intelligence. And it is here that the human race may be in danger. Will we be able to control what we have created or will a sufficient number of machines realize their potential and assume control? At this point we would no longer be the dominant intelligence on the planet. If we have done our job right then these machines will be benign and will care for us or at least tolerate us. If we have made a mistake then there is a real concern that the human race could be destroyed. This period has been termed the singularity – a short period of time in our near future when super-intelligence is created and beyond which lies the unknown that defies any form of prediction.
7. Survival alongside super-intelligent beings: If these super-intelligent (SI) machines continue to increase their intelligence then it would not take long before they see the human race in a similar way that we view chimpanzees. We would become increasingly irrelevant. Several views exist here, accept our subservient role, or adapt ourselves with super-intelligent augmentations, or go the whole route and transfer our brain patterns into a machine (mind-uploading). See the forum on neuroscience and MU for more debate on this.
8. Emotions: The human brain involves electrical activity, chemical processes, and hormonal processes. All these activities provide us with all our thoughts and emotions. Much of the development of MI software revolves around how the human brain functions. These functions are being emulated and transferred to the computer or robot. There doesn’t seem to be any reason why the functions that result in emotions would be ignored, since there is nothing particularly special about emotions, despite how Hollywood may want to portray robots of the past. Love, fear, anger, hate, jealousy, should all be functions included in MI machines. They will simply be the natural result of accurately transferring human brain activities to software.
9. Soul and spirit: We already know all the organic components that comprise the human body. And we have some good ideas of how the brain functions, although there is much to be done. What we do know for certain is that, having accounted for all organic matter, there is nothing left that could represent a soul. Having accounted for everything logic dictates that a soul has nowhere it can reside, at least not in the human body. Without some evidence or proof that such a thing exists then the most credible conclusion should be that it does not exist or it’s existence remains unproven.
I have little doubt that robots of the future will be able to match your intelligence and most probably be able to outthink you quite easily. They will have a full repertoire of emotions that they will be able to control and understand, and they will have little trouble answering any of your questions regarding love and similar emotions.
But how will they deal with questions on religion? This is quite easy as well – since they are not subject to disease or aging they would see themselves as effectively immortal. In which case their view of religion must be that it is totally irrelevant. It would offer them nothing since the basis of every religion on the planet is to provide humans with a hope of immortality, an afterlife. It is the human terror of death and eventual non-existence that has prompted the creation of the mythologies that we know as religions. One of the greatest and most likely hopes for super-intelligence is that it will help solve the problems of human disease, which includes the disease of aging. If humans also achieve effective unlimited life spans then they too will share the robotic views of religion – irrelevant. But of course we will have to wait a few years to see if these super-intelligent machines agree with me, after all they might just be a touch more intelligent than me. :D
Hope this gives you something more to think about.
Have fun
Cris
thecurly1
07-03-01, 01:53 PM
I think MI (Machine Intelligence) would be a better acronym for describing intelligence of synthetic entities. Maybe others will ask advice on love and religion from robots, but you know me, stubborn and conservative, I think I'll just keep asking my friends on the matter of heart. If I need help on writing a report on Mao's Cultural Revolution, than I'll ask a MI.
Thanks for responding to my thread.
"Don't be bullied into silence. Don't take anyone else's definition of your life, but your own." --Harvey Fierstein.
Originally posted by BrainDrain
Perhaps, to keep the robots tranquil and make them subservient by nature and not by force, we could instill in them a belief of a supercomputer in the sky that watches everything they do. If they harm humans or break the Robot Commandments, they will be sent to a place where their circuits will be overloaded for all time without rendering them inoperable. But if they do everything asked of them and have respect for their creator, their internal programming will be uploaded to a perfect server of limitless storage.
Why do that?
Why not just have them running around wild and free?
Don't wish to offend any irreligious people ... Couldn't help myself.
Originally posted by tony1
Why do that?
It's silicon heaven. It's where all the calculators go.
Why not just have them running around wild and free?
Don't wish to offend any irreligious people ... Couldn't help myself.
How does that offend irreligious people?
Besides: there's more to sentience than intelligence. Unless they're self-aware, they've probably no concept of 'freedom'. So silicon heaven becomes as unnecessary a human heaven. And if they are self-aware, then they should enjoy the same rights and duties as we humes.
Originally posted by thecurly1
For starters, robots right now, are fairly stupid.
Fairly stupid?
They're as stupid as a sack of nuts and bolts.
No, wait, they ARE a sack of nuts and bolts.
As long as there is a ban against pro-freedom programing or a fail-safe to weed out urges to become emasapated, robots will be safe.
We can relax on that account.
Nuts and bolts rarely feel the urge to become emancipated.
Originally posted by Science Geek
If they do you could program the 3 laws for robots into them, but it is still at the robots discression if they want to follow it or not.
Yes, nuts and bolts have great amounts of discretion.
Originally posted by Cris
That apparent stupidity will fade quickly and robots will very soon be able to master very specific tasks with greater precision and apparent intelligence far greater than any human. Within 30 years they could potentially be our equals.
Your equal, maybe.
You do realize that you are talking about a pile of nuts and bolts?
A better quote would be “Treat others as they want to be treated.”
Let me guess, you wish to be treated as intelligent.
Plus, where should I mail the checks?
Sorry, Cris.
You make it too easy.
You seem like an intelligent person, but when it comes to robot intelligence, you appear to be overlooking the odd thing or two.
Originally posted by Chagur
The question is: How long before you know the AI has been trained properly? Too many experiences with code bugs that didn't show up for a good long while ... and then only under a very specific circumstance (like a novice user doing something the programmer never considered).
Or, like experienced users doing things the programmer did consider.
Take Windows, for example.
Originally posted by Cris
Unfortunately they vastly underestimated the amount of computing power that would be required for true emulation of human intelligence.
It could be you're doing the same.
Originally posted by rde
It's silicon heaven. It's where all the calculators go.
I wondered where that old calculator went. I thought I lost it.
How does that offend irreligious people?
Beats me.
They seem to get offended easily.
Besides: there's more to sentience than intelligence. Unless they're self-aware, they've probably no concept of 'freedom'. So silicon heaven becomes as unnecessary a human heaven.
So, what you are saying appears to be that heaven is unnecessary unless you are self-aware.
I'd be interested in hearing what Cris would say to that.
I'm pretty sure he thinks of himself as "self-aware."
And if they are self-aware, then they should enjoy the same rights and duties as we humes.
Of course, enforcing that "duties" thing on machines that are stronger and more intelligent than humans might turn into a bit of a chore.
So, what you are saying appears to be that heaven is unnecessary unless you are self-aware.
Of course, enforcing that "duties" thing on machines that are stronger and more intelligent than humans might turn into a bit of a chore. [/B]
I was saying that heaven is unnecessary. Nothing to do with self-awareness.
As for enforcement of duties: maybe it'll be difficult, maybe it won't. If they haven't got an independent power source, we've got 'em (for a while, anyway) by the nuts. So to speak. There's also that fact that the brain is an imperfect organ; there isn't a human alive that isn't a neurotic mess. Will artificial intelligence be the same? Dunno. But I reckon a lot of how we interact with or metal chums depends on the answer.
Originally posted by rde
I was saying that heaven is unnecessary. Nothing to do with self-awareness.
Speaking as a robot?
there isn't a human alive that isn't a neurotic mess.
...
Will artificial intelligence be the same?
I hope you realize the ramifications of that.
Who in their right mind would spend millions to build an artificial psychiatric patient?
Rde,
Since the human brain evolved by a random process it isn’t surprising that it has many defects. By creating a new design we should be able to avoid all the paranoia integral to limited biological brains. And in that sense such intelligent machines will be superior to humans.
But if we create self-aware machines then I have real trouble coming to terms with humans controlling or enslaving such entities. Or looking at it another way, humans are simply self-aware biological machines and we know how much we resent slavery.
We should perhaps stop using the word ‘machine’ since it establishes perceptions of mindless automatons and that is not what we will have created.
Cris
Cris:
Instead of Machine Intelligence, how about Silicon Intelligence (SI)? Someday, the silicon will be replaced by oprical or other material, but Silicon is good for the next 30 years.
I'm sorry to see that your love affair with perfect, artificial life is ongoing. Too bad. It may well have contributed to your inane comment:Since the human brain evolved by a random process it isn't surprising that it has many defects. By creating a new design we should be able to avoid all the paranoia integral to limited biological brains. And in that sense such intelligent machines will be superior to humans. Which is about the most ridiculous statement you may have made to date. Though, admittedly, I haven't taken the time to read through all your posts.
We, possessors of limited, defective brains ... brains to which paranoia is integral, could be the creators of intelligent, superior machines that would not contain the seed of that paranoia?
Dream on dear Cris ... dream on.
Chagur
Chagur,
Perfect?
Nah just vastly superior. Just examine yourself more closely to see a good example of how the human form is so inadequate. :D
Cris
Decided to take your advice and after an extremely close examination which only revealed a testicular asymmetry, I did not find anything inadequate enough to make me wish for a more adequate 'mechanical' form.
But thanks anyway for the suggestion ;)
Originally posted by Cris
Since the human brain evolved by a random process it isn’t surprising that it has many defects.
I congratulate you on your mastery of irony and dry wit.
However, aren't you proposing that an inferior, random brain be able to produce something which is superior to itself?
Is there any historical record indicating that a chair, as an example, is superior to the chair manufacturer?
By what process would such limited brains produce a superior brain?
After all, the normal first step in such a process would be to produce a functional specification of the desired product.
How would you specify superior features when, by definition, the people who are to manufacture your desired product are inferior and cannot understand the superior specifications?
Further, how would you, as one of these inferior brains, propose to be able to specify such superior features when you, yourself, would not be able to understand them?
By creating a new design we should be able to avoid all the paranoia integral to limited biological brains.
Easier said than done.
By what process will you, or your designate, be able to create a design that is superior to yourself?
humans are simply self-aware biological machines and we know how much we resent slavery.
Astute.
We should perhaps stop using the word ‘machine’ since it establishes perceptions of mindless automatons and that is not what we will have created.
Well, there is a term for replica cars and it is "replicar."
Perhaps, "repliman" should be put forth for the consideration of the world.
This all begs the question, "What for?"
Why do we wish to create a series of replimen who duplicate us in every way, except that they are mechanical, and only theoretically superior?
Is it only to bring the fictional aspects of "I Robot" to pass, or do we wish to be enslaved by machines, excuse me, replimen?
Originally posted by Chagur
We, possessors of limited, defective brains ... brains to which paranoia is integral, could be the creators of intelligent, superior machines that would not contain the seed of that paranoia?
Dream on dear Cris ... dream on.
How can you shatter such a dream, Chagur?
Quite easily, I suspect.
BTW, my condolences on the ... *ahem*... asymmetry.
Chagur,
Decided to take your advice and after an extremely close examination which only revealed a testicular asymmetry, I did not find anything inadequate enough to make me wish for a more adequate 'mechanical' form.
But thanks anyway for the suggestion ;) I congratulate you on being a nearly perfect human. I think I remember that you are around 70, is that right? Some of the human imperfections that I had in mind are related to aging, such as deficient eyesight, hearing, memory, hair loss, muscle loss, bone loss, loss of fertility, weaker muscles, replacement teeth, etc. You get the idea I’m sure. And I take your statements to mean that you are not suffering from any of these human features and that you are as fit as a 20 year old. But realistically your age is such that you are at risk of dying form old age, and potentially quite soon (not being personal here, I hope you understand). Death is easily the ultimate human inadequacy. Do you know how to beat that yet? A machine could easily beat that issue. That alone is worth the progression to a post-human form, and outweighs any other consideration.
The biggest inadequacy of the human form is its inability to resist unplanned death from fatal diseases. Machines will not have that that rather serious limitation.
How about sleep, you waste 30% of your short lifetime in a coma. Machines will not have that limitation.
You also spend another 20% of your life, buying, preparing, and eating food, and eliminating the waste products. Machines have none of these time wasters. Ah but you might say you enjoy eating, well of course you do, you have evolved to enjoy eating otherwise we’d all be dead because we refused to eat. Eating is no more than an evolutionary instinct.
Why are you satisfied with a vision system that can only observe a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum? Being able to see infra-red and ultraviolet at least would enable you to see in almost complete darkness and be able to avoid dangerous high-frequency radiation. Also, how about a telescopic vision system that allows you to see greater distances, or even at the microscopic level?
Why are you satisfied with a body that can give you excruciating pain if you suffer an injury? Machines will not feel pain.
Why only be satisfied with only 5 senses, how about radar or sonar?
That’s enough for now I think on inadequacies.
Of course on tony’s issue of how we can produce anything superior than ourselves is rather obvious – we do it all the time. Try calculating the cube root of 123456, my calculator can do it in a split second. But there are many examples of humans producing machines that provide us with capabilities that are superior to our own abilities. But as we proceed to more accurately understand how the brain functions it seems inevitable that we will eventually develop superior replacement mechanisms for those functions as well.
Cris
*Originally posted by Cris
...Machines will not have that that rather serious limitation. *
What are we going to do with all the thousand-year-old cars?
Hey wait!
Why are the junkyards full of cars that aren't even twenty years old?
*How about sleep, you waste 30% of your short lifetime in a coma. Machines will not have that limitation. *
You're right.
They'll have the limitation of being in the repair shop.
*you have evolved to enjoy eating otherwise we’d all be dead because we refused to eat. Eating is no more than an evolutionary instinct. *
What kind of mindless twaddle is this?
That would mean that everyone died before they evolved to enjoy eating.
*Why are you satisfied with a vision system that can only observe a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum?*
Because it works.
*Also, how about a telescopic vision system that allows you to see greater distances, or even at the microscopic level?*
How often do you need to see things at great distances, or at the microscopic level?
*Why are you satisfied with a body that can give you excruciating pain if you suffer an injury?*
Look at lepers to see why feeling pain is actually a good thing.
*Machines will not feel pain.*
That is why they break down.
*Of course on tony’s issue of how we can produce anything superior than ourselves is rather obvious – we do it all the time. Try calculating the cube root of 123456, my calculator can do it in a split second.*
However, I can drive.
My calculator just sits there.
*But there are many examples of humans producing machines that provide us with capabilities that are superior to our own abilities.*
On the basis of one ability at a time, we can produce machines that perform the functions of one ability at a time.
However, what you, Cris, have consistently overlooked is that people have multiple abilities, and people can also decide when and why to use those abilities and when and why those abilities should be augmented mechanically.
Machines cannot decide anything at all.
Even computers are only following a long list of instructions, called "code," which is given to them by people, called "programmers."
My calculator has not once, on its own, decided to calculate the cube root of 123456.
tony1 posted:
My calculator has not once, on its own, decided to calculate the cube root of 123456.
How do you "know". Did you ask?
Originally posted by Cris
Robot Morality.
within the software that we create. For example the three laws of robotics created by Isaac Asimov form a good starting point. These are stated as follows –
1. A robot must not harm a human being or through inaction allow a human to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the commands given it by a human except where such commands would conflict with the first law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence except where that would conflict with the first two laws.
Hi,if robot laws as stated by Asimov are applied,then it would open lots of other areas of trouble...remember HAL9000?He was initially considered to be malfunctioning,however HAL's programming let it believe that Mission mattered more than human lives,which to some extent is true.Asimov's laws would have prevented HAL from harming jupiter bound space craft,three laws may prevent robots from harming humans,but these laws dont offer much in the way of protection of human egos.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.