Robotics and the future

.

Get rid of us how?
Nailed to the rail Robots could perform most working tasks, theres no need for the types of (i)robots seen in movies.
In fact most dull jobs that need eliminating wouldn't need complex A.I systems but just clockwork cogs and cams.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do I know "how"?
Being smarter than we are, they will have a lot of options

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ES

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

robots need to be much more than just "robots" to be fully autonomous, they'd have to become entities in and of themselves first. by then, who knows, maybe they'd be better than humans mentally as well as physically. i doubt that though, i think things will start competting, human v. artificial, and humans could become cybernetic to compete, while robots enhance themselves, untill eventually we'd be nearly indifferentiable. some kind of meld into a superspecies? who knows, just a thought

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"the idea of physically combining human and computer brain is not as attractive as it seems to be.
Imagination would be a bottleneck, as one can not speed up human imagination, while computer is expected to be able of higher bandwidth.
The same goes to physical movements, and the speed of knowledge acquisition through vision and training.

As soon as uiversal abilities of nonbiological entities will become superior to human ones, there will be no point of combining them with the inferior ones.
Apart of the area of direct human-machine communication.."

ES

 

how do you know you cant' speed up human imagination? what if higher bandwidth let you absorb more? what if a higher clock speed lets you visualize abstract ideas quicker, and make new abstract ideas in very small periods of time? who says a human's pattern-recognition and a machine's floating point processing couldn't merge into a state where creativity enhances bandwidth of thought, and bandwidth of thought enhances creativity? symbiosis basically

 

Imagination happens all the time in every brain, be it bird, dog or human.
It took billion years to develop. Approximately its speed is, at most, the speed of visual perception, and we know that different frames of a movie can not be separated by a mind, which is less than 100 images per second.
The human imagination speed is therefore less than 100 images per second.

There is no limit of such kind for a robot.

ES

 

I disagree, I've often nodded off and fell straight into a dream and upon waking just a minute or two later have recalled a dream that was seemingly much longer than the actual time I had been asleep.

 

C'mon, this just shows that your imagination skips frames.

The dream does not go faster. Can you sleep faster?

e

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

s

 

No. We will get rid of robots as soon as we do not need them.

My imagination's video mode is standard NTSC 480i60.

 

I think we will be better off learning to live with them

e

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

s

 

My guess is that robotics has alot of potential which will not get realized until humanity finds an alternative to oil. After the peak of production, the decreased supply will severely affect our current trend of technical advancement and consumer spending on gadgetry.

The lack of a suitable portable energy source limits the usefullness of electronics today, like mobile phones and laptops- and a robot is even more energy intensive.

 

Yeah, if we need them for anything. If not, they're unnecessary competition, ergo my point.

 

SO...back to where and when the research into robotics began many years ago... You have made up your mind that we're all better off without them. hmmmmm

 

How so?

All a matter of perception.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I find your reasoning for the 100 fps limit simplistic and unconvincing. Is there any actual research to back it up?

 

Do you understand, that if you imagine things faster than 24 per second, you will not be able to perceive images that you are imagining?

E

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

S

 

You assume far too much. Obviously we find robotics useful; otherwise, we would not pursue it.

You're basing this on the assumption that the eye captures individual still images and strings them together, like a camera. Can you found this assumption on some supporting evidence at least, or at best some proof?

 

Proof? Do you have any clue what a "proof" or an estimate is?
I can give you different way of estimating the mind performance, which is in rough agreement with my numbers. Kusweil estimates that mind processing power is about 10^16 OP. One color screen image is about 10^13 bits, which means that if we would assume 10 operations per bit, we get the same 100 screens per second.

If you are not satisfied yet, you must be able to come up with your own estimate, and to show why yours is better.

ES

 

You misunderstand the nature of my request. I am not bringing into question the processing power of the mind. My question is more fundamental than that; I am asking you to back up the idea that the human brain's functions are truly analogous to those of a microprocessor or a camera. I want you to show that the eye (areas of the brain associated with processing optical information included) and a video camera behave similarly enough for "frames per second" to apply to the former, more specifically.

 

It need not to, for the estimate to be valid.
It follows from the concept of information, and of information channel capacity. It does not matter what the physical process is involved, only the number of the bits being processed per second.
It is converted into frames by dividing by the number of bits per frame.

E

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

S

 

What makes his estimate correct and do we know if he's even close? Why would we assume 10 operations per bit is it 10 or isn't it??

No, you made the 100fps claim so are you going to back it up with something substantial?