# Robots are going to take over

Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by Eidolan, Oct 30, 2008.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,921
The correct response to someone who feels that a robot has feelings, and/or is entitled to rights, is to educate the idiot and inform them that they are simple machines.

Children think that their dolls have feelings. That is a poor reason to pass laws that give dolls rights.

3. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077

it was already stated that we know they don't. can you read?

it's that when they are made to look like us on purpose and interact with us like people, then they need to be treated as such not so much for them as it is for society. is the ramifications of that too complicated for you?

do you think that a person with a robot should be able to grab them by the hair or kick them or scream at them in public? do you think that because it's a robot, that should be allowed?

the robots that are made to look like people are for a reason, they are made to interact with them "as" people for the most part. then they should be treated as such, otherwise then don't make them look and function that way.

5. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,921
Nope, not at all. We already have a model for this - anthropomorphic dolls, as I explained above. Many dolls now talk, move, respond to a child's words, gestures and moods, and interact with them via sounds and motions. Many children find them very lifelike, which is why they make good toys.

If a child becomes unduly attached to their doll, and insists that the parent bathe it, take it to school etc then the wisest course of action is to explain to the child that it is not in fact a person, that it is just a thing, and that it has none of the rights of a person. It would be a huge mistake for the parent to start treating the doll as they would another child, because that reinforces a very unhealthy belief in the child.

Absolutely. If one of the assembly robots on our SMT line has a problem we might yank the power to it, disassemble it and toss out the broken bits. I might even get frustrated and take a baseball bat to it (although the line manager might get mad at me!) It doesn't matter what it looks like.

You can treat your robot/doll/whatever however you like. Other people can treat their machines as they like.

7. ### Me-Ki-GalBannedBanned

Messages:
4,634
Robots have been taking over the world for quite some time now . Go ask poor old John Henry with his hammer. What are we to do with the free time in the future? that is the question . Do we just go and die as more of use are found obsolete. We better start thinking of a new monetary system before non of us have jobs. New concepts of what wealth really is is the order of the day for the old model will collapse from it's own weight as the stinking robots win. Can't stop progress , We can change our outlook

8. ### fedr8081100101Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,706
I have to agree. Robots are nothing more then extremely powerful tools.

Until a robot becomes self aware then it really does not deserve any more rights then my powerdrill does.

Now when it does become self aware then I am all for robotic rights... but were not anywhere close to that point yet.

9. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Its nice, I think but not sure, to know humans can still manipulate robots:

"IBM, which makes up 10 percent of the share-price weighted Dow average, jumped to $164.35 on an order for 200 shares on the New York Stock Exchange at 3:18:15 p.m. New York time, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The stock traded at$160.89 during the same second, followed by five trades for a combined volume of 19,600 shares at between $163.22 and$164.35, or as much as 2.2 percent higher. IBM retreated to \$160.78 following those trades."

But by then it was too late: the buying spree, of which IBM had been a part, had offset a momentum algorithm that for some inexplicable reason required a stunning 500 ES contracts per second for the last 15 minutes of trading - a truly whopping number, and indicative of someone with virtually unlimited pockets doing the buying. Furthermore as the chart above shows, the IBM trade happened just as the buying program went berserk and sent the TICK to the day's high at 1352.

In short, some rogue decided to overpay for IBM stock, knowing full well it would set off a trading program that would lead to a Ritalin-induced buying spree for the last half hour of trading. And it worked. The Dow rallied by as much as 80 points directly after the event and closed the day in the black.

10. ### SpectrumRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
459
I think robots won't ever exist, at least not on an 'intelligent' level. However I have been inspired by the matrix to try to program time-travel.

11. ### smashingrobotsRobotsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2
I think that robots will be a part of our life in the near future, even if we're at home or office. What you say it's more SF at this time, maybe after 10-20 years a part of what you say will be real.

12. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077
when a robot is made very sophisticated to look and interact with us just as closely to another person as possible, then it would be healthy for society to treat them with dignity. it should be treated with respect. you are taking it too far as this doesn't mean they are going to need to go to college, date, get married etc. robots aren't going to need those rights, but should be afforded some rights if they are made to resemble humans for that purpose.

it's not the same as a child's doll. btw, how a child treats a "doll" which is made to resemble a person, thus a doll says a lot about the child as well. some people will treat their doll with respect and care and other kids will abuse it. that attitude could easily be transferred to living people.

again, i said it's for the health of the living people, not for the robots.

13. ### StryderKeeper of "good" ideas.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,102
An interesting hypothesis that was put forwards at the recent Transhumanist Lectures was the "Paperclip factory" scenario in regards to peoples fears of AI becoming dangerous (Part of Amnon Eden's lecture).

The idea was a simple scenario, a paperclip factory is built to be completely automated. Not just with the automated task of manufacturing but also the logistical task of getting the raw resources and applying them into paperclips.

The fear response of AI's being programmed for a singular task ("to manufacture Paperclips") was seen by some as a concern because the AI "Might" decided to covert everything and everything into resources for the production of paperclips, converting cars, machinery and eventually people into paperclip resource components.

This was furthered by the last lecture involving a vibrant young lady (Anna Salamon) that assumed that AI's would actually be the death of mankind based upon this "One goal" logic or due to an "accident". (To which in most cases procedure attempts to avoid.)

Admittedly both lecturers were given their capacity to make their statement and argument, obviously sat within the few back rows you could here a few sniggers from peers that understood that such a problem wouldn't arise.

In fact during the question and answers period a simple point was put forwards.

If the posed dangerous AI was developed from a hierarchy of ancestor AI's to become more intelligent and less reliant upon mankind, would not one of the ancestral AI's at one point realise that the future AI would in fact make it obsolete and therefore reason to kill it's potential offspring before it had the chance to evolve to the point of being a threat to mankind. (Point Paraphrased based upon the assumptions of Tom Michael)

I later posed to Tom the potential of Game theory in his elaborate ploy, what if the AI's themselves grouped together to maintain an overall objective, wouldn't this indeed either generate a conspiracy of AI's or the potential for a "AI peer review" based upon older versions being more mankind friendly.

In essence the Majority of Futurist's, trendsetter's, enthusiast's and scientist's laugh whimsicality at the notion of an AI becoming an endangerment to mankind realising that if an AI was to reach that potential of being sentient, it would likely be able to be "reasoned with".

14. ### Oniw17ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum?Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,423
I fear that about as much as someone travelling back in time and making it so that I never existed. It's not going to happen. Where would the robots amass their armies, to start? Antarctica? Humans live everywhere else on the planet. We can destroy metal. Even if it were possible(and my personal opinion is that it's not, or at least not any time soon), we would blow the shit out any potential threat before the robots could cause any significant damage. There aren't many weapons that actually need computers on them, we were destroying things long before computers.

15. ### science manGuest

I heard from someone I knew who's into science that's really out there, that this was going to happen. That the Japanese were working on this. I await upon it's arrival.

16. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
I doubt that will be a big problem as humanoid sex robots will be (or are?) expensive to make and they have strong, more economical, competition for liberal females (and men) who often don't even charge or at most want dinner and a few glasses of wine. In a whore house, I might invest, but a sex robot factory, never.