Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man

mercurial

mercurial

MyBB Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
40,900
Reaction score
2,693
Location
/\/¯¯¯¯¯\/\
A robot that can open doors and find electrical outlets to recharge itself. Computer viruses that no one can stop. Predator drones, which, though still controlled remotely by humans, come close to a machine that can kill autonomously.

Impressed and alarmed by advances in artificial intelligence, a group of computer scientists is debating whether there should be limits on research that might lead to loss of human control over computer-based systems that carry a growing share of society’s workload, from waging war to chatting with customers on the phone.

Their concern is that further advances could create profound social disruptions and even have dangerous consequences.

As examples, the scientists pointed to a number of technologies as diverse as experimental medical systems that interact with patients to simulate empathy, and computer worms and viruses that defy extermination and could thus be said to have reached a “cockroach” stage of machine intelligence.

While the computer scientists agreed that we are a long way from Hal, the computer that took over the spaceship in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” they said there was legitimate concern that technological progress would transform the work force by destroying a widening range of jobs, as well as force humans to learn to live with machines that increasingly copy human behaviors.
Click to expand...

More...
 
Focusing only on the killing bit, always wondered if the 3 laws of robotics would do the trick:
1. Robots would not, thru action or inaction, let harm befall a human
2. Do wateva a human tells them, unless it contravenes the 1st rule
3. Protect its own existance unless it contradicts the first 2 rules.
These rules could be written to some sort of eeprom. Obviously there are some rough edges to iron out but at least its a step towards a workable solution. What u guys think?

There'l always be a dr no, but i'd be more weary of some guy flashing his bot's safety instructions just so that it can do more stuff
 
battletoad said:
Focusing only on the killing bit, always wondered if the 3 laws of robotics would do the trick:
1. Robots would not, thru action or inaction, let harm befall a human
2. Do wateva a human tells them, unless it contravenes the 1st rule
3. Protect its own existance unless it contradicts the first 2 rules.
These rules could be written to some sort of eeprom. Obviously there are some rough edges to iron out but at least its a step towards a workable solution. What u guys think?

There'l always be a dr no, but i'd be more weary of some guy flashing his bot's safety instructions just so that it can do more stuff
Click to expand...

Will be hacked on the internet with in days (or chiped in the flea market)
 
Aeron said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Click to expand...

Interesting indeed. If only there was a way for us to get AI's to realise they need us more than we need them. Damn why they cancel season 3 of sarah connor chronicles when we need it the most?!:(
 
The_Pumpkin_King said:
theres a documetary series called "terminator". they may want to have a look at that
Click to expand...

Doing a simple google search results in:

SKYNET RESEARCH
Skynet is devoted to robots. Our robots are devoted to you.
skynetresearch.com

Skynet :: CSN | The Skynet Project
Skynet: The University of Limerick Computer Society.
www.skynet.ie

American Skynet Electronics
American Skynet Electronics - The Switcher Experts ,
www.skynetusa.com/

SkyNet
1 Jan 2005 ... Great Astronomy and Space Links. Satellite Tracking, Space Shuttle, NASA and More.
pages.prodigy.net/robertmorgan/


It's going to suck to say "I told you so" one day. :o
 
battletoad said:
Focusing only on the killing bit, always wondered if the 3 laws of robotics would do the trick:
1. Robots would not, thru action or inaction, let harm befall a human
2. Do wateva a human tells them, unless it contravenes the 1st rule
3. Protect its own existance unless it contradicts the first 2 rules.
These rules could be written to some sort of eeprom. Obviously there are some rough edges to iron out but at least its a step towards a workable solution. What u guys think?

There'l always be a dr no, but i'd be more weary of some guy flashing his bot's safety instructions just so that it can do more stuff
Click to expand...
I think rule number 3 is the problem.
 
davemc said:
I think rule number 3 is the problem.
Click to expand...

In the general case, these are the (most probable) outcomes:

From rule 1, a robot would never lift a hand to harm a human. If someone is about to get hurt (eg pedestrian being knocked, earthquake, etc) the robot would do everything in its power to stop, or minimize the suffering.
Tricky bit comes along when we consider people fighting, what would a robot do? Do we programme it to incapacitate the violent party (or both parties if both are violent) with as little harm as possible? Also would hurt feelings and bruised ego fall under this jurisdiction of harm befalling a human? Hope not, coz if psycho chicks get robots we guys probably gonna be abducted if we break up with said chicks.

Rule 2. do whatever a human tells you, unless someone gets hurt in the near future because of its actions (eg telling it to diffuse a bomb fulfils this axiom). Also, chances are, for any action, some party would almost undoubtedly be worse off due to competition, so we disregard most of these instances.

Rule 3. Good old fear-of-death syndrome. Also can be seen as a peer review system, coz if two bots go at it like there's no tomorrow and noone told them to fight, we know somethings up and one of those mofo's wanted to hurt a human

Obviously there are occurances i havent thought up, this is surely one for the comp scientists
 
A tamagotchi is smarter and more useful than some of the people in the PD section already.
 
Well wizar, since this is the natural science department, I suggest you stick to your zero point energy field manipulating over in the Police Department. Ftl!
 
battletoad said:
Focusing only on the killing bit, always wondered if the 3 laws of robotics would do the trick:
1. Robots would not, thru action or inaction, let harm befall a human
2. Do wateva a human tells them, unless it contravenes the 1st rule
3. Protect its own existance unless it contradicts the first 2 rules.
These rules could be written to some sort of eeprom. Obviously there are some rough edges to iron out but at least its a step towards a workable solution. What u guys think?

There'l always be a dr no, but i'd be more weary of some guy flashing his bot's safety instructions just so that it can do more stuff
Click to expand...

I wonder if there's a little known fourth rule of robotics that only robots know :eek::eek::eek::erm:

1. Robots would not, thru action or inaction, let harm befall a human
2. Do wateva a human tells them, unless it contravenes the 1st rule
3. Protect its own existance unless it contradicts the first 2 rules.
4. DILLIGAF about the first two rules
 
Telkomisaloser said:
I wonder if there's a little known fourth rule of robotics that only robots know :eek::eek::eek::erm:

1. Robots would not, thru action or inaction, let harm befall a human
2. Do wateva a human tells them, unless it contravenes the 1st rule
3. Protect its own existance unless it contradicts the first 2 rules.
4. DILLIGAF about the first two rules
Click to expand...

LOOOOOL:D

Dilligaf for some of you means Does it look like I give a fsck?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X