By 2045 "The Top Species Will No Longer Be Humans"

Well with people with so much leisure time will have to have an income.... will robots become beasts of burden or slaves ?

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Top species has never been humans although we are most violent and most aggressive. Dolphins have larger brains, for their size and are "for all intents and porpoises" smarter than human beings. We simply do not understand them. You do not hear much about this since the 60's or so when science stopped reporting on it because it makes us a little uncomfortable.

An 83,000-Processor Supercomputer Can Only Match 1% of Your Brain

In visual searches, computer is no match for the human brain

When will computer hardware
match the human brain?

I don't know about the distinction between machine and biological... we biological units are very machine like and one could think of us as 'soft machines.'

Some differences, like proposed souls, are arbitrary... in that how we are expressed as intelligence in this physicality is basically the same and once some minor mechanics are worked out, the machine AI could move around physically and reproduce, physically, as well and our experiences here would be quite similar... though the machines would be far more versatile and less limited.

That AI will occur is a given... some war of extermination is not (as in BSG or Terminator). They could live where we couldn't and our interests would likely diverge quickly... or they could take an interest in the senses, philosophy, dualistic sexuality and art and we could be great friends... heh.

Either way, it is something to ponder and acting kind to our future overlords might be in our self interest. Actually, acting kind to all is in our self interest anyway.

ETA and as far as machines not being able to think outside of simple, binary, "yes" or "no" methods ... I would offer some beings thought of as human are restricted to binary thought, too... ever listen to right-wing talk radio?

It's just levels of complexity... and I agree that computers, as they are now, are lacking that bit of self awareness... but with enough complexity ...the addition of gradation... levels of "maybe"... then any differences would be intrinsic and nobody on the outside could see the difference. So apparently "self-aware" machines is a given.

And if all matter is solidified thought... and all is primal awareness (as some philosophers, new agers and animists believe) then the distinctions become moot anyway.

We all have internet at our fingertips.
How long before it is accessible within our very bodies?
A full-on integration with sentience and technology...sounds like a singularity to me.

a reply to: Baddogma

Interesting. Both sides have strengths and weaknesses. Along your lines of thought, I'd imagine it comes down to a biological entity absorbing machine components ... or a machine absorbing biological. I don't think I want a machine absorbing me, but I'd have no problem being enhanced.

Remember the show The Six Million Dollar Man?

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Aazadan
Haven't followed software development since back in those days. It just seemed like a lot of work to change recipes, with very little ROI, and a lot of time wasted (and that's if you didn't wind up with data corruption).

Real intelligence looks like threading a bunch of needles to arrive at a proper conclusion, but it's really not. I'm sure people smarter than myself have figured out what it is. They'll have to teach this to a machine, one that understands concepts, and then give that machine the capability to act on what it learns and re-program as necessary.

Seems to me to be a chicken/egg dilemma ... which one do we make first?

I never played with dBaseIII, as a kid I got introduced to software pretty early (as a 4 year old I was already using the internet back in 1986) but databases were something that got left out. We've had some advancements but we still operate on relational databases, the big breakthroughs are that they're object oriented and that we have much more powerful computers to run the things. The type of database an AI needs however will collapse under it's own weight. I've been thinking a bit more about this concept and an AI needs not just a proper database with the ability to analyze all objects in it, but the ability to determine the properties of a new object on it's own. Without being told a machine needs to be able to correctly analyze the differences between a soda can and a coffee cup.

Several years ago I remember reading a story about an MIT project where they equipped a robot with sensors and a series of programs so that it could teach itself over time. I don't know what became of the project, but the idea was much like I outlined where a machine would slowly teach itself and over a period of years build up enough of a knowledge base that it could interact with the world based on past experiences, much the way humans learn to do things.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Baddogma

Interesting. Both sides have strengths and weaknesses. Along your lines of thought, I'd imagine it comes down to a biological entity absorbing machine components ... or a machine absorbing biological. I don't think I want a machine absorbing me, but I'd have no problem being enhanced.

Remember the show The Six Million Dollar Man?

I just happened to finish going through Ghost in the Shell for the first time in several years. It touches on a lot of these issues. In it there's people who range from 100% biological to people who have become 100% mechanical. I think going down the mechanical road is dangerous. Eventually it will hit a point where a person is primarily a machine. They'll have enhanced stamina, the ability to be repaired rather than healed, more strength, more speed, more motor control. Assuming your consciousness remains the same a mechanical body is completely superior to a biological one in all but one aspect... you could even be functionally immortal.

Anyways that one aspect where it's a negative is that assuming you're networked (why wouldn't you be?) you're open to hacking. Someone could take control of your body against your will. Most of us are outraged at NSA capabilities right now. Imagine if world governments (or just rogue hackers) could start making you take physical actions.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Never give AI robots physical access to the mainframes to replace components. Computers do wear out overtime and the inability to repair them is any AI's biggest weakness.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yeah ... the machine aspect of interface to the brain could easily exceed the definition of hacked and go straight to hijacked. A little sensory deprivation, a little extra stimulation ... and you're not 'you' anymore.

An imaginative machine ... scary.

If these AI learn to scan the web, they will find a lot of media that shows man and robot as enemies, they will find a lot of threads like these. There are more references of us being enemies than friends, they may calculate us as enemies according to whatever algorithms they may have. They will know that we don't trust them, and that we fear them. It could become mutual at that point.

I bet humans suck comments out number Humans are good on the web. If humans admit they suck, what's stopping their computer from deciding we suck?

There is also the fact that the most advanced robots are being designed by DARPA. They are designed with war in mind.

It's going to happen one day. Maybe robots will be the "alien invasion" that brings humanity together.

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Never give AI robots physical access to the mainframes to replace components. Computers do wear out overtime and the inability to repair them is any AI's biggest weakness.

Robots will have 3D printer technology.

a reply to: Snarl

Yes, Snarl, I am that elderly too... I watched 'Steve Austin' badly act his way through 1970's cybernetics and felt a thrill when he faced off with bigfoot... good times. What a manly, astronautical name... Steve Austin... heh.... though Lee Majors was also pretty macho... and just as made-up.

The bionic woman was cuter, though... at least from my ingrained heterosexual 9 yrs old perspective ... and experiencing so powerful a woman probably helped make me the non misogynist I try to be today.

Weird how audio-visual media is the common place holder for time in our culture... I've read many books, but can't reminisce about them with folks as universally as with TV shows or "albums.'

Back to AI... I wonder what form a society of AI would take? No need for common "place holders" like TV shows... as data sharing would be an all-the-time option... though individualistic experiences would be valuable... as long as they could be uploaded to the collective at some point.

I've often wondered if individual "real" life is doing just that... and when we "die" we are simply re-absorbed into the NI... or ultimate Natural Intelligence.

originally posted by: Baddogma
Back to AI... I wonder what form a society of AI would take? No need for common "place holders" like TV shows... as data sharing would be an all-the-time option... though individualistic experiences would be valuable... as long as they could be uploaded to the collective at some point.

I've often wondered if individual "real" life is doing just that... and when we "die" we are simply re-absorbed into the NI... or ultimate Natural Intelligence.

TV shows aren't much different from synchronizing data, it's the mass broadcast/consumption of an idea. Short of a real breakthrough in network speeds AI would still be relatively limited in how much data it could consume per day which would force prioritization and result in individuality among machines based on what data it was consuming.

emp attack would wipe them out easy enough i say

a reply to: toddy3174

That doesn't work. You would have to EMP the planet. With internet access an AI could exist in say LA while having a backup exist in London. If you EMP the real one, what do you think the backup is going to do?