Science Discussion

#1

Should the world kill killer robots before it’s too late? There are people worried about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/12/should-the-world-kill-killer-robots-before-its-too-late/

7 Likes
#2

What’s a killer robot? One with a bomb strapped to it.

#3

Things are bad enough with drones, as stated in the last columns of the article.
I think we’re not ready for this kind of thing. Of course, killer robots already exists in a stationary defense platforms … but they’re heavily dependant on some sort of tracking signal (GPS, RFID, …). True killer robots should be able to recognize threats without that signal. Human may be sometimes unreliable, but bugs in softwares are even worse.

@lolsparta4 : have some reading :slight_smile:

#4

Are we sure this guy isnt a spambot looking to take over the forums

2 Likes
#5

That would be one … interesting spambot.

#6

Eh, bentware? lol.

#7

Something from one Mister Hawkings: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2618434/Artificial-intelligence-worst-thing-happen-humanity-Stephen-Hawking-warns-rise-robots-disastrous-mankind.html

Trumps everything we have to say. :stuck_out_tongue:

#8

Given the title I can say with some certainty he is.

Hawkings knows a lot about theoretical physics. More than me, certainly, possibly even more than Kichae. He is not, however, an expert on reality. A daily mail article quoting him certainly wont be.

This is what would happen if literally every robot in existence gained sentience and decided to kill all humans.

#9

Neither is any of us, frankly speaking.

Now it may be true that the article forgot to mention the whole context of his thoughts or only highlighted what could be turned into something dramatic. Still, I wouldn’t turn down the article based on your argument, which is invalid IMO.

As for your article (let’s go down the troll hole :stuck_out_tongue: ), it clearly ignores a lot of basic vital machines for our survival (water pumping / filtering for example). And ignores the most modern vital machine: computers.
Sure, I totally agree with the author, Lombino, that no current machine would kill us by great numbers or even threaten us severly. But it could set us back a long way when you think of it : no modern hospitals, no financial markets (damn, i’d pay to get that done ^^), most administration gone, …

#10

That article was rather dumb. It left out the the different military robots that can handle rough ground. And I did say “we have to say” I doubt there are any programers here that worked on programing such devices.
Forgot about the American ship that that fired a missile that downed an Iranian airliner? That was/is automation.

#11

I would not say the article sent by @Runiat is dumb : at least it reminds that almost none of the existing machines can wipe us out of existing, not anytime soon.
And as for your advanced robot going on rough terrain, it will be easly stopped with a few basic bazooka shots :wink:

However it does forget some important machines / robots that could do terrible wrong if they were “sentient”. And by that, we can simply imagine a loose mass-murederer psychopath skilled on programming, with the only constraint of not cutting all electrict power (robots have to do their jobs, right ? ^^).

#12

How many traffic signals, pollution control, nuclear what nots (American slang), CDC germs ect., NBC do-dads for the vast majority fiances and lots of things I forgot do computers control? Other then takeoffs and landings plains can fly them selves. Some can launch anti missal missals. Only one button keeps a human in the loop of a nuke. Not all missals have a human in the loop.

#13

I nearly forgot! this is another news story. About bones found in an under water cave in the Yucatan Peninsula. Bones to tell the present who was there first! That’s the only reason I have bones.

#14

Hey … Northrop needs food too …

#15

Spin stabilizes that’s why there is rifling in some guns. Like rifles. :wink:

#16

Forget Sharknado it’s Bugnado.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/photographer-captures-bizarre-bugnado-article-1.1794799?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nydnrss%2Fgossip%2Frush_molloy+(Gossip%2FRush+%26+Molloy)

#17

Technological singularity on Wikipedia. I had herd people talking about it on the radio and decided you should have a chance to read about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

#18

Interesting.

I do not know when and if a real AI will be made (born ?) in the close or distant future.
What I do know however is that technology is changing the human society. Problem is humans are now getting a hard time to catch up.
Robots are now doing all the grinding / boring / not interesting jobs. This should be a good thing as it should allow us to turn attention to more important / creative things. But most politics and industrials do not understand that challenge. Therefore [we] have more and more under-employement.

Another example of technological changes .: internet and broadened communications. People now exchange informations, discuss, see what’s going on in other countries. It will not stay a single chain of communication anymore .: from media to people. Now the people react, they tweet, they comment, they open blogs. A renewal of our corrupt western democracies if you wish (no, I do not own a card member of Red Union :P).

One of the many things that are worth solving as well, but a bit more pressing.

#19

Sure, but technology also brings its own set of problems, that often the most technophiles wishfully ignore. While replacing humans with robots for boring (“alienating”, as Marx described them) jobs is all around a good thing, there is still the problem to what the now jobless workers will do. Fortunately, there are solutions for this one, but it begins with acknowledging the problem.
Similarly, Internet and broadband information allows not only reasonable people, but also any crackpot, hate-addict(*) and/or hardline ideologist to publish themselves. And then, you have a serious problem with information flood and triage. A new saying is that today, dictatorships tell you “Shut the hell up!” and democracies tell you “Yeah, yeah, whatever…”
So you can see new problems emerging because of that : the most powerful becomes the most vocal, which is not always the one with the better argument. You see people having easy access to criminal stuff/violent ideology without control. Which trials come back with a vengeance, but the flames of the stake are replaced by the metaphorical flames of the Internet and the stigmatization that comes with it. Anyone can access receipts for military-grade explosives (and some will even manage to make them without blowing their faces).
Oh, and remember the Boston bombings? Well, some dedicated Internet groups tried to help and identify the bomber(s). Turns out they went completely wrong - now imagine what would happened to this poor guy if the real ones hadn’t been identified? And next time, the poor guy could be you…
And that’s only one technical advance. There are also genetics, 3d printing, soon antimatter-powered fusion…

So is it worth it? Well, yes! And it’s not as if someone could go back or stop those progresses anyway. Will it solve all problems, bring the End of History and the Great Day where all boundaries between humans will fall, and we will all dance together in a flower field with an eternal background sunset? Nope.

The funny part is, the “It will solve our Problems!” is more than a century old. In the nineteenth century, people were already beginning to say that. Remember those talks about the “Global Village” Internet would bring? Well, the exact same talks and name were made when (legal) free radio emerged, and even before with home television.
Also, it is not by chance that the above paragraph uses Marxist rhetoric. That was actually one of the core elements of (Soviet-style) Communist ideology - technology was one of the main elements that would evolve and drive us to Utopia, along with social evolution.
But you will note that no matter how wrong our forebears and parents could have been, and how vast and destructive the consequences were, you will always find plenty of people to make them again as soon as a new flavour is available.

So try not being that guy, and enjoy living in those most interesting times.

(*)Yes, hate is a drug.
Think about it : it is highly addictive, gives powerful pleasure sensations and directly affect higher cognitive functions. Both individuals and organisations are known to use it to herd people, and hate-dealing is a big, very lucrative market.
Symptoms can also include increased physical abilities, acts of violence, wishing for the death of other human beings and increased heart rate.
If you think you are a hate addict, well, sorry no treatment is known at this time, so you are on your own. Good luck.
If you think you are not a hate addict, it means nothing, as most hate-addicts doesn’t realize they are hating, often claiming that the hate is from said hate’s object. So if you think that someone, -anyone- hates you, or someone you heard about, you are probably a hate addict.
Wait…

#20

Now this deviates from science to philosophy. I like that :slight_smile:

We have to accept that there will be less job and more people, it is a fact. Also, humans do not need a job to live but need an activity or hobby.
I’m curious at what solutions you’re refering to, though I’ve got some ideas ^^

I’d rather have the internet with all its flaws that only one (or more) media telling you “the truth” … like the only “Pravda” communist newspaper :smile:
Making a triage in information should be one of the basics taught in schools and is not that hard to acquire. Besides, it is not through hiding “crackpots” or hate-brewers that you make their ideas magically disappear. On the contrary, allowing them to talk openly will most of the time discredit by themselves, and if not, you can give counter-arguments. Or if get them to a tribunal if they violate a law. Internet is far from being a “lawless cowboy land” as many liberty killers would call it.

Now about the Boston incident: terrorists did not wait for appearence of wikipedia or Internet to get their things done.
As for the “dedicated Internet groups”, they are in my eyes only stupid patriotic would-be cops that have nothing to do with Internet’s technology. Same as medieval villagers looking to avenge one of them being killed without resorting to police.

The word “democracy” has become void of any sense. If given a definition, it would be that of the athenian democracy IMO. Citizens were randomly selected for the governement except for a few posts like the army leader that was elected. But above all, the government held regular account in front of the citizens and could be forced to get out before the end of their mandate. This is not the case in our modern governments, whose only preoccupation is the next election. And thus gave this cynical saying.

Depends on what your problem is. Your comparison is wrong, I’d rather give this example: was it better before or after the trains appeared ? After, undoubtely. Did agricultar technologies solve hunger problems ? Yes it did.
Of course it gives new problems and new challenges. Cars pollutes a lot for the moment (not that many downsides to train, I switched :stuck_out_tongue: ) and intense farming is not good for soil, among other things.
We do not know yet exactly what is “after internet appeared” because we’re in this very moment.

Now the true question: does technology helps to better humans, make them wiser ? Partially. It is only a tool and can be used for both good and wrong. Wisdom is different from intelligence … and yet you need some intelligence before becoming wise.