The r3vlimited philosophical discussion thread

[DEV0 E30]

Harmony? No. Evolution is about survival. Ugly, brutal survival. There is no harmony between the Lion killing a gazelle to feed her cubs, just survival.

Yes huh, circle of life is harmony. Mufasa said so. :P

We need EMP or Neo, or both. When AI is able to learn on it's own the world could be in trouble, as sci-fi as it sounds it very well could be a problem.

Machines can love Josh, you know that.

No disssssasssssemble.

[RobertK]

Working in a robotics lab myself I can safely say that it will take 35+ years before we even have the processing capabilities to support an AI anywhere close to the human intelligence. I've spoke with ever professor I work with in my department and they all estimate around 30-40 years before robots have those kinds of capabilities. It's not the ability to create AI that is our problem it's our processing technology that is the limit. A lot of the sensor bricks in our lab can max out a new Duo Core Pentium by running a single sensor algorithm.

Right now it seems that most of the research in robotics these days is more devoted toward creating a universal programming language to allow robots to communicate with each other instead of creating a better AI.

Of course the one thing that should theoretically keep robots from killing us is the three theories of Robotics:

1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

[DEV0 E30]

That's pretty incredible to think about though, when I'm old and grey I hopefully won't get killed by one.

[rwh11385]

Put down the bong and pick up a Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/columnists/200...karlgaard.html

• Andy and Bill's Law. The origin of this was a funny one-liner told at computer conferences in the 1990s. It went like this: "What Andy giveth, Bill taketh away." It meant that every time Andy Grove--then chief executive of Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people )--brought a new chip to market, Bill Gates--then CEO of Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people )--would upgrade his software and soak up the new chip's power. But beyond the laugh, there's deep truth. Moore's Law constantly enables new software. Often the new software is just an incremental improvement. But every few years the world gets a wild breakthrough--graphic computing in the 1980s, Web browsers in the 1990s, fast search engines today. Next? Surely something amazing.

Sure computers are strong and faster and would have no problem running Windows 98 and hundreds of 20th century applications, but my pretty high-end computer from a couple years ago is lagged and bogged by new Firefox w/ multiple browser windows, iTunes, Windows XP, Word open, and AIM running together... all with new fancy animations and advanced features.

All the new processing power probably won't be used for anything besides cooler better CS graphics and HD porn video.

Computer have always been a creature based on our commands. Even Deep Blue needed to be programmed all the situations that could have happened and what to do.

Will a computer ever be able to pass the Turing Test? (When's the last time you were fooled by an AIM bot?? maybe recently if you didn't type backwards or ask a simple question like what color your font was)

And why would computers want to destroy their makers. Are they that intelligent or handy that they can reproduce or improve themselves? Not really, they are calculators not inventors. Their creativity would be less than a retarded babies to start, with only reasoning.

And besides, some good "pinches" or whatever from Ocean's Eleven could send a county back to the dark ages.

[RobertK]

And besides, some good "pinches" or whatever from Ocean's Eleven could send a county back to the dark ages.

Yeah.. that's the one thing that never made any sense about the Terminator movies.

In reality setting off all our nuclear weapons would be the same as setting off an EMP in every city. Essentially knocking out Skynet where robots would have needed it the most.

[92 mtechnic cabrio]

Three rules for smart robot making:

1. Always implement an achilles heel
2. Don't give them guns or legs
3. Don't be a little bitch

[92 mtechnic cabrio]

The interesting thing about human beings is how much different we are then all other species that have ever lived on earth. Every other species has lived in harmony with nature but humans have abused and destroyed the Earth. We settle in one place, reproduce to the point where there is no more room, use up all the resources, then we move on and do the same thing again. From this perspective, we are closer to bacteria than mammals.

Although this is a good point, sounds like someone just recently watched The Matrix LOLZ

[parkerbink]

The interesting thing about human beings is how much different we are then all other species that have ever lived on earth. Every other species has lived in harmony with nature but humans have abused and destroyed the Earth. We settle in one place, reproduce to the point where there is no more room, use up all the resources, then we move on and do the same thing again. From this perspective, we are closer to bacteria than mammals.

Are you kidding? Have you heard of termites? How about any fatal diseases? (cancer, AIDS) etc.That is just two off the top of my tired head. They both destroy the means of their sustainance & housing.

[Simon S]

time for jameson

* pours a shot *

.