The Future Of Robotics

[32383098K]

Mr_Dark_Devil

The whole thing of robots taking over the world is, NON-SENSE! cool

3 things that scientists say robots would have to follow by law if advanced human like robots are created and brought into society along side Humanity!

Rules (They go something like this)

Obey your creator or assigned master (Human Being)

Obey all orders from Human Beings which you have knowledge on or know the human being giving an order is a trustworthy human being! (e.g. Police Officer (Enforcer of the law etc.)

No matter what, always help a human being in need of assistance from, falling over, to a life or death situation such as drowning!


The rules will not be 100% like that, but scientists say these are the kind of rules that will HAVE to be added to the memory (Not Mind) of the robot!


Proof that robots will NOT take over the world! (Even if they tried too, why would they want to go against there creators? (Remember they don't have a mind. No mind, no free will or choice, they have to be given orders!) That's like humanity, blowing up Earth with nuclear bombs! (Even though were slowly killing our planet, we don't want it to happen!)

I know I read the "rules" that "robots would have to follow by law" in a book. I believe it was "Bicentennial Man" by Issac Asimov but I'm not so sure.

[Digi-Kaiser Ken]

You've obviously never seen any sci-fi film where the robots decide that we are our own worst enemy and that we must be terminated to preserve ourselves. P:

[Layra-chan]

Those aren't quite Asimov's rules of robotics. Asimov's rules are as follows:

1: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2: A robot must obey any 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.


The second rule given by Mr_Dark_Devil is terribly vague, by the way. The assigned master can tell the robot that the set of trustworthy human beings is "me" and then the robot won't trust anyone else. Hence we get robots obedient to exactly one person. The third rule can easily, as in the case of Asimov's robots, be turned into an excuse for a robot-run totalitarian regime, and thus in conjunction with the first and second rules gives absolute tyrannic power to the assigned master.

[VorpalNeko]

As the intelligence of AIs rises, if the only thing safeguarding them is some list of hard-coded rules of obedience, then we're doomed--the real problem in AI is how to design an AI that doesn't stop 'wanting' to be friendly, to have the requisite friendliness to humanity as part of its nature. This business of putting a restraining bolt on a mind is just asking for eventual failure.

[firedancer86]

What people fear of robotics is usually if they develop self-awareness and a mind of their own through evolving AI.

Perhaps if a safeguard could be in place to prevent robots from learning too much or developing self-will, then there won't be a fear of robots taking over.

[Santa Clause 2k9]

Layra-chan

Those aren't quite Asimov's rules of robotics. Asimov's rules are as follows:

1: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2: A robot must obey any 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.


The second rule given by Mr_Dark_Devil is terribly vague, by the way. The assigned master can tell the robot that the set of trustworthy human beings is "me" and then the robot won't trust anyone else. Hence we get robots obedient to exactly one person. The third rule can easily, as in the case of Asimov's robots, be turned into an excuse for a robot-run totalitarian regime, and thus in conjunction with the first and second rules gives absolute tyrannic power to the assigned master.

Can i just say that you have just got these rules from the film 'I-Robot' starring 'Will Smith'

Were as the rules i have got, are from a Grade 'A*' Science and Technology Module Volume 6 (UK, Edition (Trusted 2009)

So please don't contradict me, especially if your pulling it out of your arse, or trying to contradict me (A Grade A* University Science Student) with a film starring a GCSE failure man (Will Smith) in Science when he was in Secondary school (Look it up on-line)

[Vryko Lakas]

Mr_Dark_Devil

Can i just say that you have just got these rules from the film 'I-Robot' starring 'Will Smith'

What the ******** is 'Will Smith'? You don't put single quotes around a name. And no, the Three Laws of Robotics did not start with that movie: they've been part of Isaac Asimov's robot stories for 67 years.

Quote:

Were as the rules i have got, are from a Grade 'A*' Science and Technology Module Volume 6 (UK, Edition (Trusted 2009)

Well, either the Grade 'A*' Science And Technology Module Volume 6 (UK, Edition (Trusted 2009) is full of s**t or you are.

And it's incredibly stupid to offer fictional rules as "proof" that robots cannot take over the world, especially since there's the extremely difficult problem of turning these rules into actual computer instructions in the first place.

[Drakaeon]

Don't feed trolls.

[Drow_Elven_Warrior]

The hardest thing dealing with AI is actually creating true artificial intelligence. I was in computer science, the programming of computers, for a few years and what I've learned about AI is that it is a very long set of decisions based on given input, i.e. If this happens as well as this and this do this, else if this happens, and this and this do this, and so on and so forth.

[Kahalm]

I think it would be foolish to rule out the possibility of robotics causing problems for humans on Earth. There are a few good reasons why as well, in fact as I see it 3 very good reasons why computers, computer intelligence, robotics, what-have-you, can take over the world... Although unlikely.

Reason 1:
They don't have to be smart to kill us.

A machine doesn't need to have intelligence of really any kind to destroy us. It could be running a very very simple routine that it is designed or programmed to do and cause disastrous results. Has anyone heard of the 'gray goo' theory. Where as advanced nano machines designed for something productive (medical for one) wherein they reproduce themselves to be effective are flawed and don't stop to replicate. Very soon the world could be easily reduced to 'gray goo' (as it where called). Such machines don't have to really think, so much as just carry out their primary function.

Reason 2:
We can take over the world and kill each other.

Religion aside, the brain is nothing more than a machine. A very complex bio mechanical machine, very true, but still just a machine. That is to say that intelligence of our ability is physically possible, so there is no reason why something on the same complex level cannot be created. Granted it would be an amazing technological achievement to do, but that doesn't mean its impossible in the future. Anything we can do is possible and therefore possible to be replicated.

Reason 3:
3 laws are not laws.

There is nothing magical about the 3 laws that saids a robot MUST follow these. They are not laws of nature as much as constructs by us. They cannot be put into a logically valid argument which will be understood in any computing or intelligence that we know of today. At least not in a logically valid statement in which will pertain to every single possible outcome.

Also, we have things breaking the 3 laws in use today. A heat seeking missile is (more or less) a robot and does have a matter of intelligence. They kill people all the time. the most complex computers in existence today calculate and enact ways to kill or harm people. Never do these machines stop and ask themselves "am I breaking a law?"

Ok, ok, all that said... The probability of an AI ever being developed that would grow in strength to destroy/enslave/what-have-you humanity is, small. Such an environment in which there would be a valid reason for a machine to do so and more importantly have the ability to do so should never occur provided society in still structured the way it is currently. So I am fairly confident in saying that within our lifetimes its less likely than us destroying ourselves...

So its not something to be worked up over, but none the less as technology increases and our dependence on it does as well it is a good idea to make sure we are considering the possibilities. Its just foolish not to.

[IronicAtheist]

oh yea didn't you hear? It's possible to make a computer that can generate or mimic the neurons in our brains so we will probably give them minds you know, make them conscious and self-aware which come chocked full with personality,and character lol. Besides something like that code, or some kinda deactivation codes would stop a robotic uprising. You know every one talks about the future of robotics, and when they do they talk about stuff like robots living with us, us making ourselves robots. But what I'm curios to see is a Robot to Human transformation, all it would take is for us to learn how to transfer information brain to brain, or brain to chip, or most importantly from chip to brain.

[underweargnome]

First- Kaz, you still type like that?
Secondly- Watch out Layra, he's "grade A*"
Finally- Anyone remember Cyberdyne? The company that made skynet in the "terminator" movies?
Cyberdyne decided to make HAL.
cyberdyne website

[bulldog9797]

You really did not need to post this.
Robots will not be thinking on their own for a while.
We have about 10 or 15 years until they are even close.